Ron Paul has not endorsed Romney and I don't think he ever would. It would be endorsing the opposite of all of his beliefs. The only way he does it would be for Rand's future, but that would enrage so many of his supporters that it would drive them away from Rand more than he has already done himself.

Cleveland Buck;1252751 wrote:Ron Paul has not endorsed Romney and I don't think he ever would. It would be endorsing the opposite of all of his beliefs. ....

Exactly. Not only should he not endorse him but his"followers" should not vote for him.

Cleveland Buck;1252239 wrote:His personal beliefs are very "socially conservative", but none of that supersedes the Constitution, which is why his position is to get the federal government out of those issues. His position is that abortion is murder and should be handled by each state as they see fit as they do with murder. His position is that no one, man or woman, gay or straight, should need federal authorization to get married. Even though he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the federal government does not have the authority to define it that way. He is more libertarian on drug laws and other victimless crimes, for good reason. But still, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to deal with those anyway. If you want to know his position on an issue, ask yourself if it is authorized in the Constitution. Very simple. The way it should be.

That's not very socially conservative in my book. Putting the constitution protection ahaed of abortion is not what a social conservative subscribes to....at least this one doesn't.

He isn't more libertarian on drug laws. His libertarian on them. Social conservatives don't believe that is "for good reason" at all. Victimless crimes are still crimes. I am not a strict constitutionalists. I don't think Mr. Paul represents my views.

Con_Alma;1252774 wrote:Victimless crimes are still crimes.

By definition. The question it begs is why they should be.

It's certainly a point that's worth discussing.

Laws have often been inclusive of what we want to be working towards as a society but not necessarily where we are. Victimless crimes can fit into that category.

Con_Alma;1252774 wrote:That's not very socially conservative in my book. Putting the constitution protection ahaed of abortion is not what a social conservative subscribes to....at least this one doesn't.

He isn't more libertarian on drug laws. His libertarian on them. Social conservatives don't believe that is "for good reason" at all. Victimless crimes are still crimes. I am not a strict constitutionalists. I don't think Mr. Paul represents my views.

Traditional social conservatism and contemporary social conservatism are not the same, so I agree with you if we're discussing contemporary social conservatism.

But the consistency across multiple views was the point of traditional conservatism as a whole. Just as traditional conservatives would say that your money should have as little government involvement as possible for the simple fact that it is yours, the same would also say that your choices, actions, and behavior should have as little government involvement as possible for the simple fact that they are your own. Just as one is yours, so is the other. If the litmus test for establishing minimal governmental involvement in citizens' private finances is that of ownership, the same logic is applied to anything which is an issue of ownership.

In short, if I think the government should stay as much out of my financial life as possible, because it's mine, then I should also think the government should stay out of my personal life as much as possible, because it's also mine. Otherwise, I'm being logically inconsistent.

Con_Alma;1252802 wrote:It's certainly a point that's worth discussing.

Laws have often been inclusive of what we want to be working towards as a society but not necessarily where we are. Victimless crimes can fit into that category.

The problem with working toward what "we" want as a society is that the minority view on that tends to get trampled. If the majority of Americans wanted to make it illegal to be a Republican (or a Democrat), those who are currently Republicans would have no grounds for continuing their existence.

The Constitution put into place a limited number of powers for the Federal government for a reason. At the time, they were coming from a particularly oppressive government, and it appears that they had a plan for a better-run government that focused on the lack of restriction of citizens rather than the lack of restriction of government.

O-Trap;1252868 wrote:...
The problem with working toward what "we" want as a society is that the minority view on that tends to get trampled. If the majority of Americans wanted to make it illegal to be a Republican (or a Democrat), those who are currently Republicans would have no grounds for continuing their existence.

The Constitution put into place a limited number of powers for the Federal government for a reason. At the time, they were coming from a particularly oppressive government, and it appears that they had a plan for a better-run government that focused on the lack of restriction of citizens rather than the lack of restriction of government.

There are many imperfections in legislative enactments. My statement was more of me observing that we as a society have legislated against things that are victimless on the basis of trying to cultivate or move towards something we currently are not.

O-Trap;1252868 wrote:...

The Constitution put into place a limited number of powers for the Federal government for a reason. At the time, they were coming from a particularly oppressive government, and it appears that they had a plan for a better-run government that focused on the lack of restriction of citizens rather than the lack of restriction of government.

I wasn't speaking from the point of the government determine what we should do in our lives from a social perspective but rather as a politician he is not socially conservative and I base that on the fact that he doesn't champion social causes personally...not necessarily as a legislator but personally.

O-Trap;1251634 wrote:Eh, based on what he's saying here, I doubt it. Anyone who believes in a forced global labor law mandate and calls themselves a Libertarian is akin to someone who believes in a god, but calls himself an atheist.

I share a lot of libertarian views, but I do not call myself a libertarian. I don't allow a partyline in dictating to me what is right or wrong. There are tons of national political commentators that agree with me that are very much in tune with libertarian ideals, but are pretty disgusted with American outsourcing of wealth.

Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and in particular, the brilliant Dr. Paul Craig Roberts come to mind.

I made myself a job. Does that count?

Why sure O-Trap...1/145millionth of the job force. I made myself a job too, if that's what self employment entails. Because you and I decided to become proprietors, hardly speaks to the probem that I've addressed. Really poor reach on your part here.

And labor laws which increase the overhead expenses of businesses help this how?

So you are OK with the labor laws (or lack there of) of the late 19th Century in the US. Is that it? Because that is exactly what the labor laws reek of in places like China.

From the passage of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, to the passage of unemployment comp laws, to the overtime pay laws, to the minimum age requirement laws, to minimim wage laws, to the passage of OSHA laws, the short term disability laws....and so on and so forth... all in your view "hurt business".

So how bad was business hurt? Let's look.

