I am using Ubuntu and Red Hat and OpenBSD (yeah, I am one of the 3 guys who uses OpenBSD).
I also have Windows XP and Windows 2000 on 2 old laptops and on my current laptop I've got Ubuntu 10 and Windows 7, because this Thinkpad came with it and I just allocated the minimum amount of space on disk for it 56GB, 20GB of it IS Windows 7.
Booted into Windows 7 a few times and I tell you what - after Unity, this particular shell that is used in Windows 7 is the most annoying that I've used (and I touched Mac on a few occasions, and I find it completely unusable, just not a computer).
I tried Vista, it was unusable too, but I don't have Vista on any of my hardware, but I do have Windows 7, so I can try it. It's the craziest, most backwards, insane piece of garbage, everything, from file handling, to even the most primitive stuff that is supposed to be usable in Windows - File Explorer. It's horrendous.
This is my personal FEELING of it, I am not going to argue on every function (and I haven't tried every function, I won't do it, just like I won't use Mac again unless threatened with a machine gun.)
XP was the most SANE and the most USABLE Windows that I had to work with in my entire life, and I like XP GUI shell more than I like any of the Free software shells (no Gnome, no KDE, no Unity, no Xfce, no CDE, no LXDE,) they are all trash actually, but I use Gnome 2 unfortunately for me and I hate it, but I hate it less than everything else, so that's the extent of it.
First, the US was not a libertarian country prior to 1905
- I am roughly talking about 1870 to 1913, not exact round numbers.
The US government was a weak government compared to what it is today, and that's all it counts - relative strength of government. Being 'libertarian' is a ruse. What has changed over the last 100 years?
Federal reserve was established and IRS started collecting income taxes (and then corporate and then payroll taxes), which allowed monetization of government debt, which took reins off government spending and thus government growth, and since government could then spend money proportionate to earnings of people as opposed to proportionate to spending of people, and it got the ability to monetize debt (print currency), it started adding departments and government projects.
US government was extremely "weak" prior to that moment.
US government is extremely "strong" now.
All of the various ways that US government interferes with free market and distorts businesses, creates monopolies and prevents free commerce:
Fed, IRS, departments of agriculture, education, energy, commerce, FDA, EPA, HLS, TSA, FBI, CIA, etc.
All of the various ways that destroys sovereignty of the nation and by extension destroy sovereignty of individuals:
UN, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
All of the various ways in which moral hazards are established by government "insurance" (it's not insurance if it has no assets and only prints/borrows to cover claims). FDIC, SS, Medicare, education loans, HUD, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, etc.
All of the above departments and so called 'insurances' are the various ways in which government spat on personal liberties, but of-course it added more interesting stuff in the latest years: Patriot Act (establishing concentration camps and indefinite wars), now NDAA with indefinite detention provisions not just for funny looking foreigners, but also US citizens.
You'll have SOPA, PIPA, etc.etc.
Of-course the complete default on honest money and thus the beginning of the end of the economy happened in 1971.
-
The US government was not 'libertarian', but it was a 'weak' government before 1913, which means that the individuals were strong, the nation was strong, it built the largest middle class and lifted all boats by individuals participating in mostly free market.
Now US government is 'strong' and this means the individuals are 'weak', they are scared, they are groped, they are left without means to existence outside of the government indoctrinated system, their individual rights are no longer protected and instead the laws are either modified to ignore and deny the rights or the laws are ignored altogether (the Constitution) so whatever government does passes for a law.
That's your strong government at work and that's what made your nation weak.
USA before it got itself a 'strong' government was a strong nation once the Civil war ended.
Then, about 40 years after USA system got cracked, and it got itself a 'strong' (growing) government.
Under a 'weak' government, USA became the most prosperous, inventive, innovative, creditor nation.
With this 'strong' government it has now, it's falling apart economically and societally (obviously one follows the other).
China on the other hand is a good example of this working in reverse, where a 'strong' government destroyed a nation so bad, that it had to turn to capitalism away from communism, and the government is getting weaker by the minute, as people are becoming freer with more economic activity going, this tune plays both ways.
However in case of USA - this was a completely unique experiment specifically because this was not a natural progression for a nation, it started nearly from scratch instead of going through the same motions as every other country on the planet, all of which resulted out of dictatorship and despotism.
