Ron Paul

From http://bx.businessweek.com/dealing-with-the-home-mortgage-crisis-/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Flibertyrevival.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F03%2Fthe-austrian-school-deception-22%2F



Ron Paul is Acceptable
January 18, 2010 by Keith Gardner

Don’t take the headline as a limp-wristed endorsement from me. The headline is intended to have a double meaning. I would completely support a Ron Paul Presidency with the knowledge that it would be acceptable to the New World Order if things go completely wrong for them. I say that not as a means of saying Ron Paul is a willing participant of the larger conspiracy but as a message of hope that it could happen.

The New World Order is not past the point of no return. They still have Ron Paul. Ron Paul is part of the controlled paradigm. You would understand this if you follow my writings on the Henry George conspiracy. Ron Paul’s economic policy is an old world paradigm of land monopoly capitalism. Ludwig von Mises was the establishment’s accepted debunking of their other accepted paradigm of socialism. It is part of the greater philosophical and false left versus right paradigm. The globalist elite could still continue to operate. They would still be able to sell gold to the state for profit, use their gold-backed money to loan to others at interest, manipulate commodity prices, control the media, lobby the politicians, and monopolize land and businesses.

They would allow Ron Paul to even dismantle the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is just a tool. Losing it would be a major setback, but it could be dismantled without exposing their wealth and power. They could still retain their wealth and power, just perhaps they wouldn’t have as much power.

They would allow Ron Paul to bring home the troops. While they wouldn’t allow Ron Paul to admit that 9/11 was an inside, they would allow Ron Paul to bring home the troops.

I am not saying David Rockefeller took Ron Paul in a back room and said, you can talk about Austrian economics, ending the Federal Reserve, and bringing home the troops all you want, but you’re not allowed to talk about Henry George, 9/11 being an inside job, and the greater conspiracy. I am saying that Ron Paul took it upon myself to offer an acceptable alternative to the New World Order. He decided he could be more effective if he worked from within the system. He made the great compromise as a strategy though I’m not sure how much of that was intentional or how much of that was by accident out of political expediency and his own misunderstandings.

I am speculating some on this matter. If the majority of the people would vote for Ron Paul, the New World Order must know that the people haven’t bought into their last century of scams. I’m not sure how they would react, but I assume a rational thought process of allowing a candidate in the controlled paradigm to move forward without doing something even more drastically stupid than the things they already do, like start a nuclear war.

Ron Paul would be a defeat for the New World Order. While the resulting economic system would not be Georgist, it would be more acceptable to me than the system we have now. It would mean that we would not have to push the elite into a corner to the point where they do something like destroy the planet. It would mean that Georgism would be the new information war if we returned to an age before Woodrow Wilson where the problem was monopoly capitalism without agrarian justice. It would mean that we would have a tongue-in-cheek representation, and Ron Paul does literally do that well, on their controlled stage.

A populist Georgist movement is more harmful to the New World Order than monopoly capitalism. In MLK’s final book and speeches, MLK often quoted Henry George and proposed a citizen dividend, which he called a guaranteed minimum income, a bit tongue-in-cheek since he isn’t admitting land value taxes are actually a collection of justified rent to the owners of the planet, the people. The rest is history. A populist movement which supported both capitalism and agrarian justice over socialism and the corrupted and inefficient welfare state was unacceptable to the New World Order. Elimination of poverty was not something the New World Order would want, nor would they want to lose their tax haven of holding vast amounts of land.

You will hear mainstream Libertarians speak glowingly of Henry George though the utterances are rare. Planting the seeds are important so people will learn and understand. However, I don’t think anyone wants to become too popular promoting a Georgist position without false pretense because of the threat it proposes to a ruthless and monolithic ruling elite.


________________


From http://bx.businessweek.com/dealing-with-the-home-mortgage-crisis-/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Flibertyrevival.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F03%2Fthe-austrian-school-deception-22%2F



THE AUSTRIAN DECEPTION: ECONOMIC SNAKE-OIL PUSHED UPON LIBERTARIANS

BY JEREMY SOFIAN

POSTFACE BY KEITH GARDNER

PART 3 – POSTFACE: CRITICISMS / CLARIFICATIONS

I wanted to use this postface to give my rationale for publishing this document and to provide my own clarifications, comments, and criticisms.

PART 3-1: RATIONAL

While this document in it’s current form is not suitable for a formal essay or treatise, it is a good starting point for such a work.

