Divine Hero Nguyen

I am not confronting you on this; I am just talking generally about the relative importance of Austrian economics since it is relatively unknown to many people here. I know it is rather difficult to summarize the entire Austrian economics to the average person so I laid out the basic points the school supports (especially the ever-so-important Austrian business cycle theory which is one thing that separates it from other schools) I was pointing out that there is nothing contradictory about Hayek's book; the purpose of the book is to inform people about the inherit dangers of central planning (which is pretty much any aspect of government) but since you cannot completely eliminate all government (except those that believe in the anarcho-capitalism), it is best to control or reduce the present state as much as possible enough to counteract inevitable government growth. Just because someone is a member of the Democratic party does not necessarily mean they call for eliminating aspects of the Republic. The Libertarian Party is not truly libertarian in the actual sense of the word but a coalition of people who are sympathetic to libertarian positions but does not necessarily adhere to libertarian reasoning - fiscal conservatives, social liberals, constitutionalists, etc. The Libertarian Party is a political party that moderates the actual philosophy to some likable form and rightly so if it wants to win votes. For example, the libertarian supports education tax credits; True libertarians oppose even that, but they still vote for the Libertarian party because it is a step in the right direction. I do concede that "outright" was a horrible choice of word but my point still stands: True libertarians are all unified on the view that taxation is theft and government forcing people to behave in some way at the point of the barrel is immoral and thus, government functions should be eliminated rather than reformed whenever possible. To put it simply (and this is one of my biggest problem with the philosophy), libertarians tend to view government in overly black-and-white terms. I was not attacking you at all nor was I accusing you of dismissing the entire school. Did Murray Rothbard, among other anarcho-capitalists, suddenly disappear from the libertarian scene? Did I say that the elimination of government control would lead to perfect fact-finding? No, nothing is perfect. But competition and freedom of information is a lot better than a central authority indoctrinating students with the curriculum of their choice. Granted, there IS choice (You can move out or go to a private choice) but if imagine the Department of Education working under a conservative administration decides to implement this nationwide.

If you studied some form of economics, then this video will help you understand F.A. Hayek and Austrian Economics: For those that do not understand the video, some of the basic tenants are deregulation, smaller government, and emphasis on savings, production, and investment as the main engine that drives the economy rather than consumption. In particular, their most prominent theory of the school (Austrian business cycle theory) explains that most of the booms and busts are caused by the government monopoly on money (i.e. the Federal Reserve) setting interest rates set too artificially low, causing widespread malinvestment (Bank: Hey, money is so plentiful so let's ease on the requirements and background checks on the average Joe when obtaining a loan (Subprime mortgage, anyone?) We make more money off of interest and do not have much to lose~) and thus, call for the abolition of all central banks. Considering the fact F.A. Hayek himself predicted the Great Depression, I am shocked to see Austrian economics so marginalized. The school even predicted our current recession (Go youtube "Peter Schiff.") The book calls for a general DECREASE in the size of governments, not an outright ELIMINATION of government like what other libertarians preach. As for the curriculum in general, this is pretty much a good reason for the government to get out of managing (note that I said "managing," not paying for students though) schools. Let the schools compete for the best history class; With freedom of speech and the internet, anyone who knows how to use their brain can discern the truths from the lies.

Philosophically left-libertarian. Practically classical liberal. Economic views is a mixture of Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and Friedrich von Hayek (put it simply, "unfettered" capitalism in the long-run, "stimulating" socialism in the short run.) Socially, I believe in social safety nets as well as welfare for all children and to an extent, elderly. Basically, I believe in second chances in life, maximum personal freedom, equal opportunity to succeed (Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, anyone?) Huge advocate of the Constitutional policy because it is the only document that almost every citizen can agree on almost every statue as well as Federalism when it comes to designing programs as in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis: In a democratic society, those two things are what make sure that 50% of the nation's population does not bother the other 50%. If the Republicans want to drill more oil, great; just do it in their own state. It's really hard for me to describe my positions because on top of having opinions ranging from traditional issues such as immigration to obscure ones like monetary reform, I do not view any issues black or white. For example, on the case of education, I believe that education should be compulsory but the money is attached to ALL (both rich and poor) children and they could be taught at the school of their choice, whether it is public, private, home-schooled, alternative, etc., and that amount of money based on the merit of the student through an annual standardized test. The test though has to be designed to determine how much the student had improved rather than how does the student compare to other students in their grade/age group, which is the problem with all standardized tests nowadays. The only kind of test that can fit that is something like an IQ test. If the kids shows remarkable improvement, then they get increased funding, but those that did not show improvement or performed worse, then funding gets reduced or the kid must change schools. Kids who have parents that could pay for their education could opt out of the program but get a tax credit instead. It has a mix of free market competition as well as welfare and accountability.

Excuse my generalization here but here's an analogy: Wyomingite is to Californian as miners is to urban dwellers. Both the miner and the urban dweller are regular people just like you and me but with widely different beliefs on issues. But because there are more urban dwellers, that should be the reason that they can consistently trample over miners' interests? No matter how lopsided the ratio is between those two groups, those two groups exist and to be fair to both groups, tyranny of the majority must be eliminated, which is the reason the Senate exists. And it is not like the Senate overpowers the House since they too can also veto the Senate's actions so tyranny of the minority is non-existent as well. Also, last time I checked, the House still supports agricultural subsidies with the passage of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, gun control laws are unconstitutional, and the only real controversial action that the Senate did in the health care reform was getting rid of the fairly useless public option. However, it is true that the Senate is generally more conservative (and it is their job to be more conservative) than the House but there must be a check on popular power. In the same vein, should we get rid of the veto? And judicial review?

Uhhh, that is why we have a bicameral Congress. For legislation to go though, the bill need the approval of BOTH houses so that it is fair to both large and small states. You guys make it sound like one house controls the other. If there is one change I would like for congress, I would get rid of the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators have done nothing but to allow special interests to control the Senate which greatly increased the size of the federal government at the expense of state governments. The original intent of the Senate is to represent state sovereignty (in other words, making sure the federal government is following the Constitution and not trampling on state powers), not popular interests. We already have the House of Representatives for that. Here's a food for thought: Let the states decide on controversial, "more-than-one-right-answer" issues like abortion, not the federal, "one-size-fits-all" government.

On top of the civil liberty aspect, I support the legalization of marijuana also because of its numerous, possible applications such as biofuel and medicine.Current drug laws prevent full utilization of cannabis.

Maybe because 21 was based off of the MIT Blackjack team? Casinos are not tournaments; they are a business. Their desire is to make profits off of gambling, not to see who is the most skilled at card counting. Keep in mind, if anyone is on a winning streak for any game not limited to blackjack, the casino will kick that person out.