From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 29 Dec 92 06:00:42 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec28.105734.15926@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.070221.9490@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.060837.3991@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.045547.4572@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec16.123301.14776@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>>>	Stop with silly tanker stuff.
>>>>
>>>>only if you tell me how, after my broker stops answering his phone, and
>>>>after i decide i want to leave the country because of the riots, and
>>>>after the US dollar devalues by 90%, i am supposed to take my savings
>>>>out of the country *without* a tanker.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>charles
>>>
>>>	You can't. 
>>
>>fine. then oil as backing currency is dead.
>>
>>>But there is no reason for the United States to persue
>>>economic policies which benefit tratorious people who leave the country
>>>during bad times.
>>
>>i can't believe you would hit me out of left field with such a foolish
>>statement. that is the language of enslavement, the kind of thing i would
>>expect the government to say just before it starts repealing my "inalienable
>>rights". you are speaking like an altruist, expecting me to not only
>>suffer the destruction of my country by the incompetent and the evil,
>>but to go down with the ship, saluting proudly as the waters rise over
>>my head. you should be ashamed of yourself.
>>
>
>	Not at all, I'm merely assuming that the govt. will act in its own
>self interest.

first of all, you spent several weeks telling me that portability was
irrelevant because we could use notes. the "non-portability is good"
argument is a crutch you came up with recently, after it was shown
that portability is good, and that paper is not the answer.
i don't buy it. and as i said, there are reasons why portability
is important even to those staying in the US.

as for the government, it has no rights nor any self interest to act in.
its "rights" and "self interest" are to observe the laws of the land and
protect the rights of individuals. unless you are a collectivist, i'd
suggest you drop this right now. because the next step in your argument
is that the government can do anything it wants "for the good of
the country". if it can renege on its promise to repay my dollars
with gold, why not prohibit emigration "for the good of the country"?
or legislate what work each of us must do?

>Those people who have a long term commitment to the US are
>better people to support with economic policy.

this is irrelevant. you are suggesting that the ability to leave
with one's backing commodity (gold) in one's backpack is a detrimental
characteristic of gold. and the only reason you have given to back it up
is governmental prerogative based on subjective evaluation ("traitor").

and if the government gave a damn about "long term commitment", it would
act responsibly so that no-one felt the need to cash in their dollars.
simple as that. don't ask me to go down with the ship -- i wasn't steering
it.

>Can't the govt. act selfishly

no. it cannot. what country is this anyway?

>Mr. Rand?

thanks for the compliment!!

>>and not only that -- your statement is, once again, totally irrelevant.
>>the point about portability is just an example -- the concept is being
>>able to get your hands on the commodity, whether to leave the country or not.
>>
>	I can't argue with chicken little and prove the sky isn't falling.
> If that kills my credibility so be it.

what does that have to do with my statement? we are talking about the ability
to convert dollars into the backing commodity, not about how likely that
is to happen.

and i'd rather be "chicken little" than an ostrich. i am not going to waste
my time re-printing information and data which are presented succinctly in
an inexpensive, easy-to-read, short, best-selling book. your credibility
is shot because of your repeating points which have been settled, your bait-
and-switch argument tactics, and your refusal to examine the facts. sorry.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian