Republicans face two likely paths for their party’s future: Ron Paul’s libertarianism or a more moderate baseThe Raw Story
Will Rand and Ron Paul transform the GOP?
Colin Horgan | The Guardian
Republicans face two likely paths for their party’s future: Ron Paul’s libertarianism or a more moderate baseThe Raw Story
26 comments:
Ron Paul is not s libertarian! Instead, he favors using the taxation authority and power of government to back a shiny metal - gold.
Ron would add private counterfeiting of government money to our current system of bank/FED counterfeiting of private money.
"Ron would add private counterfeiting of government money to our current system of bank/FED counterfeiting of private money."
Yes. Thank God for the competition.
http://news.coinupdate.com/ron-pauls-free-competition-in-currency-act-lives-on-1795/
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/index.htm
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/gold-and-silver-approved-as-legal-tender-by-arizona-senate/
What I would really like to see would be a 1 ounce silver and/or gold coin with an embedded digital chip that displays in real time the USD price of silver or gold.
What I would really like to see would be a 1 ounce silver and/or gold coin with an embedded digital chip that displays in real time the USD price of silver or gold.
Not needed in the age of the smartphone. If no one has written an app yet, I'm sure someone will. :)
F. Beard,
Where are you getting that "money" should best be "private"?
rsp,
"Not needed in the age of the smartphone. If no one has written an app yet, I'm sure someone will. :)"
I agree Tom but an actual coin with an embedded chip like that would be very convenient and I reckon would sell like McDonalds burgers. Some enterprising entrepreneur should have a go at it. Hmmnnn..... That gives me an idea!
1 ounce of gold is currently selling for $1578.40
http://www.goldpriceoz.com/gold-price-per-ounce/
Why would you use 1 oz gold coins to buy things?
Why wouldn't you just keep it in a vault, if what you want is gold?
Where are you getting that "money" should best be "private"? Matt Franko
What I'm actually saying is that government created money should only be legal tender for government and I think it is implied in Matthew 22:16-22 ("Render to Caesar ..."). Of course, people could and would often use government money for private debts too but they would not be forced to by, say, unfair advantages for fiat or government backed credit.
From Rombach's link:
"Rep. Paul Broun Jr. of Georgia has introduced the "Free Competition in Currency Act of 2013" in the 113th Congress. This bill contains the same provisions as bills previously introduced by former Congressman Ron Paul, which seek to repeal legal tender laws and prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion.
The newly introduced bill H.R. 77 seeks to repeal Section 5103 or title 31, which states "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts." This would be replaced by "5103. [Repealed]."
The bill also provides that no tax may be imposed with the respect to the sale, exchange, or other disposition of any coin, medal, token, or gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or rhodium bullion, whether issued by a State, the United States, a foreign government, or any other person. Further, no state may asses any tax or fee any any currency or monetary instrument used in the transaction of interstate or foreign commerce which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution".
This is not a "free competition in currency act", it's a "Ron Paul's preferred special tax privileges act".
y, Libertarians are against sovereignty other than "individual sovereignty." All these proposals are to reduce with a view to eliminating all sovereignty other than individual sovereignty.
Ron Paul's problem is that he is attempting to define what private money is. But that is absurd. Who knows what a genuine free market in private money creation might come up? Instead, fiat should be carefully defined so that it is de jure and de facto legal tender for government debts only though it could, of course, be voluntarily used for private debts too. Also, all government privileges for existing private money forms, such as bank credit, should be abolished.
Ron Paul's problem is that he is attempting to define what private money is. But that is absurd. Who knows what a genuine free market in private money creation might come up? Instead, fiat should be carefully defined so that it is de jure and de facto legal tender for government debts only though it could, of course, be voluntarily used for private debts too. Also, all government privileges for existing private money forms, such as bank credit, should be abolished.
I am in general agreement with that view. Treat banks as private firms and let them access state currency through equity, revenue, or borrowing in the private sector lie other private entities. Cut 'em loose.