While all of these "anti business" programs were implemented and forced into law, the corresponding results showed the greatest increase in GDP, the greatest increase in private wealth, ever in the history of the globe right here in the US...from the late 1800's through the 1980's.

Your "bastion of prosperity" called deregulation was implemented during Reagan's years, which, not coincidentally I might add, turned the United States from the world's largest creditor nation, to the world's largest debtor nation. These "libertarian" views have concommittantly seen, for the first time in over a century, the erosion of the middle class. A middle class that has seen a reduction in purchasing power. A complete debacle as it relates to ownership and equity. But you're OK with that.
Correct?

Also, I'm not okay with the outsourcing of American wealth ... so guess what I want? I want laws that make US companies more competitive globally by REDUCING overhead costs ... it's earth-shattering, I know.

No, what is earth shattering is your inability to understand the macro-economic realities from having such a myopic view on what business is, and what it isn't. The success (or failure) of any business is built on an array of thought processes and reasoning....not just the costs involved, when looking to improve the bottom line. It is no secret that American corporate execs are compensated mostly by what they do "today", (think quarterly bonus here), versus what is good for the long term success of the company. You probably view employees as nothing more than a said cost on a balance sheet. I have cited numerous examples here on these boards whereby that thinking is counter productive for the overall health of a business. I specifically mentioned Henry Ford, but he is simply one example. But I will digress from that given that that is somewhat off topic here.

And while you or I might not like the policy other countries have toward their labor, neither you nor I have one single solitary bit of objective authority to say they "should" do it differently.

Oh yes we certainly do. We have EVERY RIGHT in the world to expect our free market trading partners to abide by what we believe to be solid rules that encompass human rights, which benefit all of society. As a business owner yourself, is it OK for you to employ illegal aliens? Would it be alright if a Mexican coke cartel bankrolled your start up costs?

We have every right as a sovereign nation in doing business the correct way. If they produce goods below costs, subsidized by their government, as Japan did in the 70's, we as a nation have every right to tell them to get in line.
Today we have China, who violates countless rules as set by the WTO, but we turn our cheeks in tyrannical fashion, because our own, home grown corporations have too many skins in the game, and in particular, the GOP side of the political ledger are complicit in outsourcing the American dream. And if you as a libertarian want to use the Constitution as the be all document that you claim it to be, then you and your brethren should be outraged at what has transpired over the past 30 years. Because the outsourcing of American wealth, and the subsequent aggregate pain it has caused Americans, is without question a complete and total breech of what the Constitution has stated, in terms of providing for the "general welfare" of the people.

Our views are tainted ... biased. Like it or not, it's true. We have a view of what people "deserve" ... what they're "entitled" to have ... and it is fully and completely based on the fact that we grew up in a country that has told us we deserve those things.

And your statement here is about as vile as it gets...and an utter slug in the mouth to the generations of American business owners and visionaries who generated the biggest growth of wealth in the history of the planet. Entitled mentality? Really? These people, used their American education and work ethic principles, with American made capital for investment, American designed ingeniuty, on American soil, with American workers both white collared and blue, with the residual effects of being the foundation blocks in creating the greatest country in the modern era. Today, from their graves they spit on those that have sold out the American people, by circumventing all that they embraced in making America what is today...or what it once was up until the 1980's. Yeah, who gives a shot if the unemployment rate is 14.5% anyways? Can't have that higher overhead...and have to pay...my God! $4 more on a pair of pants.

Oh sweet Moses! What Libertarians are you listening to?

The international bankers aren't the problem. Our FEDERAL involvement with them is, particularly when it so often is at the expense of our own economy. THAT is the problem. Not the international bankers themselves. Libertarians don't give a flying fornication what international bankers do with their time, money, and resources. They give one about how WE interact with those bankers

Well sweet Moses right back at you. I could easily link 10 authors from staunch libertarian sites incliding CATO, lewrockwell.com and FFF that not only harp on the Central banks
(yes they are private), but cite the tyranny of said arrangements. And that is my main rub with those that espouse libertarianism in general. They speak of the wonderments collectively that laissez faire presents, but out of the other side of their mouths they cry about the corruption of the corporatists controlling the government. Well, which is it, O-Trap?

Here for your listening pleasure, is Mr. Lew Rockwell himself. Complaining vociferously about the reign of terror that the central banks reek on America. Those free market bankers I must add. Don't tell me libertarians don't care what bankers do.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/07/159-war-and-central-banking/

And the easiest way to "put Americans to work?" Not by forcing higher overhead spending on private enterprises. By doing that, you end up with small business owners like me, who would employ people on hourly rates if regulations would let him afford it. Instead, he outsources to other countries ... because the ability to hire cheaper labor is what enables him to hire at all.

Well, we tried it your way O-Trap. For 30 odd years now. How did that work out for you? Other than 2 speculator driven spikes, one under Clinton and one under Bush 43, which were corrected with tremendous impact I might add, you now have a country in complete disarray and malfunction. You blame the government for the 16 trillion dollar debt. You blame the government for 35 trillion more in unfunded liabilities. You blame the government for unbridled spending. And you blame the government for all the printed fiat, monopoly money.

The jobs are going and continue to go. All of Boatshoes" pro Keynes policies don't work...can't work at this level. The damage is done and we now lay in the bed, as crumpled as the sheets might be. We continue to spend, continue to print...all in efforts to keep the masses fed, clothed and housed. We expand government...and will continue to expand. Until we can no longer feed, clothe and house the masses with....debt.

But you cry about higher overhead costs in hiring Americans here at home, don't you? There is a direct cause and effect with what we see today. You don't see it..or maybe you don't want to admit to it. The likes of Pat Buchanan see it. As does Lou Dobbs. And so does one of Ronald Reagan's chief Cabinet members and former editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul C. Roberts.

