Christian Forums and Message Board

Specifics and Interests => Christian Politics Forum => Topic started by: TonkaTim on Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 14:04:19

Title: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 14:04:19

Yeah, "libertarian" derives from "liberty." And Democrat from democracy, and Republican from republic.  So what?

It doesn't prove the reach that contemporary LibertarianismTM - even the Paulinista brand - is THE "classic liberalism" of the Founding Fathers.


http://conservapedia.com/Classical_Liberal
"The term "liberal" changed meaning in the 1930s. Since then Classical Liberals are called "Conservatives" or "Libertarians" in the United States"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."


Actually the philosophy of the Founders is exactly what Dr. Paul promotes, all one has to do is read President George Washington's Farewell Address to find that Dr. Paul is in complete agreement with Washington's core tenets & follows this sage advice http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp . The next documents to read to understand Dr. Paul tenets would be the Declaration of Independence http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp . The most important would be the Constitution for the United States http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp . Further reading would be the documentary record of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, etc, etc.

As I noted before, a Classical Liberal in America is a libertarian or a conservative because the ideas are the same & intertwined and the three labels are basically interchangable. Those that have deviated away from our American roots are the leftist authoritarians. There is nothing conservative about centralizing power aka big government. Big Government authoritarian rule is the philosophy of the Progressives, the Marxist, the Socialist. The Founders understood from first hand experience that big government authoritarian rule was Tyranny. They knew the solution to tyranny was Liberty and that Liberty was a gift of God.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Jett22 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 11:42:48
I'm an abolitionist.   ::smile::

This is Lela Pittenger, a candidate for the U.S. Senate. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl3V-HxvXrE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl3V-HxvXrE)
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 11:57:50
From Dictionary.com:

lib·er·al  /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/

adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

noun
1. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


con·serv·a·tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/

adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

noun
1. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
2. a supporter of conservative political policies.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, especially the Conservative party in Great Britain.
4. a preservative.

Please note the #1 definition under adjective for both words.  A liberal seeks to change the status quo while a conservative seeks to maintain it.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Mere Nick on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 12:16:06
the dictionary definition doesn't cut it, though, DaveW.  The five definitions of "liberal", does that really describe a democrat to you?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 12:44:11
the dictionary definition doesn't cut it, though, DaveW.  The five definitions of "liberal", does that really describe a democrat to you?
These are the true meanings of the word, not what the politicians have twisted them to mean.

As to the democrats doing away with drug laws, the ban on abortions, allowing a gay agenda, shortened prison sentances, opening up the borders to whomever whenever, etc, then yes it does.  

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Mere Nick on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 12:55:35
But does it describe democrats to you?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 14:22:53
From Dictionary.com:

lib·er·al  /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/

adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

noun
1. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


con·serv·a·tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/

adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

noun
1. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
2. a supporter of conservative political policies.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, especially the Conservative party in Great Britain.
4. a preservative.

Please note the #1 definition under adjective for both words.  A liberal seeks to change the status quo while a conservative seeks to maintain it.



Since our nation has gone through such massive leftist change, we conservatives are do not want to maintain the left status quo. We conservatives want change. We want to "to restore traditional ones"

Why I list the specific definitions of ideology and not general definitions. Why I linked to George Washington's sage advice for our nation and for future generation contained in his Farewell Address. Why I suggest folks learn their history, to gain the knowledge of our Founding Fathers. To find out & understand what these great minds thought. I have no desire to limit one's knowledge, but desire to encourage folks read, study & learn. To be knowledgeable & informed. That way if they decide to reject the sage advice of our Founding Fathers they can do so honestly. And if they want to embrace the sage advice of our Founding Fathers they can do that as well from an informed perspective.

[url]http://conservapedia.com/Classical_Liberal[/url]
"The term "liberal" changed meaning in the 1930s. Since then Classical Liberals are called "Conservatives" or "Libertarians" in the United States"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism[/url]
"Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."


