I think Ron Paul’s position is elocuted clearly by his writing,he stated that “The Federal Reserve should be abolished because it is immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, and promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty. Its destructive nature makes it a tool for tyrannical government.” I have always been into punk rock and tried to follow the principles of Rock and Roll. Looking at the leaders of rock and roll now, you see right away they are spineless. If I learned anything from “Salt Lake City Punk”, it is that the true punk rocker and idealist is not a mindless, follow the trends liberal, it is an intellectual who is learned and well-read about ideas and strictly adheres to evidence. It seems to me that the Bonos, the Stings, the Oprahs, and the any other “do gooding” media hounds try to say that they are novel and follow a worth-while cause. But they really just follow play books on what is considered right and viewer-friendly. The true path makers are Ron Paul and others like him (most seem to follow the libertarian persuasion). These are people who don’t make decisions based on how many people are positively affected or how many people think it is a good idea. They follow ideas because of the idea, totally removed from the human element. I like this process of decision making; it is the most scientific (I think Galileo would concur). The idea works regardless if you like it or not.
Ron Paul Describes how the Byzantine empire fell because Nicephorous III Botaniates devalued their gold reserves during a war with the Turks. They lost and so did the most widely used coin of 1071. Paul claims that it is the responsibility of the government to enforce proper policies that allow the progress of a nation. A strong economy has been the integral factor into the definition of a strong nation. The current Fed policies have created this situation, in his opinion.
I understand his opinion about the cause of the financial meltdown, especially when Lenin has said that “...the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By continuing processes of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which one man in a million is able to diagnose.” (pg. 171)
Paul writes many reasons why the Fed is bad. He has philosophical reason (immortally), a constitutional reason (interpretation of “paper money”, a Hamilton vs. Jefferson dilemma), an economical reason (the instability of fiat money), and a libertarian reason (how money= freedom and personal liberty). He is only one voice of many. Just like any good question, as in philosophy, there are a myriad of answers. Philosophy would be boring and dead, like Latin, if the answer was so apparent.
Philosophy has brought us many things. Many times there are explanations that fit perspective. Aristotle explained the motion of things as: things moved to fulfill their purpose, i.e. smoke belongs in heaven, so it rises, or a stone, which is earth, falls to the earth when dropped. People liked this idea because it was simple and observable. People intuitively understand that things have a purpose and it is our duty to fulfill them. That was an accepted explanation of the motion of things and motivated people for a long time.
Galileo came along and changed that idea. He describes motion in a “cause and effect” way. He basically said that matter moves when it is affected by another piece of matter or physical body. He explained the observed motion of things as a causal relationship. His explanation motivated and proved successful.
Now, who really is right? Well, it is a matter of perspective; some people are happy with a purposeless world, others are not. I think it is a matter of ideas and how people use their ideas. Descartes had a criterion for the truth value of ideas. It is usually referred to the “clear and distinct criterion”. Basically he claims that ideas that are clear and distinct are true. He is famous for the “cogito” mantra; “I think therefore I am” illustrates that rationale.
Some things are clear and distinct, some aren’t. Is the Fed responsible for this mess or is the blame some place else? Paul claims one side and lays out an emphatic argument for his case. Is our current system bad? Defalcation does occur in our system, but that is because citizens have ceased holding politicians responsible for the decisions, good or bad.
What I think should come out of this is that people live the vision that Jefferson wanted for America; to live free and be able to make informed decisions. He wanted a responsible government that was limited. We sort of let government get out of control. In California, the will of the people is very limited; the government, unions, and state bureaucracies control every entity of government and business. It is the fault of the citizenry for letting the power slip away from them. We, as people need to ask the tough questions of politicians. What do you think about X, Y, and Z. Weather X, Y, and Z be economics, immigration, gay marriage, or cigarette taxes. We blame others for not being responsible, we need to be responsible and live the life that Captain America fought and died for.
No comments:
Post a Comment