Actual libertarian principles and free market economy takes work, which includes removing the former despot based government one way or another, be it via starting a new country or some form of natural progression from a "stronger" to a "weaker" government, because the system allowed the individuals to become stronger if only economically at first.
Your misleading comparisons are just false equivalences.
A weak government is NOT a "non-functional" government. A weak government is a government that cannot go above the law that is set for it to follow.
A strong government does not create a good society and a functioning economy. North Korea and USSR and Cuba have/had "strong" governments. So what?
You are confusing the 2 issues: strong government and a strong nation.
Nation is NOT a government.
Government is NOT a nation.
Strong nation is a nation of laws, nation that protects individual liberties, maximizes individual freedoms and does so without stealing the power from people to give to a small minority of politicians/dictators/power brokers.
Strong nation is a nation that allows free people to make choices with regard to their economics, money, food, sex, marriage, drugs, whatever.
Strong nation is not a nation that uses huge military to bully the world.
Strong government can bully the world by subjugating the individual liberties and freedoms of its people. It also can put people into concentration camps. It can start wars without asking the people either to pay for them or whether the people even want to start the wars.
Somalia today is a product of a long history of difficult situations, including a communist government that was eventually disposed of. The government was disposed of because of how 'strong' it was with its people.
USSR eventually fell apart and North Korea will eventually too, because 'strong' governments make for weak nations as 'strong' government destroys individual liberties and eventually people stop being scared of their 'strong' government, especially when the strength of government obliterates the economy so bad, that people go hungry.
Strong government is not a synonym with a 'good' system.
Yes, quoting myself to prove your point wrong makes perfect sense. I showed that your sentence was immediately false or a lie.
By the way, you are very easily amused, do you know that?
I'm endlessly amused by this sentence, as it so beautifully sums up everything that's wrong with libertarians.
- that was your first sentence in response to my comment. Of-course it's amusing that you are amused by something that is a completely consistent position.
What were you amused by? Well, you said it, you were amused by my sentence:
We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles
(I quoted myself again, amusing, isn't it?)
The really amusing part here is that you are amused by something that is perfectly consistent and rational.
Statement A: "we are all dictators inside"
Statement B: "maximizing individual liberties is desirable"
Statement C: "government power must be limited to satisfy libertarian principles".
So how is it inconsistent for a rational person to understand that if A is true and if B is true, then C follows?
Yes, all other forms of power are irrelevant when compared to government power, because unlike all other forms of power, the government power is enforced by the law, courts, all of the police and military power, and government power is considered to be lawful by itself.
If Google hired private police/military and decided to protect itself against IRS trying to impose taxes, then people would assume that Google was some form of a gangster organization while the government was in the right by default.
When the FBI agents attacked ranch at Mount Carmel back in 1993, most of the population assumed that the government was doing something lawful and the individuals at the ranch were wrong and had to be restrained, put in prison in front of government judges.
After 50 day standoff, 76 people were killed, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women.
By the way that was the event that inspired Timothy McVeigh.
--
Yes, government power is the most dangerous power, the most intrusive, the most evil because it is assumed to be LAWFUL.
they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures
Scientists may believe that their funding comes from the state, but in reality their funding comes out of economic activity that is provided by the businesses, and all of the science as well as all of the education is a response to the conditions set by the market.
Government funding of science is secondary to the market, and it always has other real purposes that the politicians are actually interested in, namely spending, stealing money, war spending, some large pork project spending, etc.
Government sponsored science is not an issue in itself, because it's a tiny fraction of what government spends otherwise, but eventually with the government growing, it destroys the real economy and then the funding really stops, because government only has what it can take away from the producers in the economy. Government doesn't have anything, it only has what it steals from people.
you are amused because you don't understand the words you are reading and are building a nice flammable straw-man.
they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures
- this is a lie or a misunderstanding, I don't know which is, but I said specifically multiple times in many comments over the years, as is patently obvious, that there is power vacuum and it will be filled by some form of government.
Government is intrinsically evil because it wants to fill in that void, that power vacuum, which means a force is created to overpower individuals.
That's why we must put the law above the government, that's what Constitution is all about - law above the government, and that's what is either amusing or sad, looking at comments like yours and seeing complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Well, actually USA is actively attacking Iran with all the sanctions, because economic sanctions are an act of war.
