The Shotgun Blog
« Good news and bad news on taxes | Main | Trouble with taxis in Calgary and elsewhere »
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Ron Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto
US News & World Report reported today that...
He's back—though GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul never really left. (See his showing in the Pennsylvania primary, where, against presumed nominee John McCain, he picked up nearly 16 percent of the vote despite having effectively suspended his campaign months ago.)
Today, Paul's book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, is officially released and it's already zoomed to No. 8 on Amazon's bestseller list and is the top-selling political book. The Texas congressman is using today's launch to urge his fervent supporters to continue their libertarian "revolution."
This is Ron Paul’s fifth book since 2007, and his most important. His supporters are calling it his literary “legacy.”
In an email to supporters, Paul wrote:
These principles - individual liberty, sound money, the Constitution, and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers - have had no home in American politics for a very long time. With The Revolution: A Manifesto, I'm letting the establishment know we're not going away.
Finally, Americans can hear and judge these great American principles for themselves, instead of through an unfriendly media filter. And they can learn once and for all that they need not be satisfied with the phony choices the system offers them every four years. Another way really is possible.
I’ll be sure to add The Revolution to my bookshelf.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on May 1, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5520750588833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto:
Comments
>"And they can learn once and for all that they need not be satisfied with the phony choices the system offers them every four years."
Of coarse Ronulans won't be satisfied with the phony choices the system offers them every four years.
By definition, Ronulans are malcontents, disgruntled even.
Fear not, Ronulans, Ron Paul!-has a new phony choice that is bound to satisfy you credulous know-nothings.
Prepare to get regruntled by a new book!
Have you Ronulan pinheads ever stopped to think that there isn't enough gold in the entire United States of America to actually make into coin for 330 million people?
Have you ever considered that gold, at $883 per troy ounce would make a dollar coin the size of a child's aspirin and thin as a sheet of paper?
That rather than carry coins around the gold would have to be kept in a pile somewhere, guarded by an Army, and PAPER certificates would have to be PRINTED to represent the gold?
That foreigners, when they acquired the gold certificates would then be able to trade them for the gold and remove the gold from the Americas which is why America left the gold standard in the first place?
That gold, being a finite precious metal, if it were currency would limit the currency in circulation if it weren't represented by certificates?
That having gold certificates would be the same as your "fiat" money problem, you'd never really know if there were more certificates than actual gold?
Am I getting through to any of you gulls?
Well have your freaking revolution then.
But don't pretend that the American Founding Fathers were Libertarians because they WEREN'T.
You do have a revolutionary Libertarian hero though, other than the great Dr. Paul.
His name is Timothy McVeigh.
http://wlo418.tripod.com/worldlibertarianorder/id18.html
How do you like your revolution now, suckers.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 1:32:05 AM
That's a dumb comment Speller, you can do better.
For one, Paul has mentioned silver and copper, in addition to gold, as possible metals for coinage.
Two, there's no reason to make the whole coin out of a precious metal, it could be a percentage of the coin.
Three, Paul talks about allowing competition in coinage, and making alternative currencies, like the Liberty Dollar, legal, not necessarily returning everything to a commodity standard all at once.
Four, the "revolution" isn't merely about the gold standard--it's about much more than that.
And five, what's with the antipathy toward taking power away from the government to fiddle with currency values anyway? Do you really think that giving governments this power is such a great idea?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-05-01 2:47:44 AM
I'm glad you asked that, Jaws.
Let's begin at the end.
4) The "revolution" is about the gold standard because it's about Paul's integrity and the gold standard is a symbol of that.
The "revolution" is a personality cult, and belief that the material the currency is made from needs to change highlights that fact.
Furthermore, the idea of "fiat" money being bad in itself damages the value of the currency as it is because the value of the currency today is a reflection of peoples confidence in the government coupled with their confidence in the productivity of nation as a whole.
3) I have no problem with transition from one currency to another if the transition is necessary at all.
I will now show why that transition is not necessary.
2) The concept of precious metal is itself absurd.
It is like the concept of diamonds being precious when they differentiate from shiny bits of glass only through expert examination while whole warehouses are full of diamonds in Belgium to remove them from the market to make them artificially rare and they can be man-made.
Copper ISN'T a precious metal, it is used to make wiring and plumbing pipe and, like silver, it corrodes.
Not making the whole coin out of gold DEBASES the currency.
There is not point in making a gold coin unless it is pure gold.