Eh, no. The reason we are involved in four wars is to line the pockets of those who profit off the wars.

The reason we are involved in outsourcing American jobs is to line the pockets of those who profit off of the outsourcing. See how easy that was?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:I share a lot of libertarian views, but I do not call myself a libertarian. I don't allow a partyline in dictating to me what is right or wrong.

And neither do I. I call myself a Libertarian because that is the nomenclature attributed to those who share the majority of my views. I suppose I'm not even a Libertarian to a 100% degree. I live somewhere between that and a Constitutionalist.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:There are tons of national political commentators that agree with me that are very much in tune with libertarian ideals, but are pretty disgusted with American outsourcing of wealth.

When done out of greed, I agree that it is disgusting, but I also think the objectification of women in the pornography industry is disgusting as well. Doesn't mean that I think consenting adults and private businesses should be impeded by a government based on my sensibilities. Same applies.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:Why sure O-Trap...1/145millionth of the job force. I made myself a job too, if that's what self employment entails. Because you and I decided to become proprietors, hardly speaks to the probem that I've addressed. Really poor reach on your part here.

You've spoken to the percentage who do and are reported as doing so ... not necessarily the percentage who can or the percentage who are reported. Not a reach at all. It's not nearly as difficult as it sounds, and far more than 1 out of every 145M can do it.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: So you are OK with the labor laws (or lack there of) of the late 19th Century in the US. Is that it? Because that is exactly what the labor laws reek of in places like China.

Actually, if you've been there, you'd know that on average, the pay and labor conditions are better in U. S. company-owned manufacturing locations than the locally- owned and operated ones. Moreover, I am okay with China working out their labor conditions and pay. If we want to be competitive, we'll do what we can. I certainly think minimum wage is an issue. If someone is willing to work in the U. S. for $5 per hour, and the business owner is willing to pay $5 per hour, they can still not do so on the books. Somehow, the state governments seem to know better than the would-be employee. I find that odd. That's all.

Other overhead ... that which isn't as much about working conditions as it is about silly or redundant regulations involving industries themselves ... would be another key area that COULD help us be more competitive if we stopped looking so much for boogie men in corporate closets.

Rest assured, I'm not saying that we allow employers to infringe on the rights of employees. I do think things like protected classes are good for preventing the infringement of rights. Those don't go on over there. I wish they did, but it's China. Not the U. S. And because it is China instead of the U. S., the U. S. has no grounds for forcing them to run business according to our standards. To what authority would we appeal to do so?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: From the passage of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, to the passage of unemployment comp laws, to the overtime pay laws, to the minimum age requirement laws, to minimim wage laws, to the passage of OSHA laws, the short term disability laws....and so on and so forth... all in your view "hurt business".

Not large companies, no. Large companies with the kind of overhead to absorb those can do so. The thing is, those kinds of things would likely exist today without the legislation. Why? Because it serves as a perk to working there ... which brings the better employee a-knocking. If I had to look at a business who offered $32K to work in a shithole and a business that offered $28K to work in a clean environment with disability and overtime pay, guess which one I'm picking.

Some of the ones you've mentioned, however, have had the adverse affect of forcing a lack of employment or business. A farmer gets in trouble for paying his kids, who are too young by labor laws, a couple bucks per hour to bail hay, well below the minimum wage laws. A high school kid who isn't supporting a family, but is looking to earn some spare cash over the summer, is willing to come on with a landscaping company who can only afford to pay him $4.50 per hour, which he's okay with. Unfortunately, that either has to be nixed a la Uncle Sammy or done under the table, without Uncle Sammy knowing.

Now, I'm technically okay with the latter, but I'm doubting you are.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:So how bad was business hurt? Let's look.

While all of these "anti business" programs were implemented and forced into law, the corresponding results showed the greatest increase in GDP, the greatest increase in private wealth, ever in the history of the globe right here in the US...from the late 1800's through the 1980's.

First, you're dealing in an era in which most of the world was not yet catching up with us from an industrial standpoint. If you're the only NFL player picked to play in a pee-wee league, I'm sure you know how that would go.

And we could delve into why correlation doesn't prove causation in this case if you'd like. During your near century in question, regulation was hardly the lone factor influencing the economic world. Dare I say that increased globalization might have had something to do with it? Not to mention that we were hardly late to that party. We had the damn-near corner on that market for a minute.

But let's simply put it to a basic test. We'll call average operating costs 'X'. We'll call the added cost associated with increased regulation 'Y'. We'll call net profits 'Z'.

Z - X ? Z - (X + Y)

Now, should the question mark (?) be a greater sign (>) or a lesser sign (<)?

One might try to argue that 'Z' increases at a faster rate than 'Y', but also because of the increase of 'Y'. I'd be interested in seeing evidence of that direct correlation.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: Your "bastion of prosperity" called deregulation was implemented during Reagan's years, which, not coincidentally I might add, turned the United States from the world's largest creditor nation, to the world's largest debtor nation.

Increased Federal spending might have had something to do with that, wouldn't you think?

However, perhaps delving into the '80s is a good idea. Unemployment went from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. Inflation rate went from 10% to 4% during the same timeframe. The GDP went from -0.3% growth in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

Now I'm not even a Reaganite. There were plenty of things I don't like about Reagan's time in office (namely the increase in spending), but I do find it interesting that, when speaking of that decade, you applied a different metric than you had to the century prior.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:These "libertarian" views have concommittantly seen, for the first time in over a century, the erosion of the middle class. A middle class that has seen a reduction in purchasing power. A complete debacle as it relates to ownership and equity. But you're OK with that.