But my comment you are replying to, was a response to this comment, which says:
Iran is a chihuahua nipping at the heels of a herd of elephants. Its cute, but pointless.
Irans threat to the US is directly proportional to the desire of the American people to avoid killing innocent Iranians. If they piss us off enough, we'll simply wipe the country off the planet. I think the American people no longer have the interest in a ten year occupation in a country and spending a trillion dollars. If Iran attacks the US's interest, I'd bet Iran can expect a VERY different reponse than happened in Afghanistan. Gas prices may go up temporarily, but not with the same impact the last ten years had.
At this point our economies are completely linked -- neither country can afford to go head to head against the other.
- I addressed this misunderstanding some time ago. China has real economy and it's destroying its currency (note the correct usage of apostrophe) by selling to US for fake currency. China isn't getting anything out of that 'trade'. There is no trade, there is just the unsustainable transfer of consumer goods from China to USA.
I don't think that they want to.
- that's the real issue. The power brokers in China do not want to stop the current transfer of output of Chinese labor to USA and Europe.
Why is it they are not stopping it? It's probably the mentality of not doing things abruptly, being risk averse even in ways that are irrational.
It is in best interest of China to stop exporting their goods in exchange for worthless dollars. It is in best long term interest of the USA (and other nations) to have China stop it too. I say: long term, because without cheap Chinese products USA would have no choice but to do whatever it takes to restart a real economy as opposed to what it has now.
China would not suddenly become hostile with us over oil
- I didn't say it will become hostile over oil (though you are incorrect on this either), I said it would stop subsidizing US consumption and thus it will stop subsidizing the war.
China and Russia are not implementing the US sanctions against Iran, Iran is a trading partner and China needs oil. Oil will keep flowing from Iran to China but if China keeps subsidizing the US by buying up USD, Iran may refuse to deal with China on its own accord.
When US attacks Iran, the only real way for China to slow down the US attack and to slow down the decline of its own oil imports is going to be by halting this subsidy to the US.
USA is only able to have the wars it has because it has a massive war time economy without almost any useful productive output. 90% of seafood consumed in USA is brought from Asia. Maybe the 5th fleet would be instead turned into the 5th fishing operation if China stopped exporting all that fish and instead allowed yuan to go up in value so local consumers could actually afford their own productive output, including more fish.
We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles - no one person or a group of people can be trusted when given power over others, that's why individual liberties and private property are paramount and government power must immediately be considered intrinsically evil by the very design and it must be treated as such. Only with the understanding that government is evil by design and will destroy everything it touches, we will come to a balance (if we want to), of keeping the government at its smallest and individual liberties at maximum.
Any time that the balance of power shifts from individual liberties towards growth of government power, it must immediately be suspect, be considered evil and be opposed by all.
At least half of the Middle East, China, Russia, Pakistan do not want this war. This means that India does not want this war either because a threatened Pakistan is a dangerous Pakistan. At least half of Europe does not want this war. Most of Africa does not want this war (as if Africa matters in these issues). Probably most of South America does not want this war.
When US starts this war, the logical thing for China to do is to stop buying US dollars and instead to use the trillions it has on every asset it can throw its hands on. All that spending that you are talking about - it's subsidized by Chinese and when I say subsidized I mean as in: consumer products supplied by the Chinese in exchange for US dollars, and then Chinese central bank buying up the US dollars and printing renminbi causing massive inflation in China.
All those products that USA enjoys for free (because printing money is essentially free as opposed to producing stuff) would stop coming in, and all those fake jobs created by war economy and all the new taxes would only cause more misalocation of resources and further destruction of real US economy.
Oh, he is a bigot because he helped black people back in the seventies that nobody else wanted to help, and he also took care of the charges for them. Total bigot.
Federal reserve gets the nicest buildings in the city because it's supposed to transfer 95% of its profits back to the Treasury, and its profits are calculated after its expenses, so the Federal reserve board spends as much as it possibly can on everything that it possibly can buy, thus it builds with the most expense.
Federal reserve is not a 'profitable corporation', because printing currency and devaluing it and using the printed paper (or electronic currency) to acquire real assets is actually theft.
It's the biggest thief in the world - that I give you.