You could just as easily made dollar bills out of silk or Kashmir and say, "There, now the dollar bills are made out of something that has intrinsic value!" as if the paper/linen mix that already exists doesn't as much.
What is the point of spending $billions in the transition if the result remains the same?
Could the new currency be lent at interest?
Yes.
Does the lending rate then not remain subject to manipulation by the Federal Reserve?
Yes.
By debasing gold through cutting it with baser metals to make coins could the government not change the percentage or even the type of base metal in the coin causing fluctuation?
Yes.
Could the government still mint as many of these debased coins as they want?
Yes.
Would changing from the folding bill to cash coinage make the currency inflation proof?
No.
Is the new minted currency then any different then the existing "fiat" money?
NO.
IT IS ENTIRELY A CON JOB.
1) As I said above, it matters not what the currency is made of.
Currency is a medium of exchange to facilitate commerce.
Most people use PLASTIC today and the use of plastic is only going to increase because it is more secure than cash and more convenient too.
The value of currency is a reflection of confidence in the government and the state of a nation's economic productivity.
The whole idea of returning to the gold standard is hucksterism and it shows up Ron Paul to be a huckster and those who believe in his "revolution" to be MARKS.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 7:51:54 AM
Speller: The angry man who stands for - and has accomplished - nothing. This is why democracy will lead to ugliness, ignorance and tyranny.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 9:16:39 AM
You didn't understand any of what I said above so you resort to an ad hominem attack against me AND an attack on democracy.
Your posts are rubbish, abc.
Will you be the next Timothy McVeigh?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 9:31:19 AM
speller:
At least abc has articulated where he's coming from.
He dislikes the very system he lives in ... and has clearly articulated he's anti-democratic.
Since there's no other credible alternative, it appears he's a progressive hitchiker who will use democratic institutions for the ultimate goal ... utopian totalitarianism.
Interesting. Thanks for the clue, abc.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 9:38:28 AM
Ooooh, a label. How intelligent.
The faux religious closet dweller accuses people of ad hominem attacks. Maybe Speller should go read some of his own posts. You reap what you sow speller.
Oh no SYF, democracy, which brought us Hitler is a great system. 55 million dead!! This was because people like speller were allowed a modicum of power with their angry, ignorant votes.
Just keep your heads up each others ass. No need to challenge the beliefs that the gov't taught you. Have you ever noticed that Speller never endorses anything? He just spews silliness at everyone else's beliefs. You've picked a bad "friend" SYF.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 9:54:03 AM
abc,
My posts, seemingly abusive as they are, are not ad hominem attacks.
Your posts would have to have factual content first, then, rather than address those facts, I would have to avoid them by impugning your character as a diversion from my inability to challenge the facts you present.
But, since you have presented NO FACTS, my attacks on your credibility and character are justified AND are not fallacious ad hominem argument.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 10:04:41 AM
Oh cut the garbage. You present no ideas whatsoever and never will. You just come on here with your little mind unable to grasp anything of substance and go on to poke irrational holes in any real positions. Your "facts" are laughable and you present no alternatives.
You can't even see the problem with printing money. I have a 7 year old neice that understands that the more of anything exists, the lesser its value.
You are free to attack because you are devoid of ideas and have nothing to defend. Now go to church and tell everyone how full of love you are. Phoney egghead.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 10:24:52 AM
>" I have a 7 year old neice that understands that the more of anything exists, the lesser its value."
abc | 1-May-08 10:24:52 AM
I could demonstrate to your niece that, "the more of anything exists, the lesser its value." is not a hard rule.
Do you think that she would understand that the more love there was the less it would be valued?
Or the more LIBERTY there was the less it would be valued?
While "the more of anything exists, the lesser its value" is true about something that is a market commodity or service, it is not true about money which is only a symbol meant to facilitate exchange.
Symbols, being abstract things like love or liberty, do not change in value because of scarcity or abundance.
If there were no currency at all, neither folding nor cash, but only plastic, and the analogue memory strip recorded generic "units" rather than "dollars", those units would all be held in the memory bank of a computer and recorded on the magnetic strip of the plastic.
The BUYING POWER of the units reflect market confidence in the government and the productivity of the nation. They also reflect the relative value of one commodity or service to one another plus the rarity of those commodities or services.
It doesn't matter one scintilla what the currency is physically made of or how much is in circulation or how much is printed or minted.
Currency is simply a medium, a convenient vehicle, of exchange for disparate goods and services.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 10:49:53 AM
speller:
Apparently, our hate-filled friend cannot understand the nature of National Socialism, a utopian totalitarian system.