Actually the philosophy of the Founders is exactly what Dr. Paul promotes, all one has to do is read President George Washington's Farewell Address to find that Dr. Paul is in complete agreement with Washington's core tenets & follows this sage advice [url]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp[/url] . The next documents to read to understand Dr. Paul tenets would be the Declaration of Independence [url]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp[/url] . The most important would be the Constitution for the United States [url]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp[/url] . Further reading would be the documentary record of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, etc, etc.

As I noted before, a Classical Liberal in America is a libertarian or a conservative because the ideas are the same & intertwined and the three labels are basically interchangable. Those that have deviated away from our American roots are the leftist authoritarians. There is nothing conservative about centralizing power aka big government. Big Government authoritarian rule is the philosophy of the Progressives, the Marxist, the Socialist. The Founders understood from first hand experience that big government authoritarian rule was Tyranny. They knew the solution to tyranny was Liberty and that Liberty was a gift of God.


I do not engage in debate on forums to "win". I engage in debate on forums to provoke folks to think for themselves, to learn & become informed.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."  - Thomas Jefferson.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" - Hosea 4:6
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Wed Feb 08, 2012 - 05:49:49
But does it describe democrats to you?
I answered that. Yes.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 12:00:51
So, what do you call someone who insists that the National debt of $16 TRILLION be paid off ASAP?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 14:36:07
So, what do you call someone who insists that the National debt of $16 TRILLION be paid off ASAP?

A dreamer.

It is a lot of debt but we had to do it. If the economy had been allowed to crash and burn on its own, the world would look like 1935 all over again. The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Jaime on Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 15:44:05
Snargles in 1986, every other house in Texas was underwater and the economy sucked at $8 oil. The market was allowed to work and we are doing great now. No, there was no reason for Bush and Obama to add to the deficit. Banks should have been allowed to fail. We are in the threshold of economic hell because of our debt.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: p.rehbein on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 06:49:23
So, what do you call someone who insists that the National debt of $16 TRILLION be paid off ASAP?

A dreamer.

It is a lot of debt but we had to do it. If the economy had been allowed to crash and burn on its own, the world would look like 1935 all over again. The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.


...........other than the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the economy would have "crashed and burned," this sounds really great.  Raising taxes will never pay off the debt.............just doesn't work that way..............

If the economy had been allowed to function "on it's own," corrections would have taken place, and the economy would have stabalized, and our National Debt would be about 1/4th of what it is now..............in the rearview mirror, the bail outs don't look so good to me............

Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Jaime on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 07:16:23
the bailouts mostly hurt everyone except the autoworkers union.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 07:42:12
The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Thank you.  That is EXACTLY what has to be done, immediately.  And we are almost out of time.  The weight of servicing the debt will kill us all.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 13:33:42
The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Thank you.  That is EXACTLY what has to be done, immediately.  And we are almost out of time.  The weight of servicing the debt will kill us all.

What if we also reclaim our Economic Sovereignty and reindstrialize our nation?

Wouldn't the added benefit of increased revenues from overall prosperity aid in eliminating the debt & reduce any need for deficit spending?

There is much more on the table that needs to be addressed than just austerity measures.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Jaime on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 15:03:41
Raising taxes kills economic activity which in turn reduces tax revenues!
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 15:58:05
The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Thank you.  That is EXACTLY what has to be done, immediately.  And we are almost out of time.  The weight of servicing the debt will kill us all.

What if we also reclaim our Economic Sovereignty and reindstrialize our nation?

Wouldn't the added benefit of increased revenues from overall prosperity aid in eliminating the debt & reduce any need for deficit spending?

There is much more on the table that needs to be addressed than just austerity measures.
You mean like stop buying from China and buy only Made in the USA products? That would do it but that isn't going to happen. American consumers want everything cheap and the only way to do that is to buy products made in third world countries by exploited workers. We brought this on ourselves by wanting too high a standard of living. At times I think my parents were better off than I am but then I realize that growing up we had one B&W TV, one telephone, one car, a small house and we ate a lot of hamburger. Times are rough now but my family has two cars, three TVs, a bunch of phones, all kinds of electronic equipment, a big house and we eat out on more than just special occassions. We want it all but it is not economically feasible.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 17:27:31
The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Thank you.  That is EXACTLY what has to be done, immediately.  And we are almost out of time.  The weight of servicing the debt will kill us all.

