Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Proving Natural Law

This post has 1,361 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

I may define a biologically 'normal' human as heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, and intelligent because I normatively value these. I value these because descriptively evolution has forced me to value these.

The fact-value dichotomy still stands in this sense. You cannot derive normative ethical commands from nature.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

I value these because descriptively evolution has forced me to value these.

Translation:  I value these because facts of nature has **** (no translation) me to value these.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

The fact-value dichotomy still stands in this sense.

Ah, no, you just said you value these cause of "descriptively", meaning, facts (facts according to you).  How is there a divide there?

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

You cannot derive normative ethical commands from nature.

And yet you are a human being making normative ethical commands in nature.  You are in the same universe as us, and even if you aren't, it's still connected to this universe obviously.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
I may define a biologically 'normal' human as heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, and intelligent because I normatively value these. I value these because descriptively evolution has forced me to value these.

So there is an objective force outside of your own consciousness which compels you a certain value system?

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
The fact-value dichotomy still stands in this sense. You cannot derive normative ethical commands from nature.

Yet your heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, intelligent value system is derived from an outside force that is not you. If you derive these values from something beyond your own subjective consciousness, therefore they are derived from an outside force and what force is there in this word besides nature? Therefore concede that your value system is derived from an evolutionary force which enacts itself on humanity OR establish that your value system is completely arbitrary and picked solely because you felt like picking them.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Thu, Jul 2 2009 9:05 PM

This topic is SUUUUUPER long. 1,164 posts. 327 more than the second longest topic in all of the forums. 17 pages longer than the second longest. Wow.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

One wonders how the hell "homosexual" is precluded from contributing to overall survival value given that biologists have various theories as to why it developed as a trait that is actually conducive to the transmission of genes.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Anarchist Cain:
Yet your heterosexual, non-psychopathic, healthy, intelligent value system is derived from an outside force that is not you. If you derive these values from something beyond your own subjective consciousness, therefore they are derived from an outside force and what force is there in this word besides nature? Therefore concede that your value system is derived from an evolutionary force which enacts itself on humanity OR establish that your value system is completely arbitrary and picked solely because you felt like picking them.

True, and you defined this phenomenon as "objective". However, you conflated multiple definitions of "objective".

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

Anarchist Cain:

Wilmot of Rochester:
I don't think we really need to go into too many examples to prove the point that the state, when you push it, is going to push back and hard. Maybe that's necessary, I'm not saying it isn't, just from a strategic point of view I never underestimate an opponent

Apparently you glossed over my premise that this is a battle of ideas, not bullets.

Because I don't think it is a battle of ideas really. At least not now. Look, we're not even in the discussion in most places - some institutions like CATO make very, very small dents in the status quo, but that's really rare in itself.

 

Let's say, however, that it does eventually become a battle of ideas, how do you expect to win? Libertarians have absolutely no special interests - Anarchists have even fewer. So what do we do? We can't win with bullets, we can't win with ballots. So what do we do? I more and more like the idea of seasteading, but it also seems unattainable.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
True, and you defined this phenomenon as "objective". However, you conflated multiple definitions of "objective".

Actually when asked what I mean by objective, I only conflated one definition. A universal truth.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Wilmot of Rochester:

 

Because I don't think it is a battle of ideas really. At least not now. Look, we're not even in the discussion in most places - some institutions like CATO make very, very small dents in the status quo, but that's really rare in itself.

HR 1207

Wilmot of Rochester:
Let's say, however, that it does eventually become a battle of ideas, how do you expect to win? Libertarians have absolutely no special interests - Anarchists have even fewer.

This isn't about public choice theory.

Wilmot of Rochester:
So what do we do? We can't win with bullets, we can't win with ballots. So what do we do? I more and more like the idea of seasteading, but it also seems unattainable.

Educate and wait for a crisis event that will lead to an eventual social revolution.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Off to work. Present your retorts gentlemen and I will reply tomorrow.

Also Merchant. I presented a question to you before in this topic concerning Aristotlian law. You claim that the three laws were a product of human development. Therefore, I asked:

If the three laws are a product of humanity, therefore it must ensue that when humanity ends then they will no longer apply. Therefore do you concede that nature will be deduced to contradiction before and after humanity exists?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Wilmot of Rochester:

Let's say, however, that it does eventually become a battle of ideas, how do you expect to win? Libertarians have absolutely no special interests - Anarchists have even fewer. So what do we do? 

I think it's been getting better concerning liberty since Ancient Greece over two thousand years ago.  There's been some major back steps along the way, but great strides too.  Locke discussed miniarchism and that influenced the U.S. establishment with all this explicit talk about liberty, and the First Leftists in France openly discussed ridding the State but then Jacob got into power.  Since then huge educational strides in anarchy have happened from the 1800's onward.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

Anarchist Cain:

HR 1207

This isn't about public choice theory.

