Gyroscopic Investing

To everyone enamored with the simplicity and durability of the Permanent Portfolio, Harry Browne deserves an enormous amount of thanks for advancing the cause of economic liberty.  He also produced a ton of libertarian content over the years and ran for president as the Libertarian Party nominee.

Ron Paul has championed the cause of liberty for many years through his books, speeches and in Congress.  In some respects, the greatest achievements of his life have come in the last 4 years.  He's almost single-handedly transformed an entire party of voters to get back to the ideals the country was founded on while appealing to both sides of the isle.

So, who gets your vote as the most influential person to advance the liberty cause: Harry Browne, Ron Paul, or someone else?

I would say that it would be Barack Obama because he has shown us how quickly liberty can be taken away.

Reub wrote: I would say that it would be Barack Obama because he has shown us how quickly liberty can be taken away.

I've read that Barry S. has been the greatest salesman for firearms in history, or something along those line..

I'm not up to speed on American politics. In what ways has Barak Obama taken away American liberty? I hadn't realised that Barak Obama had managed to do anything other than drift along with things as George W Bush left them.

And how has B. Obama screwed up liberty more than the US Congress?  Lots of really dangerous anti-liberty stuff preceded Obama's election to potus (eg., the Patriot Act), and if you include all US presidents just from the beginning of the 20th century, each of them has done something--issued an executive order, started a war, signed legislation, vetoed other legislation, issued written signing statements, made verbal announcements, packed the courts, etc., the net effect of which was a real or perceived danger to somebody's freedom/liberty.  By that kind of metric Obama is no worse than any other politician with power--including Ron Paul.

Wonk, are you referring to recent history (say the last few decades), or since civilization?  It makes a difference--one can argue that a diverse group of individuals can be included as contributing to liberty. Martin Luther (Protestant Reformation) to Martin Luther King Jr (civil rights), Mary Wollstonecraft to Rosa Parks, Leonardo da Vinci to Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth I to Catherine the Great, Moses to M. Ghandhi, (and a lot of other names, too many to mention, like the writers of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence).

Some would say Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson... Though others would probably argue those two were staunch enemies of liberty.... Depends on which side of the private property arrangement you were on.

By articulating the case for liberty in such clear and easily understood terms, I would say that Thomas Jefferson helped the cause of liberty greatly.

OTOH, being a liberty enthusiast with a plantation full of slaves is a little hard to reconcile.

Ultimately, Jefferson was probably talking about liberty just for certain people, but it still provided a valuable framework for later generations looking for a way to understand the proper role of the state in the life of the individual.

smurff wrote: And how has B. Obama screwed up liberty more than the US Congress?  Lots of really dangerous anti-liberty stuff preceded Obama's election to potus (eg., the Patriot Act), and if you include all US presidents just from the beginning of the 20th century, each of them has done something--issued an executive order, started a war, signed legislation, vetoed other legislation, issued written signing statements, made verbal announcements, packed the courts, etc., the net effect of which was a real or perceived danger to somebody's freedom/liberty.  By that kind of metric Obama is no worse than any other politician with power--including Ron Paul.

Smurff...I'm following you...up until you throw Ron Paul being no worse than Obama...care to elaborate? I ask this considering that RPs platform (and record) seems to me to be about rolling back about 150 years of statism. Can't RP get at least an honorable mention?

moda0306 wrote: Some would say Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson... Though others would probably argue those two were staunch enemies of liberty.... Depends on which side of the private property arrangement you were on.

Jackson, really?  Its one thing to own slaves, another thing to do what he did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

He also contributed to widespread fraud where private/state banks issued their own currency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking

...as well as causing the Great Panic of 1837 (which is also what would happen if Ron Paul -- and now the Grinch -- somehow got elected and implemented gold-standard convertibility):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

Be careful what you wish for.

MG

MG,

I was sarcastically adding Jackson.  Some people love his attitude towards central banking... his atrocities towards the Indians were horrible, though.  I will say, I like what he did converting our Republic to something slightly more appropriately democratic in nature.  The system used to be we'd vote for our state & federal representatives and everything  (senators to president) just took care of itself from there... I find that to be a little too anti-democratic.  Andrew Jackson changed that, and on top of everything he did wrong I'll give him that.

I think people that gave us a new state of mind about what liberty truly is deserve mention... Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine deserves mention (don't crucify me here... he makes some good points and it's one of the best bands ever regardless of political leanings):

America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.

I'm not saying I agree with this simplistic evaluation of our economy, but I've found our system of government-backed recognition and defense of private property and contracts to be simply a form of very legitimate and helpful social engineering, not some kind of single pure form of legitimate government... though I'd argue it's incredibly important to have a good system of private-property recognition and defense, and that more often than not it encourages better behavior than a system of socialized land-use.

Think about it... what authority does the government truly have to dictate who owns what land?  Land is not in any way private in nature... it was there before we were born and will be there after we die.  I think private property laws with land simply ensure proper stewardship and maximize production... not really recognize some kind of natural right to plant a flag on a plot of land and shoot anyone who "trespasses."  Sure, a smart judge might be able to identify more personal forms of private property (a chair you built, machinery you purchased from someone else, your clothing and personal posessions, maybe even a whole factory you built and manage), but under what stretch can we say that the government has the authority to dictate who owns what land (starting out, this usually disincluded slaves, Indians and women, but included enough poor whites to build a pretty solid nation on).  This is the system our entire economy was built on when we freed slaves and started to honor contracts with Indians... there had been massive, massive amounts of real wealth and opportunity thrust upon certain people and not to others.  I question if a country can simply switch from a system based on slavery to then asking certain people to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruit's of "landowners" production and call this a "free" system.  It was built on and is sustained by so many falsehoods that I have trouble accepting one person's defintion of liberty afterwards.