Paul may be right about the constitutionality of the Dept. of Energy, but he hasn't proposed a solution that can be rationally accepted. Just shutting the DOE down means there would be no federal oversight of nuclear weapons when they enter the repair and maintenance process, or of spent nuclear fuel.
Ron Paul says as a response to your question (phrased as a false statement by the way)
You go through the process by eliminating it, but you donâ(TM)t eliminate every single function of the Department of Energy, because there will be some with nuclear materials and other things. That would be transferred.
The program that Iâ(TM)ve devised takes that into consideration.
Your comment has this:
or what his shut down plan is, he hasn't really said anything.
That's not my point, my point is this: if USA attacks Iran and 'wipes it off the face of the Earth', it will immediately become obvious that USA can attack anybody that way and it's doing it, so the logical conclusion for rulers of other nations is to attack US first.
That's what I would immediately do if I was say ruling China and Russia - I see Iran attacked and 'wiped off the maps' by USA, I immediately attack USA with every nuke I have, I wouldn't wait, because at that point I am going to assume the most logical thing - USA is now attacking whoever and completely obliterating them, so the only defense is to strike first and see how the world starts exploding everywhere.
Once there is a nuclear strike by one of the nuclear nations, the rest must assume that the nation has gone completely insane and 'rogue' or whatever the term is and to strike at it with everything.
Currency of other countries has no value, as other countries print just as much as US in this currency war.
OTOH the countries that produce stuff that everybody consumes don't have to do that and don't have to destroy their currencies, because they can get nothing for the USDs they are buying up with their devalued currencies.
While currencies of the world are being destroyed, the real money is holding value and is even increasing in value and the countries that produce stuff that everybody wants will come out on top when currencies are dumped.
Slashdot Mirror
I am using Ubuntu and Red Hat and OpenBSD (yeah, I am one of the 3 guys who uses OpenBSD).
I also have Windows XP and Windows 2000 on 2 old laptops and on my current laptop I've got Ubuntu 10 and Windows 7, because this Thinkpad came with it and I just allocated the minimum amount of space on disk for it 56GB, 20GB of it IS Windows 7.
Booted into Windows 7 a few times and I tell you what - after Unity, this particular shell that is used in Windows 7 is the most annoying that I've used (and I touched Mac on a few occasions, and I find it completely unusable, just not a computer).
I tried Vista, it was unusable too, but I don't have Vista on any of my hardware, but I do have Windows 7, so I can try it. It's the craziest, most backwards, insane piece of garbage, everything, from file handling, to even the most primitive stuff that is supposed to be usable in Windows - File Explorer. It's horrendous.
This is my personal FEELING of it, I am not going to argue on every function (and I haven't tried every function, I won't do it, just like I won't use Mac again unless threatened with a machine gun.)
XP was the most SANE and the most USABLE Windows that I had to work with in my entire life, and I like XP GUI shell more than I like any of the Free software shells (no Gnome, no KDE, no Unity, no Xfce, no CDE, no LXDE,) they are all trash actually, but I use Gnome 2 unfortunately for me and I hate it, but I hate it less than everything else, so that's the extent of it.
Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws
- Fixed that for you.
First, the US was not a libertarian country prior to 1905
- I am roughly talking about 1870 to 1913, not exact round numbers.
The US government was a weak government compared to what it is today, and that's all it counts - relative strength of government. Being 'libertarian' is a ruse. What has changed over the last 100 years?
Federal reserve was established and IRS started collecting income taxes (and then corporate and then payroll taxes), which allowed monetization of government debt, which took reins off government spending and thus government growth, and since government could then spend money proportionate to earnings of people as opposed to proportionate to spending of people, and it got the ability to monetize debt (print currency), it started adding departments and government projects.
US government was extremely "weak" prior to that moment.
US government is extremely "strong" now.
All of the various ways that US government interferes with free market and distorts businesses, creates monopolies and prevents free commerce:
Fed, IRS, departments of agriculture, education, energy, commerce, FDA, EPA, HLS, TSA, FBI, CIA, etc.
All of the various ways that destroys sovereignty of the nation and by extension destroy sovereignty of individuals:
UN, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
All of the various ways in which moral hazards are established by government "insurance" (it's not insurance if it has no assets and only prints/borrows to cover claims). FDIC, SS, Medicare, education loans, HUD, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, etc.
