FOX News is a joke.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Lunar Origin' timestamp='1315201916' post='5493242']

Is gold not what backs our economy up? If not, then... eh.
[/quote]
It is and it has grown rapidly in value...

[Agro]

[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1315201969' post='5493244']
It is and it has grown rapidly in value...
[/quote]
And would grow even more if it were made a standard. Because currently, there is not enough gold in the world to back up the amount of money circulating in the US, let alone the rest of the world.

One of the main problems with the Gold Standard is that it would eliminate Monetary policy, making it exceedingly difficult to get out of our current recession. Worst of all, inflation and deflation will be completely determined by the amount of Gold produced. One of the biggest reasons that the Great Depression lasted so long is because monetary policy was so restricted that there was increased deflation.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='AggroDrago' timestamp='1315202804' post='5493270']
And would grow even more if it were made a standard. Because currently, there is not enough gold in the world to back up the amount of money circulating in the US, let alone the rest of the world.

One of the main problems with the Gold Standard is that it would eliminate Monetary policy, making it exceedingly difficult to get out of our current recession. Worst of all, inflation and deflation will be completely determined by the amount of Gold produced. One of the biggest reasons that the Great Depression lasted so long is because monetary policy was so restricted that there was increased deflation.
[/quote]
Luckily the Federal Reserve has the most gold anywhere so we would practically dominate the world markets... I also want us out of the UN and NATO they are comepletely useless in my view... I am going to bed so I will respond to whatever you say tommorrow...

[Agro]

[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1315202959' post='5493275']
Luckily the Federal Reserve has the most gold anywhere so we would practically dominate the world markets... I also want us out of the UN and NATO they are comepletely useless in my view... I am going to bed so I will respond to whatever you say tommorrow...
[/quote]
I have no care in continuing a political argument online. So I won't respond to you tomorrow.

I'll just say this: you say that we should be isolationist. That is impossible. The world is too connected, we can no longer be the creepy dude that hides in the basement. We have to be outgoing, help in aid and other sorts. We should not get into wars, that has never been a good idea. NATO and the UN are important because they have us all, many nations, many varying beliefs, working together towards common goals. To drop out of that would not only slight the other countries, but could cause serious trouble for the US in the long run.

[Hydra of Ages]

[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1315201453' post='5493228']
It means make Gold the main currency which is the main thing Ron Paul has advocated...
[/quote]

Excellent idea.

Let's change our currency from being based on meaningless bits of metal and paper into... being based on meaningless bits of [i]heavier [/i]metal.

This will obviously fix everything.


[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1315202959' post='5493275']
Luckily the Federal Reserve has the most gold anywhere so we would practically dominate the world markets... I also want us out of the UN and NATO they are comepletely useless in my view... I am going to bed so I will respond to whatever you say tommorrow...
[/quote]

Yes, because the rest of the world is totally going to agree to base their own currencies on gold because America told them to. Even if it specifically puts them into a worse situation based on the global markets.

And I agree, screw the UN. Who cares what other countries have to say? Heck, if China wants to eat all of Asia, no skin off of my nose. Mass government-sponsored genocide in Cambodia? Well, good thing there's no actual global [i]law [/i]against that, otherwise we'd actually have to help [i]non-Americans.[/i] North Korea building nukes? Well golly-gee-wiz, looks like none of the [i]other [/i]countries like that either, pity we don't have any kind of [i]uniform governing body that could actually apply some leverage on this matter without declaring another war.[/i]

[Agro]

[quote name='Hydra of Thunder' timestamp='1315203456' post='5493300']

Excellent idea.

Let's change our currency from being based on meaningless bits of metal and paper into... being based on meaningless bits of [i]heavier [/i]metal.

This will obviously fix everything.




Yes, because the rest of the world is totally going to agree to base their own currencies on gold because America told them to. Even if it specifically puts them into a worse situation based on the global markets.

And I agree, screw the UN. Who cares what other countries have to say? Heck, if China wants to eat all of Asia, no skin off of my nose. Mass government-sponsored genocide in Cambodia? Well, good thing there's no actual global [i]law [/i]against that, otherwise we'd actually have to help [i]non-Americans.[/i] North Korea building nukes? Well golly-gee-wiz, looks like none of the [i]other [/i]countries like that either, pity we don't have any kind of [i]uniform governing body that could actually apply some leverage on this matter without declaring another war.[/i]
[/quote]
You forgot the /sarcasm.

Goodnight, everybody.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1315189811' post='5492856']And this is coming from a libertarian
[/quote]
ROT IN A HOLE

[Dark]

Oh, you don't like the idea of combining social liberalism with economic conservatism? Is that too [i]radical[/i] for your tastes? Or maybe you're just too blinded by partisan politics to realize that no one party will ever be right about everything, even if it is your own party.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Or rather, I care about people and prefer the party more about community service and the promotion of global rights as opposed to a Lord of the Flies society.