There has been much work in the left vs. right paradigm to formally criticize the Marxist, Keynesian, and Austrian paradigms. There are valid aspects to the paradigms. However, it is an incomplete set of paradigms. They are too simple to represent reality. They all contain ill-definition, invalid arguments, and dishonest aspects, which prevent better conception and definition. As a result, the scientific parameters of their validity are ill-defined and not understood by the laity.

I believe the intent of the Austrian School has been to corrupt their own propaganda with focus to the extreme right of their domain in order to push political movement towards the left or towards Marxism with absurd claims under the false pretense of trying to move the center of debate towards their side of the spectrum, while they intentionally corrupt the understanding of monetary policy in case of push-back and to prevent popular calls for more proper monetary reform by pushing forward a flawed and unacceptable monetary reform as the opposition to the current, equally flawed, monetary policy.

Henry George did significant work to provide formal definition. The Founding Fathers and previous economists never expressed these ideas in formal definitions outside of an anarchist paradigm, but they understood them intuitively, as common sense, and expressed them, both in their words and their acts in the forming of the U.S. government. You would think such an important and influential economist would be better understood and acknowledged by economists and policy-makers in their publications and works rather than systematically ignored, casually and dishonestly criticized on rare occasion, or on rare occasion given brief lip-service of praise, with notable praise from a wide range of people from Winston Churchill, MLK, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, David Nolan, Albert Einsten, Albert J. Nock, and many others. I’ve even personally heard Harry Browne speak glowingly of Henry George on his radio program. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Adam Smith, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and many others also expressed these ideas directly before they were defined.

There hasn’t been much work to expose the suppression of the Henry George paradigm and the ill-conception of the Austrian, Keynesian, and Marxist paradigms. There has been formal work done to expose the conspiracy behind the suppression of the Henry George paradigm, such as economics professor Mason Gaffney’s Neo-classical Economics as a Statagem against Henry George.

There has been informal work to expose the ill-conception behind the Marxist and Keynesian paradigms, with the “Rothschilds Conduct ’Red Symphony’” by Dr. Makow being popular among conspiracy theory, though there is much more evidence beyond the “Red Symphony” documents. However, this work is usually overshadowed by the dishonest perspective from an opposing false paradigm.

With the Austrian perspective being the least threatening, however, just as dangerous, the least amount of work has been done to expose the Austrian perspective because the largest push is towards the Marxist paradigm. With push-back towards the older fraud of the Austrian school rather than the more defined and truthful paradigm of Georgism being exerted in the truth and related movements, the dangers of the Austrian perspective are more threatening, and thus, there is a need to expose the ills of the Austrian school and truths of Georgism to the laity who are finally expressing themselves and gaining influential power.

Since debt-based currency is inflationary and commodity-based currency is deflationary, I would suggest listening to the warning of Jefferson. Furthermore, since commodity-based currency is inflationary during depopulation, I definitely see the New World Order going back on commodity-based currency when they start depopulation, with the expectation they can enslave the population with deflation once depopulation is done.

There is much more to be said of the paradigm structure. I would like to start with what I have found to be the most concise summary, How do we divide the fruits of labor? I will also be blogging more on this topic.

PART 3-2: BACKGROUND

I was recently introduced to Jeremy on FaceBook from a friend because we were both engaged in exposing the fraud of the gold standard as well as criticizing the Libertarian Party and their foundations for having a heavy bias towards propagandizing the Austrian School of Economics and suppressing Georgist economic thought, even though many among the ranks are very favorable of Georgist economics.

We both have a common ground from coming from the truth movement, associated with the patriot and tea party movement. We both have a similar view of the big picture, and it’s importance in the truth movement. I liked Jeremy because he seemed to be strong in areas where I was particularly weak. He had done the deep research and knows the details. He could give the details of who, what, and where.

PART 3-3: COMMODITIES AND CURRENCIES

Commodities and currencies are distinct classes of objects. Currencies can not be defined as commodities like the Austrian School of Economics tries to impose. A smoker will buy cigarettes to smoke. A non-smoker will only buy cigarettes to trade. People will buy gold for jewelry or an electrical conductor. Others will only buy gold to trade. A currency is not associated with it’s intrinsic value, but is associated with it’s value as a means of exchange. It can be said in economic collapse, paper has more intrinsic value than gold since it could be used for hygiene; whereas, a yellow rock wouldn’t serve one as well as lead. Unless gold is used as a currency, it can be said the toilet paper would have greater intrinsic value than gold. However, to be fair, I would give you shovel for a couple gold coins so that I can buy a roll of toilet paper in such a situation.