That hasn't been stopped by the increase in re-regulation, though, has it? Could that be, perhaps, influenced by something outside the way private companies do business? I don't know. Devaluation of the dollar through inflation, a la the increased printing of dollars? Tax rates across the board? No, surely the responsibility lies with the private companies, who hold no single, solitary piece of authority over that middle class, right?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:No, what is earth shattering is your inability to understand the macro-economic realities from having such a myopic view on what business is, and what it isn't. The success (or failure) of any business is built on an array of thought processes and reasoning....not just the costs involved, when looking to improve the bottom line.

And these thought processes and reasonings ... what would you say these are? And how would one quantifiably (unless you can substantiate them some other way) determine the influence of these factors?

The success of a business is profit. Methods of doing business have to be viewed through two lenses: What can I personally live with doing in a business, and what would increase the overall bottom line? Not sure what horror you think that causes for the large-scale economic climate, but I'd be interested in hearing you expand on that.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:It is no secret that American corporate execs are compensated mostly by what they do "today", (think quarterly bonus here), versus what is good for the long term success of the company.

Typically, they are compensated for it, yes. However, I've never met an executive that was willing to make an extra buck today at the risk of not having a company to pay him at all tomorrow, and I've met (and worked closely with) a few executives. If a healthy work environment, or at least the perception of one by the employees, is best for business, and in most cases it is, then that's what a company will pursue ... and guess what? Most of the ones I've met do just that. And the ones that do are the most successful.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:You probably view employees as nothing more than a said cost on a balance sheet.

Hard to say, anymore. The cost of employing someone resulted in me downsizing. So instead of people having less-than-ideal jobs, they were left with no jobs, and all I work with are contractors now. I'm sure that is somehow better in your eyes, though.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:I have cited numerous examples here on these boards whereby that thinking is counter productive for the overall health of a business. I specifically mentioned Henry Ford, but he is simply one example. But I will digress from that given that that is somewhat off topic here.

I don't disagree with that point at all. I'm saying that what is best for a company should be decided by those who own the company. Not a government who has never even heard of the company.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: Oh yes we certainly do. We have EVERY RIGHT in the world to expect our free market trading partners to abide by what we believe to be solid rules that encompass human rights, which benefit all of society.

A couple things:

We believe those rules benefit all of society. They do not. Now, I personally think you're right, and that the smart people in this country know this as well, and as such don't need it regulated. However, by what authority do we demand other completely autonomous nations ... completely independent of any U. S. jurisdiction ... to abide by our rules? Do we just say we'll take our business elsewhere? You do realize that makes us even less competitive, and it drives the cost of living up further ... out of the reach of the hands of some.

If they refuse, all we can do is proverbially cut off our nose to spite our face. That's the only leverage chip we have, and since we're using China as an example, I believe they have at least one big playing chip of their own, do they not?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:As a business owner yourself, is it OK for you to employ illegal aliens?

Not at all, but mainly because I'd be aiding a criminal. It is okay for me to take part in the global market, so I may indeed employ aliens in good conscience. Just not ones breaking laws in my country.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:Would it be alright if a Mexican coke cartel bankrolled your start up costs?

Given my thoughts on the drug trade, it should be, given that was their only crime. However, given that the money was likely gained through violent means, no. Even today, as drug trafficking is illegal, I wouldn't allow it, as even though I disagree with the law, I abide by it as I still choose to be a citizen of this country ... for the time being, anyway.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: We have every right as a sovereign nation in doing business the correct way.

Leading. We have every right as a sovereign nation in doing business the way in which we BELIEVE is the correct way. You're applying a dichotomy for which I don't see any objective evidence that would hold up under most logical scrutiny.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:If they produce goods below costs, subsidized by their government, as Japan did in the 70's, we as a nation have every right to tell them to get in line.

No we don't. As individual entities, privately owned and run, we have the right to either do business with those companies or refrain from doing business with those companies. We even have the right to tell them that we will or won't do business with them based on how they engage it. We don't have a single iota of authority to actually tell them to change a damn thing.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:Today we have China, who violates countless rules as set by the WTO, but we turn our cheeks in tyrannical fashion ...

How is refraining from central government action labeled as tyranny, in any way?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:... because our own, home grown corporations have too many skins in the game, and in particular, the GOP side of the political ledger are complicit in outsourcing the American dream.

As I recall, the GOP is a publicly-focused entity. I don't know of any GOP parties that have forced any outsourcing. Do you, and I just haven't heard? Please share.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:And if you as a libertarian want to use the Constitution as the be all document that you claim it to be, then you and your brethren should be outraged at what has transpired over the past 30 years.

Indeed, but given the Constitution's words, which themselves limit the central government ... NOT private entities ... my dismay isn't placed at a lack of federal legislation.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:Because the outsourcing of American wealth, and the subsequent aggregate pain it has caused Americans, is without question a complete and total breech of what the Constitution has stated, in terms of providing for the "general welfare" of the people.

You're apparently not reading the same clause I am. The one I'm reading includes this sentence: "In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."

Now, if you're reading this sentence differently than I am, then please enlighten me, but it APPEARS that the ONLY power to be exercised by the Federal government for the "general welfare" is to "lay taxes."

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:And your statement here is about as vile as it gets...and an utter slug in the mouth to the generations of American business owners and visionaries who generated the biggest growth of wealth in the history of the planet. Entitled mentality? Really? These people, used their American education and work ethic principles, with American made capital for investment, American designed ingeniuty, on American soil, with American workers both white collared and blue, with the residual effects of being the foundation blocks in creating the greatest country in the modern era. Today, from their graves they spit on those that have sold out the American people, by circumventing all that they embraced in making America what is today...or what it once was up until the 1980's. Yeah, who gives a shot if the unemployment rate is 14.5% anyways? Can't have that higher overhead...and have to pay...my God! $4 more on a pair of pants.

Ah, good. A nice long rant that doesn't even address what I said. All I said was that we have a perspective that is tainted by our history. Yes, entitled. There ARE things we think we are entitled to, myself included.

