Is it strange that I am liberal, while I uphold the constitution and I believe it should be defended?

Question

I wish someone was running who was both open to new ideas and would uphold the constitution, unfortunatly the democrats and republicans both seem to have strayed away from it...

I know the liberatarians want to uphold it, but I can't say I agree with them entirely either and they also don't have a chance.

I do want Barack Obama, but thats because hes the lesser of two evils and I do think he can help with the economy and the energy crisis but I doubt he can help with the corruption and disownment of our own constitution.

Answer 1

Ron Paul upholds the constitution but he pretty much is set on what he believes in, however most of the things he believes in like ending Iraq war are good or at least I agree with.

Answer 2

Ron Paul.

Obama is up on corruption charges at the moment.

Answer 3

Libertarians and Constitutionalists are the closest thing to what America was meant to be. We are a proud people.

Answer 4

Obama 08

Answer 5

That is fine you are a liberal.  Yet, your last paragraph you sound like a conservative.  Yes, I am a libertarian, but who supports Ron Paul (a libertarian masquerading as a Republican).

You cannot believe in the philosophy of individual freedom, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy (in essence in the Constitution) and vote for a Democrat or a Republican.  It is hypocritical.  If you are voting for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil, and evil in the guise of a Republican or Democrat is what you will surely get.  

Democrats and Republicans have consistently violated every part of the Constitution.  For example, both McCain and Obama voted for the Patriot Act and for the FISA Amendment.  I don't call this protecting us from terrorists, but acts of treason against the Constitution itself.

Obama says he will withdraw troops from Iraq.  That is all well and good, but what about the over 100 bases in other countries like: England, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Egypt, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, etc?  What about the billions we pour into other nations as foreign aid?  

Shouldn't we close all US military bases outside the US and withdraw all US troops outside the US?  Why should we give away billions of dollars in foreign aid to help people outside the US when there are people here who could use it?

Obama sounds like a liberal on some issues, but listen to him and he sounds like a neocon on foreign policy issues.

Obama will not rescind the Patriot Act, nor the FISA Amendment.

The economic mess we're in is basically because of interventionist policies of the US government.  Let's take the case of inflation monetary policy and commodity prices.

There is almost complete unanimity among economists and various commentators that inflation consists in general increases in the prices of goods and services. From this it is established that anything that contributes to price increases sets inflation in motion. A decrease in unemployment or an increase in economic activity is seen as a potential inflationary trigger. Some other triggers, such as increases in commodity prices or workers wages, are also regarded as potential threats.

If inflation is just a general increase in prices, as popular thinking has it, then why is it regarded as bad news? What kind of damage does it do?

Mainstream economists maintain that inflation causes speculative buying, which generates waste. Inflation, it is maintained, also erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners and causes a misallocation of resources. Inflation, it is argued, also undermines real economic growth.

Why should a general increase in prices hurt some groups of people and not others? And how does inflation lead to the misallocation of resources? Why should a general increase in prices weaken real economic growth? If inflation is triggered by other factors, then surely it is just a symptom and can't cause anything as such.

We know that a price of a good is the amount of money paid for the good. From this we can infer that for any given amount of goods, a general increase in prices can only take place in response to the increase or inflation of the money supply.

Most economists, when discussing the issue of general increases in prices, which they label inflation, never mention the word money. The reason for that is the lack of a good statistical correlation between changes in money and changes in various price indexes such as the CPI.

The expansion in the diluted coin that masquerading as commodity backed  money is what inflation is all about. As a result of the increase in the amount of money, prices in terms of money now go up (more money is being exchanged for a given amount of goods). What we have here is inflation, i.e., an expansion of money. As a result of inflation, the state can engage in an exchange of nothing for something. Also note that the increase in prices in terms of money results from the money inflation.

Also, because of expectations for higher prices in the future, consumers will not be able to increase their demand for goods at present and bid the prices of goods higher without having more money. Consequently, the amount of money spent per unit of goods will stay unchanged.

So irrespective what people's expectations are, if the money supply hasn't increased, then people's monetary expenditure on goods cannot increase either. This means that no general strengthening in price increases can take place without an increase in the pace of monetary pumping.

Imagine that somehow the Fed did manage to convince people that central bank policies are aimed at stopping inflation and maintaining price stability, yet at the same time the central bank also increased the rate of growth of money supply. Even if inflationary expectations were stable, that destructive process would be set in motion, regardless of these expectations, because of the increase in the rate of growth of money. People's expectations and perceptions cannot offset this destructive process. It is not possible to alter the facts of reality by means of expectations. The damage that was done cannot be undone by means of expectations and perceptions.

For instance, once state has created more fiat money that masquerading as real money it is now able to exchange nothing for something irrespective of the rate of growth of the production of goods. Regardless of what the production of goods is doing, the state is now engaging in an exchange of nothing for something, i.e., diverting resources to itself by paying nothing in return. This diversion is possible because of the increase in the number of devalued coins/fiat currency, i.e., the inflation of money.

The increase in money supply — i.e., the increase in inflation — is going to set in motion all the negative side effects that money printing does, including the menace of the boom-bust cycle, regardless of the increase in the production of goods.

I doubt very much if Obama or McCain understand what the real consequences of their economic policies would be.  I do know either one will be disastrous, leading to more and more government intrusion into what's left of the free market.