Given his superficial understanding of the roots of true liberty, I'm sure he has not heard of Kristallnacht and its role in the seizure of absolute power by the National Socialists of the German apparatus through violent means.
Like all marxist/atheists, he is reverting to a familiar pattern that goes beyond his ignorance of historical fact. The historical fact that all utopian/totalitarian systems have ended up in bloodshed. And, those systems have only been around for a century.
Perhaps our hate-filled friend forgets this country has fought against National Socialism and has seen the collapse of the Soviet Union into an equally poisonous oligarchy.
I could comment on his self-control issues, but that's too obvious.
Fact-based truth always wins.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 11:12:09 AM
Speller might not agree with the gold standard Ron Paul wish propose; but Ron Paul would never make a move without the consent of the American Congress. Unlike Dubya, he's not above those principles and for him, the constitution is not only "a piece of paper".
He's a man of principles, intelligent enough not to need teleprompters each time he wish to express himself or developping an idea. The man has the best record that shows his deepest respect for his American fellowmen. A man that would always think of the Americans first, especially when meeting with the CFR and other Unamerican Lobbists.
A man that keep on fighthing hard for his beleifs despite his advanced age and even if the corrupt "one way" medias kept him in the dark and blackmailed him.
A real Leader in the true sense of the word.
And that's why people like speller dis him and his followers. I have no interest in the Amercian elections but I'm still able to recongnize what's a Leader and who are the puppets.
Speller also do, but for people like him Freedom, Liberty and Honour are just words.
Words we don't hear on tv anymore.
Long live Ron Paul ! (Witch really means the United-States as when it was once Proud and Free.)
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-01 11:14:18 AM
Ah shit! Here we go again, another thread ruined by personal attacks.
I give up.
Posted by: gerry | 2008-05-01 11:14:26 AM
set you free,
In a few years, maybe even now, abc's niece will be more informed and intelligent than he.
She might lose respect for abc once she realizes he is a Ronulan, which will be viewed from a historical context as being dumber than a pole-sitter, and she may realize that respect is another thing that doesn't gain or lose value through rarity or abundance.
I hope that some people are reading this thread and begginning to understand what currency really is.
Currency is an abstract thing.
Our ancestors bought huge tracts of land from the native Indians with beads and blankets because the Indians, childish as they were in their primitive state, didn't understand the relative values of exchange they were making in a barter situation.
Currency is superior to barter in that it reflects a more precise relative true market value, especially for non-transportable commodities with development potential such as land.
Ronulans are like children.
Oooh, see the bright shiny gold!
We needs it. Yessss.
Precious, precious gold.
Ooooh my lovely!
And one Ron to rule them all.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 11:27:08 AM
speller:
Just thought I'd post the First Amendment and the true nature of separation of church and state.
As anybody with any degree of literacy will be able to glean from this phrasing, it is the prohibition of congressional establishment of a religion over another religion.
It does recognize that human beings have a thirst for religious knowledge.
In no way does it say, as some may suggest, that people with religious beliefs cannot hold political office.
First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 11:40:06 AM
"if you analyze it, i believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
~Ronald Reagan...
Ron Paul's book sounds like an interesting read. i'll pick it up. maybe i'll get some new insights and concepts. who knows?
libertarian detractors should remember something: although the Founding Fathers didn't really label themselves, they understood that they were making history, and had an opportunity to forge a constitution that might keep the State at a safe distance from the individual, and perhaps prevent encroachment (not all the Signers were impressed with the idea, which gives us some idea of how radical it was. there was some Eurocentric pushback).
the principles of the Constitution are based, for the most part, on individual liberties. this can't be ignored.
obviously, a libertarian State is an impossibility. human nature forbids it. but a conservative who ignores and smirks at libertarian principles has forgotten (or never really understood) that the foundation of conservatism is libertarianism. Jonah Goldberg pretty much amplifies what Reagan said: "the hot tea of libertarian radicalism is cooled in the saucer of American conservatism and made palatable".
if the American Fathers saw today's statism, Democrat and Republican, they would be horrified and angry.
...many Republicans are.
shel
Posted by: shel | 2008-05-01 11:42:41 AM
shel:
I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the US constitution was based on the concept of individual freedom. And, with that freedom comes a certain responsibility.
Any variance from an honest populace creates different challenges.
Take the sub-prime crisis, for example. Much of that was caused by dishonesty among lenders, who falsified documentation to qualify borrowers who would otherwise not qualify for a mortgage.