Gold is a luxury and want, not a need. The rarity of the rock is what makes it most volatile when adopted, used, or abandoned as a currency. The rarity and the intrinsic value it has as a commodity is not what makes it a good currency as Austrians would claim; in fact, it is what makes it a bad choice as a means of exchange for it’s volatile nature. The claim that it is rare, and thus, difficult to print, is not a valid argument against a fiat. You can equally claim you can make it Constitutional law that fiat simply can’t be printed, that it must be managed to maintain value. If you don’t trust the long-term aspects of Constitutional law, you can still buy gold, free of inflated prices, since it isn’t being used as a standard means of exchange, in order to store wealth over the long-term. Others may more wisely choose other commodities, consumer and capital goods, of more need and practical want, in order to store their wealth in the event of economic collapse of a standard currency.

Lead, ammunition, toilet paper, cigarettes, and gold are commodities, traded for their intrinsic value. Gold coins and paper bills are currencies, traded as a means of exchange, with the preference that the currency maintains value rather than reflect the changing free market valuation of the commodity. Debt-based fiat does not maintain value. Gold does not maintain value. One is economically inflationary while the other is economically deflationary under normal economic conditions. Debt-based currency in theory can be deflationary and is prone to hyper-inflation. Gold may even rapidly decrease in value, causing hyper-inflation, in the event of economic collapse through such things as depopulation. Neither function well as a means of exchange.

One area of criticism is on Jeremy’s declaration that there is not enough gold to represent the wealth of people. This is true if the price of gold is held constant at it’s current price. This statement does expose the fact that gold would have to inflate in price in the market, and it would, if it were adopted as a currency. As the wealth of the people increase, gold would continue to inflate. This is the deflationary nature of gold and is central to why gold is bad as a currency. Gold does not maintain a stable value, especially when used as a currency.

Also, I personally was not aware gold was being used to standardize the exchange of currencies. I have not thought or researched much on this topic. Jeremy has stated that gold is not useful as a currency. However, he has stated it is a useful application of gold to use it as a standard for the exchange of international currencies to prevent systematic collapse. Thus, it seems important to not come off this standard. I would need to do further research and analysis on this topic since there are threats of changing the international standards. If the international banking cartel were intent on crashing the world economy, they would target changing an international standard, which was working correctly to prevent systematic collapse when individual currencies fail, which were designed to fail, like our own Federal Reserve system of debt-based currency.

I will say people like G. Edward Griffin do raise valid points, but they are still part of the Austrian fraud when they promote the gold fraud. For example, Griffin is correct that you wouldn’t still owe interest after paying off all debt in the Federal Reserve system. However, as Griffin points out, the people will still have to pay the banks back with some labor and will still have no money. Some of the people supporting a public fiat don’t always have their facts completely straight, but who does in this corrupt system where the only people paid to get facts straight are paid to make sure their facts aren’t straight.

PART 3-4: REGULATIONS

I feel it would be important to clearly define what a good regulation is and what a bad regulation is. A good regulation works to prevent fraud. A bad regulation works to enable fraud. A regulation against derivatives is a regulation to stop economic fraud. A regulation requiring electronic identification of animals is a regulation which enables economic fraud since it enables larger corporations to force smaller corporations out of business, since the smaller corporations do not have the margins to encumber such a cost with negligible benefit.

A good regulation prevents one in reasonable manner from causing harm to another. Requiring a pilot’s license to fly helps stop reckless people from crashing from harming others in the public sky or on the ground. Requiring a license to smoke cigarettes does not harm other people and is thus a bad regulation. While there is a mild correlation between spousal exposure and heart disease, there isn’t a correlation from casual exposure. Stopping people from drinking and driving is a reasonable regulation since that activity can harm innocent people using public roads. Stopping people from drinking is an unreasonable regulation. Like in smoking, if someone’s drinking causes you harm, you already have the right to leave that relationship.

It is within the Libertarian domain to argue for regulations, since fraud is considered a crime with a victim. For Austrians to allow unbalanced arguments from their anarchist elements to argue against regulation of fraud is dishonest and self-destructive since it detracts from their more legitimate purpose of guarding against regulations which fall in the gray areas of reasonable and of regulations being fraud themselves.