The word "entitled" was not used derrogatively. It was used to literally mean that we have established what we think people deserve. Other countries have different histories, and they've either arrived at different conclusions or are at a different point in their progression. In either case, what I meant was that ethnocentrism would be the ONLY grounds for asserting our way on others ... think George W. Bush's message of "spreading democracy." Nevermind that some countries might not WANT democracy. That didn't seem to matter at the time.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:Well sweet Moses right back at you. I could easily link 10 authors from staunch libertarian sites incliding CATO, lewrockwell.com and FFF that not only harp on the Central banks (yes they are private), but cite the tyranny of said arrangements.

If done by federal bodies, I agree.

I'd like to see these articles if they're discussing tyranny by private companies not leveraging federal funds or influence.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:And that is my main rub with those that espouse libertarianism in general. They speak of the wonderments collectively that laissez faire presents, but out of the other side of their mouths they cry about the corruption of the corporatists controlling the government. Well, which is it, O-Trap?

False dichotomy. Excessive corporate influence in government is equally as poisoning as excessive government in corporate America. My view (and the view of most Libertarians) is that the two should rarely be permitted to interact.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: Here for your listening pleasure, is Mr. Lew Rockwell himself. Complaining vociferously about the reign of terror that the central banks reek on America. Those free market bankers I must add. Don't tell me libertarians don't care what bankers do.

Sure ... because of their influence on ... wait for it ... not our private entities ... but our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Did you even listen to it? His beef with the central banks is with their affect on government ... NOT on private enterprise. Just like I just said, his problem was when that PRIVATE entity mixed with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I believe I made that clear to most in my statement before, but I thought I'd clarify, since you used a clip that supported my point.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: Well, we tried it your way O-Trap. For 30 odd years now. How did that work out for you? Other than 2 speculator driven spikes, one under Clinton and one under Bush 43, which were corrected with tremendous impact I might add, you now have a country in complete disarray and malfunction.

"My" way? You are using a result of umpteen factors to assert that one is a problem. Do you not see the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy there? When was the last time we had anything but fiat currency? Was that under Clinton or Bush? Not thinking so.

Doing one thing right and 19 things wrong doesn't mean the one thing is also wrong. I don't know why you'd think everything hinges on regulation, but I suppose that's a topic for you.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:You blame the government for the 16 trillion dollar debt. You blame the government for 35 trillion more in unfunded liabilities. You blame the government for unbridled spending. And you blame the government for all the printed fiat, monopoly money.

Are they not the ones spending into that debt, creating those liabilities, and devaluing the dollar even as it is tucked in my pocket?

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:The jobs are going and continue to go.

Because we are not competitive. That is correct. Like it or not, business is eat-or-be-eaten. Regulation doesn't change that.

And deglobalization because of dissimilar labor laws? Hell, I thought WE were the isolationists ...

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:All of Boatshoes" pro Keynes policies don't work...can't work at this level. The damage is done and we now lay in the bed, as crumpled as the sheets might be. We continue to spend, continue to print...all in efforts to keep the masses fed, clothed and housed. We expand government...and will continue to expand. Until we can no longer feed, clothe and house the masses with....debt.

Well, you're with me here, anyway. More of a fact claim, anyway. We do indeed do these things.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: But you cry about higher overhead costs in hiring Americans here at home, don't you?

Not at all. I don't cry about it. I state it as fact. I can't afford to hire American workers. That is a fact. Not up for debate. I CAN afford to employ foreign contractors. So guess what? That's what I do. I would hire Americans if I could. Hell, I'm the guy that buys local, even though it's a little more expensive, because I can afford it. But if I couldn't afford it? I'd buy elsewhere, and I'd sleep well at night. If local wants my business, they'd at least have to be competitive.

American workers on the books are not competitive to the degree that I cannot justify hiring them. So I don't.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote:The reason we are involved in outsourcing American jobs is to line the pockets of those who profit off of the outsourcing. See how easy that was?

If the "WE" outsourcing jobs are the same "WE" profiting ... and we're dealing in private, for-profit entities, I see no justification for restricting it. If the "WE" is the Federal government, that's a different discussion. Maybe you think private companies are, or should be, held to the exact same level of restriction as the Federal government.

I don't, because I see no authority that necessitates it.

jesus christ dudes, you're allowed to post more than once

I did. I posted three times.

vBulletin has a 10,000 character limit per post. Just FYI.

Footwedge;1255270 wrote: Well sweet Moses right back at you. I could easily link 10 authors from staunch libertarian sites incliding CATO, lewrockwell.com and FFF that not only harp on the Central banks
(yes they are private), but cite the tyranny of said arrangements. And that is my main rub with those that espouse libertarianism in general. They speak of the wonderments collectively that laissez faire presents, but out of the other side of their mouths they cry about the corruption of the corporatists controlling the government. Well, which is it, O-Trap?

Here for your listening pleasure, is Mr. Lew Rockwell himself. Complaining vociferously about the reign of terror that the central banks reek on America. Those free market bankers I must add. Don't tell me libertarians don't care what bankers do.

You don't understand what "free market" means. There are no central banks in a free market. Money is determined by whoever wants to use it or take it, not some central authority that prints it and uses government guns to enforce their monopoly. Anyone who criticizes central banking is also criticizing the government that gives them their power. There is nothing "laissez faire" about it.

Cleveland Buck;1255576 wrote:You don't understand what "free market" means. There are no central banks in a free market. Money is determined by whoever wants to use it or take it, not some central authority that prints it and uses government guns to enforce their monopoly. Anyone who criticizes central banking is also criticizing the government that gives them their power. There is nothing "laissez faire" about it.

Naturally, but I wasn't even talking about central banks in the U. S. I was talking about foreign central banks. They're not the U. S. They can do whatever the hell they want in their own respective countries, as far as the U. S. is concerned.

