MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible'

The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

Distrust in America's foreign and monetary policies, unrelieved by the election of Donald Trump, is going to be a "big opening" for libertarians in 2020, former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Examiner.

Trump was able to co-opt much of the messaging of an establishment that has maintained a bipartisan consensus on these issues without offering much of substance to voters committed to the values of freedom.

"The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we've been doing well," Paul said. "We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.

Paul called the economic upturn this year "a bit of an illusion," and said U.S. monetary policy benefits those connected to government, creating the most pernicious form of "inequality."

"It's a bubble economy in many, many different ways and it's going to come unglued," said Paul, who has previously blamed the Federal Reserve for what he sees as a bitcoin bubble.

"We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner. "I'm just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully."

The Examiner noted that Paul doesn't think the U.S. will break up the way that the Soviet Union did, but rather that the U.S. will have to deal with its unsustainable foreign policy and the Fed-driven monetary policy that helps fuel it.

"I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that's when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, 'Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this'," Paul told the Examiner. "If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today."

Paul's criticism of Trump's foreign policy is understandable. Trump was never the non-interventionist some (at times even Paul's son, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) made him out to be.

"I think the foreign policy is a total disaster," Paul told the Examiner."Trump's approach sounds good one day but the next day he's antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there."

Paul also said he'd be delighted if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties, although he's not optimistic the replacement would be any better.

Read the rest of the interview at the Examiner.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.

    IF HE'S POPULAR HE WON'T BE LIBERTARIAN.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "I, and other women, won't vote libertarian because the children."

    Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

  • BambiB||

    Seriously? What does she think the libertarians are going to do? Eat them?

    It is women - primarily single women - who will destroy America (unless something else destroys it first). Women are more risk-averse than men - and desperately want "safety nets" for themselves and their children. For married women, that "safety net" is usually their husband, which is why married women tend to lean more conservative. But for single women, it's all forms of government programs - child care, "free" medical care, welfare, housing assistance, special tax deductions.

    Research done by John Lott makes a powerful case that US debt is fueled primarily by the female vote. He looked at every state that granted women the vote - beginning with Wyoming in (IIRC) 1870. Over the next 50 years, every state that allowed women to vote began to run deficits year-over-year within a few years. No state that didn't have voting women had that problem. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, all 48 states and the Federal government began to run year-over-year deficits. Now the Federal government carries, and adds to, a $20 trillion dollar debt each year.

    When one considers that the "War on Poverty" alone has cost $15 Trillion, it's not hard to see how the female penchant for government programs will ultimately KILL THE CHILDREN.

  • Mike d||

    Well, to be fair, us men on average are more likely to support pointless wars (inspite of the risk of getting drafted to boot). So theres that.

    Besides economic issues, us men are more homophobic and want to tell gay men what they can't do in the bedroom, because it makes **us** uncomfortable. But on the flip side, women are (by a few pts) more likely to oppose legalizing weed, more likely to support the "V-chip" (thanks Tipper Gore) and were the ones who started the whole prohibition thing.

    So I guess its a wash.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "I, and other women, won't vote libertarian because the children."

    Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Both of them?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Prophet allows up to four.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarian moments are like those moments about forty five minutes after eating Chinese food when you have an uncontrollable urge to take an explosive shit, and after you purge your bowels it is over.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner.

    I suppose nothing would be more libertarian than the unmolested rise of the oligarchs.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a left-libertarian, my top 3 2020 presidential candidates are Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Unless Russia hacks that election too, I'm confident any one of them will beat Drumpf, or whoever is in office once Mueller concludes his investigation.

  • Ed||

    Sure, ok.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Don't fall for this second-rate troll, Ed.

  • Mark22||

    I think he's quite funny, actually.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    As a 2000 foot tall fuscia smurf, I think you have no idea what you are.

  • silent v||

    Elizabeth Warren? I can hear the Brer Republicans going "Oh please don't nominate a shrill Ivy League 70 year old white woman who talks down to common people, Trump will lose to a candidate like that for sure"

  • Deflator Mouse||

    No way Trump gets the GOP nom in 2020.

  • Bubba Jones||

    There's no way he doesn't.

    By 2020 every GOP hack will owe him something.

  • Jgalt1975||

    I'm not a Trump fan, but the only way he doesn't get the GOP nomination in 2020 is if he chooses not to run. No incumbent president has actually lost his party's nomination for a second term since 1884 (Arthur) and he hadn't actually been elected president in the first place (he was Garfield's VP and became president after Garfield's death). Only one president that was elected to the office in the first instance has lost the nomination for a second term -- Pierce in 1856 -- and that was when there was no real primary system at all.

  • CE||

    Trump is the most admired man in America who will be eligible to run in 2020, per Gallup.

  • Mike d||

    I don't think its likely that Trump will lose the primary nomination for no other reason than all the other GOP candidates will just split the vote among themselves with Trump getting the plurality. Although head-to-head, he probably would have lost to several opponents, if not the majority of them.

    Now, if the "never Trumpers" had a "deal" where the losers of their subprimaries would **all** agree to drop out except for one after Iowa (or Iowa + FL) and have him/her run against Trump head-to-head (and hope no non-never-Trumpers still remain), I can see a scenario where Trump loses the primary.

    But then the voters will all say that it was rigged anyway, and a huge chunk of them will sit out or write Trump in the General. So the establishment will find a way to keep "the deal" from happening.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Someone needs to visit the Dilbert blog predictions page...

  • Deflator Mouse||

    And of course he betrayed the protectionists completely, so he's not winning WI, MI, or PA again even if he does get the nom.

  • Episteme||

    The first thing to consider is that he has three more years to get stuff for the Trumpism voters passed. Year One, policy-wise was heavily about bringing the Republican Party begrudgingly back together. That Trump is already back to talking infrastructure suggests that he's going to try that (aimed toward his base) in 2018, especially as a way to energize them before November.

    Given all the stories we're seeing of companies giving bonuses and raising wages off the tax cut, it could be interesting to see how he pivots (lumbers I gracefully around?) to a pro-worker focus using more conventionally GOP tools in the new year.

    On 2020, if anything, I can see Trump being more likely than other incumbents to have a primary challenge, but I could also see him having one from either side. Yet, I likewise see him beating that challenge a la Carter (whether that leaves him weakened for November a la Carter is another question; I can't vouch for the sanity of the Democrats or what actual quality of candidate they'll seek to field in 2020).

