[Kjorteo]

Portfolios? Portfolios. Did you even pretend to read what I said?

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

The problem is that infrastructure and development takes awhile, once in full gear we're looking at an 'endless' supply of $45/barrel easy. United States and Canada have both started to develop oil shale resources

So we're building infrastructure already, just not in at the rate you want? That seems like a rather minor complaint, though it makes more sense given your stated belief that oil sand will peak between 2011 and 2025. Still, with early oil shale projects expected to be operational within 5 years and gas prices making current oil far less competitive, it doesn't look scary at all to me.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Fewer even know Bush was the first President to spend tax payers money on SETI, partly why I don't consider him THAT religious.

Maybe it's because I tend to hang out with fellow sci-fi nerds who share my religion, but I've never understood why religion and extraterrestrial intelligence are mutually exclusive. God can create the universe but can only populate one planet?

EmperorLiam wrote:

Out of curiosity Psudo, how familiar are you with the Muslim faith? Do you understand that it differs from other monotheist faiths because the Quran is literally Gods word, and it lays down the rules for pretty much everything, sex, courts, marriage, declaration of war, taxes etc. Its only 1/10th the length of the Bible so its not too long of a read.

I read about a third of the Quran shortly after 9/11. I was reading it online, so it was a bit more difficult on the eyes than most scripture reading I do.

But reading the Quran does not tell me how Muslims read and understand the text. I have to get that information from second-hand sources with great incentive towards biased results given the modern controversy of Islamic terrorism. The incentive for bias does not prove factual inaccuracy, but it sure doesn't prove factual accuracy either. In short, I don't know and I don't know how to know.

I'm confident that Muslims quite strictly oppose liberalism and reform within their religion, that they believe religion is "done" in the sense that all that should be known already is, and that these beliefs conflict harshly with western culture. I'm also quite confident that plenty of Muslims have found ways to deal peaceably with western culture when they have sufficient motivation, most obviously evidenced by Muslims in the USA and our various allies in the Middle East (Kuwait, U.A.E., Saudi oil interests, etc). I don't know what the reasoning they use to justify this mutually beneficial interaction with western culture, but since it's happens it is obviously possible and presumably justified in some way reasonable to these Muslims. This is the basis for my belief that intervention in the Middle East is not utterly futile.

Theologically, I find their strict monotheism interesting. No angels, no saints, no devil except the corruption of man himself, nothing but holy God and unholy earth which are utterly different in all regards. The idea of one entity being utterly unique and incomparable with all others is philosophically interesting to me. It's quite different from the usual arguments of "All things are alike and comparable, nothing is utterly unique", yet it's only two words away from equalivant meaning: "... except God." But I digress.

[EmperorLiam]

Quote:

Did you even pretend to read what I said?

I did read it, but I'm at a loss as to why you think I didn't... maybe it just went right over my head?

Quote:

just not in at the rate you want?

Well I wasn't complaining, I guess faster would be nice... or, you know, let the market handle it instead of the government (it owns 72% of it though).

Quote:

given your stated belief that oil sand will peak between 2011 and 2025

I don't recall ever talking about the oil sands, I've been to the Fort McMurray oil sands though. Just research Peak Oil already, I'm not even interested in debating it, I already said I would prefer the market to handle it, thats my position and I won't change it, even if I have to start guarding my gasoline with a shotgun.

Quote:

No angels, no saints, no devil

Well the Quran was recited to Mohamed from the angel Gabriel, and they view the prervious prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc) as saints, and they beleive in Dijinn (demons). Also, Mohamed ascended into heaven on a Pegasus, despite the supposed ban on images of him, they did in fact use him in imagery.

The main difference I see with Islam is that it is very literal and actually less contradictions with science (well its 1/10th the length afterall) so that the religion can easily adopt into the 20th century. Things like feminism they claim to already have, so our cultural will struggle to assimilate them. Trust me, of ALL foreign religious born people, Muslims assimilate the least, with Shiks a close second. I dated a Muslim girl for 3 years, of any religion I know the most about it, then Anglicanism (my mother made me go). BTW, the 'devil' was an angel, and he technically worked for God, his job was to tempt man... Gods omnipotent, why would he let the devil exist afterall.

Anyhow, I'm out, till the next Libertarian related thread! PM responses if you want me to see them that bad.

-Liam

[Laird]

Hey. Long time reader, first time poster here. Can't help but notice you dissed my favorite presidential candidate. I disagree with him on a few issues, like immigration (I'm surprised you didn't call him on this...), but I still think he's the best hope for liberty in my country.

I really don't know how people can still think that the terrorists hate us for our freedom and our immoral secular lifestyles. I don't think that OBL found a copy of the Bill of Rights and a Brittany Spears CD and decided then and there he wanted to put a dent in the NYC skyline.