My beef with the foreign central banks only exists when our Federal government decides to get in bed with them, and at that point, the beef is with our government for doing so, and not the banks themselves.

O-Trap;1255583 wrote:Naturally, but I wasn't even talking about central banks in the U. S. I was talking about foreign central banks. They're not the U. S. They can do whatever the hell they want in their own respective countries, as far as the U. S. is concerned.

My beef with the foreign central banks only exists when our Federal government decides to get in bed with them, and at that point, the beef is with our government for doing so, and not the banks themselves.

I know. I was talking to Footwedge. The only impact foreign central banks have on us now is that our central bank destroys our money by bailing them out and they use that money to buy U.S. debt to keep our interest rates low.

OK...not gonna do a line item veto...since I think I have a life...I'm sure you do as well. But I'm gonna pick and choose my rebuttals.

O-Trap;1255454 wrote: Actually, if you've been there, you'd know that on average, the pay and labor conditions are better in U. S. company-owned manufacturing locations than the locally- owned and operated ones.

Have no idea what you are saying here.

Moreover, I am okay with China working out their labor conditions and pay. If we want to be competitive, we'll do what we can.

I am not OK with China "working out there pay" as you so downplay. If you are in fact for free trade and markets, then how in the world can you possibly idle by as that country defecates on all worker human rights that our lawmakers ruled vital to the growth of our country for over 100 stinking years? More pointedly, how can you in good conscience label all the advancements I listed above as being anti laissez faire? Are you OK with monopolies? Libertarians are. Are you pro oligopolies, whereby price manipulation is the norm? Libertarians are. Are you for foreign countries siphoning off the fruits of their labor under unfair labor laws to the tune of a trillion or so per annum?. Libertarians are.
Are you against every piece of legislation that has granted workers rights... certain work life balances, such as a 40 hour work week etcetera...which has been a part of American labor law for over a century? Libertarians are against that legislation. Do you think that the unemployed, the workers that get hurt on the job, even through company liability should receive zero compensation? Libertarians do. Do you think people should work at 3 dollars and hour, without any government subsidy, and literally starving those that work at those wages to death, and I do mean starving to death as in the great depression both here and abroad, because food stamps are against principle? Well libertarians do. Need more? How much more?

Other overhead ... that which isn't as much about working conditions as it is about silly or redundant regulations involving industries themselves ... would be another key area that COULD help us be more competitive if we stopped looking so much for boogie men in corporate closets.

You've changed the topic in order to sooth the pain of being on the wrong side of the issue. We are talking about labor practices in China..versus labor practices in the US. If you want to discuss the little guy that has to fork over an annual fee of $150 bucks per annum to build toilet seats...fine. That's not the issue here...at all. Don't convolute something trivial with something that has cost American to go from full employment (5%)....to a present day unemployment rate of 14.5%....or 1 out of 7 workers in our country....losing their homes, their cars, their TV sets...college educated people living on the streets, revenues wayyyy down to the government, and a society that is completely and utterly sick with despair....with absolutely no end in sight. And you are OK with that. Incredible...to say the least. BTW, that annual fee doesn't cause you to go broke...it's a cost of doing business, nothing more. And....inside America all companies have to abide by the nation's rules. There is no competitive edge gained by those who make toilet seats. Period.

Not the U. S. And because it is China instead of the U. S., the U. S. has no grounds for forcing them to run business according to our standards. To what authority would we appeal to do so?

I said it several times above. And you apparently don't agree. The US as a sovereign nation has every right in the world to expect their free trading partners to abide by a set of international standards as purported by our own legislature as well as the WTO. I can't help you if you think that all of things I listed above are trumped by your nonsensical view that America has no choice in the matter. Well we do. But we don't do a damn thing in enforcement, not because of free trade as one would believe. But the circumvension of rational, sane, logical, labor laws as espoused by the WTO, dodged by the American corporatists that profit from the illegality of the entire scam. For over a century I must add..again. Utilizing American made capital, with American made ingenuity, with American labor both white and blue collared. They sold it all down the river to sate the lust of the quarterly profit, at the expense of Americans. It's really that simple.

So you seek what is wrought....against the very fundamental tenet of the constitution in protecting the welfare of it's people...once again to the tune of 14.5% unemployment. A Broadening gap between has and has beens, and a complete combustion of the American hard working middle class. And now a full 61% of Americans see absolutely no hope for America, as they have first hand witnessed their net worth dwindle on average a whopping 39% over the past 4 years. What's the common denominator here, O-Trap? Well, what is it? Why have we now become the greatest debtor nation on the planet, whenever 30 short years ago we were the greatest net exporter? It's called "outsourcing" to the tune of 3.2 million jobs.

However, perhaps delving into the '80s is a good idea. Unemployment went from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. Inflation rate went from 10% to 4% during the same timeframe. The GDP went from -0.3% growth in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988

You should re analize what Reagan was...and what he wasn't. What he did, and what he didn't do. Not going to delve into everything, but when you have absolutely no control of your government purse strings, as Reagan didn't, then you have an artificially bloated snapshop of GDP growth. Once again, I reiterate...under Reagan's lax initiatives on doing what was good for Americans, we all watched in horror as the greatest economy on the planet bacame the greatest needs based country on cheap foreign imports. Moreover, those that calculate the GDP began including imports as a part of GDP for the first time ever....one of the biggest ruses in the history of recording the economic health of a country.

Now I'm not even a Reaganite. There were plenty of things I don't like about Reagan's time in office (namely the increase in spending), but I do find it interesting that, when speaking of that decade, you applied a different metric than you had to the century prior.

The metrics I've included are accurate, pertinent, and certainly on point to the issue at hand.