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    You, your parents failed

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Have we not all learned there's no predicting what voters will warm to?

  • KDN||

    Have we not all learned there's no predicting what voters will warm to which portions of the populace will actually bother to vote?

    Any candidate can win, the trick is convincing your rivals' voters that they shouldn't bother playing.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think we have learned that black voters will turn out in droves for black candidates, but not for old white women.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    A sassy black woman would be able to get all the voters to turn out.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    + Medea

  • Tony||

    They turned out for a white dude in Alabama. But maybe they just didn't want to be represented by a child diddler.

  • brady949||

    "As a left-libertarian, my top 3 presidential candidates are people who are in no way libertarian."

  • KDN||

    THATSTHEJOKE.gif

  • BambiB||

    And then - assassination.

    Count on it.

  • John Galt is back||

    BambiB has issued a public threat to commit first-degree murder. I have emailed the proof to her victim.

    And then - assassination.
    Count on it

    If you threaten ME, I'll track you down and kill you ... in the most painful way possible. Guaranteed.
    You psycho-conservatives are a disgrace.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Oh good, I was just wondering what an 80-year-old Republican who has never come close to winning a national election thought about the electoral future of my party.

  • Hank Phillips||

    We already had one candidate who died and never would have made it to election time. Ron Paul has a perfect voting record on energy, but he still wants the Political State for force women at gunpoint to have babies they do not want. Ulysses S. Grant signed the Comstock law (in crash/Depression year 1873), and Republicans have made this Mohammedan-style sumptuary law the basis and foundation for their race-suicide nationalsocialist policies. Enough is enough!

  • BambiB||

    On abortion, we simply need to reach agreement on when life begins. Whatever that point is, abortion thereafter is murder. Some say conception. Others say birth. I'm inclined to say it's the point of independent viability. In most cases, that's around 20 weeks (IIRC). Mostly the issue is one for rabid argument not based on fact. It's one of the major red herrings of politics.

  • John Galt is back||

    The biggest bullsbhit of all --- mostly the Christian Taliban.-- that the woman's unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable Right to Life. DUH

    NO unalienable right can EVER be denied or disparaged ... for ANY reason.

    Thus they're ALL equal -- Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others!!
    And the Ninth Amendment forbids government to deny or favor EITHER right.

    This demolishes BOTH extremes ... conception and point of delivery -- each fascists trying to impose their personal value over fundamental rights. AMAZING what we can achieve with the most obvious moral principles..

  • CE||

    So which libertarian has gained more votes or raised more money in a national election than Ron Paul?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties

    How has he been a disaster for civil liberties?

  • Bubba Jones||

    He has been exactly like every other AG considered for the position over the last 12 years.

    So, I guess it depends on what baseline you use.

  • BambiB||

    I really wish Sessions would follow up on the findings in his "Immigration Fact Book", basically slam the border shut, prosecute criminal invaders with the heaviest possible hand and slow processing of H-1B visas to 100 per month with NO renewals.

    If he did just those things, he'd be better than any attorney general in memory.

  • John Galt is back||

    What about the goddamn niggers?
    /sarc

  • Hank Stamper||

    I wouldn't say disaster more roadblock as AG to date but Ron might have been speaking about Sessions political career as a whole in which case disaster would be appropriate.

    Patriot Act supporter, against any reform for surveillance state, pro mandatory mins, pro drug war, pro civil asset forfeiture ...

  • epsilon given||

    Jeff Sessions rolled back some restrictions on civil forfeiture put in place by Obama's Presidency (possibly even by Eric Holder).

    Frankly, as much as I distrust the socialist Democrats, I was pleasantly surprised that they had done that, and somewhat disappointed to learn about it by hearing about it being rolled back.

  • John Galt is back||

    Reading this thread, it is stunning ... STUNNING ... how many wingers are so totally ignorant of Sessions history and values. REJECTED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR BEING TOO RACIST.

    So perfect for the Donald.

  • Bubba Jones||

    But Twitter!

  • Tony||

    Would you have excused Obama if he had behaved as crass and deranged?

  • KDN||

    Trump is hardly unique in this regard, as explained in this enlightening article that you won't read because of the source.

    The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

    The point is that it is hard to ascertain to what degree flamboyance and excess, even the self-destructive sorts, are integral to genius. And to what degree in extremis do we need to make allowances and exemptions for the former to allow expression of the latter?

    The state of affairs obviously determines the degree to which a public is willing to take risks with the unconventional. The peacetime army of the late 1930s would have had no real place for a General George S. Patton.

    We, of course, live in lesser times (though, we can cringe at the idea what Sherman or Truman, or Churchill, might have tweeted had Twitter been at their late-night fingertips).
  • Tony||

    There is no excuse for Trump's public behavior. Call me a conservative.

    Swearing in private is not his sin. And he tweets insanities in preschool English despite apparently being a nondrinker.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    I prefer to judge everyone by their actions instead of their words. Sticks and stones buttercup, suck it up

    He tweets I'm preschool English so folks like you can understand

  • epsilon given||

    Sure, if he had also cut taxes, eliminated federal regulations, and picked people like Gorsuch and Willett for the courts. With a record like that, I'd even be somewhat willing to overlook the fact that he was a Democrat!

  • chemjeff||

    I was just waiting for the Paulites to come out of the woodwork and say "on second thought, I actually do prefer Trump over Ron Paul", thereby conclusively proving that they were actually Team Red Republicans all along.

  • Tony||

    If he had a 60% approval rating that would be one thing. But we have to sit and witness Reason be a home of the Trump holdouts? With the whole rest of the internet out there?

    And it's not like he's just any Republican. He's a particularly awful human being by any objective standard. Which makes their support all the more tribal, I suppose. They'd never let Obama get away with even an hour of Trump's lies and crassness.

  • epsilon given||

    Funny, considering that you seem to be the type that would hammer on Republican gaffs until the cows come home (along with everyone else) but conveniently ignore and excuse Democrat gaffs.

    I personally don't like Trump, and I'm still not sure if I could bring myself to vote for him a second time around, but one thing I can see, is that he's been better at slashing government than either Republicans *or* Democrats have been in the last few decades.