What if we also reclaim our Economic Sovereignty and reindstrialize our nation?

Wouldn't the added benefit of increased revenues from overall prosperity aid in eliminating the debt & reduce any need for deficit spending?

There is much more on the table that needs to be addressed than just austerity measures.
You mean like stop buying from China and buy only Made in the USA products? That would do it but that isn't going to happen. American consumers want everything cheap and the only way to do that is to buy products made in third world countries by exploited workers. We brought this on ourselves by wanting too high a standard of living. At times I think my parents were better off than I am but then I realize that growing up we had one B&W TV, one telephone, one car, a small house and we ate a lot of hamburger. Times are rough now but my family has two cars, three TVs, a bunch of phones, all kinds of electronic equipment, a big house and we eat out on more than just special occassions. We want it all but it is not economically feasible.

Actually that is a myth the "cheap labor" thing, especially after shipping costs are factored in. Shipping raw resources all around the world to a centralized location for industrial manufacturing then shipping back all around the world adds tremendously to production costs. It's also a major factor in driving up energy costs which compounds production costs driving a vicious cycle of spiraling upwards energy & production costs.

This was not brought on by people's desire for more. It was brought on by drastically changed political philosophy of globalization. It's a policy of capitulation not competition. Ronald Reagan was not willing to capitulate American exceptionalism, why I linked an article about Reagan's project Socrates & the Businessweek covers in other threads.

Historically America did not excel in competition on the world stage by cheap labor, but by technological innovation & improved production practices. In the 1980's automation & innovation was going to revolutionize our industrial base. It was American exceptionalism that was able to maintain superior productivity & a sound prosperous standard of living. In 1990's there was a complete shift in policy away from traditional American industrial innovation to the policies of capitulation and globalization.

The policies of globalization have failed. It's obvious in the spiraling energy costs. It's obvious in the loss of our industrial base. It's obvious on our store shelves. If there was competition we would see American product & foreign product on on the shelves. Not just product from one country.

America has not been beaten by competition in the world market. America has been prevented from competing in the world market by enacting legislation that favors foreign production & punishes American industrial competition through the world managed trade agreements administered by the World Trade Organization.

To effectively grow our economy, to end our debt, & maintain prosperity it is imperative to re-industrialize our nation. Without an industrial base producing goods for world trade, what is there to grow besides debt, dependency, & poverty?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Jett22 on Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 20:59:44
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/executive-order-establishing-presidents-global-development-council

Now by executive order he has a council to help him further our involvement in global government err "development".
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 11:03:48
Quote
There is much more on the table that needs to be addressed than just austerity measures.
While that is true in the long run, austerity is what is needed NOW. It will take years or decades to rebuild manufacturing capacity. We do not have that kind of time to wait.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 11:32:12
I have read that there are economists (maybe whacko ones for all I know) who think that we have never recovered from the Great Depression and that it is only wars (WWII, Korea, VN, the 'stans) that have propped up the economy. Added to that, our economy used to be based on an ever increasing population in the US and new markets opening up overseas. The US population growth has slowed and unless we can convince New Guinea headhunters that they need SUVs and cell phones there aren't many new markets. The whole entire system needs overhauled but until then, as Dave said, we need some austerity programs.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: p.rehbein on Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 07:08:34
The only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes, cut services and give it time.
Thank you.  That is EXACTLY what has to be done, immediately.  And we are almost out of time.  The weight of servicing the debt will kill us all.


Which one of you ACTUALLY beliveves that when Congress raises your taxes that they will reduce spending, and use the additional revenue to pay down the debt?  Really?  No, seriously, really?

 ::doh::

Raising taxes will cause sufferage on all 'da folks, and will result in a slowdown in investment growth in the private sector, which will cause a reduction in jobs, and that will lead to fewer folks to tax to gain the needed revenue to pay off the debt, which will result in needing to raise taxes again, which will result in a slowdown in investment growth in the private sector, which will end up costing jobs, and that will lead to fewer folks to tax to gain the necessary revenue to pay off the debt, which will mean that taxes will have to be raised again, which will result in a slowdown...............