All of the above departments and so called 'insurances' are the various ways in which government spat on personal liberties, but of-course it added more interesting stuff in the latest years: Patriot Act (establishing concentration camps and indefinite wars), now NDAA with indefinite detention provisions not just for funny looking foreigners, but also US citizens.
You'll have SOPA, PIPA, etc.etc.
Of-course the complete default on honest money and thus the beginning of the end of the economy happened in 1971.
-
The US government was not 'libertarian', but it was a 'weak' government before 1913, which means that the individuals were strong, the nation was strong, it built the largest middle class and lifted all boats by individuals participating in mostly free market.
Now US government is 'strong' and this means the individuals are 'weak', they are scared, they are groped, they are left without means to existence outside of the government indoctrinated system, their individual rights are no longer protected and instead the laws are either modified to ignore and deny the rights or the laws are ignored altogether (the Constitution) so whatever government does passes for a law.
That's your strong government at work and that's what made your nation weak.
You can't admit when you are being wrong or lying, this is not a surprise.
USA before it got itself a 'strong' government was a strong nation once the Civil war ended.
Then, about 40 years after USA system got cracked, and it got itself a 'strong' (growing) government.
Under a 'weak' government, USA became the most prosperous, inventive, innovative, creditor nation.
With this 'strong' government it has now, it's falling apart economically and societally (obviously one follows the other).
China on the other hand is a good example of this working in reverse, where a 'strong' government destroyed a nation so bad, that it had to turn to capitalism away from communism, and the government is getting weaker by the minute, as people are becoming freer with more economic activity going, this tune plays both ways.
However in case of USA - this was a completely unique experiment specifically because this was not a natural progression for a nation, it started nearly from scratch instead of going through the same motions as every other country on the planet, all of which resulted out of dictatorship and despotism.
Actual libertarian principles and free market economy takes work, which includes removing the former despot based government one way or another, be it via starting a new country or some form of natural progression from a "stronger" to a "weaker" government, because the system allowed the individuals to become stronger if only economically at first.
Your misleading comparisons are just false equivalences.
A weak government is NOT a "non-functional" government. A weak government is a government that cannot go above the law that is set for it to follow.
A strong government does not create a good society and a functioning economy. North Korea and USSR and Cuba have/had "strong" governments. So what?
You are confusing the 2 issues: strong government and a strong nation.
Nation is NOT a government.
Government is NOT a nation.
Strong nation is a nation of laws, nation that protects individual liberties, maximizes individual freedoms and does so without stealing the power from people to give to a small minority of politicians/dictators/power brokers.
Strong nation is a nation that allows free people to make choices with regard to their economics, money, food, sex, marriage, drugs, whatever.
Strong nation is not a nation that uses huge military to bully the world.
Strong government can bully the world by subjugating the individual liberties and freedoms of its people. It also can put people into concentration camps. It can start wars without asking the people either to pay for them or whether the people even want to start the wars.
Somalia today is a product of a long history of difficult situations, including a communist government that was eventually disposed of. The government was disposed of because of how 'strong' it was with its people.
USSR eventually fell apart and North Korea will eventually too, because 'strong' governments make for weak nations as 'strong' government destroys individual liberties and eventually people stop being scared of their 'strong' government, especially when the strength of government obliterates the economy so bad, that people go hungry.
Strong government is not a synonym with a 'good' system.
Yes, quoting myself to prove your point wrong makes perfect sense. I showed that your sentence was immediately false or a lie.
By the way, you are very easily amused, do you know that?
I'm endlessly amused by this sentence, as it so beautifully sums up everything that's wrong with libertarians.
- that was your first sentence in response to my comment. Of-course it's amusing that you are amused by something that is a completely consistent position.
What were you amused by? Well, you said it, you were amused by my sentence:
We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles
(I quoted myself again, amusing, isn't it?)
The really amusing part here is that you are amused by something that is perfectly consistent and rational.
Statement A: "we are all dictators inside"
Statement B: "maximizing individual liberties is desirable"
Statement C: "government power must be limited to satisfy libertarian principles".
So how is it inconsistent for a rational person to understand that if A is true and if B is true, then C follows?
You are amused by the most mundane things.