Educate and wait for a crisis event that will lead to an eventual social revolution.

So your resting all of your hopes on a bill that, for the most part, doesn't really do anything new? Congress has always had the power to look into the Federal Reserve, it simply doesn't want to. And I disagree with some of the claims that go with it, that is that people don't know the Fed is pumping money. The Fed announces this fact! 


Ron Paul wants to prevent the Fed from being - as it is now - a recklace lender of unanchored monetary issuance. Alright, that's all well and good. But you know what I think would be a more effective policy? List foreign currencies as legal tender and push for international compliance for other nations to do the same. It would effectively get rid of the centralness of the national central banks. The Fed and the EU bank already compete to a limited extent, imagine if they had to compete more. 

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

wilderness:

Wilmot of Rochester:

Let's say, however, that it does eventually become a battle of ideas, how do you expect to win? Libertarians have absolutely no special interests - Anarchists have even fewer. So what do we do? 

I think it's been getting better concerning liberty since Ancient Greece over two thousand years ago.  There's been some major back steps along the way, but great strides too.  Locke discussed miniarchism and that influenced the U.S. establishment with all this explicit talk about liberty, and the First Leftists in France openly discussed ridding the State but then Jacob got into power.  Since then huge educational strides in anarchy have happened from the 1800's onward.

But my concern is that they haven't really led to anything. We're still a small minority without any backing. I can't imagine we'll be capable of succeeding without some form of backing. Whatever it might be. 

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Wilmot of Rochester:

But my concern is that they haven't really led to anything. We're still a small minority without any backing. I can't imagine we'll be capable of succeeding without some form of backing. Whatever it might be. 

Of course it's lead to something if you understand history.  I'm sure you see this.  I also hope you notice I have a low time preference when it comes to anarchy happening.  In other words, I'm being very patient.  It may not happen in my lifetime or my son's.  But this doesn't mean we don't play a role in continuing to keep the torch of liberty lit.

And yes we would need some kind of backing if the opportunity ever arose.  I think it will happen, but of course I put a lot of investment in that logic and thus truth is an evolving reality.  And if it would ever happen for some unknown reason while I'm alive I would be greatly appreciative that I was able to be apart of it and see the significance as the event would rise in front of my very eyes.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

I value heterosexuality, compassion, health, and intelligence. However, a psychopath does not value compassion. He might value murder. Therefore, the psychopath has different values than me.

I value compassion. Therefore, I will derive an ethical command "You should not kill." However, the psychopath, who feels no compassion, will not derive the same ethical command. The psychopath has different values than me. In turn, the psychopath and I derive different ethical commands.

I value the ethical command "You should not kill" because evolution has forced me to value it. Evolution has selected a trait that forced me to feel empathy for others, so I will not kill others.

However, the psychopath does not feel empathy. He does not value the ethical command "You should not kill."

Ethical apriorists value the command "You should not kill." They value empathy as a trait selected by evolution. Therefore, they will value that command.

Why should ethical apriorists value the command "You should not kill"? Because they, themselves, value empathy.

However, suppose that Tom, an ethical apriorist, lacks empathy. Because Tom lacks empathy, he cannot derive the ethical command "You should not kill."

Why do normal ethical apriorists disagree with Tom, but agree with themselves, on the validity of the command "You should not kill"? Because the normal ones, themselves, feel empathy but Tom does not.

However, ethical apriorists assume that human emotions, such as empathy, have no influence in grounding ethical commands at all. They claim that pure reason, such as performative contradiction arguments, can derive the ethical command "You should not kill," without any grounding of empathy whatsoever. Ethical apriorists agree that regardless of whether one feels empathy or not, one will derive the ethical command "You should not kill."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
AM, I don't think science is just yet sure on whether homosexuality is "abnormal", in the sense that it might be counter-productive to evolution. Homosexuality occurs frequently in nature, beyond humans, & homosexuality could actually prove to be very beneficial for a species in combatting overpopulation.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

Of course, AM's premise is simply a manifestation of crack-pot realism that conflates sex with gender.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Evolutionary biologists, in explaining sexual selection, assume all humans as heterosexual. This assumption will simplify their theories by leaving out the analysis of homosexuality, which they consider as irrelevant to sexual selection. For example, they define the terms "male" and "female" as necessarily heterosexual and free from physical and mental defects.

Assuming all males and females as necessarily heterosexual does not imply that we should condemn homosexuality. Doing so will lead to the appeal to nature fallacy and a disregard to abstractions. So please do not take personal offense. Even if we found out that homosexuality does not increase the propagation of its "selfish genes" by solving overpopulation, that does not suggest any normative judgment for or against homosexuality. Prescribing any value-judgment from only descriptive notions such as nature requires the conflation of the fact-value dichotomy.

