David4 cites a noble and insightful source: the great Murray Rothbard. In an HONEST monetary system, investment comes from savings; that is, from the voluntary forgoing of consumption today, in exchange for more money tomorrow. People who voluntarily give up consumption have a powerful interest in seeing that their savings are invested wisely. Thus, in a sane, sound money system, people make darned sure their money goes to projects likely to produce a good return.

My my, ThomasHamilton, aren't we touchy? Of course, CD's are a LEGITIMATE FORM of lending. I give up the use my saved capital for a specified period, in exchange for the prospect of profit when that specified period ends. With FRB, however, what happens is that DEMAND DEPOSITS are lent out the second the bank gets them. We have the legal fiction that those deposits are "owned" by the depositor, the lender, and the lendee, all at once. And, under current law, the bank can lend out almost ten dollars for every dollar it has on deposit. That is, quite simply stated, fraud.

It is true that there are some big governments that DON'T torture (so far as we know), and some very SMALL governments that DO torture (Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria). Torture is wrong, morally and pragmatically, whether the government doing the torturing is small or large. That which is immoral for an individual, is immoral for a government, which after all is just a particular group of people sharing delusions of grandeur.

Mark Baisley, as a conservative Republican establishmentarian, manages to go quickly through multiple articles of the Bill of Rights, conveniently ignoring the many recent instances in which conservative Republican administrations have run roughshod over those amendments. A very disappointing article, to say the least.

Actually, I am very well-read in both finance and economics. I stand by my assertion: FRB is legalized counterfeiting. But, one might ask, HOW can the economy expand, unless banks print up fraudulent notes and issue them at whim? Answer: the honest way, of course. Banks attract savers by having a reputation for safe, cautious investing. The savers have the option of contractually making their money available for lending for a specified amount of time (for example, six months). The bank invests the saved capital, earns a return, and shares the proceeds with the savers; that is, it pays interest. In such a system, economic growth is done in a rational, well-thought-out manner.

I agree with "DagNabbit." When George Washington led the Continental Army, he steadfastly refused to mistreat, much less torture, British prisoners of war. He took the moral high ground. He won, by the way. War is as much a battle for hearts and minds, as a battle for mere territory.

Johnm h, I only wish it were true. Libertarians, it is true, consistently promote limited government. Conservatives are inconsistent on this matter. (I say this with the full understanding that some who call themselves "conservatives" are really libertarians who have yet to break out of the cocoon and take wing). A "conservative" who CLAIMS to support limited government, but simultaneously supports interventionist wars thousands of miles from our shores, is being inconsistent. A "conservative" who claims to support individual freedom, but supports creation of the Homeland Security Department (Heimatsicherheitsdienst, in the original German) and the blue-shirted, blue-gloved goons of the TSA, is being inconsistent.

As a libertarian, am I opposed to war at any time? No. I only oppose 99 percent of wars. The remaining 1 percent share the following characteristics. Either a nation fights a war to repel a foreign invader, or the people fight a war to overthrow their own despotic government. I can think of no other instances in which a war can be considered just. Examples of just wars in US history: I think there are two. The Revolutionary War, in which the people threw out an unjust and oppressive tyrant, and the (misnamed) Civil War, in which the peoples of various sovereign states wished to peacefully leave the (voluntary) Union set up the Constitution. All the others, so far as I can see, have been unjust.

To paraphrase the great libertarian economist (and philosopher and historian) Murray Rothbard, if we can't get the war thing right, then what's the point of arguing over whether or not roads or garbage services should be privately or publicly owned? War is the robust health of the state, and sickness for everyone else. The state uses the excuse of war to enact every sick, twisted, liberty-destroying program it's ever wanted. Cancel the First Amendment by censoring newspapers? No problem! Set up random checkpoints to frisk and feel up American citizens, in their own country? No problem! Torture innocent foreigners? Torture prisoners of war? No problem! War excuses all of it (at least, in the eyes of the state).

The part about Germany is interesting. The video about ending Fractional Reserve Banking is even more so. Fractional Reserve Banking is, simply put, legalized counterfeiting. In a free and rational society, FRB would be punished as a very, very serious crime. At the very least, banks that engaged in it would be shut down. Owners of such banks would be brought up on charges of fraud and jailed.

The great weakness of "conservativism" after WWII has been its belief that government is immoral when it raises taxes and inflates the currency and over-regulates businesses (all true enough), but then becomes the fountain of all virtue when it comes to conducting unnecessary foreign wars. Get a clue. It's the same government. It will do whatever it thinks it can get away with. If it thinks it can get away with torture by using slippery definitions and waving the flag, it will do it. Don't fall for it.