- Original article above.
- my response
- Chain w/ laliberty and moorewr comments
- laliberty’s riposte, portions of which are quoted below. LALiberty:
And while the United States’ so-called “Free Banking era” was undoubtedly less restricted than what we have today, it was still heavily manipulated by the state and hardly representative of true free banking as it is promoted today.
This is reminiscent of Western Marxist apologetics. The Soviet Union wasn’t really communist, you see. It was a statist abomination. If only Bukharin did this, and Trostky did that, and Lenin did the other thing, then we would have had genuine communism. How dare the imperialist running dogs judge our pristine utopia by the example of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, et al.
Just because big government Whigs called something “free banking” 150 years ago does not mean it is anything like the “free banking” I support today - any more than what people who called themselves “liberal” 100 years ago believed has to do with what people who call themselves “liberal” believe today. It is not simply something that wasn’t “implemented properly” (especially since numerous times my metric -as you quote later - was in showing improvement through decreasing levels of involvement). Such fallacious assertions tell me all I need to know about the seriousness of our conversation - and that you likely skimmed over the heft of the post that explains the ways in which “free banking” was something counter to its namesake.
There are genuine disagreements about banking and monetary policy, to be sure. In addition to my Keynesian college classes, Milton Friedman was an early influence in my understanding of economics, so I once held a central bank as a given in a functional society. A free market in currency is not without its [minor] risks, though I maintain that those risks are better responded to and contained - and thus minimized - when control is dispersed among all individuals making mutually beneficial exchanges as opposed to being concentrated in a coterie of politicians and plutocrats. But since your responses now seem to amount to scoring points with those perhaps too lazy to read my responses (as evidenced in that you are directing your post to your followers and not to me), I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I don’t know how you can disagree with incontestable historical evidence and sound logical conclusions, but there’s no point in continuing this circuitous debate when the case I’ve already presented appears ignored in favor of an ostensibly related but false narrative that implies intellectual hollowness on my part.
- biognosis likes this
- lalibertyquotes reblogged this from laliberty
- myfragrances reblogged this from laliberty
- white-curtains reblogged this from laliberty
- candles-holders reblogged this from laliberty
- floor-pillow reblogged this from laliberty
- grill-grates reblogged this from laliberty
- mixer-blender reblogged this from laliberty
- androidhoneycomb likes this
- visa-application-guide reblogged this from laliberty
- appraisal-toolkit reblogged this from laliberty
- hand--trucks reblogged this from laliberty
- yacht-sea reblogged this from laliberty
- song---lyrics reblogged this from laliberty
- assisted-living-centers reblogged this from laliberty
- food-for-baby reblogged this from laliberty
- quick-foods reblogged this from laliberty
- bayoetech likes this
- indoor-golf-simulator reblogged this from laliberty
- ecigator-electronic-cigarette likes this
- This was featured in #Politics
- laliberty posted this