    Had Obama actually vetoed ObamaCare rather than sign it into law, cut other regulations, cut taxes, cut spending, and so forth, I would have been willing to give him a lot more slack than I gave him. The problem I have with Obama, though, is that he does things (such as clamp down on our freedoms) that I disagree with...whereas you seem to be convinced that the only reasons people opposed Obama was because he was a Democrat, and (gasp!) had dark skin!

  • epsilon given||

    Come to think of it, aren't you the fellow who equates the Heritage Foundation Health Care plan with the ObamaCare plan because it has exactly one thing in common -- a requirement to buy health insurance -- and who seems to think that, because a conservative think tank thought something up, conservatives and libertarians automatically have to support it, and because it's identical (except for everything else) to ObamaCare, those people are therefore hypocrites?

    If so, and I'm pretty sure it *is* so, it is YOU who expects everyone else to play Team Politics, while everyone else evaluates everything based on what they think...

  • CE||

    The libertarians here don't support Trump.

  • BambiB||

    "Objective standard"? Are you shitting me? There hasn't been an "objective" report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

    As for Obozo - if you want to see his REAL accomplishments, suggest you check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsWzfhvvOgg. Here's a sampling:

    The number of non-farm hours worked each year has not changed since Obozo was elected - despite the fact that there are 20 million more Americans.

    15 million more Americans on Food Stamps… (up 39%)
    1 in 20 American home owners lost their homes under Obozo.
    As of 2016, 95 MILLION Americans were ready, willing, able to work - but no jobs!

    80% of American adults have struggled with joblessness under Obozo. EIGHTY PERCENT!!!

    But at least Obozo was good for race relations, right?
    In 2009 66% of Americans thought race relations were good, 22% thought they were bad.
    After 7 years under Obozo? 32% good. 63% bad!?? Where's the press on THAT?

    Outright criminality in smuggling 2000+ assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to bump up the number of "American" guns used in Mexican crime (to justify more gun control). Then he pulled a "Nixon": Executive privilege to prevent Holder's testimony. Did the press call for impeachment?

    No. The POS got a free pass.

    Trump's immigration limits are BASED on Obozo's findings. When Obozo said it, all was fine. Trump? Now the same policy is "racist".

  • John Galt is back||

    "Objective standard"? Are you shitting me? There hasn't been an "objective" report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

    ANY dipwad who uses "lamestream"" is a RAGING bigot ... a snowflake whining about being objective
    Typical Trumpster

    Links to a YouTube video by (another) raging bigot ... AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!
    While pissing and moaning about "objective" OMG! They walk among us!!!

    Trump's immigration limits are BASED on Obozo's findings.

    Even TRUMP says your full of crap on that..

    Are you sime maniac troll .. paid bny George Soros -- to ridicule Trump supporters?
    Then again, Trump said you'd stand by him shooting somebody to death, in broad daylight, with witnesses! We don't know about the murder ... but you ALREADY stand by him calling you a dumbass goober, devoid of any moral standards.

    That COULD also explain your totally shameful lies here.

    Give Alex a hug while you're "pleasuring" him orally.

  • SIV||

    Trump Team Red?

    lol

  • John Galt is back||

    A FUCKING FASCIST PRESIDENT ... TO IMPOSE YOUR SHAMEFUL BIGOTRY BY FORCE?

    The Ron Paul who lies about the 10th Amendment?

    Tried to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, which would have made gays the first entire group denied constitutional rights since slavery.

    Like Trump, denies THREE co-equal branches, checks and balances, balance of power, and says we are defenseless against constitutional abuse by state government. (THE prime enabler of the alt-right that dominates this commentariat)

    A totally shameful opponent of equal, unalienable and.or God-given rights -- claims states have the power of bigotry, explicitly denied them by the 9th Amendment. And the 14th (marriage equality)

    YOU are a threat to my life and liberty ..... reaches for AK-47

  • BambiB||

    If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan... and Hitlery won the election.

    My biggest beef with Trump so far is that he hasn't implemented his agenda fast enough. I really had hoped (but not expected) that he would enter office with executive orders ready to go, and a solid legislative agenda. I would have howled in delight if he'd dropped his right hand after taking the oath of office, picked up a pen and signed an executive order repealing ALL executive orders of the Obozo administration. It didn't happen - but one can dream.

  • John Galt is back||

    If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan... and Hitlery won the election

    FAKE NEWS (lol)
    "lamestream" and "hitlery' =- raging hatred (f*cking scary)

    Brainwashed by Fox, Breitbart and Infowars to deny REALITY
    Why did 10 million vote AGAINST Trump?
    Why is Trump TWICE as disliked as ANY President, in all but 3 mionths - SINCE EISENHOWER?
    Why did only 37% of Republicans support his nomination?
    Why did his LOSING vote include a RECORD NUMBER OF ANTI-OPPONENT VOTES? (voted against Hillary, NOT for him)
    Why did he win the Electoral Vote by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states COMBINED?
    How much influence would Russia have needed to swing so tiny a margin?
    Why does Trump deny collusion, when the issue is CONSPIRACY -- which his son confessed to.
    And OBSTRUCTION, which HE confessed to?
    Why do voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a massive 10% or more ... PER FOX AND GINGRICH.
    Also Fox and Gingrich. Newt Gingrich: My fellow Republicans, a Democratic wave election is coming unless we act right now | Fox News
    Why are Trump's snowflakes as eager to be brainwashed as Berniebots ... and so totally contemptuous of "incon-veeeeeen-yent facts?

    *** WHEN THEY OFFER YOU THE KOOL-AID ... DO NOT DRINK IT!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Any political movement built around a philosophical viewpoint is doomed to failure. People aren't loyal to philosophies, they're loyal to other people.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Our single spoiler electoral vote forced the legalization of abortion. The LP has made ku-klux prohibitionists back away from tarbrushing and coercing queers, and is now putting in place a sort of second 21st Amendment to stop the Feds from shooting more kids and robbing more parents over plant leaves. That is WINNING! Looter parties are in the business of getting government paychecks and buying votes so their boys can have jobs libertarians don't even want. Our spoiler votes make them choose between coercive laws and getting fired. This is simple fractions, 9th grade arithmetic. Integrity is the friend of freedom.

