Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by logicalpath

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. I believe the charge was counterfeiting(in so many words) but I understand your point.
  10. 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.*
  11. 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
  12. 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?
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. That is exactly what I am saying, Gresham's Law in concert with force created the expansion of the dollar. As for why it is not in circulation today I would say there are several reasons. You have roughly 40 years of the dollar being propped up by artificially pegging it to gold, the expansion of the Federal Gov't into the economy(which pays in Federal Reserve notes) and the virtual disintegration of the concept of "money" with individuals explaining that all they have to do is type numbers into a computer to make more of it(Ben Bernanke). Let's not forget the massive flood of liquidity into the economy which he likes to call QE1 & QE2. In the end I think it is inevitable that there will be a dollar crisis and what I would like to see is a return to the gold standard(not the Bretton Wood standard). However, I think they will find a creative attempt to avoid that because a gold standard would cripple their ability to control the economy(or pretend to).
  16. I have a full understanding of what Gresham's Law is, however for many years the Bretton Wood Standard did have 1oz. of gold pegged to 35.00 dollars. During that time paper money expanded in circulation, combine that with the fact that during that same time period(early 70's) it was illegal to hold gold unless you were a collector. So Gresham's law did apply in the strictest sense and the Federal Govt even made it illegal for you to take possession of this other value of exchange. The reason this is relevant today is that now gold is out of circulation from a monetary stand point. In an earlier post I explained how there are certainly instances where someone may be paid in gold, logic would tell me it is surely very rare. Mainly because of what was forced in this country from the late 30's through the early 70's. So while your example may outline how it is possible, the reality is that in terms of any mainstream activity within the economy the likelihood that someone would be able to take advantage of the discount for a purchase made in gold is unlikely. My argument is that this is a result of Gresham's Law and explicit force on the part of the Govt to stop gold from being circulated for general economic activity. If states were to tag gold or silver as legal tender then things could change very rapidly, however I'm not very confident that it will occur. I'm posting from my iPad so I can't go back and get the link to the story but I believe it is Utah that is considering passing such laws.
  17. I apologize, I thought you had stated that credit cards were considered legal tender as defined by the U.S Govt.
  18. Credit cards & checks are not "legal tender"(coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt). Otherwise it would be ILLEGAL for a business to deny them as payment. Explained Here The OP was asking about legality with regard to gold and the point is that you CANNOT demand to be paid in gold. The ONLY legal tender in the United States are Federal Reserve Notes, as a result as I pointed out earlier Gresham's Law explains what eventually occurs. When you combine force and bad money, the good money always ceases to be in circulation. In my opinion the two things that are important here, is first that you CANNOT refuse to be paid in dollars and second that no one would pay in gold because they are given the option of paying in dollars. I.E., they have the option to remit payment in something less valuable and the business owner CANNOT legally deny it. So while it is not illegal to accept gold, no one would ever pay you in gold because they would want to keep that which has more value, for themselves.
  19. A business CANNOT deny someone that is wanting to pay in dollars. Does it happen? I'm sure it does but if someone ever wanted to make a case out of it the business would not have a legal right to turn it down. As a result, if force dictates that you must accept "legal tender" then someone purchasing something from you will surely want to give you dollars in place of gold(which clearly has more value) for their debts/purchases. That is what "Gresham's Law" identifies, bad money drives away good money. No one is going to trade what they consider to be more valuable when the law dictates otherwise. Eventually, the only thing left in circulation will be the bad money(dollars). However, if THIS becomes the trend then maybe we can get back to "sound money".
  20. While it is no longer illegal for American citizens to own gold it is STILL illegal for American citizens to use gold as currency. I believe the Executive Order/Law states that Gold cannot be used as legal tender. Obviously this is done because otherwise many business people would demand gold as their desired form of payment...I know I would!
  21. This week someone I knew killed himself, leaving two children behind. The discussion was raised this afternoon and someone mentioned that "he" was selfish for doing it. One definition of selfish is "ones own interest", however according to the updated Oxford dictionary defines it as: adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others ; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure: I joined them for selfish reasons Is this an attempt to change the definition to what has been accepted by the mainstream? At any rate, according to that definition I believe his act could be classified appropriately as selfish.
  22. Definetely two different kind of "regs", I comprehend that. My point is not whether you want to change it or not, itnis do you have the ability to alter it(change what it is). Like a few people have said if it's not the metaphysical then it is an evasion. I'm comfortable with that explanation and I'm only pointing out that even in situations like yours and mine there are other options.
  23. When I say there are things that "we" can do about it, I meant in the political arena. Several years ago there was a pedigree law that was instituted and a competitor spent some serious time working with the legislator to have modifications made for smaller distributors. Granted that tacked significant effort and time but I was just trying to illustrate that it isn't unchangeable. The law currently states that I have to work specific hours and when I submitted a new schedule three weeks ago I was told by the State of Florida that I could not work that schedule. I could have thrown my hands up and just said, "it is what it is". It took three weeks and more time than it should take for a private business to change ITS OWN work schedule nut I got them to accept it.
  24. Actually I own a pharmaceutical distribution company in Florida, so I have a complete understanding of the kinds of regs your describing. While I understand your "pain" I think "it is what it is" is a phrase that lends itself to be described as a sense of helplessness(I can understand why you would want to position it that way to a customer) however even in my situation(where the DOH can approve or not approve my work schedule to the hour) I have options whether directly or indirectly.
  • Create New...