Conflating the fact-value dichotomy might lead us to conclude that "homosexuality is wrong." Keeping facts and values separate precludes this possibility.

Anarchist Cain:
If the three laws are a product of humanity, therefore it must ensue that when humanity ends then they will no longer apply. Therefore do you concede that nature will be deduced to contradiction before and after humanity exists?

We know the absurdness of believing that nature will contradict itself if humans do not exist. Earth has existed before humanity.

Humans create the Aristotelian laws of logic just like how humans create art, language, and customs. The universe does not intrinsically value Aristotelian logic just like it does not intrinsically value art, language, and customs. We disagree with each other probably from semantics.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Anarchist Cain:
If the three laws are a product of humanity, therefore it must ensue that when humanity ends then they will no longer apply. Therefore do you concede that nature will be deduced to contradiction before and after humanity exists?

We know the absurdness of believing that nature will contradict itself if humans do not exist. Earth has existed before humanity.

So you do know about these three laws of nature and concede these three natural laws are valid.  As you state here, "...nature will (not) contradict itself...".  Glad to see you agree that Rothbard recognized happiness as an end too (I assume since you can't counter Rothbard's own words in which he stated happiness is an end).

I say all this so the focus of any future discussions can move beyond walking through this.  So now that we've established this... til next time.Smile

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Fri, Jul 3 2009 11:46 AM

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Humans create the Aristotelian laws of logic just like how humans create art, language, and customs. The universe does not intrinsically value Aristotelian logic just like it does not intrinsically value art, language, and customs. We disagree with each other probably from semantics.

Just the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread regarding the law of non-contradiction :)

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

zefreak:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Humans create the Aristotelian laws of logic just like how humans create art, language, and customs. The universe does not intrinsically value Aristotelian logic just like it does not intrinsically value art, language, and customs. We disagree with each other probably from semantics.

Just the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread regarding the law of non-contradiction :)

The only problem with this is, humans don't create laws of nature (logic) just like art.  The universe will not become a contradiction if humans are not here, but a clay pot will NOT form in the universe unless a human or a being kin to human makes one.

And zefreak I'm still waiting for you to answer - this - that - and also this of Anarchist Cain.

If you can't answer these, then deductively I'll chalk that up to your philosophy is lacking in explanatory power.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

wilderness:
The only problem with this is, humans don't create laws of nature (logic) just like art.  The universe will not become a contradiction if humans are not here, but a clay pot will NOT form in the universe unless a human or a being kin to human makes one.

Certainly, the universe does not require the laws of logic to function properly.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 768
Points 12,035
Moderator

But the Universe does require the law of identity and the law of causality to have some basis for it to operate.

"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization.  Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism.  In a market process." -- liberty student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
Certainly, the universe does not require the laws of logic to function properly.

absolute nonsense.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

wilderness:
The only problem with this is, humans don't create laws of nature (logic) just like art.  The universe will not become a contradiction if humans are not here, but a clay pot will NOT form in the universe unless a human or a being kin to human makes one.

Certainly, the universe does not require the laws of logic to function properly.

You are so vague...lol

It would have been better to write:  the universe does not need humans to logically induct and deduct the natural laws that are present in the universe, which in no way dismisses natural laws it merely dismisses humans needing to logically think about them (which is what you do actually since you reject them, you dismiss yourself from thinking logically about the natural laws that are here and fall into the trap in which you think A is not-A, etc, etc... and therefore you are illogical).

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

wilderness:
You are so vague...lol

he's not vague hes wrong. he believes that the universe can both be the universe and not be the universe

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

nirgrahamUK:

wilderness:
You are so vague...lol

he's not vague hes wrong. he believes that the universe can both be the universe and not be the universe

   Agreed.  Smile  He's been wrong for a long time in this thread and other threads.  I'm patiently waiting for him to fess up.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

wilderness:
 He's been wrong
and not wrong! Wink

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

wilderness:
It would have been better to write:  the universe does not need humans to logically induct and deduct the natural laws that are present in the universe

I agree to the first clause in your complex sentence that the universe does not require human reasoning. However, I disagree with the second clause that humans can deduce the Aristotelian laws of logic from nothing. We should not do that because of the flaws of the argument by performance contradiction. Aristotle had it wrong when he deducted the law of identity from the argument by performative contradiction.

The performative contradiction argument bypasses the fact-value dichotomy. In addition, the argument presupposes the logical soundness of its premises. It confuses the higher order abstractions to deduce the lower order abstractions. For example, Hoppean argumentation ethics confuses the higher order abstraction "property rights" with the lower order abstraction "fullblown Lockean property rights." For more information about the flaws of the argument by performative contradiction, see my critique of argumentation ethics and my critique of cogito, ergo sum.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

why would we debate topic on any subject with someone that denies fundamental laws of logic? in fact, you are yourself a performative contradiction when you deny logic, you may in the same breath say that you assert logic, since you would not be breaking any laws of contradiction to assert both statements. then i get the choice of which statement i want to listen to. and i will choose logic.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

wilderness:
It would have been better to write:  the universe does not need humans to logically induct and deduct the natural laws that are present in the universe

I agree to the first clause in your complex sentence that the universe does not require human reasoning. However, I disagree with the second clause that humans can deduce the Aristotelian laws of logic from nothing.

