Second, doesn’t it say a lot about Ron Paul that one of the founders of the libertarian movement can’t bring himself to whole heartedly endorse him ?

No, it says nothing about Ron Paul when someone who never votes and doesn’t intend to vote says he won’t vote for him (the ultimate endorsement).

Who has Crane ever endorsed, by the way?

The entire premise is on winning the ideological battle.

There’s a common misconception in politics that once you win the battle the war will be over. That’s just never going to happen. There will always be people pushing for statism because there will always be people who crave personal power over others. Overall we may make ourselves more free as a society and we should strive towards that but there’s never a point at which the ideologies we oppose will go away. It’s just never going to happen. So when you talk about “winning” you should keep in mind that all victories in politics are ultimately temporary ones because the world doesn’t stop once you “win”…the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Maybe it’s a personality thing. Do you prefer having band-aids removed from your arm slowly or all at once?

Clever analogy, but ultimately the welfare state is a crutch, not a Band-Aid :) As long as it’s there people will continue to find reasons to keep it around and build it back up after reductions. Incremental changes simply don’t work because no politician wants to be the one to finally cut off the check. But eventually cut off the checks they must. And there will be short-term pain, but people will adjust out of necessity.

I also say this as somebody who’s got a family member dependent on SSI disability for things she had no control over. I recognize that removing that program would cause hardship for her. But ultimately if it were taken away our family will step in to take care of her because it’s our responsibility to do so since she’s part of our family. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to do so nor should we have a right to force anyone else to shoulder the burden (which is what government charity is).

Second, doesn’t it say a lot about Ron Paul that one of the founders of the libertarian movement can’t bring himself to whole heartedly endorse him ?

Aren’t there fundamental differences between the Cato sphere and the Mises sphere? I doubt he’d give a full-throated endorsement of Paul, even if the baggage didn’t exist, especially since he doesn’t vote.

You shouldn’t include the national debt, for one. It is a fictitious debt, against a fictitious money.

Yes, but you can’t make it go away without nuking the entire system. I’d rather accept that we’ve already been given a bum deal and work to get out from under it, as Paul proposes.

I think it would force us to eliminate the welfare state pretty quickly, but I also think it would cause our economy to expand and prosper quite rapidly.

I hope you’re right, but the way I see it, eliminating the welfare state quickly, means some or all of us will be screwed quickly. I can assume the burden of my parents over the course of the next couple decades, but if you force it upon in a short period of time, the standard of living will plunge quickly.

Maybe it’s a personality thing. Do you prefer having band-aids removed from your arm slowly or all at once?

Our country’s greatness was founded on freedom from government, not a dedication to making it a better nanny

That’s what I meant. Freedom is in our heritage (relatively speaking), unlike most other nations throughout history. Most nations throughout history knew nothing but slavery.

Everyone here knows freedom is good, they’ve just lost sight of what it is. That’s still an imposing obstacle, but it’s a better starting point than most countries.

Funny things about debts…they usually don’t wait until it’s convenient for you to pay them off. Once we got past the demographic glitch there’d still be some smart-ass Keynesian claiming that this is an indicator we have so much more for our government to spend.

The entire premise is on winning the ideological battle. If the Keynesians aren’t relegated to the fringe, the whole discussion is moot. If we do win the ideological battle, the debt could be contained while we get other affairs settled.

but think of the devastation that would come from the collapse of such a huge economy

Here’s the thing, though…I don’t believe that opening the borders would cause our economy to collapse. I think it would force us to eliminate the welfare state pretty quickly, but I also think it would cause our economy to expand and prosper quite rapidly.

“All of Paul’s comments aside, his math just doesn’t work. Even if we stopped all foreign wars, brought our troops home and ended all foreign aid it’s still not going to pay the bill for Social Security, our national debt, the Medicare drug subsidy Dubya the Idiot got passed…etc.”

I disagree, and the financials show it.

You shouldn’t include the national debt, for one. It is a fictitious debt, against a fictitious money.

As before, if you watch “Money as Debt”, you will soon see that the concept of “Fractional Banking” (loaning $1000 on $1 of something with real value), combined with the government-gun imposed monopoly on it’s practice, allows for a private group (Federal Reserve), to force an interest-rate indebtedness on Americans, on printing of unbacked paper – i.e., a loan which is totally fictitious!

The IRX forces the repayment. It’s existence is integral to Central Banking schemes, and both entities were created the same year – 1913.

What a great gig if you can get it as a Banker! You owe me REAL property, for printing dollars, which I created out of thin air! They lent us nothing!

Your interest payment, on the other hand is REAL – it comes from your labor, pure and simple, into the IRX. Not one dollare of your income tax goes to entitlements, only to pay the interest!

Imagine you need money, and I have a monopoly in the US, on writing checks. I only have $1 in gold, but the government says I can lend out $1000 in phony paper, and collect REAL interest property on that $1000, enforced by their guns. Would be a great deal for me, no?

