This is a set of thoughts I have been having for a while, I'm not sure if it's at all unique or has been discussed widely. It descends primarily from my meditations on what might have made Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate more marketable to voters. I am going to forget about discussing the very most glaring things such as relatively unpolished oratory and rhetorical skills, youth, and machismo charisma.
What I wish to address is really two points, which may be interesting yet repugnant to some anarcho-capitalists. The first of which is while somebody like Ron Paul hands down had the greatest credibility to discuss the topic of health care than any other candidate by virtue of his medical practice, when discussing matters of the economy during the Republican debates, would he really have came off as less of a kook or crank if he had credentials in Economics from an accredited institution of higher learning? I recognise that on many occassions when Dr. Paul began to address how the US Economy is not a healthy one, the Federal Reserve System, dangers of paper money, the inflation tax, etc, these points may not have been framed well or "dumbed down" enough to make the potential voters feel like they were on the bandwagon. In other words, I notice that Dr. Paul would jump in deep and sometimes pitch somewhat complex concepts that would leave many if not most debate viewers baffled. Anyhow, I don't want to get too distracted here from the topic at hand with these particulars. Would a personality such as Ron Paul have benefitted greatly from an MA or Ph.D. in Economics when discussing the economy? I understand that this is even something of a loaded question since he was running against someone perceived as a successful CEO and had some de facto credibility as a result. I often wonder if one is a politician, and that politician has that little diploma and some mainstream economics publications, then would people be so hasty to write off a gold bug that criticises US monetary policy in a political campaign?
This second point is somewhat half-baked, but addresses what "we need" and concerns the practicality of deceiving the academic and political Establishment into thinking that one is with their agenda. A project like this is a lifetime effort, involves being a "closet Austrian" or what have you, putting those values on the backburner and subduing them for a while. I currently find myself in a similar position, where only my very closest friends are aware that I'm a radical libertarian of some stripe, but local GOP members are in the process of trying to draft me into the next State House election cycle. A project like this requires motivated individuals that are prepared to act and play the role of merchantilist-, neoclassical- or monetarist-leaning figures of influence. When the time is right and enough influence is in their posession, the actor then gradually enacts policy that is in the interest of the so-called freedom movement, and either convinces the electorate that it was their idea or lie outright to disguise intent. When enough influence is achieved, this actor's cronies are then persuaded to fall in line or be destroyed. What I am getting at would be similar to George W. Bush defecting into the mode of radical libertarianism rather than plunging headlong into an insane and highly destructive neoconservative agenda. These aren't particularly novel motivations, for Marxist-leaning politicians, usually lawyers by profession, have been doing this for decades upon decades. I can't decide whether this type of action would be destructive of its intent in the long run or open to sabotage, or if relying on the gradual informed reasoning of the electorate (the idealist is perpetually disappointed) is the most useful way to go. I do not wish to discuss the option of using economic collapse to further an agenda as has happened many times in history, for I find the idea of unintentional or orchestrated economic collapse utterly vile, although sometimes I feel like collapse would be useful to teach many people what hardship really feels like.
Enemys make poor bedfellows.
Did you say panic? Now there are much more people that can point to the root causes of a popping bubble. Confidence is best maintained through consistancy, and honesty. A panic is on the way, it is a little late to have a soft landing conversion. A demand for specie is back on the table thanks to the work of many liberals, like the Dr.
I'd like to kill U.S. code and reconstruct using our constitution. I doubt either house of plunderers, would if they could jump into that. Maybe we have to win more battles of the mind with more folks, as opposed to becoming one of the many perpetraitors that suckle off the common wheel. When a society has no choice of their electorate, this is no choice or 'will of the common man' it is despotism. Today the voice of the people is not that, but the dictations of Wall Street. We must question the means we use in order to gain our ends. Is lying and pretending to be someone else really the best means? Well, just be yourself as best you can and you will be exellent for doing so.
To me academic conformity is no sign of intellect or discipline. Those degrees may as well be toiletry, even had I status quo document of conformity in me, institutions of the state would still find me unacceptable. Flip back in time, and many specialists did not need a peice of paper to practise their crafts. Many establishment whores are bunch of losers in clown clubs tryin' to feel better about themselves.
Individualism Rocks