Ah, good. A nice long rant that doesn't even address what I said. All I said was that we have a perspective that is tainted by our history. Yes, entitled. There ARE things we think we are entitled to, myself included.

The word "entitled" was not used derrogatively. It was used to literally mean that we have established what we think people deserve. Other countries have different histories, and they've either arrived at different conclusions or are at a different point in their progression

I know you didn't mean it in that manner but I fear this sort of logic could be used to back away progresses we've made in civil rights and such.

Abusing the workforce was wrong when it was the norm here and it's wrong when it's done elsewhere now. Just as our treatment of minorities and women and lgbt people was (and to some extent still is) wrong and the way those groups are treated in some countries is wrong. Flat out. Their progress as a nation or government or whatever does not excuse abuses which go against the most basic sense of humanity.

I Wear Pants;1255959 wrote:I know you didn't mean it in that manner but I fear this sort of logic could be used to back away progresses we've made in civil rights and such.

That is a conclusion at which we have arrived as a society. How do we verify that it is the best or correct one? Our sensibilities?

I Wear Pants;1255959 wrote: Abusing the workforce was wrong when it was the norm here and it's wrong when it's done elsewhere now.

I don't disagree, but based on what?

I Wear Pants;1255959 wrote:Just as our treatment of minorities and women and lgbt people was (and to some extent still is) wrong and the way those groups are treated in some countries is wrong.

Ah, but THESE can be seen as inequality, and are based on their identities. How is the parallel drawn from this to "we should legislate financial compensation for employees who get laid off," or "40 hours is enough work, and we should protect people from working more without additional compensation for doing so?"

As it pertains to inequality, it makes logical sense that there is a right (equal) and a wrong (subjectively unequal) way of treating others, employees or otherwise. However, things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, disability laws, and the like don't fit that same criterion. Hell, if we're going to be technical, child labor laws could be seen as ageism, but that's a different discussion. Minimum wage laws weren't balancing out an unequal treatment of equal entities.

So, the question that remains is this: If objective logic cannot establish a foundation for some of these labor laws, then why do we assert them as objectively true, such that we feel justified in the view that our way is just better? Is it because it comes off as nicer? Where was that ever established as correct?

I Wear Pants;1255959 wrote:Flat out. Their progress as a nation or government or whatever does not excuse abuses which go against the most basic sense of humanity.

This "sense of humanity" appears to be subjective as you travel across the world. Why is our sense of humanity more objectively correct than theirs?

Foot, I'll have to take a rain check until I get some time to sit down. As you can see by the time stamp, it's 1:10am Ohio time, and I'm pretty bushed.

Cleveland Buck;1255576 wrote:You don't understand what "free market" means. There are no central banks in a free market. Money is determined by whoever wants to use it or take it, not some central authority that prints it and uses government guns to enforce their monopoly. Anyone who criticizes central banking is also criticizing the government that gives them their power. There is nothing "laissez faire" about it.

Oh...gee...I think I know exactly what free markets mean. I've written more about the subject, and the follies of such, probably moreso than the rest of the chatterers combined.

You see, you and O-Trap have fallen into the abyss of being programmed to blame government, inspite of the overwhelming evidence that there exists a crystal clear collaboration and collusion of blame.,,both government and the corporate elite. Remind me a lot of Orwell's Animal Farm whereby Boxer would say "2 legs bad, 4 legs good". (translated to government bad, unbridled capitalism good), without any semblance of thought and reasoning in binding to that position.

The two of you can't even acknowledge the truth that the government is controlled by the power elite. And really, there is no rational argument to present to counter this.

Somehow, i suppose, the deregulation of the investment banking cartel, which undeniably led to the demise of 39% of America's wealth was all "due to bad government". LOL. Boxer: "2 legs bad, 4 legs good". Refrain...over and over.

The same principle holds true regarding the Fed, the Treasury, and the monetary policy. You think it's all the gobblement's doing. Well, it really isn't...as policy is ordered by the very few.

Following the money trail is a pretty simple concept wouldn't you agree? So who collects the interest from the fiat money created out of thin air? A clue....it ain't the government. Another clue...It is the private sector.


But, but, but....Refrain: "2 legs bad...4 legs good" .

O-Trap;1256023 wrote:So, the question that remains is this: If objective logic cannot establish a foundation for some of these labor laws, then why do we assert them as objectively true, such that we feel justified in the view that our way is just better? Is it because it comes off as nicer? Where was that ever established as correctThis "sense of humanity" appears to be subjective as you travel across the world. Why is our sense of humanity more objectively correct than theirs?

Sweet Jesus and holy moley. We are not talking philosophy here. No "I think, therefore I am" hooey. We are talking about 100 years of proven success acknowledging labor law principles that provided for the greatest wealth in the history of the globe for chrissakes. The numbers, O-Trap...the numbers. They don't lie.

Try the right list versus left list on unbridled free trade versus fair trade. The fair trades benefits list would number ten to one in advantages over the disadvantages. Easily.

Imagine our country today...at full employment. Do you think the pulse of the nation would reflect anything near to what exists today? Really and truly...think about THAT for one lousy minute.

Anyone that truly loves our country...and I mean truly loves our country, need to set aside all their preconceived notions on the "philosophy of internationally unbridled free trade" and envision a true environment whereby all the ships would be rising again...in America...as opposed to this infestation of negativity and hopelessness that has permeated our entire band of citizens.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote:Sweet Jesus and holy moley. We are not talking philosophy here. No "I think, therefore I am" hooey.

Where did I say we were using DeCartesian philosophy in this? I said 'logic'. Please tell me that you don't think logic only serves a purpose in philosophy.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote:We are talking about 100 years of proven success acknowledging labor law principles that provided for the greatest wealth in the history of the globe for chrissakes.

So, we are able to draw direct correlations between the wealth and the labor laws. Okay, I'm listening. Draw it.