  • CE||

    Rush Limbaugh and every other right wing radio hack might disagree.

  • BambiB||

    Actually, they're mostly loyal to themselves.

    More than half of the population has, as their most pressing political question, "What's in it for me?"

  • John Galt is back||

    Actually, 60% would self-define as libertarian -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal
    So your lies and screwups on this page now total 38.

  • Moo Cow||

    Contributions must be slow.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I can't wait for Hihn to talk about Ron Paul.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    BULLY!

  • Mark22||

    Aggression is the launching of an unprovoked attack. Cyber-bullying is against a person, not their ideas, positions or arguments. Do you have access to a dictionary?

    Hihn: you keep verbally aggressing against the commenters on Reason. You are a rude, uncouth bully. Don't complain when people verbally hit back at you in self defense.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So beautiful!

  • Mark22||

    The aggression starts at the top of this thread

    No, the aggression started with you, years ago, disrupting discussion after discussion.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    Cyber stalking blowhard - that actually sums up your entire existence here on Reason

  • BambiB||

    "Cyber bullying" - if you can't take it, sell your computer.

  • John Galt is back||

    "Cyber bullying" - if you can't take it, sell your computer.

    And like most cyber-bullies, you want to censor him.

    Libertarians have always opposed aggressors like you.
    It's like pasting "asshole" on aggressors and thugs Here's your sign.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hihn is definitely gonna show up for this thread, probably sometime next year after the worms have finished picking over the bones, and he will shit all over the remains of the corpse. So let's give him some material to gnaw on.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Nah, he'll be here in probably about 20 minutes, as soon as the early bird seating is over at Denny's.

  • KDN||

    Dead on.

    Death, taxes, and Hihn shitting all over a Ron Paul thread when it was just about to die.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    So you wouldn't vote for him?

  • BambiB||

    Faggots can't get married. When they do, they don't get a "marriage" license. They get a "fudge-packing" license.

    What's fundamentally wrong with government is that it accorded advantages based on marital status. The proper course of action would be to eliminate all differences based on marital status - not pretend that gay boys can get married.

    Marriage shouldn't have any significance to government.

  • John Galt is back||

    And some thought THE KLAN was satanic?

    Faggots can't get married. When they do, they don't get a "marriage" license. They get a "fudge-packing" license.
  • Hank Phillips||

    Just what we need... another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

  • Jgalt1975||

    I guess that's an interesting question -- if Ron Paul runs against Donald Trump, who does Jones endorse?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Crazy Alex Jones will take Trump over Ron Paul ten out of ten times.

  • Myshkin78||

    Ya never know, but if it had come down to Trump or that socialist scumbag Bernie I would have voted for Trump instead of Gary. I doubt I'm the only one.

  • Johnimo||

    I'd vote for Gary Johnson a hundred times before I'd vote for Ron Paul. Gary's goofy, but Ron is mean spirited and weird. HOWEVER, if the Dems keep up their current hysteria, I'm going with Trump. I keep asking myself just why, why, why did Gary say nice things about Hillary Clinton? Did he think potential Hillary voters were coming over to him? "Goofy" just doesn't come close to describing Gary's thinking!

  • BambiB||

    "Hater"? When did it become wrong to hate evil?

  • John Galt is back||

    "Hater"? When did it become wrong to hate evil?

    It's your bigotry that's wrong. Your contempt for fundamental liberties. Presumably because your parents never washed out your mouth with soap.
    Or not often enough.
    You did ask
    .

  • JuanQPublic||

    Just what we need... another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

    Alex Jones's "libertarian" schtick has morphed to all Trump, all the time. It will continue to morph to keep his overpriced supplement / Infowars gear racket going.

  • Tony||

    The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory. Ron Paul will drop before he drops it, though, I suppose.

    I think libertarians should go all-in on criminal justice reform, purge the fucking Limbaugh bullshit, join functioning coalitions, and actually accomplish something in this world.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I knew I could count on you to string a bunch of completely unrelated issues together and make them into some sort of sentence. Delicious. Thanks.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Look at Hihn complaining about falling prices. Classic. Let me ask you this, Michael. Do you believe in the free market? If so, are there any economic goods that are exempt from the economic rules of the free market?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You didn't answer my question.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    Your expectations are way too high for Hihn. His parents had no expectations of him, and he didn't disappoint them either.

    "Hi, I'm Micheal Hihn, and I suck the fun out of every room I walk into. I ramble ad infinitum about 'people being mean to me' and I can't understand why. However, I keep coming back because I don't have very good social skills"

  • Mcgoo95||

    Mike Heinie, I knew I could count on you to spew a bunch of incoherent psychobabble all over the place. You definitely don't disappoint. Yummy. Thanks for lesson in libratarianismisms. You're so smart...

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Tony,

    The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory.


    Because money needs a central planner? Or what is the argument for the Fed, in your estimation? Leaving that aside, the Dems are not precisely Market-friendly, so the only coalitions possible between the L's and the Dems is on, as you said it, criminal justice reform and perhaps immigration, and that last one only if the Dems stop playing Latin American immigrants for suckers.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Me and my billions in bitcoin scoff at your fed and inferior fiat currency...

  • Mcgoo95||

    The funny thing is you whine about everybody bullying and being aggressive towards you when you say things like "you clearly have no clue what are "related issues" to libertarians ... compared with Tony -- a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people." I wasn't even talking to you and you start the aggression from nowhere and make a completely non-sensical statement like this. How is Rush Limbaugh a libertarian issue? How is joining a coalition a libertarian issue? Why do you even show up here.....although, I must admit, I enjoy listening to you whine about how the libertarian party has no solutions and then you go ahead spout on about god-knows-what-but-its-not-a-policy. Go suck a turd, but please stick around. It's almost enjoyable...

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    You have a strange way of making everyone's day. I'm a libertarian, but at least I have social skills. Seriously Mike, why do you continue to come to Reason? Have other sites banned you because of your lack of social skills and/or general shitty attitude about everyone that isn't Michael C Hihn?

  • Tony||

    The Fed: because it works better than the obsolete fairy tale you're selling.

    The Democrats are extremely market friendly. Every normal civilized country in the world has a market-based economy (with some degree of a public sector). You won. Capitalism won. Yay! Now just set aside your culty market worship bullshit that forces you to believe and espouse ridiculous things, and we can start taking about the world in a way that treats it as something resembling reality.

