Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

[Pointedstick]

Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?

Government is just a shell for the people who operate it. If we had a small government that owned productive industries for income, did not tax or regulate, and existed purely for the protection of its members, as provided by a voluntary defense-only military force, would that be evil?

I think there are a lot of moral parallels between guns and government. Give them to violent, uncivilized people and you have mayhem and oppression. Give them to responsible people and you get order and protection. And neither are going away anytime soon.

[Libertarian666]

Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?

Government is just a shell for the people who operate it. If we had a small government that owned productive industries for income, did not tax or regulate, and existed purely for the protection of its members, as provided by a voluntary defense-only military force, would that be evil?

A voluntary government is like a square circle: not evil, just impossible. No government could allow people to opt out of their "protection" and still be a government.

I think there are a lot of moral parallels between guns and government. Give them to violent, uncivilized people and you have mayhem and oppression. Give them to responsible people and you get order and protection. And neither are going away anytime soon.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Government is evil by its nature, whereas guns are not.

[Pointedstick]

I guess I don't believe in "evil by nature". Only "evil as demonstrated by actions."

[l82start]

its* not evil by nature...  it is an near irresistible temptation to evil and an instigator of accidental evil by nature...

the evil can be avoided but it takes a supreme effort,


*government

[Gumby]

kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble,  but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics

Agreed.

moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force...

If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on inflation and investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)

And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds to every citizen along with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Am I advocating that? No. Just saying that increasing state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.

Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.

[Kshartle]

Politicians People having access to a printing press guns and understanding the consequences to the economy public safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.

Is this an argument that would sway YOU?

Argument of what? What are you arguing? If you think pointing out that somone having a violent monopoly on the creation of money is somehow similar to the existance of firearms (which can only be prohibited by the use of firearms, making them impossible to prohibt) then you have a false analogy.

One has nothing to do with the other. They are not similar in any way. My disagreement with people about whether or not certain people should be printing money has nothing in common with an irrational belief that humans should not own firearms. Nothing whatsoever, this is a false argument with faulty logic.

[Kshartle]

kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble,  but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics, moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force...  does that clarify anything??

Good thing I didn't predict "immanent inflation" by which I assume you mean rapidly rising consumer prices.

[l82start]

If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)

And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Just saying that state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.

Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.

  i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.

i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
  a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money,  is vastly preferable to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...


sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group" 

[Kshartle]

Government is just a shell for the people who operate it.

It's a monopoly on the use of force. A violent monopoly. Only people who feel that a violent monoply on the use of force view this as neutral or virtuous. I disagree with them. I think it can be rationaly proven that humans beings belong only to themselves and they own the effects of their actions which extend to their property.

Therefore no one owns anyone else, no one has the right to force anyone to do anything despite what the majority thinks and no one has the right to steal anyone else's property regardless of their noble cause.

All attempts to subvert these truths result in perverse consequences that harm everyone more than help.

[Kshartle]

its* not evil by nature...  it is an near irresistible temptation to evil and an instigator of accidental evil by nature...

the evil can be avoided but it takes a supreme effort,


*government

When is a violent monopoly on the use of force not evil? When is it virtuous?

[Gumby]

If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)

And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Just saying that state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.

Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.

  i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.

i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
  a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money,  is vastly preferable to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...


sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group" 

Agreed.

To me, these discussions are really just about how much Gold and T-Bonds we need to own. The discussion of the implications of expanding fiscal policy might certainly be warranted, and interesting, but I have a feeling most people will be in agreement about those expansionary dangers.

The problem, in my mind, is when people confuse fiscal policies with monetary policies and try to use that confusion to point out the dangers of large fiscal policies. The two policies are completely different animals. One is adding ice cubes to a glass, the other is just melting existing ice cubes in a glass (i.e. making them more liquid).

[Kshartle]

A tax cut is really another form of government spending.

How is a tax cut another form of government spending?