logicalpath
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by logicalpath
-
-
http://www.youtube-n...bed/4JeNIX2x9j8
Interesting discussion here (in all 4 parts too)
I think there may be some errors in his analysis of what is/is not a threat, but his principle is what is Constitutional. His position is sufficiently basic: "If you want go to war with Iran (or take war-like actions against them), make your case to the public and generate the support for a congressional Declaration of War."
If you cannot make the clear and convincing case to the people, validated constitutionally with a congressional vote, that an action is necessary for the defense of United States citizens, then the option should not be to figure out a way to take the action anyway with out clearly legal and constitutional authorization.
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:
-
Or he understands it fine and just doesn't think it's true. Come on now.
Edit:
Anyways, I guess the Mises Institute libertarians are aiming at increasing their followers' understanding of Rand's philosophical thought in order to contrast it with their preferred version of anarchy and politics-without-philosophy, obviously with a whole week focused on anarchy and intellectual property.
David Gordon has a good course on the history of political philosophy from Plato to Rothbard for free on iTunes U. He also reviews a lot of books. He reviewed OPAR quite unfavorably, which you can read here. OPAR isn't my favorite, but most of the guy's objections are just silly or plain dismissive. He has a problem with reducing everything back to the law of identity, seems to think the arbitrary should be taken as plausible until falsified, has trouble understanding the metaphysically given, and thinks Rand never proved any of her epistemology, and thinks that Rand thinks that we can only have concepts of what we directly perceive. Not promising for his Rand course.
I get the feeling that because of his relationship with Murray, he just doesn't like Rand and would like to see her diminished. He can present Aristotle's ethics respectably and accurately in one course, but when reviewing Peikoff's presentation he is derisive and mocking. "A is A, why, how naive of these Randians! They have made such a vital contribution to theology!"
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:
Writes David about the course:I am not an Objectivist; but I'm not attempting in the course to advocate a competing philosophical theory of my own — though it is hardly a secret that my own political views are Rothbardian. Rather, I wish to evaluate the arguments that she presented. The course is primarily designed for those who would like to learn the essentials of Rand's thought; but I encourage Objectivists and others who already have strong opinions about Rand to enroll in the course and debate the issues with me. Few activities are as much fun as philosophical arguments.
-
Or he understands it fine and just doesn't think it's true. Come on now.
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.
-
Good find. But the thing about Objectivism is that once you understand it, you realise it's not just an opinion, it's actually true - something she discovered.
But on that page he says he is not an Objectivist. So assuming he values truth, he mustn't have understood it yet. So he is teaching a course on something he doesn't understand.
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.
-
Is it? Post the law.
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.
-
In any case the allegation is that NorFed attempted to create a competing monetary system (which is illegal, though it should not be), not set up a system of barter (in kind) exchange (which I was asserting to be legal), so the quote LogicalPath posted is not relevant to the point I was trying to make.
I believe the charge was counterfeiting(in so many words) but I understand your point.
A federal grand jury brought a criminal indictment against von NotHaus and three others in May 2009 in United States District Court in Statesville, North Carolina, and von NotHaus was arrested on June 6, 2009. Bernard von NotHaus is charged with one count of conspiracy to possess and sell coins in resemblance and similitude of coins of a denomination higher than five cents, and silver coins in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in denominations of five dollars and greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485, 18 U.S.C. § 486, and 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; one count of selling, and possessing with intent to defraud, coins of resemblance and similitude of United States coins in denominations of five cents and higher, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of uttering, passing, and attempting to utter and pass, silver coins in resemblance of genuine U.S. coins in denominations of five dollars or greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486 and 18 U.S.C. On July 28, 2009, von NotHaus entered a plea of not guilty. Although he was released on bail, later in July 2010 he was jailed again for violating terms of the Appearance Bond. -
I know businesses are generally free to take whatever they want in payment (including barter), so long as they don't evade taxes by doing so.
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:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish a uniform standard of value. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money not issued under its own authority, in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. Thus, it is a violation of law for private coin systems to compete with the official coinage of the United States.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%."The prosecutors successfully painted Mr. von NotHaus in a false light and now the U.S. Attorney responsible for the prosecution is painting the case in a false light, saying that it establishes that private voluntary barter currency is illegal," Michel wrote. -
In Episode 92 of his podcasts, Dr. Peikoff is asked:
00:48: "'Could you please tell me where I can find Aristotle's reference to the law of identity?'"
Here on his site as a single question and answer.
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?
-
How so? This thread is about the legality of possessing gold, not turning it into coins privately, with the words "United States of America" and "Dollar" on them.
Private companies mint silver and gold rounds all the time. They get into trouble whenever they do something that makes it look like they are producing US money.