So, I write you a check (and lots of others checks), and you will owe me interest on the “loan”. I don’t actually have any money, but the government will force your debtors to obey that check, as if it was real, and you will need to pay me REAL interest (as well as the other “borrowers”), through your labor and actual property.

Nice gig – at least for me the Banker, no?

This is exactly what our Central Bank does, and the owners are very very few in number, and not sovereign to America.

Unfortunately, every time I float more “checks”, yours becomes more and more worthless, so I am essentially stealing the “value” inherent in every transaction in America – and I get paid huge for it!

Really bad for you, but great sheme for me, no?

We are a much richer nation (or were, or could be) than you understand.

Stopping the bleeding requires not only cutting back on welfare entitlements and global empire, but reducing the inflationary theft from year to year, generation to generation, which has been occuring continuously over the last century.

And the debt will have to wait. We need to eliminate the deficit, but we’ll have to keep the interest-only lone until we get past the demographic glitch.

Funny things about debts…they usually don’t wait until it’s convenient for you to pay them off. Once we got past the demographic glitch there’d still be some smart-ass Keynesian claiming that this is an indicator we have so much more for our government to spend.

I haven’t studied enough to find that needle in the haystack of history, but I bet it’s there and if it’s not, I still have some glimmer of hope that we may be it. After all, country was founded by people determined to defy history.

If you’re saying that because we’re Americans we have more of an ability to create the perfect governmental system to control human behavior, I’m sorry but that’s just plain crazy because economics says it’s crazy…and I wouldn’t want to live under that system anyway. Our country’s greatness was founded on freedom from government, not a dedication to making it a better nanny. Free will is imperfect, but it’s still the best of all possible worlds.

All of Paul’s comments aside, his math just doesn’t work. Even if we stopped all foreign wars, brought our troops home and ended all foreign aid it’s still not going to pay the bill for Social Security, our national debt, the Medicare drug subsidy Dubya the Idiot got passed…etc. At some point you’re going to have to make some harsh, painful cuts and that’s just the way it is.

Agreed, his rhetoric spends those overseas savings several times over. It is enough to make those reforms plausible. Many of those programs can be phased out aggressively, so the cross-generational cost isn’t as much of a problem. It’s just Social Security (and to a lesser extent Medicare) that needs to be handled cautiously over a couple decades.

And the debt will have to wait. We need to eliminate the deficit, but we’ll have to keep the interest-only lone until we get past the demographic glitch.

Honestly, entitlements are like a drug addiction…eventually things spiral beyond your control and lead to a slow death. Opening the borders to break the welfare system earlier is just a suggested method for going cold turkey.

I agree with the analogy, but think of the devastation that would come from the collapse of such a huge economy. There won’t be a rehab shelter to help us through the withdrawals. It’ll be painful and it’ll take decades to rebuild the standard of living. You’re gonna crack a ton of eggs to make that omellete.

We’re about to go through a semi-painful recession; people will be displeased with the status quo. I’d like to take one more shot at convincing them that there are better options.

I accept the likelihood of the nuclear outcome and as we approach it, I will continue to prepare for it, but I’m also going to try to avoid it and I’m definitely not going to usher it along.

Preaching to the choir, brother. With immigration, however, I don’t consider that to actually be the nuclear option for getting rid of welfare. I consider the gradual bankrupting of the country and erosion of our freedoms through all the laws the government passes to keep the welfare system solvent a much worse alternative…mainly because once it gets to the point where we’re forced to change we’ll have much fewer options and the damage will be much greater because we’ll be more dependent on the system.

Honestly, entitlements are like a drug addiction…eventually things spiral beyond your control and lead to a slow death. Opening the borders to break the welfare system earlier is just a suggested method for going cold turkey.

I notice them. I also notice that very few of them changed until they collapsed or reached the brink of collapse.

I advocate the “nuclear” option because that’s the only thing that works. Why don’t you show me an instance of immigration reform using more government that’s actually made the situation better?

I haven’t studied enough to find that needle in the haystack of history, but I bet it’s there and if it’s not, I still have some glimmer of hope that we may be it. After all, country was founded by people determined to defy history. They did, to some extent, and maybe…just maybe… we can continue their work.

I accept the likelihood of the nuclear outcome and as we approach it, I will continue to prepare for it, but I’m also going to try to avoid it and I’m definitely not going to usher it along.

a) Reduction of our global military empire (767 global military bases and counting, plus 1 active war)

b) Elimination of the Federal Reserve and it’s complicit payback scheme of IRS (and the 10 Trillion $ “phony interest” owed on the phony money the private Central Bank “lent” us.

c) Stopping the inflation theft of our wealth through fiat currency.

These 3 steps (bold as they are), would result in a tremendous (and I mean large) “windfall” to the United States (aside from gaining the lost prestige and function as the freedom engine economy of the world).

Will it happen? Not yet I’m afraid (now I’m pessimistic….).

But it would allow for a less-painful rehab from our current liberty-losing bender over the last 150 years.

The other remaining welfare-state entitlements and monarchical monopolies will be small in comparison, if we correct the above.

However, make no mistake – both freedom-theft avenues are thoroughly embedded in our government and media at present.