I didn't say Aristotelian laws of logic are deduced from nothing.  That's deceptive.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

We should not do that because of the flaws of the argument by performance contradiction. Aristotle had it wrong when he deducted the law of identity from the argument by performative contradiction.

I don't know what the performative contradiction has to do with this.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

nirgrahamUK:

why would we debate topic on any subject with someone that denies fundamental laws of logic?

I know.Confused  Agreed.Yes

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Fri, Jul 3 2009 7:25 PM
AM:
Certainly, the universe does not require the laws of logic to function properly.
Humans do need them and humans are part of the universe. In that sense the 'laws' are part of the universe.

Also logic laws reflect fundamental, non-human facts about the universe. By non-human facts I mean the universe operates the way it does regardless of humans figuring out the correct laws.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

wilderness:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

wilderness:
It would have been better to write:  the universe does not need humans to logically induct and deduct the natural laws that are present in the universe

I agree to the first clause in your complex sentence that the universe does not require human reasoning. However, I disagree with the second clause that humans can deduce the Aristotelian laws of logic from nothing.

I criticize the notion that the Aristotelian laws are non-deniable tautologies, and criticize that a performative contradiction would deny them.

Ethical apriorism ground its beliefs from the argument by performative contradiction. It asserts that ethical commands are non-deniable tautologies, and that a performative contradiction would deny them.

Some may define the term "ethical apriorism" as identical to "ethical rationalism." However, both its intuitionist and non-intuitionist forms belongs under "ethical rationalism." Hence, I should use a less ambiguous term to refer to the common beliefs from Rothbardian natural law, neo-Aristotelian ethics, argumentation ethics, the estoppel theory, Universally Preferable Behavior, and the categorical imperative. All six schools derive values from facts by applying the argument by performative contradiction. Therefore, it uses reason alone, not passions, in deriving values from facts.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Juan:
AM:
Certainly, the universe does not require the laws of logic to function properly.
Humans do need them and humans are part of the universe. In that sense the 'laws' are part of the universe.

Also logic laws reflect fundamental, non-human facts about the universe. By non-human facts I mean the universe operates the way it does regardless of humans figuring out the correct laws.

You have clarified what you had meant, and I agree with this.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

and also you dont agree, and thats fine because theres no law against contradiction. eh ? eh?

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Therefore, it uses reason alone, not passions, in deriving values from facts.

First you lied about happiness (desire, passions, etc...) having no role in human nature in the Natural Law strain of philosophy.

Secondly you moved the goal posts and then lied about how Rothbard never stated happiness is an end.

What is this A is not-A nonsense?  What is this happiness can't be derived from facts non-sense you spill?

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Fri, Jul 3 2009 9:20 PM

wilderness:

And zefreak I'm still waiting for you to answer - this - that - and also this of Anarchist Cain.

If you can't answer these, then deductively I'll chalk that up to your philosophy is lacking in explanatory power.

Some people actually have to work to make a living.

Cut me some slack, I will answer any question you wish given time.

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

zefreak:

wilderness:

And zefreak I'm still waiting for you to answer - this - that - and also this of Anarchist Cain.

If you can't answer these, then deductively I'll chalk that up to your philosophy is lacking in explanatory power.

Some people actually have to work to make a living.

Cut me some slack, I will answer any question you wish given time.

Well I figured that since you responded since those posts you merely skipped over them.  Take your time.  No rush.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Wilmot of Rochester:
So your resting all of your hopes on a bill that, for the most part, doesn't really do anything new? Congress has always had the power to look into the Federal Reserve, it simply doesn't want to. And I disagree with some of the claims that go with it, that is that people don't know the Fed is pumping money. The Fed announces this fact! 

I'm not resting all my hopes on any one thing. You said this was not a battle of ideas, I showed you a piece of legislation [ an idea persay ] to discount your statement.

Wilmot of Rochester:
But you know what I think would be a more effective policy? List foreign currencies as legal tender and push for international compliance for other nations to do the same. It would effectively get rid of the centralness of the national central banks. The Fed and the EU bank already compete to a limited extent, imagine if they had to compete more. 

I can agree with that statement however, you cannot deny auditing the Fed would be progress. I mean we can argue as to how much but there is no argument as to if it is a good or bad.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 30 of 35 (1362 items) « First ... < Previous 28 29 30 31 32 Next > ... Last » | RSS