Those people pocketed their comissions, then left somebody else holding the bag.
As has been pointed out before, there's a great difference between pure libertarian though and libertine action, that is behaviour without moral principles or a sense of responsibility (thanks, Mr. Oxford).
Anybody can cloak themselves into whatever identity they'd like.
The personally irresponsible can call themselves libertarian when, in fact, they are actually libertine.
It seems Ron Paul's campaign has attracted many hitchikers of the libertine persuasion as an unitended consequence.
If the libertarian principles, that is ‘we the people,' are to regain a foothold, it must reject the irresponsible libertines in the same way that we must condemn the actions of the sub-prime mortgage lenders.
Call it moralizing or whatever, but honest people need to understand there are other human beings who believe they are above the rules of conduct.
Libertarianism does not reject rules of conduct. Libertines do.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 12:08:33 PM
set you free,
I posted the first part of the 1st Amendment at 30-Apr-08 4:04:26 PM on "The case for a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement"
thread.
It's notable that religion was so important to the American Founding Fathers(who WEREN'T Libertarians) that it is the first issue of the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 12:29:44 PM
speller:
Never hurts to re-post, I guess. :)
The Constitution was deliberately designed to restrict the power of the state and the first 10 amendments are considered the US Bill of Rights.
Admittedly, not being educated in the US and therefore not as familiar, I guess the Founding Fathers main point was the power of the individual and that, of course, that freedom has to be tempered with something called responsibility.
As you know, human nature never changes even though the stage upon which the human experience plays itself out changes constantly.
There have always been those who believe they are above the laws of both man and God, but for the most part any mature and experienced person can spot the purveyors of irresponsibility quite easily.
We cannot judge their hearts but only pray for their redemption.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 12:45:39 PM
~set
regarding the sub prime fiasco, if there is fraud involved, and there are no prosecutions, that's the failing of the law. if not, caveat emptor. should the State protect folks from their own foolish decisions?
i don't think libertinism is an issue. there are narsissistic decadents everywhere. these people have never cared about how they affect others (particularly children) in a societal sense. but equating libertarians with moral delinquents is like calling conservatives "racist".
i don't think you are saying this, but many do, and the argument doesn't stand up.
basically i'm saying, in a purely libertarian society (which is an unachievable fantasy) as well as a conservative society, fraud would be punished. but everyone would understand that he is responsible for himself, and should not have it in his psyche to reflexively look to the government (taxpayer) to bail him out because of his own bad decisions just because he was taken for a sucker.
...yes there are rules of conduct. the problem is, modern conservatives are having less and less of a problem with the idea of allowing the State free reign regarding both "societal" and "legal" rules of conduct.
my point is simple. conservatives are forgetting their roots. they are no longer asking themselves "does the State really need to get involved with this or that issue?".
Posted by: shel | 2008-05-01 1:13:39 PM
Speller, why don't you mosey on over to www.321.gold.com and read all of Antal Fekete.
He has more impressive credentials than any one of us and he summarizes in his present column why fiat currency sucks.
It's called "Gotterdammerung"
The present economic difficulty that the US finds itself is exactly due to having a fiat currency, which allows for debt to accumulate without ever having to be repaid.
That is not possible for any length of time with a gold, or other metal based standard.
Enjoy.
Posted by: rockyt | 2008-05-02 8:43:36 AM
shel:
The remedy in the subprime issue is costing the US Treasury and estimated $150 billion, at least according to figures I heard this morning.
Punishment in a free market economy would be to allow the offending companies to collapse.
But since the questionable practises were so widespread, that would be a difficult remedy, since that would mean shutting down virtually the entire financial sector of the US economy.
The Feds remedy was to punish lending institutions by decreasing their capacity of their loss-leader interest rates by lowering prime rates. That would help consumers, who could lock in at lower rates for a long term.
At some point, the Fed will have to increase rates when inflation kicks in.
Yet, at the same time that $150 billion has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is from the US taxpayer.
As to the question of state involvement ... about the only point of a state other that building roads, schools, hospitals and providing police forces and armies ... is to set rules and enforce them.
It's OK to spout the libertarian viewpoint and say everybody has a right to do what they like as long as they do not encroach on the rights of others.
On the other hand, the way the sub-prime mess developed showed that there's a need for some type of more vigilant enforcement on the rules.
The US is trending to a more Puritanical viewpoint where there's zero tolerance for anything. News reports of ridiculous moral judgements demonstrate those dangers.
In any event, life never has been dull.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-02 9:06:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.