PART 3-5: INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure is a gray area. First, there are different types of infrastructure. There are clearly defined infrastructure related to national defense and land use or right of way. Second, there are other types of infrastructure which do not have clear definition, with unique considerations for each, for determining whether it should be a public or private service.

It can be said that allowing private citizens to own arms is sufficient. However, I’m not sure if that argument held up for the American Indians. Given historical evidence, I believe governments should be concerned with national defense and expenditure towards that goal, especially in the area of assessing threats and providing the infrastructure and technology to guard against assessed threats.

There are gray areas in the question of balance of power between the national government, state governments, and individuals. There are gray areas in the use of preemptive or offensive force. There are gray areas in the use of standing armies. I tend to agree with the Austrians in these areas, and it is of proper domain for the Austrians to work as a balance of argument in these areas.

Related is law enforcement. Libertarian principle is to secure rights against violence. Law enforcement is natural consequence. The area of private security falls in the equally valid area of self-defense, and contract enforcement falls in a related area of law enforcement.

Involvement in infrastructure related to large amounts of land use is probably the most clear domain of the government under Georgist principles. This includes the areas of zoning and rights of way for roads, bridges, utilities and other such infrastructure.

You do want to give people the ability to travel across the land freely, as the Native Americans, or properly distribute water to land, without having competing parties to invest large amounts in redundant purchase of land. You can’t make more land.

The infrastructure related to building a sports stadium should be the concern of zoning rather than right of way. The state should not provide the land or development of land for a sports stadium, but should provide the zoning of it. You don’t want the state determining the proper use of such land but do want to make sure the use of the land doesn’t negatively affect the value of land around it. It is often the community which gives value to land, and to destroy that value for individual profit is theft. I should stress “for individual profit” since you don’t want to prevent someone, such as a disabled person, from having land if they don’t maintain the property to the standards of the community. That is the domain of planned urban development or at most within the domain of local government in an established urban community where there are other options of choosing to live in a urban community without requirement to keep the grass mowed.

I believe currency to be in a unique class where the state has proper domain since profit motives to facilitate bartering with currency have been subject to fraud throughout history and since the profit can be destructive to the overall functions of an economy.

It is the gray areas of ill-definition where the Austrians have a proper domain. Again, it is the gray areas where the Austrians have domain, and spending too much time far to the right of that domain is dishonest and self-destructive. These gray areas include the postal system, insurance, healthcare, fire departments, and privatization of utilities where the public right of way is preserved.

There are valid concerns where free market competition can lead to great waste and systematic fraud. Likewise, there are valid concerns where free market competition can provide services for cheaper and with more flexibility. It is here where we have to weigh the concerns.

Having said all of that, I believe “provide for the General Welfare” clause in the U.S. Constitution does cover this area of infrastructure, as well as a general notion of social safety net since the lack of a social safety net can be destructive to the community as a whole. From Georgism, we find that a social safety net can be provided more effectively than the current socialistic methods when utilized with Thomas Paine’s early concept of a citizen dividend in a principled and justified manner of agrarian justice, which respects the free market.

I believe the clause “to promote the Arts and Sciences” was specifically in regards to intellectual property rights. However, science and general academic knowledge and research can be regarded as infrastructure. It is up to debate to how far that should go. I generally regard the arts as strictly entertainment, whether commercial or hobby, and shouldn’t be pursued by government except to provide intellectual property rights. Funding in the sciences without immediate commercial application may be justified. However, I believe it should be limited to understanding government functions and actual applications of government in the areas of national defense, land use, and other infrastructure. Science without commercial application is usually pursued for entertainment as a hobby just the same without the need for government involvement.

I don’t agree with nuclear power. I believe the waste product to be undesired unless blasted into space, as well as a unreasonable safety risk. I don’t trust the free market nor the state with it. However, the area of energy is a gray area of infrastructure, except in the case of right of way or the use of natural resources, which are technically, not the product of human labor, and thus, community property.

Education is an important gray area of concern. Education is prone to be used for indoctrination rather than education in both the private and public sector and has also gained in importance. I believe a Georgist policy of providing a citizen dividend, voucher, and/or some subsidy would give students better choices with the K-12 modeled after the university system rather than the university system modeled after the K-12 system. I believe the American university system has performed much better than the K-12 system, though they are both still prone to indoctrination. The trick is determining how much power the state can have in the curriculum. You want the state to guard against indoctrination without imposing it’s own indoctrination.