Gary Johnson Judge Napolitano on Gary Johnson at Freedom Fest 2012

[falconplayer11]

Back to Gary Johnson...

Are you guys really so shallow as to believe that Gary Johnson's capital-L Libertarianism makes him a joke? Ron Paul is a Republican. Last time I checked, Republicans were a party of neocons who used taxpayer money to prop up their party. But it doesn't matter, because Ron Paul is a libertarian. His views--not his party--is what matters. Ron has even said that himself.

In that light, Gary Johnson is--yes--a Libertarian. But his views line up almost 100% with Ron Paul's. Admittedly, Gary is not as intelligent as Ron and does not seem to understand as well as Ron the ins and outs of Austrian economics. But his appointees will. He wants to support the message of liberty. He even switched parties to do so. He is a proven leader, having done an exceptional job in New Mexico with a population that was 2-to-1 Democrat.

There is something special about this guy. He isn't perfect. But he is a million times better than either of the establishment candidates. Please support him. Get him on the national stage so he can show Americans that Ron Paul was right.

 

[TheTexan]

But his views line up almost 100% with Ron Paul's.

That's a stretch

Admittedly, Gary is not as intelligent as Ron and does not seem to understand as well as Ron the ins and outs of Austrian economics.

It's really not very complicated. Forcing us to use a currency backed by nothing is a) aggression, and b) theft. That's all he needs to know.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

No, I addressed it quite clearly. But your blatant misunderstanding of basic economic issues is showing. Fractional reserve banking is a practice. The type of money used obviously has a significant impact on that practice, but a nation can have fiat money without fractional reserve banking.

To say fiat money begets fractional reserve banking is a flat-out lie. And that is a fact. A nation could have accompanying legislation prohibiting fractional reserve banking. It may have a policy that prevents artificial expansion and contraction of the money supply.

Again, not saying I advocate this. However, you make a ton of statements that simply are not grounded in fact or reality. I don't mind the debate, but to blatantly lie is shameful.

For the record, you completely avoided the point that it is literally impossible to eliminate FRB when the currency is backed by nothing

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Another lie. It's entirely within the power of Congress to determine money and its value. We might not agree, but it's certainly not aggression. Further, while fiat money that is artificially manipulated will have a hidden cost of inflation, and this may be considered theft, a stable fiat currency is not an impossible idea should it be free from manipulation and fractional reserve banking.

You are also entirely within your rights to move your purchasing power in and out of gold. As much as many here claim to be lovers of gold, including yourself, I've not seen anyone here who has a majority of their savings parked in the commodity. Put your money where you mouth is.

That's a stretch



It's really not very complicated. Forcing us to use a currency backed by nothing is a) aggression, and b) theft. That's all he needs to know.

 

[TheTexan]

No, I addressed it quite clearly.

No, you didn't. You didn't even address the point. At all. The only two debate techniques you seem to capable of using are ad hominem and "that's a lie"

To say fiat money begets fractional reserve banking is a flat-out lie.

Fiat money is fractional reserve banking. The Federal reserve loans trillions of dollars, with zero reserve requirement.

Aside from the fact that the Fed is FRB in of itself, if FRB was made illegal, but without any restrictions on the Federal Reserve itself, it wouldn't do any good. The demand for money would be the same, and the supply of money would be the same. The Fed would just print shit loads of money to meet the new demand. Today's M2 would look like tomorrow's MB.

Another lie.

Is this seriously the only thing you know how to say?

It's entirely within the power of Congress to determine money and its value. We might not agree, but it's certainly not aggression.

That's the bottom line. You don't think forcing people to use a certain currency is aggression. Welcome to my list.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Strategy is also about having a plan that hasn't been tried and failed 100 times before. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I agree with you, but I don't think this statement applies to my prior post.

The Ron Paul movement is an example of what can happen when you stick to principles. Ron Paul's strict adherence to principles brought about the largest resurgence in libertarianism in many decades. Don't be so quick to give up on principles.

I think it's naive to believe that Ron Paul is where he is today because of his principles. I'm a strategist by trade, and I can tell you as a matter of fact that Paul is surrounded by strategists who do a lot more than tell him "it's your principles, man, just go out there and be yourself and we'll coast to victory". Principles are important, I don't contest that, but they're not the only thing - they don't do a lick of good if they don't become policy.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Pretty hilarious I've been fighting for freedom for decades longer than you, have been on this forum longer than you, and you add me to your "list."

Anyway, you love to make statements that are blatant lies, don't you.... Fiat money is NOT fractional reserve banking. A nation can maintain fiat currency without syphoning it through a private central bank.

You have such a ridiculous misunderstanding of money, the money supply, and the fed I can't even begin to educate you here. You've taken a number of governmental AND fed functions and deemed them "inclusive" under fiat money. You literally took about 20 different ideas and stuck them all under the label of "comes with fiat money." Either you're making a terrible mistake by gross generalization to prove a point you don't fully understand, or you really just don't comprehend the concept of money.

I can start you off with a basic example. Let's say the government is issuing currency. In this instance, it can issue gold or paper dollars. If it issues paper dollars and I have 10 of those dollars, and I loan someone 5 of those dollars, I have 5 and the other person has 5. Where is the fractional reserve banking you claim with fiat money in this instance?

