If you don’t get that, then you do not have the requisite understanding of the issue and, therefore, aren’t cut out to even have an opinion on this subject.
Move along, people…Nothing to see here.
“let’s be honest…” the dude in the video linked by the OP is a douche.
Re: Alex Jones video
he does have a point. anarchists do have a lot of intellectual capital. it should be embarrassing a politican has been more successful distributing those ideas than libertarians.
How so?
jones is an idiot. That wasn’t a good example.
The FED is already legal bound to do things on behalf of the ESF. The OP is making a point that has been made.
Isn’t Ron Paul a buddy of AJ?
He goes on interviews there like anywhere else?
I don’t want to get into arguing that, so:
How so?
So he’s saying Ron Paul is a bureaucrat because Ron Paul is not a bureacrat. He’s saying Ron Paul is one of them because Ron Paul is not one of them. Considering the logic of radio hosts, that’s actually not bad. At least it’s in the form of a syllogism, albeit a highly unsound one.
He’s spot on. I’m not defending the state, but simply because the state is indefensible doesn’t mean anarchy is the answer. Anarcho-capitalists, from what I can tell when I speak with them on here, never like talking about specific instances of clashing territories being rectified by private agencies. They are excellent at debunking state myths, but when it comes to structuring their own “justice system” if you will, they make little sense.
For instance, let’s see how many can answer this realistic example:
If I am robbed in the middle of the woods, who do I call to get my money back or at least retribution? Let’s say I even know who robbed me. I call a private company. The private company confronts the man with the assertion, he denies it. Then what? Let’s say there is evidence of footprints leading from the crime scene to his house. Can they bust in his door and forcefully take his money when there’s a lack of proof? Who determines if there’s a lack of proof or sufficient proof? What if he called a competing agency claiming I stole money from him when I didn’t, and the agency follows my footprints to my house, all while I’m innocent. Then what?
This is an example of something that can very well happen, yet many anarcho-capitalists say, “You’re using odd examples instead of focusing on the principle of the matter.” Then they grow to hold a disestablishmentarian mind where they’re focused on proving the state wrong, therefore yet again falsely implying that anarchy must be the answer since the state is completely wrong. It’s a solution by default, and it has not been proven to be better by any significant degree. It’s called the black-or-white fallacy, and in this case it’s a valid critique of their argument.
Who is preaching a utopia? Read Power and Market.
I think his point is that if Ron Paul audits the Fed, then the Fed will be subject to even more governmental control. It’s a good point. I mean, if Ron Paul believes that governmental investigations usually cover things up (as he’s said), then why would an audit of the Fed be useful?
@Buzz: You’re being obtuse. Ron Paul clearly states in his book, End the Fed, that the endgame is liberalization of the market in money production. In fact, he actually rejects ending the Fed overnight as a viable solution to the problem because it would lead to chaos and destruction in the banking and financial industries.
Pay attention.
Clayton -
Oh never mind, this guy is a moron: