ciccio2010 – in a couple of years much of this truth will become self evident to most. I would say you are already two step ahead of the rest. Actually, you’re ready to start digging. Get your news from http://www.infowars.com – they link to the (mainstream) press pages that only the few read. Do your research and always get to the primary source.

vonmises – “No army can stop an idea whose time has come,” as Ron Paul likes to say. He also says “there’s something going on,” and we know what that is. What’s incredible is that there are so many across the globe who realise what’s cracking, yet millions in the US are still in Cloud Cuckoo. And it’s everywhere in their media, but of course who reads page 44?

Well said, Daphne! They are boring us to death.

@Kev,
That sounds better, thanks.

If we were to compete about patience, I am sure Daphne will win hands down, judging by her handling of our exchanges!

I actually agree with a number of the points you make. I fully support the idea of small government, and that, if you look around, a lot of right wing governments are anything but small. I am a firm believer in private initiative.

But, whilst theories are interesting to say the least, one must live in reality. I guess that was the point I was trying to make.

Besides, despite the appeal of conspiracy theories, it is impractical to build a political philosophy and deliver solutions based on them. Karl Marx built a whole philosophy on his theory of alienation, but a good look at Eastern European countries is telling about the reality from the implementation of Karl Marx’s philosophy.

And yes, no one can exclude that the global financial crisis is a “once-in-a-lifetime” (Alan Greenspan) adjustment in a larger process of wealth redistribution, but I have no concrete evidence for that claim. My more realistic explanation for the crisis is that Central Bankers failed to raise interest rates in the past decade to reflect the inflation of prices, including and mainly property prices.

If interest rates were raised, the world economies would not have inflated, but then a feel-good factor would not have been created for some years. So I start to suspect that it was the governments that put pressure on Central Bankers to keep interest rates low. But then, did someone put pressure on the governments?

hi kev

Ever since i’ve started to follow Ron Paul during the last US election, i found myself experiencing a completely new political philosophy that has as its pillar the freedom of the individual.

Since then, I’ve been reading articles and books by great minds such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, and many others.

Reading what is regarded as the Austrian school of economics, I’m more than confident that such philosophy is the cure for the ever crumbling economies of our present day world, and our little country is no exception. Moreover, such as small country like Malta can truly become the showcase of what limited government intervention in people’s life can actually achieve.

Reading your posts gave me a great sort of satisfaction that the idea of freedom is also developing in our country too.

Please send me an email, as I would like to set up a correspondence with you.

bruceyyy@hotmail.com

No hard feelings, Ciccio2010 – as I said, I lack the patience. You brought up good points, but to reply would have taken me too long. You see, the ‘bailout’ saga, which is not over yet, is a very complicated matter. It has been designed to happen, but as I said, there’s too much to explain. Every phrase would need to be justified because we’re dealing with lies upon lies upon lies over decades.

Thank you for your time Kev — And thank you Daphne for publishing my previous post — I really appreciate it.

@Kev.
I am hoping Daphne will publish this, as I suspect I will be abusing her patience with these long posts.

I suppose you were referring to me as ciccio1910 in your reply to me any your statement: “We are passing through historic times – yet the ‘know-it-alls’ are still totally oblivious. Take Ciccio1910. Where do you start with such an educated person? It’s like explaining the motions of the planets to a medieval flat-earther.”

As far as my education goes, insulting is the weapon of last resort, but I see you use it as some form of elitism. Since you seem to know a lot about libertarianism to which you subscribe, would you kindly tell us if insulting people is typical of libertarians by any chance?

In my previous reply, I did of course engage you with real world questions, which I see you averted.

I very carefully avoided any statements that would make me sound like a “know-it-all” person. Contrast that with your outstanding statements in your first post:
– “Let me confuse you even further.”
– “…here’s some cutting edge politics from across the pond…”
– “To truly understand global politics…”
– “Now as we all know…”
– “So I again ask ”

Are all libertarians that blind to their own arrogance?

Strangely, though, in the following quote, I see that you naturally come to a conclusion which is not far from mine above after all: “I’ll stop here. The subject is too vast and this has all been touch and go.” Hey, seems like I knew that.

THINK LOCAL, ACT PROVINCIAL

Robert – I’ll try to be brief. Such talk is not welcome in the political world of Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

1. The bottom line is that government is inefficient, costly, wasteful and often counterproductive. Big government leads to the perceived need for more government in order to solve the problems it creates. People grow accustomed to the nanny state and expect it to deliver – in even more areas. Economically, it all spirals out of control, eventually leading to financial collapse when production fails to meet the atrocious needs of big government (because, among other things, too much taxation sponges out real growth).

