Libertarian Economic Questions for Ron Paul

I have some economic questions from a libertarian perspective for Ron Paul, which I believe get to the point.

I believe in natural law and that the prime role of government is to secure individuals rights. I believe people have the right to live and exist on land. I also believe people have the full right to the fruits of their labor. I believe in liberty, that freedom should be secured.

It seems supporters of Ron Paul believe in the freedom to steal, by doing nothing but owning land and gold, and that government should help them steal a profit by holding land and gold.

It is the hard core supporters of Ron Paul who have me confused on what Ron Paul actually believes. I would like Ron Paul to answer these questions to clarify his answers for me so I will know for sure.

1. If the government and it’s chartered banks accepted gold and silver for payment of taxes and debt, would gold and silver still be considered “free market” currency? Would such action by government be considered corruption of free markets, especially in the commodity markets for gold and silver?

There are Libertarians who believe that such a situation would be worse than even the system we have now. There are Libertarians who believe that gold, silver, and debt should be left in the free market. There are Libertarians who believe that the government should print it’s own currency debt-free and spend it into circulation. There are Libertarians against the idea of government borrowing it’s own currency and the idea of the people of the nation having to borrow legal instruments representing the value of their own production at interest from the non-productive chartered banks and from institutions of usury and economic rent in the free market. It should be noted that the Bible demands that money should not have usury attached to it.

I worded the question in the way I did since you seem to be slippery with your answer. You seem to avoid what you think would be the best monetary system. You seem to favor this notion of gold and silver as “sound” and “honest” money while when given pointed questions about your support of returning to a gold and silver standard, which history seems to have shown is unstable and dishonest, you give the answer that you support this notion of “free market” money, a silly one with paradoxes and impossible assumptions that there will be zero tax and that demonetizing current dollars and debts would be fair and acceptable to anyone who holds notes or bonds.

Unless of course you mean that you do wish to return to a gold and silver standard, where government corrupts commodity markets in precious metals and accepts payment of taxes and existing debt with gold and silver and other precious metals minted into coins, and you hope that the free market provides other currencies as it does or does not do now, after government declares gold and silver for payment of debts public and private. Of course you do not want to admit to all of that and would prefer an empty sound bite in regards to free markets since then your arguments would then be subject to historical and empirical criticism and would expose you to be a defender of crony capitalism rather than free markets.

2. Would you prefer a 5% flat tax on income (or if possible zero taxes) or a 95% land value tax?

There are Libertarians who would favor a 95% land value tax over even zero taxes since land value taxation would tax the theft of economic rent out of existence and since land values are considered the common wealth. There are Libertarians who believe the monopolization of land by individuals and corporations through government written and enforced title to land should be discouraged, making land more affordable to all, since land monopoly is the basis for servitude and land availability is the basis for liberty. It is for these reasons why there Libertarians who would also support land value taxes being used to fund a citizen dividend, to provide agrarian justice, evenly distributing land rents to the people of the nation so that all are guaranteed land to secure their rights. It should be noted such would also fulfill the demands of the Bible that owners of the land should pay a redemption for the value of the land, that the profit of the Earth is for all, and that the fruits of your toil are your own.

You seem to think 0% is the ideal tax, if such were possible. Entertaining such a notion seems to avoid what you think would be the best tax. Milton Friedman and David Nolan seem quick to recognize land value tax as the best tax. I don’t think I’ve heard you even give lip service to Henry George. You seem to be slippery when asked this question. It seems all I heard you favor was a flat [regressive] tax on earned income, which should be noted is against the demands of the Bible and natural law that your earned income, your toil, is your own.

3. What is worse? Deflation or inflation?

There are Libertarians who believe inflation is an ideal progressive tax without intrusion or burden of reporting which encourages production, if monetary origination funded the government rather than the usurer, and who believe deflation is an absolutely destructive form of theft, which discourages production while those who hold monetary units gain value at the expense of everything else of value in the economy. There are Libertarians who even believe that money, like land, is the common wealth, and should also be used to fund a citizen dividend so that an increase in the value of the common wealth resulting from growth, in terms of population and economic activity, is evenly distributed into the economy.

To put it another way, inflation steals from the lender and the idle holder of monetary units, encouraging the people to invest, produce, and create jobs. It should be noted that the interest charged by the lender accounts for inflation. Deflation steals from the borrower and the holder of anything of value other than monetary units, including the investor and those who produce, forcing people into bankruptcy and unemployment and forcing the wealthy to remain idle while they gain in wealth. You could say that inflation hurts the idle and rich and that deflation hurts the productive and the poor.

To me, the answer seems obvious. However, your personal obsession with inflation as being a hidden tax has me concerned that you actually might believe inflation is worse than deflation. Your supporters definitely seem to support the idea of gold increasing in value and being used as legal tender. Your supporters seem to believe that legal tender should be a store of wealth and means to steal wealth, rather than a means of exchange.

4. Should public infrastructure, roads, and other right of way easements be privatized?

There are Libertarians who believe the land is the common wealth and that landed infrastructure should be public in some capacity, which respects that the profit of the land is for all, and infrastructure built by the public should be kept public. Private companies can build roads and other infrastructure if the company is required to pay land rents to the public in the form of taxation and a citizen dividend.

Giving highways the public built and land to private corporations without even collecting land value taxation is the definition of a banana republic and outright theft of nation from the people of the nation.

5. Is commercial banking an institution of usury? Is insurance an institution of usury?

While credit unions and forms of mutual insurance are non-profit, for the most part, commercial banking and insurance are dominant American industries with a far-reaching hand in public policy. All Libertarians are largely against bailouts and ObamaCare, since they are forms of crony capitalism.

However, it is for these reasons why Libertarians might believe in a public option, regulation, or busting of such institutions, if adequate non-profit banking and insurance is not provided and if the corrupting influence of commercial institutions are too great.

Commercial banking is a monetary monopoly enforced by government in it’s current form. A public banking system would be much better than what we have now. A public monetary system where the government prints rather borrows the legal tender would be much better than what we have now.

While I am aware that most regulations are bad regulations designed by big business to put small business out of business, I am curious to know if you believe there are good regulations? It seems you did support the regulation against financial derivatives and do support an audit of the Federal Reserve. However, I just would like to hear that you do believe there are good regulations.

Advertisement