As for libertian views, don't take Franco or Ron, as the standard for a libertarian. John Stossel and Milton Friedman are much better examples. For me, individual freedom is the most cherished right of all. For time immemorial, minorities have pulled up stakes to achieve it.
I have always said that "show me a problem that the people disire the gov. to solve, and I will show you a problem that the gov. created". I look forward to your future posts hoping that you provide justification for socialist views.
I love Stossel, Friedman, Yuron Brooks, Judge Napalitano and have quoted them often on RTF. All but Friedman are RP deciples. Though RP has retired from Congress he is busy speaking for Libertarian candidates all across the country. So, to say you don't care for RP's Libertarian views makes zero sense be cause the man defines Libertarian!
Many times you have advocated more regulation of Wall Street when libertarians would argue less. As milton Friedman said many times, your freedoms go only as far as someone else's nose. Buyer beware. You don't like then stay away from Wall street. You don't like insider trading, then don't do business on Wall Street. Let the market take care of the problem. You cannot protect stupidity with regulation.
Both you and RP have many libetarian views which I respect. I would happily voe for either of you for president before I would even vote for the man that occupies the office as a dog catcher. I have more respect for the dogs. I will quote my favorite line. Gov. is not, has not ever been, nor will ever be in the business of charity. It is in the business of rules, regulation, taxes, dependence and control. Libertarians believe in the vey minimum of all these.
When a system is based on Crony Capitalism then we have to have regulations. However, RP and I are for Free Markets/Trade and real Capitalism and not what we have now where Lobbyist buy support/influence on The Hill in circumventing Free Markets and real Capitalism.
Liberty, Free Markets & Peace regards,
If we still had the Gold Standard, we wouldn't be 16 TRILLION in debt and growing. Congress wouldn't have the power for their wild spending of fiat money.
As for the Gold Standard, why do you think that it would limit deficit spending? Have you consideered that the gov. would just raise the price of gold and still print more money?? Furthermore, when we had the gold standard, US citizens were not allowed to own gold except for jewelry ect. Only the gov. was allowed to own gold. You call that a libertarian view.
Even Buzz sort agreed with a consupmtion tax as opposed to an income tax, probably because he recognizes that the income tax is a totally failed system.
As I wrote earlier either on this thread or the one on the Fiscal Cliff, we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. That with the Gold Standard would be fiscal sanity because then our money would mean something. The big problem now is that the Fed Reserve is trying to determine the value of the dollar. Which it shouldn't.
I am all for individuals owning gold, never said otherwise. Price of gold is determined globally and not by Congress. Yes, a consumption tax would be better than what we currently have yet, no Personal Federal Taxes or at least rates below 5% would be more inline with the ideals this country was founded on.
The progressives understand that and eventually they will win.
There is no way or no one that can step in and make the sweeping changes so many cry for.
Not gonna happen.
We had a chance to take an incremental step back in the right direction.
People on the nipple, taking hand outs they truly don't need are now addicted.
You know, "c'mon Franco, it's just food stamps, it's OK, everybody is doing it!!"
Now your hooked.
To get off this addiction, the addicted have to hit rock bottom.
I thought we were there, but evidently this is gonna get worse before we can address it.
You know, Rock Bottom!
If that ever happens.
People seem all to quick to give away their dignity, independence and freedoms today.
And they rationalize it by someone elses bad behavior!!