    If you're a small political minority you either join a coalition or start behaving rudely in public to get attention. Knock yourself out either way.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    You would know about useless...

  • creech||

    I'm interested in what your reformed LP Platform would say. Damned Platform Committees tweak a word here or there but when was the last time anything radical was included?

  • chemjeff||

    "Git gummint out" is NOT a policy solution.

    On this part I will agree with you. Just saying "cut government" isn't enough.

  • epsilon given||

    I agree. We need "burn everything down", "sow the earth with salt", and "dam up the Pontamac, make Washington DC to be a literal swamp again" to augment the slogan...

  • epsilon given||

    You make it sound like America had a free market in living memory. We haven't had one (particularly in health care) for *decades*.

    Isn't MedicAid (along with MediCare, Social Security, and a couple of other entitlement programs) among the welfare spending that's threatening to destroy the Federal Government? Particularly because these programs combined guarantee that we'll have a spending deficit, year after year?

    And aren't these the same people who give us Veterans Administration health benefits? I've seen what our country provides for our veterans -- the people who fight and are maimed and die for our country -- and I fail to see how it would be a good idea to expand this program to cover all Americans.

    At what point are we going to admit that entitlement programs are merely Ponzi schemes, and that we're far better off getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work?
    It doesn't matter if the Will of the People (whatever *that* means) wants government control,
    if that government control in unsustainable. When the Will of the People crashes into Fundamental Laws of Economics, the Fundamental Laws of Economics will win every time.
    (And no, the Government didn't step in because of free market failure. Government stepped in, and caused free market failure, and then claimed that they could fix it.)

  • epsilon given||

    Oh, and I forgot to add: I *really* wish politicians would learn to teach the people how freedom works, and then explain why government fails us. Indeed, Republicans would have a better chance of repealing that ObamaCare abomination, if they but parade the victims of ObamaCare in front of the nation.

    But they don't. It's as if most Republicans are convinced that the only reason Government doesn't work, is that they aren't the ones in charge...

  • epsilon given||

    Ok, I just read what you actually said. You still give off Statist vibes.

    In part, because you don't offer valid Libertarian solutions that would fix the Libertarian platform.

    In part, that's because you give the impression that Libertarians don't succeed because they don't want to create the Government Programs that the Will of the People clamor for, and are even hostile to the idea that I think politicians should get off their duff and actually *teach* people about freedom.

  • Mark22||

    Yup. it is a Damned Platform Committee. Served on it maybe 10 times and saw total babbling bullshit.

    So you have your chance to advance libertarianism, you failed miserably, and now you just rant and rave at people on Reason.

  • ace_m82||

    All I'm gonna say, don't take up Hihn on his offer of a boat ride. He thinks leaving you 100 miles out on the ocean isn't murder.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, and you also said "still no" to my question as to whether leaving someone 100 miles out on the ocean is murder.

    You're amoral and your concepts as to what murder is shouldn't be trusted, per the link.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634

  • ace_m82||

    Me: I invite you on a boat trip, I say we should go out on the ocean and fish or something. You agree. I drive the boat out 100 miles into the ocean. I then say that I don't have as much food and water as I thought and I don't want to share; also, I only have the one fishing pole. So I dis-invite you and tell you to get off the boat or I'll remove you from my property. You say you can't possibly swim 100 miles and you'll drown. I tell you that sucks and kick you off my boat.

    Have I murdered you?

    You: Still no.

    Any questions as to Hihn's moral failings?

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634

    (Hihn, if you'd prefer not to be on my "list of obnoxious trolls who need to have the dumbest things they've said recorded for future use so they don't argue for several weeks with me" list, then don't be an obnoxious troll!)

    God Bless!

  • ace_m82||

    "WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REASON?"

    You: Unalienable means absolute.

    That's literally what his answer was. Look it up. So, because "unalienable means absolute", taking someone out 100 miles to sea and leaving them there isn't murder.

    Does everyone understand how amoral that is? Why would you ever listen to him about anything regarding morals or ethics?

  • Mark22||

    In the part you SHAMEFULLY failed to cite, THEY were the non-libertarians and had all the votes.

    You said you were part of the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. Obviously, you failed at persuading those people as much as you fail to persuade people here.

    WHY DO YOU OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS ... AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

    I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. In fact, I simply don't care about abortion as an issue at all.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Michael Hindered,

    Problem is -- the libertarian establishment (big and small 'l') has no credible policy solutions .. to anything


    Are you saying that "We won't steal your stuff and we won't pick up fights with other societies for no good reason" are not credible policy solutions?

    If so, then a truly frightening picture jumps into my mind on these "credible policy solutions" you would hold as acceptable.

  • Mark22||

    Are you saying that "We won't steal your stuff and we won't pick up fights with other societies for no good reason" are not credible policy solutions?

    It would be. Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed libertarians don't actually stand for this; you certainly don't.

  • ace_m82||

    What kind of a human thinks it's OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean?

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634

    Michael Hihn is your answer.

    But, regardless of your defense of murder:

    The Lord bless you
    and keep you;
    the Lord make his face shine on you
    and be gracious to you;
    the Lord turn his face toward you
    and give you peace.

  • ace_m82||

    I suppose it doesn't matter what anyone says 9 months ago, right?

    No, I simply got sick of your nonsense and decided to record the dumbest things you've said so I can take a short cut to avoid debates that take weeks. It's way easier to simply say, "Hey, don't listen to Hihn, because he thinks it's OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean" and give them a link to it.

    It effectively shows anyone starting to believe your nonsense why they shouldn't.

    Also, I have quite a few trolls throughout reason.com and mises.org that I do the same for. You should feel honored, Hihn, you've made it on my "obnoxious trolls that I need to record what they say" list. It helps the arguments go much faster.

    But, regardless of you lack of respect for any human life, the one right to not be aggressed against, and all your attempts to deflect from your horrific concepts of morality:

    The Lord bless you
    and keep you;
    the Lord make his face shine on you
    and be gracious to you;
    the Lord turn his face toward you
    and give you peace.

  • Mark22||

    WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS ... AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.