 ::doh:: ::frustrated::  (am I the only one that sees this downward spiral of the ever present salvation of higher taxes?)

 ::shrug::
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 07:14:31
I expect Congress to raise everyone's taxes except mine and cut back on all services except for the ones I use. It's the American way.    ::unclesam::
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: p.rehbein on Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 07:29:02
I expect Congress to raise everyone's taxes except mine and cut back on all services except for the ones I use. It's the American way.    ::unclesam::



 ::thumbup::
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 08:11:25
Quote
Which one of you ACTUALLY beliveves that when Congress raises your taxes that they will reduce spending, and use the additional revenue to pay down the debt?  Really?  No, seriously, really?
That is why we are in the dire situation we have today.  Noone on capitol hill has enough testosterone to make the really hard choices needed to drag us out of this hole.

But if you are the breadwinner for your family and you are spending 20 or 25% MORE than you are making every year, you have to change your lifestyle until the debts are paid off.

In this case the ENTIRE COUNTRY needs to change the lifestyle until we are back on solid economic ground.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: p.rehbein on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 08:24:51
Quote
Which one of you ACTUALLY beliveves that when Congress raises your taxes that they will reduce spending, and use the additional revenue to pay down the debt?  Really?  No, seriously, really?
That is why we are in the dire situation we have today.  Noone on capitol hill has enough testosterone to make the really hard choices needed to drag us out of this hole.

But if you are the breadwinner for your family and you are spending 20 or 25% MORE than you are making every year, you have to change your lifestyle until the debts are paid off.

In this case the ENTIRE COUNTRY needs to change the lifestyle until we are back on solid economic ground.


So why allow them to raise our taxes and have more money to wast on their pet projects so they can get re-elected and watch our National Debt continue to soar?

Just as with a life-threatening injury, FIRST THING YA GOTTA DO IS STOP THE BLEEDING! 

Then, and only then can we move on to addressing how to repair the damage.

Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Captain Shays on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 11:16:39
Don't forget about the inflation tax folks. There will never be any such thing as reducing our national debt or eliminating it without abolishing the Federal Reserve a corporation that is rgistered in Delaware. They are NOT a part of our government, yet they control the money supply for this entire country.

Then we need to ask "how does our government generate revenue to function"?

Around 2/3 of all the revenue comes from tarriffs, duties and other fees to foreign governments. The other 1/3 that most of us "think" comes from IRS collections really doesn't. It is borrowed.
Of the 33% that is borrowed, around 8% is borrowed from a consortium of foreign governments like Bhrain, Saudi Arabia, the EU, Japan, China etc. The other 25% comes from the Federal Reserve.

They operate on a fractional reserve system based on 10%. In other words all they need is to show 10% of the loan value in the form of deposits or "in their vault" to issue a loan. So if they issue a loan for $1,000,000 they only need to prove they have $100,000 in their vault. But here is the Mandrake Mechanism. When they issue the loan for $1,000,000 it's not counted against their books as a liability. It doesn't come out of the vault. BUT.....the interest due on that loan IS counted as an asset. It goes right into the vault. So the more money they lend.....the more money they can lend. This is the nature behind ALL the foreign aid. ALL the eneitlements. ALL corporate welfare and most other spending.

In fact if you compare what the IRS collects to the interest on the loans to the Fed, the interest comsumes ALL of the IRS collection and it only pays a portion of that interest.

So....the government goes to the Fed and says "we need$________00000000000000000000 for this months expenditures. The Fed simply creates that money out of thin air, or as I described above, through the Mandrake Mechanism. To pay the Fed, our Tresury Dept prints the money non stop 24X7. Then it ships that money literally by the truck load to the 12 branches of the Federal Reserve. Then the Fed begins to circulate that money thereby inflating the supply of currency. When the supply of currency is inflated, it de-values all the existing currency in circulation.

We, me and you and our family and friends just see this in terms of the cost of everything going up especially relative to the cost of fuel and food, which curiously isn't included in the government's inflation index.

This is the reason behind our national debt because when the Fed creates that money out of thin air, they charge us interest on it. Man, I wish I could do that right now to pay my bills.


After all that I want to give some kudos to Tonka Tim for some GREAT and informative posts.