Why don't they attack Sweden or Switzerland? Switzerland is just as free and "immoral," if not more so than the US. But Switzerland doesn't go around the world toppling governments and building bases. Hell, it survived smack dab in the middle of WWII with barely a scratch.

Michael Scheuer, who worked in the CIA for 22 years and was on the task force studying bin Laden has said:

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that 'Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.' Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society."

He also remarked:

"Bin Laden isn't a loose cannon trying to bring the world to Armageddon. He's an eloquent and rational actor, more CEO than gangster. He often blames Muslims for their failure to repel Western invaders. His analyses of al-Qaida's victories and defeats are often more cogent than Western leaders' tirades against him."

He has said that Ron Paul was on the money when he described the current state of foreign policy.

I also have a problem with the pro-war folks saying that we love Saddam and wanted him to stay in power. Do conservatives want poor people to not get charity? No. But they don't want them to be on welfare because they realize that government sucks at the charity business. I'm not sure how most conservatives don't see how much the government sucks at the nation-building business, too. If I could clap my hands and have Saddam gone, I'd do it. But when the government does it, it kills thousands of people, destroys tons of property, creates massive amounts of hatred, and basically is counter-productive (major understatement). If it wasn't for massive government intervention in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't even be there in the first place, and we want to solve the problem with more intervention? Excuse me for thinking that's a bad idea.

By the way, that's not isolationism, that is non-interventionism. Isolationism was a word created to smear non-interventionists. Isolationists want to "protect our jobs" from free trade with massive tariffs and such, which would actually hurt our economy. Non-interventionists realize that free trade is necessary for peace, since war is expensive and it is always better to simply buy something than to start a war over it (unless maybe you've got government connections *cough* Halliburton *cough*)

Ron Paul doesn't take any rhetoric from the far left. He's right-wing all the way. Randolph Borne taught us that "War is the Health of the State." And with all the new domestic spying programs, the Department of Homeland Security, and the TSA, he's pretty much been proven right (wing).

Why not get rid of all the worthless government programs and let the free market do the job? The government has failed again and again. It wants to stop poverty, it gets worse. It wants to stop drug use, people use newer and more powerful drugs. The FDA bans malaria-preventing chemical DDT while allowing Ambien, which causes sleep-driving. American schools make kids dumber and dumber. FEMA...need I say more? The problem isn't in practice here, it's in principle. Government agencies don't have to do a good job because they don't depend on customers like in the free market. If a private business does a crappy job, they lose customers and might even die off. If the government does a crappy job, they just keep on going since they can always seize more tax money. Government always does things less efficiently because of this. I'm not saying life will be perfect and the invisible hand of the market will take care of our every need, but it would certainly be more efficient than the government.

I don't see how these positions are inconsistent or immature. Ron Paul is probably the most consistent, honest, and mature lawmakers in DC today. Yeah, it's true he doesn't have much of a chance, mostly because of these facts. But if he doesn't win, it will be fun to watch the chump that the Republicans nominate get destroyed by the Democrats. Laughing at the Republicans landslide defeat might ease the pain of watching the Dems tax and spend our freedoms away.

[Interrobang]

Like Laird, I've been reading for a while and I'm just now posting. Out of all the big-name candidates, Ron Paul currently appeals to me most. I waver on his non-interventionist policies because I believe at this point non-intervention would only take a greater toll on the American reputation in the geopolitical community. Maybe not, as I've heard good arguments from both sides (on here). I don't have a particularly strong position here, though I feel the Iraq War and the events surrounding it evidence a breakdown in foreign policy due to interventionism.

If elected I doubt he would take extreme foreign policy measures even if he says he will implement them. This doesn't seem like an exception to the rule of "politicians promise more than they can (or would) deliver." In addition, The guy has favored strict war rules and Letters of Marque, etc. and is a consistently anti-Iraq War politician who doesn't remind me of a life coach (see Obama). Mind you, I have some disagreements with him--notably his mixed bag immigration positions and his pro-life position, granted he was an OB/GYN. But, he's got a long reputation as a politician who actually has solidarity and a sharp mind.

I admit it does get annoying with him being quite the popular guy on the internet. But, I get the general feeling that he has earned that reputation (and this is coming from a guy who likes politics but generally despises politicians).

I tend to agree with JJ, but this latest strip seems to illustrate a quick, unnecessary political gag reflex.

[Interrobang]

Sorry I contradicted myself in first paragraph. I'll admit I do have reserved criticisms of interventionism, but I feel rather conflicted. The policy of non-interventionism sounds fine, but on paper it would seem awkward in light of recent events. Sometimes it sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to Iraq, and I wonder if anything could be ameliorated by peacekeeping missions or simply active foreign policy that does not concern itself with illegal or unjustified wars. Paul likely won't win, but if he somehow does I have a feeling conflict would arise over talk of withdrawing alliances, etc. If he borders on extremism, which most sources I've found have not mentioned, I'm sure the many politicians and diplomats who have supported and benefited from the creation of NAFTA and WTO would raise Cain.