    I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. I simply don't discuss issues with you at all because I think you're mad. I just wish you'd stop poisoning Reason threads with your ravings.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Cato reports that 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label at all.

    Wrong. Cato once reported it, but that was over a decade ago. By pretending it's in any way current you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest and barely worth the effort it took to compose this sentence, much less actually debate.

  • Mark22||

    Problem is -- the libertarian establishment (big and small 'l') has no credible policy solutions .. to anything

    I think that's rather the point of libertarianism: it isn't supposed to provide solutions, it isn't supposed to make people happy, healthy, or wealthy; all it is supposed to do is increase liberty so that people can prosper or fail on their own.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible'


    Popular, yes. Please!

    Not 'Populist'. The 'Populist' candidates that have been inflicted on us so far range from an moldy old socialist to an economically incompetent p...y-grabber to a Southern pederast.

  • texexpatriate||

    Paul is right about the U.S.A. Because of irresponsible deficit spending the U.S. government will collapse relatively soon. Some states may secede even before a financial breakup occurs. It is just a matter of time. A financial catastrophe will stimulate secession by states that otherwise would not have seceded. Libertarians? I don't think they have a prayer of taking power in the current structure. Democrats (who are really Fascists) and Republicans (who are really oligarchists) have the system sewed up tight.

  • Tony||

    Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

    The Republicans are, well I don't even know what you call that shitshow anymore. Oligarchist yes, but also completely insane. Theocrazy? Klepto-mania? The 4th Reich: Electric Boogaloo?

    Let's not allow the excesses of one affect our assessment of the other.

  • Tony||

    A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness. It always seems to devolve into mere grunting in the end. And it doesn't matter the place on the political spectrum. Look how stupid and ineffectual the Bernie fanboys are.

  • BigT||

    "A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness"

    MeToo

  • Mark22||

    Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

    The Democrats are democratic socialists or further left by the standards of most civilized countries.

    The Republicans are, well I don't even know what you call that shitshow anymore.

    For the most part, moderate Christian Democrats, as might be found in every other civilized country on earth.

  • Nuwanda||

    Lot of delusion from old Ron.

    Popular candidate? He must mean a candidate that has popular policies, and there could be no more popular policy among illegal immigrants (and large parts of the Democrat base) than the open borders mantra of many libertarians. Yet those types don't seem to vote for libertarians, do they?

    I'm guessing when ICE raid illegal immigrant locales they don't find stacks of well-thumbed Reasons, or witness the desperate burning and flushing of Libertarian Party pamphlets. There should be a lesson in that for Ron.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul ran a campaign ad in 2008 that featured attempted illegal immigration by swimming across a river. I don't think he's your enemy on this one.

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    Why are these "Hope for Libertarian" stories always about the Presidency? For the love of country and effectiveness, focus on House and Senate races. Surely the Libertarian party can collude with Republicans on congressional races Republicans have little chance of winning, not run a Republican candidate and let a Libertarian unseat a Democrat (and vise versa)? We're never gonna get a Libertarian president if we don't at least have some positive examples of Libertarians in congress.

  • CE||

    And it's working.

  • Dizzle||

    Funny how your lobbing all the criticisms i and others have with you back at the party now. You're just as guilty as the party, but you're completely incapable of self reflection.

    And before you spout off about your dumbass charity healthcare example or your other ideas, realize they're just that, ideas. Not solutions, solutions need to be applicable. Most of your ideas would require massive changes to multiple factions of govt and society, the proverbial all the ducks in a row. But you don't even consider the mechanisms required to get all those ducks there, let alone aligned. And that's why you fail so miserably, because you're selling pipe dreams.

  • Mark22||

    Because the goobers don't give a shit about governing, and have no policies to do so.

    Sounds like a good libertarian to me.

  • ace_m82||

  • Mark22||

    Some are anarchists ... with an entitlement mentality ... sucking the teat of liberty provided by others. GET THE FUCK OUT, LEECHES.

    So you are saying that big government provides the "teat of liberty"? I guess we shouldn't be surprised after you said that "Marx was right".

    I'm with Thoreau: "That government is best which governs least".

  • Mark22||

    WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS ... AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

    Mark22 doesn't oppose any of your proposals because Mark22 doesn't have an opinion on any of your proposals.

  • Episteme||

    I keep arguing that the LP needs to go after all those uncontesting city council and state assembly seats, leaning into either the "fiscal conservative" or "social permissive" (to use Gary terms) side of the platform as needed depending on who they're running against, aiming at younger voters and those bored by the lack of choice. Get an interesting local candidate (perhaps a well-known local entrepreneur) and take a few less-competitive seats. That way, you have established officials who can run for a mayorship, state senate seat or the like. Spend a generation being recognized by casuals as an actual third party (think of the Lib Dems in the UK, being useful and sometimes necessary coalition partners while gaining dominance in certain local spots) before trying to be serious about congress, governships, or ever the presidency.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    So at one point in your life you actually convinced people to support you, to the point they voted for you for office? Getting on the town council is not the same as being chosen to police the trailer park.

    I'm calling bullshit, because you are one of the most ridiculous people I've come across online. You yell (your All-Caps are notorious), have very thin skin ("everyone is agressing me"), and overall make rambling and incoherent posts.

    Can you at least admit that everyone comes in here just to see what insanity you post? And I'll make another assumption: this is the only attention you get from other human beings in a daily basis.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Somebody put Ron back into his casket.

  • Episteme||

    *breaks out as a zombie*

    itshappening.gif

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Lemme gues. That candidate is your spawn Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

  • Episteme||

    Rand Paul must be kicking himself over running in 2016 rather than being able to run in 2020, knowing all the ophthalmologist dad jokes he could have made on the trail about "20/20"...

  • Mark22||

    The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

    A setback for "the libertarian moment"? Is Ron Paul trying to be funny here or is he really that out of it?

  • Bob Meyer||

    What Trump proved is that there is no libertarian moment now or in the near future. Trump's only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive's "we need a strong leader" train. Americans aren't looking for freedom, they're looking for a savior.

  • Mark22||

    Trump's only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive's "we need a strong leader" train.

    Hillary ran as the "strong leader", a progressive, and someone who would fix our problems through intelligent, strong leadership and lots of laws and regulations. What happened?