And Libertarians always assume you're too far up a party's ass to see things for what they are whenever you disagree with them, and that hypocrisy is really facedesk inducing.

[Dark]

[i]as opposed to a Lord of the Flies society[/i]

How do libertarians advocate a Lord of the Flies society? I'd love to know where you're pulling that comparison from and what you're basing it on, because it sounds like utter retardation from where I'm standing.

[i]you're too far up a party's ass to see things for what they are whenever you disagree with them[/i]

We haven't disagreed on anything even remotely political (yet), nor do I know your political affiliation to claim you're too far up their ass. The libertarian principle isn't one that is left-wing nor right-wing, but rather one that takes the [i]logical[/i] social reforms that liberals want and combines them with [i]moderate[/i] standpoints on economic issues, because both left-wing and right-wing nutcases can't figure out anything about the economy, nor will they ever.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Just for this and all future references, when I make a single statement in all Caps I'm typically kidding, being ironic, or whatever. Libertarians range from anti-war rationalists to DONT TREAD ON ME Tea Party members, and while I really disapprove of the ladder I agree with a good amount of the general parties' viewpoints.

No minimum wage, no monopoly monitoring, no environmental limitations, no real federal influence on the states beyond what an old document edited a number of times states, no gun control, and other such absences of government honestly places too much faith on people. We can clearly see corporations metaphorically rape the consumer and the Earth, and as horizontal and vertical monopolies have proven the free market capitalism still gives rise to a corporation's dominance. This is where I reference Lord of the Flies, wherein the unregulated mankind gives in to singular and abusive powers. I don't want a Big Brother society things like the Patriot Act bring about, but I don't want one where the poor don't have a helping hand either.

So nah, I don't fear something too radical and I'm not blinded by partisan politics, that's just my opinion.

[Hydra of Ages]

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1315261853' post='5494815']
No minimum wage, no monopoly monitoring, no environmental limitations, no real federal influence on the states beyond what an old document edited a number of times states, no gun control, and other such absences of government honestly places too much faith on people. We can clearly see corporations metaphorically rape the consumer and the Earth, and as horizontal and vertical monopolies have proven the free market capitalism still gives rise to a corporation's dominance. This is where I reference Lord of the Flies, wherein the unregulated mankind gives in to singular and abusive powers. I don't want a Big Brother society things like the Patriot Act bring about, but I don't want one where the poor don't have a helping hand either.
[/quote]

None of this is even tangentially related to social libertarianism.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah, no minimum wage, no monopoly monitoring, and no environmental limitations have absolutely nothing to do with the fiscal Libertarian Free Market ideology. You just need to listen to Ron Paul to hear his thoughts on how the Fed should be able to influence states. And Gun Control is definitely an issue tied with social libertarianism.

But these issues are pretty much covered up in regards to Libertarian ideals. Ron Paul will usually call it immoral to help somebody who hasn't been able to properly manage their money and states that the government can only limit the free market from succeeding whenever it intervenes with environmental regulations and forced payments such as minimum wage. Social Darwinism is very much a part of Libertarianism, however dwarfed it may be by anti-imperialist stances and attacks on Authoritarian governments.

[Tentacruel]

No minimum wage? No environmental limitations? No monopoly monitoring? Da fuq you talkin' bout?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1315264822' post='5494935']
No minimum wage? No environmental limitations? No monopoly monitoring? Da fuq you talkin' bout?
[/quote]
The wonderful belief people jump on wagon with before they've read the fine print.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

Okay maybe there is something wrong with the minimum wage thing... I would have to agree...

[Hydra of Ages]

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1315264744' post='5494933']
Yeah, no minimum wage, no monopoly monitoring, and no environmental limitations have absolutely nothing to do with the fiscal Libertarian Free Market ideology. You just need to listen to Ron Paul to hear his thoughts on how the Fed should be able to influence states. And Gun Control is definitely an issue tied with social libertarianism.