I would also have government offer retal banking services that it is already performing with the banks as its agents. This could be done through community credit unions, for instance, which have performed this function quite well.
The monetary sovereign SHOULD offer a risk-free fiat storage and transaction service for all its citizens since the monetary sovereign SHOULD cancel its provision of deposit insurance to the "private" sector.
However, that service should make no loans and pay no interest since lending is inherently discriminatory and because one should not receive interest for taking no risks.
Govt agencies now underwrite most mortgages. No reason for govt not to extend low cost long term mortgage lending to just about anyone that is a reasonable candidate for home ownership. Limited, of course, to one owner-occupied primary residence.
"fiat should be carefully defined so that it is de jure and de facto legal tender for government debts only"
That doesn't make sense. You're saying the state shouldn't recognise its own currency as legal tender.
The entire population (excluding the super-rich in most cases), including non-debtors, DESERVES restitution at least until all deposits are 100% backed by reserves. That would eliminate the need for much borrowing and would finally give all Americans substantial EQUITY in the country their stolen purchasing power built.
You're saying the state shouldn't recognise its own currency as legal tender. y
A country's fiat would be the ONLY acceptable means of paying government debts. As for private debts, fiat or any other money could be mutually agreed upon by contracting parties.
"As for private debts, fiat or any other money could be mutually agreed upon by contracting parties."
But you're saying that the state would not recognise its own currency as being *legal tender* in private transactions within its jurisdiction. So you're saying the state shouldn't reconise its own currency as legal tender. Which doesn't make sense.
"As for private debts, fiat or any other money could be mutually agreed upon by contracting parties."
This is already the case.
"The entire population, including non-debtors, DESERVES restitution at least until all deposits are 100% backed by reserves."
What do you mean? Everyone should get - what, $200K from the government? More? What are you saying exactly?
F,
What I'm actually saying is that government created money should only be legal tender for government and I think it is implied in Matthew 22:16-22 ("Render to Caesar ..."). Of course, people could and would often use government money for private debts too but they would not be forced to by, say, unfair advantages for fiat or government backed credit."
I see what your saying and in many ways agree.. but other things have to come with this type of reform...
see my yesterday post on "surplus value" distribution back then.... with that kind of surplus value being distributed, not much credit (if any) would be required....
And then there is tax policy, all they were doing back then was a "poll tax" or in Greek "kensous" where we get "census" which was probably very reasonable and periodic.
They spent the denarius to provision the govt. and left it to circulate... the disciples were walking around with enough denarius to at least feed 5,000 people...
The officials back then were not morons and knew how to run a nomisma system... it depends on low taxes and high spending on provision, significant wages, and robust distribution of surplus value and allowing private savings of your currency...
Not much credit would be required in and economy running like that... so you wouldnt have to worry about it...
rsp,
Not much credit would be required in and economy running like that... Matt Franko
Ha,ha! Everyone thinks private money must be debt! But common stock requires no debt and instead of concentrating wealth and power, it "shares" them.
But yes, the monetary sovereign should spend freely (without borrowing!) and tax little. But private monies are needed to shield the private sector from the monetary sovereign spending too little or spending too much.
Everyone should get - what, $200K from the government? y
Whatever it takes to back all deposits 100% with reserves. And if the banks were at least temporarily forbidden from creating new credit (they still could practice 100% reserve lending) then the restitution checks could be metered out to just replace existing credit as it is repaid without causing an increase in the total money supply (reserves + credit debt).
OK, I see your point. But "legal tender" can also refer to only government debts ("This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.")
competing currencies, I think we already tried that, it was called wild cat banking. Not exactly monetary utopia.
Who needs banks? Banks over-issue their liabilities like airlines overbook their flights only much more so and hope they don't get caught. What the heck kind of money system is that? Otoh, common stock as private money is not redeemable.
As for "wildcat banks", I recall that they too enjoyed government privileges, at least from the State government (e.g. species redemption suspension during panics). And one of their biggest implicit privileges was that the monetary sovereign, the US Federal Government, shirked its duty to provide a risk-free fiat storage and transaction service to its population.
Post a Comment