    Americans preferred an inarticulate, politically inexperienced, failed businessman because they wanted ACA repealed, wanted lower taxes, wanted less regulation, and wanted government out of their hair when it came to sex, sexual orientation, and race.

    The Progressive's "we need a strong leader" train is run by the same people as it always has been: Democrats, progressives, and leftists. Republicans couldn't produce a strong leader if they tried (and they tried).

  • Bob Meyer||

    Hilary couldn't come across as strong because she's not. She rode her husband's coattails and barely defeated an underfunded nobody for her Senate seat in a state whose Republican party is a joke.

    Few people voted for Trump because they wanted less regulation. They wanted to end immigration, stop companies from moving overseas and get even with "those people", "those people" being anyone they disliked.

    This was an election about punishing your enemies and had nothing to do with issues. Hilary's loser supporters screamed in the streets because the whips and chains that they expected to use on Republicans were now in the hands of their enemies. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were now serving the Dark Lord.

    Trump 's inarticulate, unending, self contradictory Tweetstorms was a Rorschach test where people saw their worst fears and greatest hopes. As president he is most like the "Magic 8-Ball" that gives random answers to questions. The weird part is that his purely random actions have been better than either of his predecessors who were consistently bad. Sometimes, although for no apparent reason, Trump does the right thing - Gorsuch, most court appointments and de-regulation.

    Trump has proven that a random number generator can be a better president than a "pragmatic" politician.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Ron Paul is still a member of the "The Fed Makes All Bad Things Happen" club. The Bit Coin Bubble? Really?

    Is there anything that is not caused by the Fed? Could Bernie Madoff swindle people without the Fed pumping up the economy? I suppose that Panam, TWA and Eastern Airlines all went bankrupt because of the Fed? Did the Fed make the Red Sox trade Babe Ruth? I'm sure that RP can prove that the Fed's easy money policies drove Ruth's salary so high that to cut costs the Red Sox sold their best pitcher.

    Business regulation does far more damage than the Fed could ever do. In addition, regulation is a force multiplier for the Fed by restricting capital movements that attempt to ameliorate the damage done when the Fed unleashes it currency schemes.

    The biggest problem with "Austrians" is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil. Getting rid of a central bank is a good idea but unless the regulatory state is rolled back the end of the Fed won't be nearly enough.

  • Mark22||

    The Supply of Gold could not match the skyrocketing Demand for gold .. so we had constant deflation -- forcing worker wages down ... which Marx called "the exploitation of the working class." (He was RIGHT)

    Hihn showing his true colors.

  • ace_m82||

    PROVING the constant FAILURE of the gold standard to maintain stable prices ... constant deflation until almost 1920

    Fractional reserve banking will cause fluctuations in price. "Deflation" is good. My Bitcoin is "deflating" (price deflating) and I'm very happy about that.

    https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth

  • ace_m82||

    If you REALLY owned Bitcoin, you MIGHT be MILDLY aware that its value CRASHED by 45% last week.

    I do own it, and 45% down from 2000% up is still price deflation (over the long run).

    That's how math works.

  • Mark22||

    PROVING the constant FAILURE of the gold standard to maintain stable prices

    Of course a gold standard causes price fluctuations and deflation; I wasn't contesting that.

    I was simply observing that you agreed with Marx and his analysis of the exploitation of the working class: your true colors.

    WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL

    I don't bother paying enough attention to your proposals to either oppose or support them.

  • ace_m82||

  • ace_m82||

    You had said:

    Actually, the Austrians are bat-shit crazy on replacing the Fed...

    I responded with an article as to why it'd be a good idea. Another direct response:

    www.mises.org/blog/let's-ditch-fed-right-reasons

  • Mark22||

    The biggest problem with "Austrians" is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil.

    I can't tell: are you simply a liar with a political agenda or are you really that ignorant of what Austrian economics means?

  • ace_m82||

    Now ... please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

    You don't want "stable prices". You want deflation.

    which the gold standard FAILED to do for over a century.

    Fractional reserve banking will do that to you.

  • ace_m82||

    Like I said.
    You obviously don't know what that means.

    You can loan out money that was deposited and keep only a fraction of it within your system. So, if $100 were deposited and you needed to keep a 10% reserve, you could loan out $90. That would "create" a new $90 as there would be one person who could claim $100 and another who already had $90.

    Why?

    Because everyone likes having more purchasing power. (I'm referring to "price deflation", not monetary deflation, BTW.)

  • ace_m82||

    After reading your response, I realize that you don't understand math or words.

    If $100 is deposited, 10% of that is $10. That means $90 can be loaned out.

    To complicate things, out of that $90, if it's deposited, $81 can be loaned out, and so on.

    Hihn doesn't understand fractional reserve banking (and/or words).

  • ace_m82||

    Your link proves you don't understand economics, but your word comprehension is even worse.

    Linking to your own error hardly helps your (hopeless) cause.

  • ace_m82||

    WRONG DEFLATION

    Right deflation (you were talking price deflation, not monetary deflation).

    FORCES WORKER WAGES DOWN

    Perhaps (in nominal terms), but with everyone getting more rich, it would give them more purchasing power, which would mean their wages would go up in real terms.

    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation

  • ace_m82||

    You: Now ... please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

    Me: You don't want "stable prices". You want deflation.

    You: WRONG DEFLATION

    Me: you were talking price deflation

    See? You were talking "stable prices". Ergo, the deflation I responded with would be price deflation, not monetary.

    But, by all means, call me a "liar" for understanding how words work. How's that been working for you?

    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation

  • ace_m82||

    "Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?"

    Stable prices are worse than price deflation, as everyone who's ever bought anything would know.

    "Falling prices can have EITHER monetary OR investment/productivity causes."

    And? "Investment" in stupid governmental malinvestments are bad. "Production" of stupid governmental claptrap is also bad. Ergo, just because price deflation can be caused by changes in production/investment, that doesn't mean that those changes are bad. GDP is worthless as it fails to take into account that value is relative, and it includes governmental spending as a plus!

    "ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION"

    Everyone wants price deflation of their own money, except the insane!

  • ace_m82||

    Tell us how to have your gold standard WITHOUT fractional reserve banking

    Well, I don't care what "standard" people choose. Bitcoin, silver, gold, beads, lead - I don't care.