Yes, all other forms of power are irrelevant when compared to government power, because unlike all other forms of power, the government power is enforced by the law, courts, all of the police and military power, and government power is considered to be lawful by itself.
If Google hired private police/military and decided to protect itself against IRS trying to impose taxes, then people would assume that Google was some form of a gangster organization while the government was in the right by default.
When the FBI agents attacked ranch at Mount Carmel back in 1993, most of the population assumed that the government was doing something lawful and the individuals at the ranch were wrong and had to be restrained, put in prison in front of government judges.
After 50 day standoff, 76 people were killed, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women.
By the way that was the event that inspired Timothy McVeigh.
--
Yes, government power is the most dangerous power, the most intrusive, the most evil because it is assumed to be LAWFUL.
they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures
I am endlessly amused by your inability to admit a mistake and refute your statement when it's proven to be wrong by a simple example.
that's a funny and nonsensical comment.
Scientists may believe that their funding comes from the state, but in reality their funding comes out of economic activity that is provided by the businesses, and all of the science as well as all of the education is a response to the conditions set by the market.
Government funding of science is secondary to the market, and it always has other real purposes that the politicians are actually interested in, namely spending, stealing money, war spending, some large pork project spending, etc.
Government sponsored science is not an issue in itself, because it's a tiny fraction of what government spends otherwise, but eventually with the government growing, it destroys the real economy and then the funding really stops, because government only has what it can take away from the producers in the economy. Government doesn't have anything, it only has what it steals from people.
you are amused because you don't understand the words you are reading and are building a nice flammable straw-man.
they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures
- this is a lie or a misunderstanding, I don't know which is, but I said specifically multiple times in many comments over the years, as is patently obvious, that there is power vacuum and it will be filled by some form of government.
Government is intrinsically evil because it wants to fill in that void, that power vacuum, which means a force is created to overpower individuals.
That's why we must put the law above the government, that's what Constitution is all about - law above the government, and that's what is either amusing or sad, looking at comments like yours and seeing complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Well, actually USA is actively attacking Iran with all the sanctions, because economic sanctions are an act of war.
But my comment you are replying to, was a response to this comment, which says:
Iran is a chihuahua nipping at the heels of a herd of elephants. Its cute, but pointless.
Irans threat to the US is directly proportional to the desire of the American people to avoid killing innocent Iranians. If they piss us off enough, we'll simply wipe the country off the planet. I think the American people no longer have the interest in a ten year occupation in a country and spending a trillion dollars. If Iran attacks the US's interest, I'd bet Iran can expect a VERY different reponse than happened in Afghanistan. Gas prices may go up temporarily, but not with the same impact the last ten years had.
At this point our economies are completely linked -- neither country can afford to go head to head against the other.
- I addressed this misunderstanding some time ago. China has real economy and it's destroying its currency (note the correct usage of apostrophe) by selling to US for fake currency. China isn't getting anything out of that 'trade'. There is no trade, there is just the unsustainable transfer of consumer goods from China to USA.
I don't think that they want to.
- that's the real issue. The power brokers in China do not want to stop the current transfer of output of Chinese labor to USA and Europe.
Why is it they are not stopping it? It's probably the mentality of not doing things abruptly, being risk averse even in ways that are irrational.
It is in best interest of China to stop exporting their goods in exchange for worthless dollars. It is in best long term interest of the USA (and other nations) to have China stop it too. I say: long term, because without cheap Chinese products USA would have no choice but to do whatever it takes to restart a real economy as opposed to what it has now.
ran itself is batshit crazy!
- I don't think so. "Iran" is not batshit crazy, it's put into a position it's in by the allied forces of USA and UK and it's tormented by the current government, but Iranians do not have the war monger mentality that seems half of the US population has.
China would not suddenly become hostile with us over oil
- I didn't say it will become hostile over oil (though you are incorrect on this either), I said it would stop subsidizing US consumption and thus it will stop subsidizing the war.
China and Russia are not implementing the US sanctions against Iran, Iran is a trading partner and China needs oil. Oil will keep flowing from Iran to China but if China keeps subsidizing the US by buying up USD, Iran may refuse to deal with China on its own accord.
When US attacks Iran, the only real way for China to slow down the US attack and to slow down the decline of its own oil imports is going to be by halting this subsidy to the US.
