Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A government that purportedly lives by this principle can't enforce anything. If a government can not enforce the laws it creates, it's not a government, as it's laws are impotent and meaningless. Simply put, it can't govern ANYTHING. If it tried, it would be in violation of the NAP. The fact you need this explained is why people do not take Ron Paul and other libertarians seriously. Yours and his ideological utopia will be impossible to achieve as you will not be able to stop those who violate the NAP with out violating the NAP. If you choose to simply ignore those who violate the NAP, you will either die or become enslaved.
You sort of explained it, but you act like people wouldn't organize to protect themselves. I'm not sure if you understand the NAP either. You can use force in self-defense if someone else brings violence into a peaceful situation. If you are the first to use force against someone else, you're violating the NAP. The key word is INITIATE.
You initiated the theft. The government initiated the arrest. I'll skip to the end. At it's logical conclusion your argument results in hunger initiating theft, which is non-sensical, especially to a libertarian who believes in responsibility for one's own actions. Another way to look at it, no one forced the government to arrest you, the government has to have the initiative to arrest you, they certainly do not get that initiative from you. No one moves unless they themselves decide to move. So, suggesting the arrest by the government was initiated by you, when whoever is arresting you has complete control over their own movements and actions, is nonsensical. They had to decide to arrest you.
The booms and busts, like the Great Depression , the dot com bubble, and the housing bubble were caused by Government inflating the money supply, easy money. It had nothing to do with the gold standard. The Central Bank was similar to the Fed.
Actually, the Fed cut the money supply during the depression and unregulated financial markets -- like having a ten to one margin allowance contributed to the losses.
The point that I was making was that the number of booms and busts and their attenuation were greater before the Fed existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
Hyper inflation is the only way the government will ever have a chance to get out from the massive debt it has accumulated.
After World War II, the debt was 120% of GDP which was about $200 billion. We never paid the debt but economic growth made that $200 billion debt inconsequential -- without hyperinflation.
All that chart shows is cumulative inflation. It does not show the growth of per capita income which made up and exceeded the value of the dollar.
Actually, the Fed cut the money supply during the depression and unregulated financial markets -- like having a ten to one margin allowance contributed to the losses.
The point that I was making was that the number of booms and busts and their attenuation were greater before the Fed existed.
After World War II, the debt was 120% of GDP which was about $200 billion. We never paid the debt but economic growth made that $200 billion debt inconsequential -- without hyperinflation.
All that chart shows is cumulative inflation. It does not show the growth of per capita income which made up and exceeded the value of the dollar.
It might not have been hyper inflation, but it sure was inflation.
Unless you plan on bombing the industrialized world we will never see a period of growth like the 50's and 60's again.
You sort of explained it, but you act like people wouldn't organize to protect themselves. I'm not sure if you understand the NAP either. You can use force in self-defense if someone else brings violence into a peaceful situation. If you are the first to use force against someone else, you're violating the NAP. The key word is INITIATE.
The NAP fails the logic test and the practicality test. Practically, you will have one or more collectives who won't give a damn about the NAP, which defeats the entire purpose. Logically, suggesting a government's action is initiated by someone or something other than themselves is nonsensical. You are actually voicing support for the violation of the NAP when someone else violates the NAP. Enforcement of the NAP is a violation of the NAP.
What initiated your theft? Your free will based on any number of circumstances you deem important. What initiates the police arresting you? Their free will based on any number of circumstances they themselves deem important.
This is the problem, you can not grasp basic logic, you are not alone, most libertarians cant either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