    Now, if you wanted to have a gold standard without fractional reserves, it would simply mean that the bank couldn't loan out any percent of the $100 deposited. Unless, that is, they required the deposit to stay deposited for a certain amount of time, then they could loan it out as long as they had it back before the depositor had the right to withdraw it.

    That would be the essence of 100% reserve banking.

    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

  • Bob Meyer||

    Basically, the depositor accepts the risk that in return for a higher interest rate he may have to wait to withdraw his funds. Certificates of deposit do that now so it's hardly a weird, untested idea.

  • ace_m82||

    "It's STILL fractional reserve banking"

    No, it's not. Unless you consider 1/1 a "fraction". (Technically correct is the best kind of correct, amiright?)

    "The CDs MUST be a fraction of the assets."

    No, they don't.

    "THEY EARN NO INTEREST, SO WHY IS THE MONEY THERE?"

    Security. during price deflation, there is no issue.

    It's all explained here, if you care to learn:

    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

  • ace_m82||

    "Your bullshit and ignorance are finally revealed here ... when I finally extract your ignorance of fundamental economics"

    Your link only proves that you have no idea what words mean.

    "On deflation -- it's you vs Milton Friedman. a Nobel Laureate in Economics"

    Assuming that's true (and it's not), it's an Appeal to Authority. Also, you know who has a Nobel in Economics? Krugman!

  • Mark22||

    Now ... please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

    There are several ways of maintaining stable prices, and monetary policy is indeed one of them. What you don't seem to understand is that Austrians consider price stability harmful, which is why they oppose such monetary policy.

    This is what Austrian economists have to say about it:

    For economists of the Austrian school, the monetary policy objective of price stability is a recipe for bringing about disastrous results, namely recurrent economic crises, which in turn ultimately lead to a destruction of economic and political freedom. With price stability having become so widely favored, it is important to outline the Austrian School's thinking in some more detail.
  • Bob Meyer||

    That's a great point. Attempting to produce price stability necessitates an increase in the money supply when productivity increases. This simply shifts the benefits of increased productivity from the producer to a more favored political group. It's an almost invisible form of wealth redistribution.

  • ace_m82||

    He has no idea what Austrian Economics means:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7074912

  • ace_m82||

    So you agree that you have no idea what Austrian Economics means. Good.

  • Mark22||

    One more time. This is how banks create money,.. even under a gold standard $100 deposits ... assume all the money in the world/ $100 loans Now $200 money in the world.

    Nope, sorry, loans don't "create money", they simply create liquidity.

  • ace_m82||

    Fucking liar -- not even that topic

    Yes, that was the topic of what I said, and what you linked to.

    And THAT is how you made a total public fool of yourself just above

    No, you just don't know how words work.

    BUT WE HAD DEFLATION

    You misunderstand that price deflation is different from monetary deflation.

    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation

  • ace_m82||

    "I know HOW they're different. You do not."

    Then how did I just give you their proper definitions with and a link to prove it?

    "ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION"

    So, you don't want price deflation, you don't want your dollar to go further? That's sad. I like more purchasing power.

    "FUCK THE WORKING CLASS"

    So you're saying you're a class warrior now?

  • Bob Meyer||

    No real Austrian economist seriously believes that a central bank is the ultimate cause of all economic problems. Rothbard's work on the Great Depression makes it clear that recessions are normal but a central bank, in attempting to prevent a depression, exacerbates a bubble and turns a normal correction into a catastrophe. Rothbard understood why the Great Depression of 1920 never happened.

    Ron Paul, however, while claiming to be an "Austrian" assigns nearly all problems to the Fed. Compared to his constant Fed bashing how much energy did he spend on regulatory issues? As much as I like Ron Paul, (I was a Ron Paul delegate in 2012) he doesn't appreciate the problems of regulation. Too many of RP's supporters see the Fed as the Death Star and if you can blow up this planet destroyer then the Empire is defeated.

    The Fed is a terrible institution that causes untold grief for most people, but regulation makes it impossible to avoid the Fed's policies and is therefore a worse threat. When people are free to move, the Fed can't create another Great Depression.

  • colorblindkid||

    If the press and media refused to take Gary Johnson and Bill Weld seriously or give them any attention, there's no way in hell any other libertarian is going to get any attention.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Be the example Michael, teach us all in the The Way. You're so smart. You're the only one who's not a gubmint goober. You are the light and the way. Show us your magnificence...we're all here for you. Oh wait, you have no real ideas other than replacing the health care system with charity. But it's a great idea. Maybe you could run as the anti-gubmint goober candidate. Before you accuse me of stalking you, just know that I really enjoy the spew you spray everywhere. Love you=)

  • Mcgoo95||

    Thanks for the correction and clarification Mikey, I'm going to spend the day reading your web archives so I can truly understand the depth of your genius. Thanks for correcting my wrong-thought and encouraging me to pull my head out of my ass. I can see so much better now. I also realize that the way you interact with people is only because you have to beat it into everyone's head how wrong they are and how right you are, if only they would pay attention. I'm also flattered to be your stalker. I only wish I was important enough to have people stalking me for speaking truth. Maybe someday...

  • Mcgoo95||

    Would you some cheese with your whine? I'd say you're a much prettier snowflake than me =)

  • JuanQPublic||

    What's with the cocaine-infused comment section today?

  • Mike d||

    With all due respect to Ron Paul, out of the +-25% of positions that I don't agree with the libertarians on, removing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard has got to be one of the more retarded ideas.

    I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, with peaks and "panics" constantly happening every 20 years. The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster. Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard. Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend. Then its worth up 10% the next month. No thanks.

    Although I guess now I can see why Bitcoin has become the darling of the hardcore die-hard libertarians. If you support the gold standard, supporting Bitcoin makes sense. The constant speculation is a feature, not a bug.

  • ace_m82||

    I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds...

    Non Sequitur.

    The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster.

    How much inflation has there been since the 1930s (when the gold standard was all but abandoned)?

    Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard.

    Fluctuations in Bitcoin are (mostly) due to asset inflation (the panic from too much inflation and too low an interest rate - thanks Fed) and because the pool is still too small to be very stable.

    Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend.

    http://www.52insk.com/2016/soros/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

    Yeah, non-gold backed fiat currency is actually a bad thing!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online