USA is only able to have the wars it has because it has a massive war time economy without almost any useful productive output. 90% of seafood consumed in USA is brought from Asia. Maybe the 5th fleet would be instead turned into the 5th fishing operation if China stopped exporting all that fish and instead allowed yuan to go up in value so local consumers could actually afford their own productive output, including more fish.
We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles - no one person or a group of people can be trusted when given power over others, that's why individual liberties and private property are paramount and government power must immediately be considered intrinsically evil by the very design and it must be treated as such. Only with the understanding that government is evil by design and will destroy everything it touches, we will come to a balance (if we want to), of keeping the government at its smallest and individual liberties at maximum.
Any time that the balance of power shifts from individual liberties towards growth of government power, it must immediately be suspect, be considered evil and be opposed by all.
At least half of the Middle East, China, Russia, Pakistan do not want this war. This means that India does not want this war either because a threatened Pakistan is a dangerous Pakistan. At least half of Europe does not want this war. Most of Africa does not want this war (as if Africa matters in these issues). Probably most of South America does not want this war.
When US starts this war, the logical thing for China to do is to stop buying US dollars and instead to use the trillions it has on every asset it can throw its hands on. All that spending that you are talking about - it's subsidized by Chinese and when I say subsidized I mean as in: consumer products supplied by the Chinese in exchange for US dollars, and then Chinese central bank buying up the US dollars and printing renminbi causing massive inflation in China.
All those products that USA enjoys for free (because printing money is essentially free as opposed to producing stuff) would stop coming in, and all those fake jobs created by war economy and all the new taxes would only cause more misalocation of resources and further destruction of real US economy.
Ron Paul ... what a racist.
Oh, he is a bigot because he helped black people back in the seventies that nobody else wanted to help, and he also took care of the charges for them. Total bigot.
Federal reserve gets the nicest buildings in the city because it's supposed to transfer 95% of its profits back to the Treasury, and its profits are calculated after its expenses, so the Federal reserve board spends as much as it possibly can on everything that it possibly can buy, thus it builds with the most expense.
Federal reserve is not a 'profitable corporation', because printing currency and devaluing it and using the printed paper (or electronic currency) to acquire real assets is actually theft.
It's the biggest thief in the world - that I give you.
Paul may be right about the constitutionality of the Dept. of Energy, but he hasn't proposed a solution that can be rationally accepted. Just shutting the DOE down means there would be no federal oversight of nuclear weapons when they enter the repair and maintenance process, or of spent nuclear fuel.
Ron Paul says as a response to your question (phrased as a false statement by the way)
You go through the process by eliminating it, but you donâ(TM)t eliminate every single function of the Department of Energy, because there will be some with nuclear materials and other things. That would be transferred.
The program that Iâ(TM)ve devised takes that into consideration.
Your comment has this:
or what his shut down plan is, he hasn't really said anything.
- you are uninformed or are lying.
direct all your questions to ACLU, I am sure they'll be happy to help you with all your needs.
I am sure you didn't understand a word of what was said.
That's not my point, my point is this: if USA attacks Iran and 'wipes it off the face of the Earth', it will immediately become obvious that USA can attack anybody that way and it's doing it, so the logical conclusion for rulers of other nations is to attack US first.
That's what I would immediately do if I was say ruling China and Russia - I see Iran attacked and 'wiped off the maps' by USA, I immediately attack USA with every nuke I have, I wouldn't wait, because at that point I am going to assume the most logical thing - USA is now attacking whoever and completely obliterating them, so the only defense is to strike first and see how the world starts exploding everywhere.
Once there is a nuclear strike by one of the nuclear nations, the rest must assume that the nation has gone completely insane and 'rogue' or whatever the term is and to strike at it with everything.
here is what you do:
write all of the software you need on paper first, then
redirect all inputs and outputs into /dev/null
disconnect the Internet cables and pull the electrical cords out of the walls.
done
Currency of other countries has no value, as other countries print just as much as US in this currency war.
OTOH the countries that produce stuff that everybody consumes don't have to do that and don't have to destroy their currencies, because they can get nothing for the USDs they are buying up with their devalued currencies.
While currencies of the world are being destroyed, the real money is holding value and is even increasing in value and the countries that produce stuff that everybody wants will come out on top when currencies are dumped.