I would ad that a classical liberal would say "that which governs least, governs best" while a modern liberal would say "give me more government". A modern liberal is really nothing short of a Marxist and a classical liberal would be more like a modern libertarian.

A new style conservative (neocon) is really a progressive in foreign policy like Woodrow Wilson and FDR while a old style conservative or libertarian (Constitutionalist) is more like our founding fathers.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 12:06:43
Quote
A modern liberal is really nothing short of a Marxist

I think you mean "Leninist." Karl Marx saw no governments and no country borders at all. It was Lenin who took Marxism and applied it (badly) to a totalitarian government structure.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Alfred Combes on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 14:16:24
Quote
A modern liberal is really nothing short of a Marxist

I think you mean "Leninist." Karl Marx saw no governments and no country borders at all. It was Lenin who took Marxism and applied it (badly) to a totalitarian government structure.

Marxism will always turn it badly.  It denies basic human nature.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 15:33:39
Marxism will always turn it badly.  It denies basic human nature.

But isn't "basic human nature" bad in itself? Isn't it our basic nature to want everything for ourselves and to turn our back on others? Scripture tells us to go against nature and to treat others as self.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Mere Nick on Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 16:08:51

This is the reason behind our national debt because when the Fed creates that money out of thin air, they charge us interest on it. Man, I wish I could do that right now to pay my bills.


You'd be better off getting a clue what you are talking about unless, as I suspect, you, Tonka and a few others are actually here to make Ron Paul look bad.

Look at the audited financials of the federal reserve right here. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2010.pdf)  Go to page 5.  Look at the bottom.  For 2010 the Fed paid right at 97% of its income to the treasury. 






Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 06:13:52
Marxism will always turn it badly.  It denies basic human nature.
But isn't "basic human nature" bad in itself? Isn't it our basic nature to want everything for ourselves and to turn our back on others? Scripture tells us to go against nature and to treat others as self.
Yes, human nature is selfish and that is a point that Marxism misses entirely. Marx taught "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." It assumed that all workers would rise up across the globe at the same time to sieze the means of production. There would be no more governments. Only every person giving all they have to help their fellow man.

It was Lenin who changed that from utopian anarchy into something enforced by a strong central government. He attributed it to Russian being "captialism's weakest link" and since the rest of the world did not follow Russia's example, a strong government was needed to keep the captialists at bay. So instead of everything being administered at the personal level, the central government took over that function.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Captain Shays on Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 08:11:59
Quote
A modern liberal is really nothing short of a Marxist

I think you mean "Leninist." Karl Marx saw no governments and no country borders at all. It was Lenin who took Marxism and applied it (badly) to a totalitarian government structure.

Maybe I meant Engels. They all wanted the Marxist theories to be applied the world over. Today in our country the progressives work via the Fabians methodology of incrementalism. They are implimenting Marxism gradually. first the central banking system through the Federal Reserve. Then the implimentation of a graduated income tax through the 16th Amendment. Then they took over our educational system and started to teach us that we're a democracy not a republic. Then they took over the flow of information with FCC. They have been attacking private property rights all along. The communist manifesto is being applied here and globally as we speak.
Progressives and neoconservatives and liberals are ALL working toward these ends.

THAT is why NO Christian should EVER vote for a candidate who wants to keep us in the United Nations, and or allow the Federal Reserve to control our money supply, or keep us in the extra-national trade agreements that diminish our sovereignty as a nation and destroy our production base. We should also NEVER vote for candidates who want to control what we put or don't put into our own body. Those are choices that God gave to us and if we're not free over our own bodies then we're not free.
Looking back to the progressive movement when they admired Marx and later Mousilini's facism before those systems reared their ugly heads the first step was passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Then we started to see radical changes in the structure of our government. Next was the 16th Amendment, then the 17th amendment which while enlarging the power of the central govt reduced the power of the states. Then passage of the 18th Amendment and for the first time in our history our federal govt presumed to tell free people what they could or could not put into their own bodies. The 18th Amendment was also the cause of our dependence on oil as our primary fuel. Does anyone know why or how that is so?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 22:15:27
Capt. Shays
One has to separate Marxist propaganda from actual policy. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx actually states "this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads". This is also called for in the authoritarian principles of the 10 points in the transition to Communism. Pure authoritarian statist control. Just read chapter 2 of the Manifesto. The Bolshevick & Moaist reigns of terror are logical outcomes in the implementation of Communism. 

