Hi, I thought many of you might be interested in this interview with David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States of America. Given the fact that he Works for the Federal Government, he was far more frank about the state of the economy than I ever would have expected. You can read a transcript of his interview with Glenn Beck here.
Ryan
Scary, scary stuff bro. Looks like it’s time to embrace Anarchism.
Indeed. I listen to Glenn Beck quite a bit and sometimes get the impression he could, with the right argument, be gently persuaded into market anarchy. I would NOT call him a libertarian but he does have a very healthy skepticism about governmental power and what it can and cannot do.
pairunoyd,
It’s always time to embrace less government, even when we’re not facing a future economic catastrophy. I’m a minarchist that could certainly be pursued to be anarchist, and I would love anarchy if everything worked out with it, but unfortunately the economic crisis will result in more government. It will push us much further towards complete socialism.
This is just another reason why non-Ron Paul supporting libertarians/anarchists are no better than an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand. I hope you all feel good about sticking to your principles when this country becomes communist. Reeeeaaaallll smart…
Can we introduce our own currency? If not, what’s the government’s definition of currency? What about collateralism? Is that even a word??? It seems if you could start a network of anti-fiatists (oppose fiat money) and try to limit your business to only those people and make your alternative economy attractive, demand would shift to it and away from the government’s purview. Maybe similar to an Amish community w/o the taboo on technological advances (unless that’s what YOU want).
If you were to transact/contract with a fellow anti-fiatist and they decided to negate it’s legality by invoking the U.S. government, what actions could/should the anti-fiatists take? I know creditworthiness would also inform the contracting parties, but would it be strategically wise to attempt to enforce the terms of the contract if this enforcement encroached upon the U.S.'s monopoly on force, ie the U.S. justice system?
Am I being inextricably drawn to Anarchism or some as yet unnamed ism I’ve yet to comprehend?
It’s freightening to hear the incessant clanging of truth when you’ve grown so comfortable in your lies.
It seems in everything I do I’m compelled to the fringes.
What is this force that weilds me, that batters the fields of deception, brusing my head, forsaking my safety of the sheath?
By: The Polemical Anti-Fiatist
The warrior grips me.
His hands choke our identities, meshing our purpose into one.
I am his extension into the universe.
I serve him and he serves me.
We stand atop the lies and liars, heralding the banner of truth:
“Victory is sweet,” saith the warrior!
Victory is sweet," proveth the sword.
(and his sword was truth)
And all those that fell upon it were liars.
What you described above sounds (loosely) like agorism, i.e. revolution against the state by engaging in economic activity outside its domain, or even disregarding its edicts and engaging in transactions it (unjustly) declares illegal, thus bleeding it dry.
Ron Paulianism is sounding more and more like a religion.
Maybe this is contradictory, but I’m 99% convinced anarchy is THE way and I will vote for Ron Paul. Here’s how I see it.
Let’s say your a Prisoner of War, POW. You’re tortured every few days. The ‘warden’ is cruel and vicious. The guards are cruel and vicious. You’re planning an escape or you plan to overthrow the camp. Well, there’s a new warden in town by the name of Ron Paul. Yes, he is imprisoning you, but he’ll not have you tortured like the other warden. Wouldn’t you rather have Mr. Paul while you’re planning your escape?
I know there are holes in the analogy. You could say the prisoners’ desire to escape will diminish because circumstances aren’t as bad now. And it always comes down to a personal thing, I guess. But I can’t help but think, of all the great principles he espouses, Brother Paul, I mean, Warden Paul, is THE choice. Plus, Paul just might be a prisoner sympathizer. But do you think he’d ever have a chance in hell of being the new warden if his men knew this?
Also, you have to consider Paul’s effects. He will give many of our beliefs, i.e. more freedom, a go. Yes, if he became President, the congress would bash him. The media would show all the horrifc affects of robbers not robbing who they usually rob and fencers not getting the loot. He’ll be hated. He’ll be despised. In fact, I could imagine him being in grave danger. In all likelihood, the congress will smash his efforts to smithereens. But at least our message, portions of our message, will be heard and considered by a few more ears. Maybe these people, seeing a glimpse of the ‘light’, yes, a small glimpse, will be drawn to it. He could be a great polarizer. He might be the thing that can be rallied around and can catapult those holding the best principles to a greater strategic position.
Look at the history of the world. Look at the governmentalization. It’s a massive enemy. No, I hate compromise, I truly do. But, I see this less as a compromise and more as a strategic opportunity. An opportunity to get closer to the good. An opportunity for others to see what we see. I can’t let this opportunity slip away…
Paul is a human being, not a god. Human beings have flaws, make mistakes. People may shy away from human beings for superficial reasons or substantive disagreements on issues. People may also be attracted to a human being for superficial or vacuous reasons. Take Barak Obama for example. It is some vague notion of “Hope”, “change” a good speaking voice that attracts people to him. OK Obama, hope of what? Change in what direction? It has been said by many (and I agree) that one of the problems with the Objectivist movement in the 60’s and 70’s was that it turned into more of a personality cult than a true philosophical movement. Ayn Rand had some good ideas but she did not shunt Nathanial Branden and Murray Rothbard out of her inner circle because of their ideas. Another Objectivist named David Kelley was shunted out of the ARI because he had the audacity to speak about Objectivism in front of an audience of mainstream libertarians. It is ideas that are important. Promoting a single human being named Ron Paul can turn into a cult of personality and judging by some comments I have read it has in the minds of at least some.
A bit off topic, but having read some of Peikoff’s latest articles, I fail to see how he even qualifies as an Objectivist anymore, as opposed to Randroid (i.e. sadists who think they’re Objectivists and worship Rand.)
I appreciate your concern, but as for me personally, I’m about as far from an idol worshiper as you can imagine. I’m of the opinion man is from dirt and back to dirt he goes. Man is so pathetically weak he can’t draw his next breath unless God permits it. So, no need to worry about my being delusional about any special Ron Paul powers. I simply believe in the ideas he espouses. But I do share your concerns for those that wish to make celebrities out of everyone. He’s just a fartin, crappin, one-pant-leg-at-a-time old geezer. Much respect Bro. Paul. You’re a better man than me!!! [:^)]
God give us liberty
What specifically did Peikoff write that gave you this impression? I am not disagreeing just asking. Also, I thought true sadists worshiped the Marquis de Sade 
In an article of his he basically mentioned he has no problem with the slaughter of innocents under the rule of an unjust government, because it is their government that necessitates this. This has absolutely nothing to do with what Rand advocated. See here.
How morally despicable.
Well, if America was a voluntary community and we were attacked or molested by a state or another voluntary community, such as Iraq, I’d probably have to agree w/ the professor. You can’t let logistics make it impossible or very expensive to defend yourself if you can get around it. I’m not saying that’s a good assessment of the situation, but at some point you do give up on trying to avoid lost innocents and simply defend yourself.
Casualties are inevitable, but what this guy is saying is that the US should not worry one bit about whom it kills, so long as it gets the job done. Not exactly something I’d agree with.