Disaster is About to Strike By Ron Paul

[Enorah]

well………………maybe

did you see who he backed in the election?

chuck baldwin

[urbanrealtor]

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We’ll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

[urbanrealtor]

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We’ll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

[urbanrealtor]

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We’ll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

[urbanrealtor]

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We’ll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

[urbanrealtor]

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We’ll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

[greekfire]

[quote=urbanrealtor]However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
[/quote]

That’s the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren’t smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

[greekfire]

[quote=urbanrealtor]However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
[/quote]

That’s the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren’t smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

[greekfire]

[quote=urbanrealtor]However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
[/quote]

That’s the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren’t smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

[greekfire]

[quote=urbanrealtor]However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
[/quote]

That’s the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren’t smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

[greekfire]

[quote=urbanrealtor]However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
[/quote]

That’s the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren’t smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

[underdose]

I suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?

[underdose]

I suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?

[underdose]

I suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?

[underdose]

I suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?

[Author]

Posts