It's why property rights are so important to Liberty. The first right of property is ownership of self. In communism one loses all property rights, especially ownership of self (Liberty). Why it is so easy for the maniacs who desire total control to kill the millions who dissent.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: DaveW on Mon Feb 27, 2012 - 09:58:25
I completely agree about property rights.

Both socialist/communist and facist/oligarcist extremes remove personal property rights; the first to the commune or state and the other to the businessmen.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Captain Shays on Mon Feb 27, 2012 - 16:20:12

This is the reason behind our national debt because when the Fed creates that money out of thin air, they charge us interest on it. Man, I wish I could do that right now to pay my bills.


You'd be better off getting a clue what you are talking about unless, as I suspect, you, Tonka and a few others are actually here to make Ron Paul look bad.

Look at the audited financials of the federal reserve right here. ([url]http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2010.pdf[/url])  Go to page 5.  Look at the bottom.  For 2010 the Fed paid right at 97% of its income to the treasury. 










Nick. Did you actually READ the information that was provided in your own link?
Let me help you out here. This is from your own link

"As described in Note 4 to the Combined Financial Statements, the Reserve Banks have prepared these Combined Financial Statements in conformity with accounting principles established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as set forth in the Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America."

That my bo,y is not an audit by Congress who is the ONLY entity charged by our Constitution to coin our currency.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Mon Feb 27, 2012 - 17:44:36
We should also NEVER vote for candidates who want to control what we put or don't put into our own body. Those are choices that God gave to us and if we're not free over our own bodies then we're not free.
You mean like all the drugs we want to take? Let me know when you are out driving your car so I can stay home.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: TonkaTim on Mon Feb 27, 2012 - 18:51:27

"accounting principles established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which is a basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America."



 I edited the FRB quote for clarity.

No need for oversight with the FRB, they just write their own rules & control their own outcomes.

Hey that's why they deserve the monopoly, that old time Babylonian economics is exactly what we need to support as Believers. ::eek::

http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm
Financing Civilization by © William N. Goetzmann
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Mere Nick on Tue Feb 28, 2012 - 06:48:04
Of course it isn't an audit by Congress, my unlearned correspondent.  If you want the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Harry Reid to audit your stuff instead of having someone competent do it, then, by all means, give them a call.

Lets look at it, shall we:

Quote
As described in Note 4 to the Combined Financial Statements, the Reserve Banks have prepared these
Combined Financial Statements in conformity with accounting principles established by the Board of
Governors of  the Federal Reserve System, as set  forth in the Financial Accounting Manual for Federal
Reserve Banks, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally
accepted in  the United States of America. The effects on such Combined Financial Statements of the
differences between the accounting principles established by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America are also
described in Note 4.

In short, you think you have something because they use a basis of accounting that is a little different from GAAP and explain it.  

Try again.  You're still naught for how many times you've tried.  That is, unless you are here to convince us that ignorance is the life blood of the Paul campaign.    
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Captain Shays on Tue Feb 28, 2012 - 15:21:54
We should also NEVER vote for candidates who want to control what we put or don't put into our own body. Those are choices that God gave to us and if we're not free over our own bodies then we're not free.
You mean like all the drugs we want to take? Let me know when you are out driving your car so I can stay home.

My brother. If ALL drugs were legalized the harm that one does to another person or their property would still remain illegal and punishable by law. In the meantime it would dramatically reduce violent crime along with the number of addicted persons as most credible study's have shown from the countries that have changed their drug laws.

Since the government is not our conscience they do not dictate to us what is right or wrong. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it right and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.

Always remember that a crime is harm that one does to another or their property and bears with it the penalty of the laws designed to protect us and our property from that harm.

