Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7623
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by moda0306 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:42 pm

Kshartle wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: 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.
A government has a monopoly on force in its area of control.  What's to say an oligopoly or a "perfect competition" on force?  Those are policy decisions. 

If force is bad, and unacceptable, and this is logically consistent, let's eliminated it.  Any attempt to pick the type of force you like is simply imposing your preferred form of force on others, though. 

For instance, the original Union was a sort of "oligopoly on force."  Some say it was better, but what if I thought the states were illegitimate political entities and I wanted individual sovereignty?  That would mean that supporters of this oligopily were exerting their force upon me.  How is this acceptable?

Either organized, systematic forms of force are legitimate, or they're not.  Whether they're a monopoly or "monopolistic competition" is a political choice.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:50 pm

moda0306 wrote: If force is bad, and unacceptable, and this is logically consistent, let's eliminated it.  Any attempt to pick the type of force you like is simply imposing your preferred form of force on others, though. 

For instance, the original Union was a sort of "oligopoly on force."  Some say it was better, but what if I thought the states were illegitimate political entities and I wanted individual sovereignty?  That would mean that supporters of this oligopily were exerting their force upon me.  How is this acceptable?

Either organized, systematic forms of force are legitimate, or they're not.  Whether they're a monopoly or "monopolistic competition" is a political choice.
I think you're right if I understand you correctly. You can't use force to eliminate force. It's like saying we need to ban guns because guns are bad. Well....you need guys with guns to ban guns but guns are bad so yada yada.

None of this is going away for a very long time and not unitl the morality changes and people accept the reality that the use of force is bad.

I am not a crusader for this. I point it out because the better you understand about the destructive nature of the use of force (governments) the better you understand their actions cannot help the economy, only hurt it. Then you can see what a pickle they have themselves in with their debt and see they pretty much have no way out. And theirs no way to profit long-term by holding their paper at this point.  - MY OPINION of course.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Gumby » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:53 pm

Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote: A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
How is a tax cut another form of government spending?
Spending is the accounting equivalent of tax cuts. They are no different in terms of reducing/expanding the national debt. The only difference is that the government gets to allocate the funds more specifically via spending.

Again, you can technically keep government the size of a broom closet while increasing government spending. All you have to do is send every citizen a check in the mail. Sort of like a tax refund for everyone, but it's technically called a citizens dividend when everyone gets an equal share.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:53 pm

The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.

Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.

To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.

Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by l82start » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:57 pm

Kshartle wrote:
l82start wrote: 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?
defense of property can be virtuous, from the defense of our borders, protection from enemies, down to the defense of individual property rights, i would choose limiting the monopoly as close to the individual as possible, but i think we are headed in the opposite direction right now!  we cant have perfect liberty without perfect people so we have to talk about limiting government in ways that encourages intelligent Independent individuals over mindless dependent collectivists 
Last edited by l82start on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:59 pm

MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.

Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.

To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.

Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.

The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by l82start » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Gumby wrote:
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).
we certainly have had plenty of long threads over that confusion...
Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:02 pm

Kshartle wrote:
MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.

Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.

To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.

Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.

The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
I agree.  Force is what is used when reason has either failed or never been tried in the first place.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:02 pm

l82start wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
l82start wrote: 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?
defense of property can be virtuous, from the defense of our borders, protection from enemies, down to the defense of individual property rights, i would choose limiting the monopoly as close to the individual as possible, but i think we are headed in the opposite direction right now!  we cant have perfect liberty without perfect people so we have to talk about limiting government in ways that encourages intelligent Independent individuals over mindless dependent collectivists
Sometimes we get into this disagreement. Some people view defense as the use of force. It is not. Defense is always legitimate because you own your life and your property. If you own it then you have to have the right to defend it, otherwise your ownership has no value or meaning. It would be self-contradicting to say you own property but don't have the right to assert your ownership. The self-contradiction is proof positive that this belief is completely false.
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by l82start » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:05 pm

Kshartle wrote:
MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.

Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.

To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.

Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.

The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
agree - and i would emphasize fixing education to teach/encourage critical thinking.... government educated indoctrinated dummies tend to want more government...
Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by pugchief » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:05 pm

Pointedstick wrote: The good news is that if you're poor, schools with a high endowment will often waive much or all of the cost. The bad news is that if you were responsible and saved the money, they just take it. Surprise! >:(
Isn't this the way most government programs work? For example, you don't buy a house more expensive than you can afford -> you pay to bail out the irresponsible people who did. Or, you save for retirement diligently -> they tax your social security, make you pay higher medicare premiums and then disqualify you from free nursing home care until your assets are exhausted.
"Congressmen should wear uniforms, you know, like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors."
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:09 pm

l82start wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.

Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.

To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.

Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.

The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
agree - and i would emphasize fixing education to teach/encourage critical thinking.... government educated indoctrinated dummies tend to want more government...
Imagine if McDonalds ran the schools? What do you think kids would be taught about McDonalds food?
Post Reply