Governments’ main concern should be the basic infrastructure, as well as ensuring that private contracts are honoured, that corporate fraud is detected and violence deterred. Today, we cannot even start to imagine how small a government can actually be – and civil society would lose nothing; on the contrary, it would boundlessly prosper and mature.

As for the welfare state, I believe a free society prospers beyond the need of state handouts, especially in this productive age. In any case, the ‘welfare net’ takes up a relatively small proportion of the costs of government.

2. I don’t think personal liberty and responsibility create social apathy and egoism. I have seen more apathy and egoism in the Soviet Union than anywhere else. Freedom and responsibility translate into knowledge, incentive, creativity, motivation and growth. A meaningful society is one that is allowed to evolve organically, not one that is made to depend on the manipulations of central planners and their corporate mentors.

Forget about the false libertarians like Beck. You cannot be a libertarian and at the same time applaud perpetual ‘preventive’ wars based on lies and charades like the ‘war on terror’. Many of them, like the Sarah Palin (neo)type, act ‘libertarian’ only through political expedience.

Also, it’s not about trickle-down economics; Reaganomics is still a product of Keynesianism.
I’m not much into Ayn Rand and her ilk, either.

Ron Paul comes closest to applying libertarianism to today’s context, incorporating an anti-war stance (‘war is a racket’) with sound fiscal policies, real money and personal liberty, lambasting the federal takeover, the emerging police state and the falsity of the ‘war on terror’ (and drugs). Paul follows the US Constitution – which is essentially a libertarian document derived from the European Enlightenment. You say Ron Paul did not contradict Beck. Well, Beck is a Fox News front-man showman. I would expect Ron Paul to just say his thing and not argue with Beck’s subtle inaccuracies in the few minutes available.

You also mention Chomsky. That man is at his best when dissecting the media (‘Manufacturing Consent’) otherwise, in his later years he seems to have lost the plot and is misreading the current political text from a leftist angle. Leftists are traditionally ignorant in economic matters.

3. There is a lot more merit in the Austrian School of Economics than in Keynesianism. The former is a true science that lays down the organic rules and mechanisms of real money and free economies, and, most importantly, what NOT to do – this, so as to prevent fiddlers from destroying whole economies and nations to the benefit of the very few. Keynesianism is the ‘science’ of big bankers and state bureaucrats fiddling with the money supply and the economies of whole nations, inflating currencies, accumulating deficits, managing markets and creating financial bubbles – then applying their own ‘solutions’ to the problems they create.

You mention Murray Rothbard. He’s written everlasting classics, particularly on the true nature of money (‘What has government done to our money?’ is one such classic – available at mises.org and elsewhere)

The problem is, Robert, there is so much to write about that I give up. This lack of patience (and space) is evident in my earlier ‘confusing the confused’ post. It’s next to impossible to dismantle the illusion and lay out, layer by layer, what has been researched over many years. And all this to justify our interpretation of unfolding events. We are passing through historic times – yet the ‘know-it-alls’ are still totally oblivious. Take Ciccio1910. Where do you start with such an educated person? It’s like explaining the motions of the planets to a medieval flat-earther.

I can state as a fact that Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism is the ideology that’s gaining most ground globally (in less than three years). It’s the only movement that’s spreading exponentially (although the so-called ‘far-right’ is also gaining ground). Left-right politics is in decline, but this is a gradual process and Ron Paul had to stay within the Republican fold as otherwise he’d have no chance on a third party ticket. But he is neither a neo-con nor a fundamentalist Christian. He is actually very secular, and his political grievance on abortion is that such a decision was taken federally by eight supreme judges when he believes that according to the US Constitution the states should decide on such matters individually. Notwithstanding his personal beliefs on abortion – his only flaw, some would say (he’s a gynecologist by profession) – many pro-choice Democrats are joining his ranks because after waking up to the emerging truth they sense how right and genuine this congressman has been throughout his long political career. Check latest Rasmussen polls: Obama vs Paul.

I’ll stop here. The subject is too vast and this has all been touch and go. Good to meet someone who’s peeped over the fence. An open mind is still a rarity.

If you need to reply, you’ll best email it to Daphne and she’ll forward it to me.