logicalpath

I agree 100% and I believe he would take preemptive action if there was a credible threat with actionable intelligence. The interview I included in my previous post is of his director of policy and I think it's very clear what "his" actions would be. Also, this week Doug Wead(R.P's Senior Advisor) was on Fox and I think he does a good job articulated what "his" positions are. Finally, regarding how our constitution would bind him to take action once a declaration of war was/is issued. Congress does not have to wait until a nuke is detonated in the U.S., they have the power to determine whether a threat is credible as well. Ultimately Congress could compel the President to take preemptive action, so again I personally am not concerned about this aspect of his policy.

Interestingly enough on the same day this was posted, I was making the same case regarding Ron Paul. During his tenure as a United States Congressman he has had a perfect Constitutional voting record. This is important to note because as Commander In Chief he would be bound to his "duties" expressly written within said document. If Congress & the people support a call to war, subsequently voting to declare war, then we're at war and up to this point he has stated that he would lead us, win it & get it over with. It is understandable that most observers have concerns, the M.S.M(in particular Fox) has rounded out a hit job regarding Paul's foreign policy. That said, I have been digging for a period of almost 2 years and his policy decisions are in-line with what I expect from a President. Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate...he's not a John Galt...he's not an Objectivist but from a political perspective he's the only one running for President that is not a collectivist. My opinion is that this trumps almost everything else, we're in the final throws of the collectivist movement vs individualism. Ron Paul's foreign policy positions explained through the first 17 minutes:

Whoops, I did not see your edited post until now. Thanks for the information, I guess I was mistaken to think that they had good intentions.

I was reading through an economics blog that I frequent and found this post. It seems they're trying to advertise this course outside of their regular channels. The lecturer writes this:

Well in his course description he does welcome Objectivists to participate in the course and it would appear he is open to debate. The Austrian School of Economics could be a strong ally if we could bridge the gap(the misconceptions they have of Objectivism) between it and Objectivism. I understand the obvious challenges there, maybe I'm being a bit naive but I did think this could be an opportunity.

Well that's why I was considering taking the course, not so I can learn from him but to see if I can help them understand it...lol. I guess that may be futile, I'd have to pay to take the course just to be able to tell them where they've gone array on the philosophy.

This morning I was checking the Mises Institute website and saw that they're offering a course on Objectivism & Ayn Rand. The lecturer is open to debate during the course and has invited Objectivists to do so. I was not sure if anyone here would be interested in taking the course, as well as possibly assisting them in understanding Objectivism. Course Description Here

Coinage Act of 1864 which makes it illegal for Private Mints to create coins to be used as "money". As for your other post, there are some factual laws that make it extremely difficult/impossible to use gold & silver as a currency. U.S. Minted gold & silver coins are considered legal tender, however only if used at face value. That means that a 1oz gold coin would have to be used for a 50.00 purchase, who in their right mind would do that!? If you traded it for it's actual value(or for something in return) then you would have to pay a 28% capital gains tax(explained here). When you consider that gold & silvers current value is a direct reflection of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar it would seem that it is not only a losing proposition but Gov't trying to stop you from trading in this manner.

I believe the charge was counterfeiting(in so many words) but I understand your point.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the information contained within the linked article? How do you think that development affects your previous statement about businesses being generally free to take whatever they want in payment? According to the article the original indictment contained the following language: Full Article Here I recognize that there may be individuals here that have spent significantly more time researching economics, money, etc than I have. However, as someone that has spent some time understanding it myself, I just don't believe that the U.S. Gov't would allow anyone to trade(on any sort of significant scale) with anything but U.S. Federal Reserve notes. That is to say, if a customer of mine would elect to pay me in 1oz. circular pieces of platinum it probably would go unnoticed. However, if several other businesses in Miami-Dade County began to trade in platinum(as a result becoming common-knowledge over time), I suspect the Federal Gov't would have something to say about it. As the platinum continues to trade among businesses it's circulation would expand by default beginning to compete with Fed notes. *The information in the article is again going off of what the defendants attorney has indicated. That may or may not be a credible source.*

I read an article today regarding the seizure portion of this case and thought this quote points to some of the discussions we have had in this thread and the one regarding owning gold. If the prosecutor is trying to link the verdict in the case to make "private voluntary barter currency" illegal then the only choice individuals would have is legal tender. This quote was from his attorney so whether or not the prosecutor actually used those words or made that case is something I have not been able to substantiate 100%. Story Here

Thank you for your help, I appreciate it.

Today I was doing some research on "The Law of Identity" and I ran into a problem. When I was reviewing "Works of Aristotle" I could not find any mention of "The Law of Identity" nor could I find a specific outline of "A is A". As a result I began searching online to see if my book was missing something important. I found this link which claims that Aristotle never actually said any of it...not specifically anyway. Can someone point me in the right direction or shed some light on this for me?

While the original topic was whether or not you could legally possess gold, there was also some discussion about "legal tender" and whether or not private businesses could accept anything as "money". Private companies do mint silver and gold within the U.S, however they must be explicit about it being "commemorative" or a collectible. Many even have U.S. on them or have something related to the U.S Military but they have to make sure that it is clear that it is not MONEY. This particular mint did pull together private businesses to accept their coins as money or to be held "In Trust" as certificates(as many as 70 private businesses). The Gov't seized the gold and silver regardless, even if Liberty Services was only holding(as storage) the precious metals for private citizens or businesses to back contracts. The Federal Gov't has gone as far as to state that this is a matter of "domestic terrorism". They obviously know what would occur if businesses would begin to accept precious metals as payment for goods & services. In my opinion, if private businesses tried to accept or demand payment in precious metals on any serious scale, I could see the Gov't taking extreme actions. The threat is not where the coins are made or that the company made the coins "look like money". It is that the dollar cannot compete with gold or silver, which is why I don't believe that businesses could openly accept anything but dollars. Take this same case and let's say that Liberty Services would have been a foreign company. My opinion is that the private businesses that pulled together to accept gold and silver would have been targeted as well. 2009 statement in Congress which talks about the situation with Liberty Services

I've linked a story about a federal case involving the minting of precious medals. Furthermore 70 businesses in a given area agreed to accept the money as payment. The federal Gov't has moved in and classified it as domestic terrorism. It appears that the main individual involved has been convicted and part of the basis is that this was not "legal tender" minted by the U.S. Which speaks directly to the conversation we were having last month. The fed is also pushing to seize 7 million in precious metals as well. http://charlotte.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/ce031811.htm http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/1001/news/Liberty-Dollar-fake-currency-creator-convicted-federal-court?odyssey=nav%7Chead