From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:29:03 GMT
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

In article 18564@athena.mit.edu, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> In article <liqedgINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
> >The value of any commodity, including currency, is the value that we
> >collectively place in it. This is true of gold and currency. When the
> >two are tied together the value of both will still fluctuate in the
> >market as the supply and demand for each fluctuates.
> >
> i consider myself libertarian-thinking on most issues yet i have been
> one of those raising questions about the gold standard. i would still
> rather put a "childlike faith" in gold over a "childlike faith"
> in Bill Clinton and our wonderful congress. the only problem with
> the gold standard is from a practical perspective -- not a theoretical
> one.

Here is the mistake made by most Liberatarians. The value placed on the
US Dollar is influenced by many factors, mostly the ability to obtain
goods or services with it. While it is true that the bureaucrats of
Washington DC have the greatest opportunity to temporarily influence
this value, the greatest influence remains the ability to obtain goods
or services with that dollar.

There is no relationship between putting faith in the President and
Congress and the value of the dollar. That is a practical, not a
theoretical reality.

The dollar is simply a commodity. Like gold or pork bellies. It's value
will remain relative to other commodities, regardless of any
Liberatarian government dictum. All discussion about the various merits
of binding the value of the dollar to any commodity are rendered void
by this simple economic truth.

Try to look at this issue from an economic and not a political perspective.

The reason that Liberatarians want a gold standard is because it's in
the consititution.

> >Are we interpretting the constitution as _we_ see fit? Are the
> >liberatarians saying that 'All men are created equal' and meaning, all
> >european-descent, non-women, land-owning people are created equal? Or,
> >are we interpretting it too literally, as the fundimental christians
> >interpret the Bible. Maybe that's why liberaterians sound like
> >religious fanatics when talking about the gold standard!
> 
> you must have accidentally inserted that from another, unrelated
> thread. i'll just let it go.

Not at all!

I'm sure that you've heard often that the constitution was written for
another era that's long past. And I'm also sure that you are enraged by
such comments. That comment I respond, "Yes, with regard to the gold
standard, I agree!" Virtually every other part of that document is 
the "real" gold standard. 

Someone in an earlier post agreed that the gold standard should be
dropped from the Liberatarian Party platform stating simply,
"...because it takes away from the real issues."

I think that says it all. If one insists on pressing for the gold
standard they begin to sound like a zealot. The word zealot is
from the Bible. It is used to refer to a fanatic.

> >The gold standard should be dropped from the Liberatarian Party
> >platform.  No one can defend it. Everyone who tries to sounds like a
> >zealot.
> 
> actually, it is *you* who sounds like a zealot. because we are using
> reason and logic in trying to define the issue, and you are the one
> who is ranting and making undefended generalizations without even
> a complete understanding of the issue. sorry.
> 

Perhaps it is the simplicity of my argument that confuses you. Currency
is a commodity. Supply and demand determine the value of all commodities.

I suspect that you need 15 pages of argument to convince you that 
someone is "using reason and logic". sorry

Kris Skrinak