Dont you find it depressive?

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

That everywhere you go, no matter which internet forum, news paper or public performance you listen to, they are all against us. Those who claim to support free market ditch their beliefs as soon as a problem hits. Politicians all for deregulation and liberty, but when trouble hits, the very same people completely forget about it.

Seeing 99% of people advocate the state, coercion for the general good, even while complaining about problems that the very thing which they advocate itself caused. All the vicious anger at selfish Wall Street companies, yet the criticizers themselves use from the very same ideas of individual wealth accumulation in their everyday life.

It would be understandable if people werent so hypocritical, their behaviour would be coherent even if it was marxist. But hearing all the confusing gibberish makes a person think that he is the only sane person.

2

WOW nandnor, nice.

3

Eh, sometimes. Look at the upsides. In conversations/debates, our ideas are logical in practice for even the laymen to understand. People admire logic. They can understand it.(unless they are blindly devoted to one thing or another). Like debt is bad. Everyone gets that. You can always come out in practical talks a winner.(If you speak well and respectfully but can edge out some guff when needed) And girls dig winners.

Ive had a long running argument with an Obama -Progressive on my car forum. I have countless flawless victories against him, for all the forum to see. I get messages saying “wow, that all makes sense” or “man, you whooped his ass again” or “Where can I fond more info like that?”. I enjoy the underdog shtick we seem to have. If everybody agreed with me, Id have nothing to do.

But in the end the opposition will get its way (at least for the nest 4 years) at the expense everyone, including those who oppose it. Democracy sucks.

4

Damn man

I’ve never even convinced someone to move slightly towards liberty and I’ve been trying a long time. How do you convince?

5

Maybe not playing the “capitalism” or even “liberty” card straight out. The strength lies not in its name, but in what it stands for specifically and tangibly.

Anyway, me too I like the underdog position, undressing the emperor! For sure, there’s a long way until society is changed, but in each debate it is a tremendous strength to have a solid ground to stand on, and one which is actually not very difficult to understand. Austrianomics and libertarian rights are quite intuitive, once heard. And being an underdog to that, keeps everyone off guard and surprises them because of low expectations. People in general are “depressed” by all things political and economical in mass media. To many, it all seems to be a mess without hope or system in it. That’s where we bring the light!

I saw a video here somewhere, where a speaker argued that the most important points to make in debates, is to illustrate who’s advocating violence: “Sure, if you think that’s better for you, go ahead, I won’t stop you. I respect your views, and the choices you make, even if I disagree. Now, I’d like to do things differently. Would you let me do that, without me being threatened by force?” It’s a great eye opener to people to learn that government means violence, when it is phrased in a good way. They are anti-libertarian because they, amazingly enough, don’t know that! And that’s sympathic. People are mostly just misinformed and confused on this subject, not evil. I need only review myself a few years ago. I was generally pro free market, but didn’t even know what libertarianism was.

Show valour, my friend, valour! The ones you win over will each win several others over too. Like Ron Paul says: Freedom is popular!

6

By being clear. Like today I got the regular “There was too much deregulation, that caused the crisis”. The I posted every financial and banking regulator and every finance reform act and its obviously a monstrous list. You cannot argue against reality. I don’t have to explain what actually did cause it, since the refutation to it is already in ashes. Its like a criminal case in law, the defendant has nothing to prove, the prosecutor has the sole burden of proof in the case (beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction). Once you remove any proof or show any doubt, the case against is thrown out.

7

Do you have that list?

We should construct a database, a Wiki, for debate purposes. A FAQ, that’s it, a FAQ plein and simple!

8

I actually found it here, it was in a reply to a blog post.

Office of Tax Policy, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Community Development Investment Fund, Office of Thrift Supervision, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, Office of Financial Institutions, Office of International Trade, Office of Banking and Securities, Office of Trade Finance, Office of International Monetary Policy, Office of Financial Stability, Import-Export Bank, Exchange Stabilization Fund, Working Group on Financial Markets, Plunge Protection Team, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)

Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Banking Act of 1935, Trust Indenture Act of 1939, Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Advisors Act of 1940, Employment Act of 1946, Federal Reserve-Treasury Department Accord of 1951, Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 1970, Commodity Exchange Act of 1970, Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, International Banking Act of 1978, Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, Monetary Control Act of 1980, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, Plaza Accord of 1985, Lourve Accord of 1987, Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999, Regulation Fair Disclosure Rule of 2000, Uniform Securities Act of 1956, 1985, 1988 and 2002, Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Regulation National Market System Rule of 2005, Community Re-Investment Act of 1994

Looking at something like this, and asking some one to find “deregualtion” or “freemarket” in it gets good fan fare.

25 Videos About Health Care
9

very cool. i note G Reisman did something similar in that article he wrote about ‘dont blame free-markets’ type article sometime back. so you are in good company

10

It certainly is depressing. My argument against ‘the free market did it’ is usually along the lines of:

  1. Get them to agree that it was too much money and credit that caused the problem. This much is uncontroversial.

  2. Ask them if there is a free-market in money? Can they choose what currency to be paid in? What currency to borrow or pay their taxes in? Who do they think controls our money and how much of it there is? Would they use money that has lost X% of its value over the last Y period if they had a choice? (all the while pointing to the governments central role to the whole thing).

  3. They then should be in agreement that too much money caused the problem and that money creation isn’t subject to the free-market.

Chuck in a few definitions and poof! it was socialism wot did it, not capitalism [:D]

Although I must admit, it never quite works out as well as it should on paper. [:^)]

11

You have to leave it short and sweet. Most people are uninterested in the paper currency issue. You could bring up and leave it at “this would be difficult on a gold standard”

  • A move Ive started doing is simply asking why? It makes the person think more about they are saying and usually stop themselves for a second. I had my ethics professor on this. He was talking about Rockefeller and predatory pricing and the evils of monopolies. He asked the class “What if Rockefeller did what he did today? What would happen to him?” The students said “he’d probably got to jail.” He said correct. I ask “why?” He undercut “everyone else driving them out of business etc…the whole textbook reasons” I asked why is that bad, the consumers got cheaper goods, they won in the end, and Rockefeller’s market share dwindled by the time anti-trust laws were enacted. I simply ran off the the quick paragraphs from Woods PIG to History . He said the classic professor line “interesting”. After class he told me I was absolutely right. Of course the whole class heard the exchange and young people tend go along with “the consumer wins” line.

Make the other people think about what they are saying. The truth lies in a mess of lies. And you can turn a person around w/o really doing anything.

12

I just assume everyone around me is socialist. So when I see someone who isn’t it makes me happier.

13

I second that.