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
-
If you are arguing that basically we are running on inertia based on what happened in the past with Gresham's Law, then I agree with you, at least partially. I disagree that Gresham's Law is acting today to keep gold out of commerce. The fact of the matter is gold is now a barterable commodity that comes in really big "chunks", valuewise, and those change value with respect to the dollar, and that is the real reason that it doesn't circulate freely. The changing value results in large "spreads" (5-10%) at coin dealers (where you can buy and sell gold, silver, platinum and palladium) as they have to plan for the possibility it could go down in dollar price.
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).
-
You do not, in fact, fully understand Gresham's law.
Surely if someone will accept an old US gold coin only at face value ($20 for the double eagle), no one will pay him that way. Offer someone an item for $2000 or one ounce of gold, however, and lots of people would pay with gold--at least at today's price. Those that wouldn't would fall into three groups: the completely clueless who have no notion of the price of gold, those who happen not to have any (or don't want to dash home and go get it), and those who are sure the gold will be worth more than 2000 dollars in the near future. Someone who has gold readily available to him, knows the current price ~$1350 (US), and doesn't expect it to skyrocket will happily accept a $650 discount. He might even use the $650 he saved to buy more gold.
(Try this experiment at a coin dealer--offer to buy a $2000 rare coin for an ounce of gold instead of $2000 in Federal Reserve notes. He's perfectly capable of dealing with the gold; he's part of that economy and will have no trouble getting others to accept the gold, so its relative unspendability in today's society is not an issue here. He almost certainly won't take the deal--if he does, the coin is probably overpriced.)
Gold is not simply worth "more than" paper money; it is worth a certain amount of paper money at any given time and if the seller sets up his pricing like I suggested above, giving a substantial discount for gold, the seller he will almost certainly be paid in gold, not paper money. The reason gold and silver do not circulate now at face value is that that certain amount they are worth is greater than face value.
Gresham's law applies only when two items of different value are required to be used at the same value in transactions--e.g., when we transitioned from silver to "clad" coinage. Both the clad quarter and the silver quarter were traded at the same value, and face value may well have exceeded the intrinsic value for both, nonetheless the silver had a higher actual value and vanished from circulation quite quickly. People will keep the stuff of more actual value. In that sort of situation, Gresham's Law is invoilate. [Note: "Intrinsic" earlier in this paragraph simply refers to the market value of the material the coin is made out of, also known as "melt" value, not some sort of philosophically "intrinsic" value which of course would be BS.]
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.
-
@logicalpath - I'm not sure why you keep quoting me since you're not disagreeing with me. In fact, you're not really adding anything more to what I've already written. Is there something I'm missing?
I apologize, I thought you had stated that credit cards were considered legal tender as defined by the U.S Govt.
-
Banks, and other businesses, issue their own money all the time in the form of credit cards and checks. Money is simply that which easily facilitates the exchange of value. As sN pointed out, no one would want to issue something that doesn't facilitate that exchange. US dollars must be accepted, but (as evidenced by the businesses which do not accept credit cards and/or checks) other forms of payment can be.
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.
-
All legal tender means is that a business can't refuse payment in it. So, a business couldn't refuse to be paid in dollars. However, you can pay with whatever form of money you wish as long as the business agrees to accept it. So, you can use gold as currency.
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".
-
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!
-
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.
-
Ok.. you want to change your work schedule.. it is in your rational self interest to do so.
Not necessarily in my rational self interest to have people bringing (presumably non-drinking) toddlers into my bar.
If they want the laws changed they are welcome to do as you did.
However for me, childless and intending to remain so, the law "is what it is".
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.
-
Well, as I already stated.. I do have an option seperate from obeying the rules.... not to exist.
You have the option to find another line of work as well.
If a customer wants to bring their 9 month old child into my 21+ establishment and they get upset when I point out that it is 21+ as per regulation and they start having a fit "because it isn't like anyone is going to be sneaking my kid Jack Daniels" (actual quote from actual angry customer) it is hardly passing the buck, evading reality or evading responsibility to say of the situation "yes, it may be silly, but it is what it is".
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.
-
Hahah... you obviously don't have an entity akin to our alcohol licensing agency in your area.
While man-made it has apparently become self aware.
There is no reasoning with, controlling, or altering it. The amount of control they exert within their sphere of influence is outrageous.
So, as long as the liquor regulation is A my rules are B. That fact is inalterable in this moment in time.
There is however one politician in all of the state who is running saying they will work to shut down the agency. They have my vote.
But until he wins and manages somehow to fight all the political powers and unions (all govt employees are unions and will not take kindly to having one of their troughs taken away) to get rid of this entity A is A making me act as B (or choose to not exist at all).
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.
Reblogged: Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted · Edited by 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.