Ron Paul makes the case that we, the regular Joes and Janes, you know, the market, would impose stricter regulations on financial institutions than the government ever could, if we were given the chance. Of course, we're not given the chance, because the statists in the feral government have taken it upon themselves to do the regulating. They have also done a fine job convincing us that if we didn't have the feral government's regulations, all hell would break lose in the financial system. As if it hasn't.
The truth is that the feral government, rather than ensuring sound financial practices, legalizes fraudulent practices (fractional-reserve banking) and massive theft (bailouts).
Would we, the regular Joes and Janes, allow banks to lend what they do not have? That is, would we allow them to create money out of thin air and lend it at interest? Of course we wouldn't, for the simple reason it's fraud.
Would we, the market, allow the banks to engage in this fraudulent behavior, knowing that booms and busts are inevitable, as is the occasional catastrophic crash? Not likely. Would we, to postpone or disguise the catastrophic crash, hand over hundreds of billions to the banksters who caused it? Do I even have to answer that?
Instead of being protected from bankster fraud and theft, we have their fraud and theft forced upon us by the feral government.
Imagine if banksters could lend only what they had. Imagine if they could not poof money into existence and would be prosecuted for fraud if they tried. Imagine if forcefully taking from the people to give to banksters was considered theft, instead of a bailout.
We don't need the feral government to regulate the banks. We just need them to stop legalizing fraud and theft, and leave the regulating to us. After all, in these matters, society is a much stricter disciplinarian than the government is.
The recent Limbaugh-Slut brouhaha is an example of that. Who got Rush to apologize? Who got some of his sponsors to get skittish? Not the government. The government can't tell Rush not to be distasteful or demeaning, but the market can. Society can. We can.
Who got Don Imus suspended then fired? Not the government.
I'm not saying Limbaugh and Imus deserved the treatment they got. I am merely pointing out that market forces — societal forces — can be swifter and harsher than anything the feral government can come up with.
The feral government can't tell my neighbor he can't keep a gun in his house. But imagine if — right or wrong — ten out of ten of his daughter's friends said they weren't allowed to go to his daughter's birthday sleepover because of the gun in the house. Do you think he might consider getting the gun out of the house for one night? Right or wrong, some people would consider doing that. Because of government firearm regulations? No, because of market forces. Societal forces. Stronger forces.
Limbaugh has, as we all do, every right to be stupid or disrespectful or whatever. And the people who are offended have every right to protest and boycott and try to get him off the air if they feel like it. Those who aren't offended, and even those who are, have every right to continue listening. Or not.
But imagine if everyone were forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh, just as everyone is forced to participate in our corrupt money system. He would be even more distasteful, more demeaning. Sure, the FCC would continue to prohibit what it prohibits, but no doubt Imus would have even more reason to call Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser" and a "drug-addled gas bag."
Unfortunately, too many of us are fooled into thinking that the feral government is protecting us from the banksters, instead of protecting the banksters from us. Let us use real money, and we'll handle the regulating.
The truth is that the feral government, rather than ensuring sound financial practices, legalizes fraudulent practices (fractional-reserve banking) and massive theft (bailouts).
Would we, the regular Joes and Janes, allow banks to lend what they do not have? That is, would we allow them to create money out of thin air and lend it at interest? Of course we wouldn't, for the simple reason it's fraud.
Would we, the market, allow the banks to engage in this fraudulent behavior, knowing that booms and busts are inevitable, as is the occasional catastrophic crash? Not likely. Would we, to postpone or disguise the catastrophic crash, hand over hundreds of billions to the banksters who caused it? Do I even have to answer that?
Instead of being protected from bankster fraud and theft, we have their fraud and theft forced upon us by the feral government.
Imagine if banksters could lend only what they had. Imagine if they could not poof money into existence and would be prosecuted for fraud if they tried. Imagine if forcefully taking from the people to give to banksters was considered theft, instead of a bailout.
We don't need the feral government to regulate the banks. We just need them to stop legalizing fraud and theft, and leave the regulating to us. After all, in these matters, society is a much stricter disciplinarian than the government is.
The recent Limbaugh-Slut brouhaha is an example of that. Who got Rush to apologize? Who got some of his sponsors to get skittish? Not the government. The government can't tell Rush not to be distasteful or demeaning, but the market can. Society can. We can.
Who got Don Imus suspended then fired? Not the government.
I'm not saying Limbaugh and Imus deserved the treatment they got. I am merely pointing out that market forces — societal forces — can be swifter and harsher than anything the feral government can come up with.
The feral government can't tell my neighbor he can't keep a gun in his house. But imagine if — right or wrong — ten out of ten of his daughter's friends said they weren't allowed to go to his daughter's birthday sleepover because of the gun in the house. Do you think he might consider getting the gun out of the house for one night? Right or wrong, some people would consider doing that. Because of government firearm regulations? No, because of market forces. Societal forces. Stronger forces.
Limbaugh has, as we all do, every right to be stupid or disrespectful or whatever. And the people who are offended have every right to protest and boycott and try to get him off the air if they feel like it. Those who aren't offended, and even those who are, have every right to continue listening. Or not.
But imagine if everyone were forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh, just as everyone is forced to participate in our corrupt money system. He would be even more distasteful, more demeaning. Sure, the FCC would continue to prohibit what it prohibits, but no doubt Imus would have even more reason to call Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser" and a "drug-addled gas bag."
Unfortunately, too many of us are fooled into thinking that the feral government is protecting us from the banksters, instead of protecting the banksters from us. Let us use real money, and we'll handle the regulating.
RSS Feed