Thanks for this opportunity to
(perhaps) bring some in the Liberty movement back to reason.
I personally believe most AnCaps and
some Libertarians are simply so (rightfully) outraged at the abuses
of people in government that they choose to violently reject the
entire notion of government. It is terribly similar to many Atheists
who reject the idea of God (however you want to define it) due to the
crimes of man and organized religion. This is huge stumbling block
that prevents us from moving forward, and from spreading the
principles of Liberty. I believe there is a way forward, but it
requires understanding the past.
Humans will always have something that
functions as government, whether they want to call it that or not.
Regardless of what you want to call it, something that performs the
functions of government is a requirement for civil society. Again,
call it private courts, private law, private security, private
whatever, it still performs the same function.
The philosophical underpinnings of
Libertarianism come from American Colonial Common Law. Simply put,
ACCL was a way of resolving disputes of property (theft, fraud, harm
or trespass), in a way that was restorative, just, and common to the
people.
ACCL dictated that if there was no
harm, there was no crime. Disputes that could not be settled
privately were brought into the public by way of a claim against
another man, a court was formed (venue was unimportant, sometimes it
happened in the town square), a magistrate was chosen, a jury was
convened, and the case was made.
The magistrate did not decide the case.
They only made sure the rules of court agreed to prior were followed.
The jury decided the case, and their decision was final. Judgments
were determined according to what was common at the time, parties
were either made whole, or in the case of false claims being levied,
triple damages were the norm (bearing false witness was considered
wrong).
Under ACCL everything was treated as
property, even children and spouses. Within reason, everything was
owned. Common spaces existed (streets, etc), but there was
cooperative understanding and usage. If a common space or utility
needed to be created or maintained, a town meeting was formed, and
they hashed out what needed to be done. If crime started to get out
of hand, they created a Sheriff, and paid him according to the custom
of the time. Every subsequent community issue was dealt with by the
community, participation was voluntary, and if you didn't agree to
participate, you could leave.
It was a defacto Hoppean Covenant
Community that evolved out of several centuries (perhaps millennia)
of spontaneous organization since before even the signing of the
Magna Carta. How our present "code world" system of law
and governance came to be from that organic, cohesive societal
organization, and how we might return - is another story for another
day. But hopefully now you understand how and why things were
organized, and hopefully could be organized again.
This is why I'm a Minarchist, and will
never be an AnCap. I believe the nation needs a minimal
government, kept to three things: Border protection, courts for
contract dispute resolutions, and police to keep the peace/enforce
contracts. Everything else needs to be left up to state and local
governments to decide.
Assuming that removing government, as
opposed to reducing centralized government and handing decisions over
to local communities, is foolish; reasonable people rightly see
it as such and reject it. Those interested in spreading Liberty will
find themselves well served by promoting local control over central
control, as self-determination is something everyone can get behind.
TL/DR Government: It doesn't matter
what you call it, it only matters how you run it, and calling for the
elimination of it (as opposed to clearly describing a better
solution) just makes you sound like a hare-brained fanatic.
The author expects the FED to be able to sell a T-bill to “soak up” the money at exactly the time no one will want a T-bill and the dollar will begin its march to oblivion. He obviously missed the point that the only thing keeping T-Bill purchases going is the Fed, not the Open Market.
That without fed intervention to prop it up (ie: buying between 70-85% of bonds) no one else is displaying much confidence in lending to the US… sustainable? Worrying
2. The proposal is to trade REAL assets owned by the government for the junk bonds owned by the fed? Next time… why not just auction these assets to raise money rather than pump the markets full of funny money and distort interest rates?
The damage is done by the Fed; it’s 1.6 trillion dollars of faux-wealth will never be taken from the money supply because we all (should) know that when the Fed conducts large scale OMO’s, they always buy bonds, expanding the money supply and depreciating our currency.
Ron Paul’s plan is just clearing up some of the stupidity of the Federal Reserve and our government in general. It would allow Congress to avoid raising the debt ceiling, without having any consequences that wouldn’t happen anyway (such as the 1.6 trillion in new credit).
Additionally, this move could open America’s eyes to the irony of the Federal Reserve and bolster more support for Ron Paul. That way, the next time Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling, President Paul could veto it! Unfortunately, such a Constitutional government may be difficult to achieve with morons like you miseducating the public about the monetary system.
So let me get this straight; we give the Fed “assets” that are “owned” by the the government, which means assets owned by the people, and then let the Fed sell them off to the private sector.
I think your missing the whole point; the government, and more importantly, the people, do not owe this non-governmental cartel of banks (the Federal Reserve) that money. The Fed printed abunch of phony money – they can deal with it – just walk away from it. Don’t give them our assets and let them sell them off to get more money.
Also, who do you think they’re going to sell these to? My guess would be Goldmansachs, JP Morgan and other banking interests that they have ties to, oh and probably some foreign banks and corporations.
Ron Paul was right in 2008 when he warned us off the economic collapse coming (and no other politicians agreed, in fact, most of them, and the mainstream media, laughed at him…whose laughing now?) – how about give him some respect – he obviously knows more than the other “experts.”
...And there's a LOT MORE where those came from!