Answer:
The only force that permits fractional reserve banking is GOVERNMENT. It's LEGALIZED counterfeiting. If I am not permitted (by the government) to counterfeit excess dollars to lend out, where is the fractional reserve banking you're talking about? How could I possibly lend out more than I have?

The debate of whether Gold or a fiat currency is the better choice is entirely debatable and not something I am arguing here (I support a gold standard.) HOWEVER, fiat money is NOT fractional reserve banking unless the counterfeiting is legalized by the government. Without fractional reserve banking, the largest difference between gold and fiat currency, for argument, is which will hold it's value better and more consistently. One has intrinsic value, the other has value based on the full faith and credit of the issuing country. (obviously, gold is always the better choice.) But long story short, without FRB you can have the same number of dollars you issued originally, just like you can have the same amount of gold you issued.

We've already viewed it with gold and silver certificates throughout our history. 1 to 1 it worked quite well. It was only when the government permitted fractional reserve banking did we see to many certificates for the amount of gold.

Really, really basic stuff, and I don't have the time to continually educate you about it. You are free to maintain your point that a gold standard is the only way, and I agree with that, but lying and distorting facts to further your cause is NOT appreciated.

No, you didn't. You didn't even address the point. At all. The only two debate techniques you seem to capable of using are ad hominem and "that's a lie"



Fiat money is fractional reserve banking. The Federal reserve loans trillions of dollars, with zero reserve requirement.

Aside from the fact that the Fed is FRB in of itself, if FRB was made illegal, but without any restrictions on the Federal Reserve itself, it wouldn't do any good. The demand for money would be the same, and the supply of money would be the same. The Fed would just print shit loads of money to meet the new demand. Today's M2 would look like tomorrow's MB.




Is this seriously the only thing you know how to say?



That's the bottom line. You don't think forcing people to use a certain currency is aggression. Welcome to my list.

 

[TheTexan]

Pretty hilarious I've been fighting for freedom for decades longer than you, have been on this forum longer than you, and you add me to your "list."

FYI this is all I'm going to read of your post, because you've proven yourself incapable of understanding liberty. Send me a PM when you figure out that pointing guns to people's head and forcing them to use a currency is aggression.

Until then... don't bother making any more small novels full of "that's a lie" and "this is a lie"... because I'm not wasting any further time on you

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You simply can't respond to the facts I've provided you with. I'm looking at this objectively and from a Constitutional standpoint. You've managed to mix your own personal views, dogma, and feelings with the law. Not a pleasant mix.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a reason as to why Congress is not permitted, in your view, to designate a fiat dollar as currency. And I'm not talking about a federal reserve note, which IS unconstitutional and illegal (you don't seem to understand the difference between the two.) I, however, can point you to Article 1, Section 8.

I'm done with you until you understand the difference between opinion and fact. IE, saying a fiat currency cannot exist without FRB IS a plain lie, also your opinion, and NOT a fact.

FYI this is all I'm going to read of your post, because you've proven yourself incapable of understanding liberty. Send me a PM when you figure out that pointing guns to people's head and forcing them to use a currency is aggression.

Until then... don't bother making any more small novels full of "that's a lie" and "this is a lie"... because I'm not wasting any further time on you

 

[wgadget]

I'm all for busting up the Wall Street political empire. Go, Gary!

Unfortunately, wise husband had never heard of Gary Johnson and said he didn't think 99% of the electorate had either...

Will he be joining the debates? On my Facebook page it said he was getting ready for them...?

 

[TheTexan]

You simply can't respond to the facts I've provided you with. I'm looking at this objectively and from a Constitutional standpoint. You've managed to mix your own personal views, dogma, and feelings with the law. Not a pleasant mix.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a reason as to why Congress is not permitted, in your view, to designate a fiat dollar as currency. And I'm not talking about a federal reserve note, which IS unconstitutional and illegal (you don't seem to understand the difference between the two.) I, however, can point you to Article 1, Section 8.

I'm done with you until you understand the difference between opinion and fact. IE, saying a fiat currency cannot exist without FRB IS a plain lie, also your opinion, and NOT a fact.

You know, because you're such a huge fan of fiat money, and everyone else here is... not... has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're on the wrong forum?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You have a major problem reading. Just showing me and everyone else you don't read before you speak, particularly considering in my last post I specifically said I support the gold standard.

The issue here is you lie and fabricate "facts." This is no different from any other aspect of life. Act like an adult (assuming you are one) and learn to handle yourself. Just because you disagree with something or someone doesn't mean you need to act like a child and lie and rant. You can disagree and make a case while actually sticking to factual information instead of making things up to further your agenda. Don't bother responding to me anymore. You've confirmed the type of person you are.

You know, because you're such a huge fan of fiat money, and everyone else here is... not... has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're on the wrong forum?

 

[TheTexan]

particularly considering in my last post I specifically said I support the gold standard.[/I]

You and Johnson both apparently. You can quit with the "I'm for the gold standard" act, it's transparently obvious that you're not