Ron Paul The Overlooked Republican Presidential Candidate

Chuck Hub Author 4 years ago

Thecounterpunch -

Thanks for your recent comment.

As to your comment on George Washington and the influence of the Illuminati, I followed your link and read both of Washington's letters that came up when I searched using the word "Illuminati" and all Washington does, and in the October 1798 letter only", is acknowledge that while some individuals within Freemasonry may have promoted these ideas, he knew of no Freemasonory Lodges that promoted these ideas. Further, he makes no mention of any member of the Constitutional Convention (which he presided over and which produced the current U.S. Constitution) or anyone else he worked with as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution or as President of the U.S. who mentioned, let alone advocated, these ideas of Rousseau or were associated with the Jacobins and Illuminiti who were promoting Rousseau's ideas. Given that Rousseau was an established writer in Europe and that Jacobism and the Illuminiti established in Europe, it is not unusual that some people in the American colonies would be familiar with these ideas and that some of them would advocate and promote them. George Washington as much as admits this in his 1798 letter to George Washingon Snyder in which he writes:

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. (Source: Letter from George Washington to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798 - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html - use keyword "Illuminati" in search box to find letter)"

I will admit that my knowledge of Rousseau and his ideas is limited and that my knowledge of Jacobism and the ideas of the Illuminati even more limited. However, I think that I can safely state that from the beginnings of the United States to the present the dominent ideal has been individualism, not collectivism. Society is the creation of individuals, not the other way around. There are many benefits to organizing as a society, which is why individuals tend to choose to live and work within a social organization. But to start claiming that society is more important than the individuals who make up society or that the collective has some sort of a mind or will of its own just doesn't make sense.

As to the gold standard, I admit that this is not a cure all for economic problems and I am not aware of any reputable economist that claims that it will. What a gold standard will do is take away the government's ability to take property from people by manipulating and devaluing the money supply. Gold is not only universally accepted but also tends to retain its value over time.

A gold standard will not do away with the existance of banks or the practice of banks lending money at interest. As a former banker I see nothing wrong with banks or their being able to charge interest and make money. It will also not prevent the practice of fractional reserve banking whereby banks can increase the supply of money through multiple lending of the same deposit. However, under a gold standard, people will have the right to withdraw their gold from banks they feel are being reckless with their lending and can protect themselves from having to accept the checks or other bills issued by such banks by reserving the right to require that money owed to them be paid in gold, a requirement that is currently illegal in the U.S.

Thanks again for your comments and the links to your HubPages where you discussed your comments in greater length. I enjoyed reading them.

Chuck

Chuck Hub Author 5 years ago

I'm sorry counterpuch, but I believe that you are wrong. First of all the American Revolution preceeded the French Revolution and, if anything the French Revolution was influenced by the American Revolution, not the other way around. Secondly, the government of George Washington distanced itself from the government created by the French Revolution and did not apporve of the radicalism or bloodshed that accompanied the French Revolution. Finally, while you are correct that Jean Jacques Rousseau and his social contract theory influenced the French Revolution, I have never seen anywhere where it had any influence on the Founding Fathers including Jefferson who was among the more radical of them. The framers of the Constitution (which did not include Jefferson who was ambassador to France at the time and was lecturing Lafayette, one of the more moderate leaders of the early stages of the French Revolution, on the dangerous radicalization that was occuring within the French Revolutionary movement) who were more conservative than those who drafted and approved the Declaration of Indepencence, certainly did not favor the ideas of Rousseau or include them in the Constitution. Actually, if I recall correctly, it wasn't until the mid-19th century before the ideas of Rousseau and social compact theories began to influence American political thinking.

The idea of collective will was not a part of the culture that formed this country and, even today only a minority would endorse the idea. We have always been known for our ideas of "rugged" individualism. With the election of Nicolas Sarkozy this past weekend, even the French may be changing their views on government and the social contract theory of society.

Chuck Hub Author 5 years ago

Thanks for the comments Wajay and counterpunch. thecounterpunch, the best way to respond to your comment that creating money by governments is necessary in the modern world is to use the nineteenth century French economist, Claude Frederic Bastiat's method of reductum ad absurdum which translates to carrying an argument to its logical extreme to point out the fallacy of it. In this case if it is good for the government to be able to create money whenever it needs it, then shouldn't this also work just as well for individuals? After all, aren't we, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a "government of the people, by the people and for the people"? So, if this is good for the government and the people are the government, then we should be able to create money when we need it as well. Of course, if everyone does this it is easy to see that money would soon be worthless as one of the main purposes of money is to ration the scarce goods and services in society. Once everyone can simply print whatever money they need then why bother - everyone can just go to the store and take whatever they need and we can dispense with clerks since, in this environment they would simply be collectors of worthless pieces of paper. Governments don't always exercise restraint and more than once in history nations have been destroyed when their governments printed too much money. In my childhood I met some people from Germany who lived through the horrible inflation that the government of the Weimer Republic unleashed following World War I. One fellow told me about visiting Berlin from Austria and having to carry his large denomination marks (I don't think there were any small denomination ones) in a bag because there were so many. He finally used his bag of money (whose face value was in the millions) to buy a map as that, at least, fit in his pocket and had some practical use. This inflation is often credited with being one of the major factors that brought Adolph Hitler to power.

When the government creates money it uses that money to purchase goods and services which has the effect of reducing the amount remaining for the rest of the people and prices have to adjust upward to ration the resulting smaller supply of goods and services. The only reason the government can get away with this is that if it exercises some restraint in its money creation so people will then only be hurt a little and there will still be goods and services available (at a higher price of course which means that each household can afford less than before the government went on its spending binge with phoney money). But is a thief who only takes half of his victim's money any less of a thief? The Constitution gives Congress, specifically the House of Representatives (where all money bills must originate) the power to levy taxes to pay for what the government needs. So if the government needs money under a gold standard it can always go to Congress and ask it to raise taxes. This can be unpopular and forces members of Congress to take responsibility for raising taxes. With House elections every two years, having to be accountable for their actions could (as the Framers of the Constitution intended) may cost many of them their jobs in the next election (again, in the Framer's time political office was considered a public service or duty which one took time away from their real job for a short while to help their fellow citizens - elective office was not viewed as a career as it is today). Thus, it is easier to simply secretly tax people by reducing the value of their money - not very honest but can work for a while.