Rand Paul is the GOP candidate for Senator in Kentucky! Yiiippppeee! His speech is just awesome. And who can doubt that, to recall a quote I heard somewhere: something's rotten in Denmark. And long live freedom!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't trust Ron and Rand. I think our technological state requires certain socialist policies and that going back to the constitution will not work in this day and age. I get these ideas from Jack Ellul's "The Technological Society".
The following of Ron and Rand is one of passion. How many have read the Federalist or anti-Federalist papers ?
The planning required for the technological state is one main reason, another is the dangerous accumulation of power that can be had from technology in the hands of a few or one.
I like the Canadian Action Party monetary policy best of all. I think that the people should own the central bank. A department of monetary policy and education existed before the Federal Reserve Act. It was another government body just like the Judicial, legislative and executive branches.
Having money tied to a gold standard seems to be an unnecessary hindrance and more flexible monetary policy may be had without it.
There are good aspects to the existing system that don't need to be thrown out with the bad. Besides, look what the constitution brought us! Men were free to start secret societies, something Kennedy carefully warned us about. The government did not protect us from the BAR association and the law merchant.
But mankind is in a crisis of natural right, something that is leading us to nihilism. Both Neitzsche and Strauss warn of this. The philosophy of natural right has been an ongoing battle since St. Aquinas and St. Augustine. This is the eye of the current tornado. Political science has taken the place of natural right.
Political science has taken the place of political philosophy and we are going into nihilism due to the inherent lack of ethics that is in science. The law merchant controls education and nihilism is in the interest of the law merchant and the BAR association.
The opposition to the central bank was in response to the Federalists. It is true that Hamilton was basically a socialist, but the Federalists were rejected in 1800 when Jefferson was elected. The Jeffersonian vision was expanded in the 1830s through President Andrew Jackson, who abolished the central bank. The ensuing 80 years were the period of most rapid technological innovation in world history, far more rapid and powerful than in the twentieth century. Indeed, the hallmark twentieth century inventions, radio and television, were patented in 1897 by Nikola Tesla, or at least in principle.
The path to progress is not monetary. Despite the gold standard and business slowdowns (i.e., profit slowdowns) of the late 19th century, immigrants flocked here because of the opportunity.
Today, with paper money, there is little more opportunity here than in eastern Europe, likely less.
The reason flexible monetary policy is disruptive to progress is that firms find that to succeed they must manipulate the bank politically rather than innovate. Wealth is transferred from dollar holders to friends of the central bankers. Political manipulation will be associated with paper money whoever owns the central bank.
Those harmed by flexible monetary systems are people who are moral: savers, thrifty people who aim to build real businesses. Those who are helped by flexible monetary systems are speculators, borrowers, those who do not produce value but borrow.
As far as the issue of ethical nihilism you might try this book:
Alisdair MacIntyre: After Virtue.
Right now I'm back to the early Greeks, having read Rousseau, Ellul, Strauss, Mills & Neitszche recently.
Political philosophy is incredibly powerful and insightful. I'm really interested in Strauss.
I won't be able to read anything else until I get through Aristotle again, Platos laws, Hobbs, Locke, Weber, and Strauss' City & Man.
After that I'm going to read stuff by Shadia Drury and other contemporary books on nihilism such as the one you mention. I'll write that one down.
I wasn't all that impressed by Neitzsche. Maybe I'm just a beginner.
There is a site called virtual philosophers for people who want an audio summary. An excellent summary of Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics is on there.
Locke is my favorite. Bertrand de Jouvenal's On Power is fascinating. I cannot comment on Strauss as I have not gotten to him. I think the best work on politics is a book normally thought of as economics: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Post a Comment