Now, prove that we have grounds for using those facts to force this on all businesses.

Finally, prove that we should force it on other nations' businesses as well.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote: The numbers, O-Trap...the numbers. They don't lie.

Indeed, but neither does correlation prove causation. The numbers tell us that less crime is committed when more hot chocolate is consumed. Doesn't mean hot chocolate will stave off crime.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote:Try the right list versus left list on unbridled free trade versus fair trade. The fair trades benefits list would number ten to one in advantages over the disadvantages. Easily.

Again, I'm listening.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote: Imagine our country today...at full employment. Do you think the pulse of the nation would reflect anything near to what exists today? Really and truly...think about THAT for one lousy minute.

And if 'ifs' and 'buts' were fruits and nuts ...

Dear lord, and people think that liberty is too "pie-in-the-sky."

Our country today at full employment ... would likely be closer to possible without minimum wage laws, not to mention some of the non-labor-related regulations that require extra red tape and paperwork, not to mention money which could be used to employ people.

Countries have tried to require other nations to fit their own various parameters in order to do business before. China was much more of a question mark to us for a long time because of it. Low and behold, all it did was hold them back technologically and economically.

Footwedge;1256747 wrote:Anyone that truly loves our country...and I mean truly loves our country, need to set aside all their preconceived notions on the "philosophy of internationally unbridled free trade" and envision a true environment whereby all the ships would be rising again...in America...as opposed to this infestation of negativity and hopelessness that has permeated our entire band of citizens.

Problem is, there is only so much ocean, and eventually, some ships fall to make others rise.

If someone truly loves our country, they'd hold the principle of independence for which we fought in high regard. Independence - the right to be free from restraint or unnecessary burden.

The idea that ostracizing trade partners who have different human rights social norms would somehow raise all our ships isn't even logical. Driving us closer to economic and market trade isolationism -- further limiting our ability to compete in the global market -- will only make us an obsolete dinosaur, like China was at one point.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote:Oh...gee...I think I know exactly what free markets mean. I've written more about the subject, and the follies of such, probably moreso than the rest of the chatterers combined.

Perhaps I've read one of your books or articles. You mind citing?

Footwedge;1256720 wrote: You see, you and O-Trap have fallen into the abyss of being programmed to blame government, inspite of the overwhelming evidence that there exists a crystal clear collaboration and collusion of blame.,,both government and the corporate elite.

A couple things.

1. I was programmed to believe government was supposed to be involved in our daily lives.

2. I believe government, at some level, is a necessity to preserve the rights of the minority in a given scenario.

3. I agree that there is collusion between government and corporate America that has been crippling. Government doesn't get a free pass, because at the end of the day, it's their choice to dance. Corporate America can try to be a seductive mistress all it wants, but that doesn't vindicate Uncle Sam from jumping into bed, when technically, the power in the relationship rests with the government.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote:Remind me a lot of Orwell's Animal Farm whereby Boxer would say "2 legs bad, 4 legs good". (translated to government bad, unbridled capitalism good), without any semblance of thought and reasoning in binding to that position.

Droll. As I just said, government is not bad. Government is necessary. Hell, government is inevitable, as voluntaryism doesn't work for long, and it usually ends up with a dictatorship. So, it appears that your translation is a bit off.

Moreover, the "unbridled capitalism" part is even disingenuous. What I think is good is having the rights to what is mine and you having the rights to what is yours. I've yet to see any rational justification to limit that to private life or personal possessions.

Now, if you're intending to vilify the notion that I should be able to do what I please with what is mine, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do as they please with what is theirs, then by all means, explain your reason for it. I'm open to hearing it.

As it stands, just as a basketball is mine, a business is mine. I can shoot hoops with the basketball. I can practice spinning it on my finger. I can use it as a foot stool. I can do what I want with it, provided I don't infringe, as stated above.

However, suddenly there is an ex nihilo rationale for my business ... just as much my possession ... being more and more regulated.

Do you see the disconnect?

Footwedge;1256720 wrote:The two of you can't even acknowledge the truth that the government is controlled by the power elite.

I just laughed. You really think two Libertarian-leaning people don't realize that the government in a choke hold by just such people?

You know what's crazy? If the government didn't have the kind of power it does, those with the death grip on it would probably let go, because it wouldn't serve that much of a purpose to hold on.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote:Somehow, i suppose, the deregulation of the investment banking cartel, which undeniably led to the demise of 39% of America's wealth was all "due to bad government". LOL. Boxer: "2 legs bad, 4 legs good". Refrain...over and over.

Not in the slightest. Propping that bank cartel up certainly was, though.

And I have to wonder if those banks would have risked their livelihoods on the risky business they were in had they not had that safety net.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote: The same principle holds true regarding the Fed, the Treasury, and the monetary policy. You think it's all the gobblement's doing. Well, it really isn't...as policy is ordered by the very few.

I have to admit, I'd like some clarification as to what you mean here.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote: Following the money trail is a pretty simple concept wouldn't you agree? So who collects the interest from the fiat money created out of thin air? A clue....it ain't the government. Another clue...It is the private sector.

Following money trails is indeed a simple concept, but not necessarily a simple process. So I have to ask, how does this interest get from the Fed to the private sector fat cats? And what is your hypothesis as to why, since I'm assuming it is cohesive with the rest of your view? Is the poor, little (I actually chuckled typing 'little') Federal government being bullied by these big, mean corporate types?

Naturally, I don't mean to insult your intelligence. It's as quid-pro-quo as it gets. The difference is that those corporations would all be left with their pants down if the Federal government wasn't dealing with them.

Footwedge;1256720 wrote:But, but, but....Refrain: "2 legs bad...4 legs good" .

You do know that argumentum ad nauseam doesn't make this any more true, right?