[Psudo]

Hi Laird and Interrobang. Welcome to the forums!

Laird, I'm guessing J.J. didn't address immigration because his comic addressed the USA's global responsibilities (eg, foreign policy, espeically as it pertains to military intervention). Every comic can't address every issue.

Interrobang, far from being a "political gag reflex", I think J.J.'s comic was his long-considered opinion that just happens to disagree with you. If you read J.J.'s comments earlier in this thread, he offers his considered and reasoned defenses of his comic's position.

[Interrobang]

Thanks! I just finished reading all the comments, and understand the opinion. I'm not passionate about the guy either, but he sticks out. After a long and passionate political run, I kinda lost some of the esprit and faith in politicians in general. Hope my skepticism doesn't cloud anything.

[Laird]

I only wish JJ would have mentioned his immigration policy in his comments, since I could have actually agreed with him here. I also agree that Paul is too lukewarm on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which oughta be ended.

Well, the comic itself wasn't really a political gag reflex, but some of his comments about it were. He's not a Confederate apologist for opposing the Civil War any more than anti-Iraq war folks are Saddam apologists. Everyone else was able to end slavery without war, and I think it was certainly possible here. He doesn't take any rhetoric from the far-left, they are all old-school paleoconservative/libertarian stances.

JJ also calls his campaign unappealing, which is fine to say since it's just an opinion. But when he calls his campaign immature, he doesn't seem to have any idea where his positions come from (probably because he doesn't get much airtime) and seems to think that Paul just pulled his platform out of his ass. This kinda pushes my buttons because there is a lot of thought and debate in the libertarian philosophy which he just seems to dismiss as loony and stupid. Remember that the founding fathers and anti-Communists in the USSR were far-right radicals too. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.

I guess I can make a comment on the comic itself. I think it might be a good idea to shrug the US's so-called obligations to the world. Our government can't manage an empire of intervention built on debt, no matter how well we supposedly mean. Napoleon said he meant well when he was taking over Europe and trying to get them to accept democracy, but his empire went down. And ours will too if we keep pushing farther and spending more money. With our armies stretched thin and debt getting bigger and bigger, Uncle Sam is about to have his back broken if he tries to be Team America: World Police and carry the weight of the world on his shoulders.

[Psudo]

I have to admit, most of the reason I oppose Ron Paul is because his conclusions oppose mine, not necessarily because his reasoning is faulty. I don't know much of his reasoning, and his spouting of talking points in the debates didn't illuminate it for me. If I don't know why he disagrees with me but I do know why I believe what I do, the one-sided argument favors my own views.

I don't think his reasoning is obscured by a lack of media attention either. I get most of my news from the internet, and he's a major fan favorite online. I just don't see thoughtful reasoning in his statements.

Laird wrote:

Our government can't manage an empire of intervention built on debt, no matter how well we supposedly mean. [. . .] With our armies stretched thin and debt getting bigger and bigger, Uncle Sam is about to have his back broken if he tries to be Team America: World Police and carry the weight of the world on his shoulders.

Debt in the USA is growing in dollars, but steady to shrinking as a proportion of GDP. The budgetary danger is not in status quo spending, but in anticipated increases in spending. Our government obviously spends too much and should be hedged back, but the specter of budgetary disaster requires predicting spending increases that lose more public support all the time. If examined calmly, it's just not scary.

Laird wrote:

when he calls his campaign immature, he doesn't seem to have any idea where his positions come from

J.J. addressed the origins of Ron Paul's views already.

JJ wrote:

There are some very brilliant libertarians careful of forming sophisticated arguments and complex philosophies. Then there are libertarians who are basically just spoiled, lazy populists, people who have little interest in understanding the complexities of politics and political decision-making, and instead embrace a bunch of quick, easy answers. Part of the reason I dislike Ron Paul is because I strongly believe he falls into the latter category of libertarian. There doesn’t seem to be any real over-arching logic to the things he says

If you're going to convince us JJ doesn't "have any idea where [Ron Paul's] come from", you're going to need to demonstrate that Ron Paul does have some over-arching logic to his policy positions apart from the traditional populist mantra of "The big guys are all wrong." Even if that were true, it doesn't make Ron Paul right.

[Laird]

Debt might not seem like a big deal, but the spending that we're doing both at home and abroad comes back to hurt our economy in the form of inflation. When our government doesn't have enough money to pay for it's vast alphabet soup programs, it just prints more of it, which causes the value of the dollar to go down dramatically.