But these issues are pretty much covered up in regards to Libertarian ideals. Ron Paul will usually call it immoral to help somebody who hasn't been able to properly manage their money and states that the government can only limit the free market from succeeding whenever it intervenes with environmental regulations and forced payments such as minimum wage. Social Darwinism is very much a part of Libertarianism, however dwarfed it may be by anti-imperialist stances and attacks on Authoritarian governments.
[/quote]

1) Implying Libertarians are somehow pro big-business.
2) Relying on only republican libertarians for examples.
3) Assuming only the extremes of any given political system.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

1) Nope. They aren't pro big-business. They're for a Free Market, which simply brings that about.
2) There are Democrats gone Libertarian who take up differing views, but they simply aren't aligning with party consensus on issues. Mike Gravel, for instance, supported the notion of Free Healthcare. He was a viable Libertarian candidate, but Ron Paul beliefs are much more representative of the typical Libertarian(which is one of the reasons why Gravel didn't pick up anywhere near as much momentum).
3) The problem with the political party is that it only currently takes the extremes. "NO MORE GUVMENT" is pretty much the slogan at this point. If so many Libertarians didn't treat their ideology as a theology as most parties do it would be much more viable than it currently is. I'd imagine the rationale would level out if Libertarians ever became mainstream, but not after certain policies caused even more corporate corruption.

[Hydra of Ages]

Ah, you're talking primarily about the Libertarian [i]party[/i], rather than just the ideology on a whole.

Yeah I agree, they're mostly kooks. Probably has to do with liberal libertarianism being one of the rarest political compass assignments.

[Tentacruel]

I know a guy who's a libertarian. He's a also a bit of an anarchist. To top it all off he's an evangelical christian. Quite a mix eh?

[Agro]

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1315271038' post='5495234']
I know a guy who's a libertarian. He's a also a bit of an anarchist. To top it all off he's an evangelical christian. Quite a mix eh?
[/quote]
Libertarian =/= anarchist

Though there is a very fine line.

[Tentacruel]

I know, he's dabbles in both. If they were the same I wouldn't have said "also."

[Agro]

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1315276741' post='5495510']
I know, he's dabbles in both. If they were the same I wouldn't have said "also."
[/quote]
just making sure

[Dark]

[i]and while I really disapprove of the ladder I agree with a good amount of the general parties' viewpoints[/i]

And I hold the exact same view. Just because I am a [i]libertarian[/i] does not mean I am associated with the Libertarian Party of America. In fact, I don't think my state even offers that as an option when claiming a party, nor do I know anything about that party in general. When I say I am a [i]libertarian[/i], I follow libertarian principles: social liberalism and economic conservatism (although it's really more moderate), but clearly not all of them. If you wanted to pinpoint my actual party, I'm still a Democrat at heart, but I'm obviously not a Democrat that refuses to budge from my viewpoints (except on social issues :S).

[i]No minimum wage[/i]
[i]no monopoly monitoring[/i]
[i]no environmental limitations[/i]
[i]no real federal influence on the states beyond what an old document edited a number of times states[/i]
[i]no gun control[/i]

All terrible social principles to follow, not to mention the last one is pretty much social conservatism more than anything. Liberalism is, in a very broad sense, about moving closer to anarchy (think of it like you would a limit), but there are clearly some principles that are stupid. In fact, every political party has principles that are illogical, and you went ahead and listed five for the libertarian principle. That's great, what have you proven? That maybe some libertarians aren't up [i]their[/i] party's ass and won't blindly accept everything that should be accepted in libertarian principle? Because you sure haven't proved that libertarianism is useless as a theology, if that is what you were going for.

[i]The wonderful belief people jump on wagon with before they've read the fine print.[/i]

> implying that associating oneself with a party forces them to believe anything and everything in that party's ideology

By the way, libertarianism isn't anarchy. There are anarchists that claim to be libertarian, but the two aren't even related, the former just approaches the latter.

In any case, the Libertarian Party of America is something I have no knowledge on whatsoever, mainly because they haven't [i]done[/i] anything. The fact still remains that I'm an individual with borderline left-wing social views and moderate economic views, and the way those line up, I'm very much part of the libertarian ideology. Clearly that doesn't mean I don't want gun control - it is quite a liberal policy to have strict gun control laws, or even ban guns altogether - stemming from the fact that my social views will remain liberal, not being bent by any conservatism that may exist in the libertarian principle. But when you look at the big picture, I'm not a liberal. When I disagree (or only partially agree) with the most pronounced liberals in America on the economy, how can I say that I [i]am[/i]?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah Dark, which is why what Hydra said was exactly right. I was referencing the current state of the party, and not the actual idea(once again, my original post was kidding) as a whole. If Libertarians weren't going to the extremes on so many issues it'd probably be the second best political party out there. Sadly, current events force them to look to radicalism as a sort of escapist ideology.

[i]> implying that associating oneself with a party forces them to believe anything and everything in that party's ideology[/i]
In some cases it does. Libertarians have a habit of calling you a liberal/conservative pawn swayed by partisan illusions if you ever disagree with the party on issues, so it's turned into a bit of a hivemind. In real life, that is - people can usually post that they're a Libertarian online without holding very many of the actual views and get off scotch free.