A vice is harm that one does to one's self or his own property and bears within the inherent penalty as the proper outcome and no other punishment is required. Otherwise we would have the government protecting us from every possible bad choice we could make. Oh wait. We already do. They are going after little girls for selling unauthorized lemonade and Quakers for selling unauthorized milk like they have done for hundreds of years.
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Snargles on Tue Feb 28, 2012 - 17:20:39
Good Morning Cap'n
As someone who has sold drugs legally for many years I can tell you, if people could get their hands on all the drugs they wanted, society would be in a gigantic mess in short order. Hard core use of narcotics and hallucinogens might not go up but the number of people abusing anti-anxiety drugs and muscle relaxants (which don't work anyway) would increase rapidly. There would also be widespread use of antibiotics for trival viral infections which would increase drug resistance in bacteria and affect us all. Without the present restrictions related to prescriptions drugs, drug prices would decrease (this happens every time a prescription drug goes OTC). On he surface this sounds like a good thing but it would severely restrict the dollars available for research. Unless you think we already have all the drugs we need, you can see that this is a bad thing.
The bottom line is that the average person does not have the training and knowledge needed to determine what drugs he needs. The government is doing you a service by limiting your access to drugs, both therapeutic and recreational.

Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Mere Nick on Wed Feb 29, 2012 - 06:19:39
Are thousands of people being killed so I can buy some Goodies powder for a headache?  Maybe Goodies dealers being shot at by people from the BC powder cartel, etc?
Title: Re: Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative
Post by: Captain Shays on Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 12:18:00
Good Morning Cap'n
As someone who has sold drugs legally for many years I can tell you, if people could get their hands on all the drugs they wanted, society would be in a gigantic mess in short order. Hard core use of narcotics and hallucinogens might not go up but the number of people abusing anti-anxiety drugs and muscle relaxants (which don't work anyway) would increase rapidly. There would also be widespread use of antibiotics for trival viral infections which would increase drug resistance in bacteria and affect us all. Without the present restrictions related to prescriptions drugs, drug prices would decrease (this happens every time a prescription drug goes OTC). On he surface this sounds like a good thing but it would severely restrict the dollars available for research. Unless you think we already have all the drugs we need, you can see that this is a bad thing.
The bottom line is that the average person does not have the training and knowledge needed to determine what drugs he needs. The government is doing you a service by limiting your access to drugs, both therapeutic and recreational.



Hi Snargles,

I am not suggesting that there be no restrictions. I am suggesting #1 that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do so and that any restrictions remain at the state level.

Relative to "contrrolled dangerous substances" who is in control of them, but, the illegal cartels, gangs, smugglers, and the mob? The legal drugs are controlled by the government and I agree there should be controls as to the quality and who can use them so we can know for sure that what we put into our body is of a quality that is safe and the content is accurate. As it is now, any ad hock chemist can make something in his bath tub or basement lab which could contain contaminates or other impurities and we'll never know for sure that the dosages are accurate like we can with the legal drugs. That is another reason to legalize everything.

I put no weight in the argument that drug abuse would increase if we did that simply because those who want drugs now can get them and those who don't and know where to get them do n't use them by choice. If we legalized say LSD or Herion or Pot or whatever it's unrealistic to think people would all of a sudden say "oh herion is now legal I think I'll start using Herion".
In fact because of the illegal status of certain drugs that are in demand it throws the entire merket into the black market which is the cause of most of the vio0lent crimes associated with drugs along with the over doses and deaths due to impurities that dealers put into the drugs to increase their profit margin.
Also, unscrupulous drug dealers and gangs think nothing of selling drugs to anyone including our kids while a legal outlet would lose his entire livlihood if he made that mistake. So legalization would actually reduce the accessability to our children especially if we increased the jail time associated with selling drugs to minors in the event of legalization.
So on one hand I advocate legalization of everything but on the other I also advocate say a 20-30 year sentence for selling drugs to minors. I also advocate increasing the penality for other harm that one does to another either while high on drugs or alcohol or in the procurement of drugs. If a violent crime is committed after legalization the penality should be severe because that person is a violent preditor. But, if a person ingests a substance he is harming himself and in my opinion there is no room for the government to protect us from harm that we do to ourselves otherwise they will start to pass laws trying to protect us from everything and anything. Oh wait. They already do that.