One thing that Ron Paul has opened my eyes to is the importance of is the importance of sound money (which is why he got into politics). With China on the rise and with an economy that's arguably freer than ours, our economy and dollar are going to get their asses kicked. It may not mean too much for the people who are well-off enough to survive it (like the government and corporations), but think about the effect that our monetary policy has on the lowest wage earners. They're having trouble making ends meet because the money they get is worth less and less everyday. And they can't afford to buy and home because of the housing bubble. So they fall into the rental trap and can never get out of it, remaining poor for the rest of their lives. See JJ, libertarians care about the little guy, too. Hell, I deliver Italian food for a living. I'd be hard pressed to follow a political philosophy that lets corporations step all over me.

Maybe I was being too much like Chicken Little by predicting that Uncle Sam will break his back, but looking at things at an individual level like this tells a pretty sad story due to the government's failed money policy. And since the GDP counts government spending, I'd have to caution against putting too many eggs in this basket. Since the government can artificially create "value" for things like a bridge to nowhere, I wouldn't put too much stock in its spending. Some Austrian economists dismiss government spending from GDP altogether as counter-productive to the economy; and with governments track record, I can see why.

Most of the media on the internet is just stuff regurgitated from the mainstream media outlets. They really don't give a "dark horse" like him much time to make a articulate argument, so you're probably only going to hear a bunch of sound bites where he simply states his position and makes like one point about it. But as it turns out, he's a pretty bright guy who spent a long time researching history and economics. He's read all of Ludwig Von Mises' writings, who was one of the best economists of the 20th century. He's also read several other books on economics that are too numerous to mention. He knows our history of intervention in the Middle East and the blowback that comes from it as researched by the CIA. He read the 9/11 Commission Report. He read Imperial Hubris by 22-year CIA veteran Michael Scheuer. He knows the history of the founding fathers and the Constitution. All of the facts in these writings that he's studied over the decades point him to his political philosophy. His positions do point to easy answers, true; but that doesn't mean that he just pulled them out of his ass. And it certainly doesn't mean that these positions are wrong (Occam's Razor). If you go to lewrockwell dot com (I can't post links yet) and search for his articles, you can find the books he's read and a much more articulate overview of his political positions and why he believes them.

Well, if there's any position that anyone here thinks Ron Paul just pulled out of his ass, feel free to post your beef and I'll explain the libertarian or paleoconservative reasoning behind it and try and prove that Ron Paul knows what he's talking about. Hell, even his semi-restrictive immigration policy (which I disagree with) has libertarian backing from the likes of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration. You'll have to look that up on mises dot org if you're interested.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Laird wrote:

It may not mean too much for the people who are well-off enough to survive it (like the government and corporations), but think about the effect that our monetary policy has on the lowest wage earners. They're having trouble making ends meet because the money they get is worth less and less everyday.

Really? I see no reason to believe that specifically the inflation is the worst problem for them. Inflation is not alarmingly high in the US right now.

[Laird]

I dunno how bad inflation is compared to other countries, but inflation is the main reason that many hard-working people are poor right now, no matter what their country. Many of the other problems like lack of health care and lack of quality education wouldn't be as much of a problem if our money was worth what it used to be worth.

[Psudo]

Interest rates are around 5%, about the same as the average since 1955, about the same as the rate in the 90s, and better than the rates in the 80s and 70s. Except for a brief window earlier in Bush's administration, rates haven't been this good consistently since the 60s.

If you're opposing the Federal Reserve in it's entirety, that's fine but certainly not urgent. I generally agree with most libertarian views in fiscal matters, but they see an urgency I don't. People are getting along well, enjoying upward class mobility, being successful despite the flaws of budgetary spending and debt.

Everything I read on and about LewRockwell.com, Lew Rockwell himself, the Austrian School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises, and related topics gives me good reason to be skeptical. Rockwell takes views I vaguely agree with to rather fanatical extremes. It makes perfect sense to me that his views reside outside the mainstream, and if that's where Ron Paul's reasoning originates it coincides quite logically with his low poll numbers.

It doesn't mean these views are wrong and I'll read more about them and judge for myself, but it will require a lot more justification than a subset of libertarians agreeing with each other to convince the American public of this stuff. It pretty much confirms that even if he's right Ron Paul isn't going to get elected.

I'll read up. I'm especially curious as to what extent the state and corporations are intertwined. I agree interconnection between industry and government should be minimal to none, but I'm not yet convinced they are more than minimally interconnected. Subsidies and regulations exist and should be reduced, but I don't know how much the economy or individual rights are affected by that interconnection. And I will be comparing Lew Rockwell's views with more mainstream think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The sources you provided have themselves made me skeptical of the sources you provided.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Laird wrote:

I dunno how bad inflation is compared to other countries, but inflation is the main reason that many hard-working people are poor right now, no matter what their country. Many of the other problems like lack of health care and lack of quality education wouldn't be as much of a problem if our money was worth what it used to be worth.

How come? What evidence you have for this?

And on the subject of Austrian economics here's some critique of it by an economist.