The Global Liberty Community
Enemy of liberty: Peter Shiff
Peter Shiff has been trying to use the political process to get the government back to the constitution and to limit it’s spending.
Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine what happens if the policies and ideas of Shiff, Ron Paul or Rand Paul were implemented in the US.
Let’s imagine that Peter Shiff becomes a senator or even president because the press covered issues that were of great importance, including debt and the lack of funding of social security.
What happens next? Peter makes sure the government budgets are slashed down 90% overnight. According to Peter and austrian economics, what would happen after that?
There would be a massive depression, much more severe than 1930s depression, because this bubble has been building since about 1971. What would be the people’s reaction to a severe depression?
While they are loosing their house, loose their jobs and loose everything they have while the Chinese buy up every asset on the continent, would the people remain rational and just accept that “OK, we have to go through a generation of austerity, but that’s all right, Shiff says this will be beneficial in the long term, and we’ll have more freedom after a severe depression”.
Not a chance people would do this. There would be riots after a few days. Such a change of policy would be the death blow to freedom on this planet, or at least in the US for the next 200 years. People would NOT blame the previous bad policies for their irrationality, they would blame all the bad things on the current ones.
The worst possible solution to freedom in the world would be to get libertarians into a political position. Freedom introduced in a society of dependent people is a guaranteed failure. Just like burning churches doesn’t make people atheistic, in the same way tearing apart the government and cutting spending will not turn people into libertarians.
The US is too far gone from ever being recovered, and the sooner libertarians figure this out, the better off freedom on this planet will be.
Shiff is claiming that policies of the government and FED are so stupid, as the policies are throwing new money at insolvent banks that should be allowed to go bankrupt. My argument is that any libertarian wasting their time on politics and economic activity in the US are even more stupid. To spend your valuable life trying to fix a system that is beyond bankrupt in both financial and moral sense demonstrates how delusional most libertarians are. This system should be allowed to die, and the further away from the collapse libertarians are, the better. Let the system collapse under it’s own weight of irrationality.
This society is morally bankrupt, and the more libertarians get out before the border closes, the sooner we can start reconstructing a new and better society.
It’s time to give up fighting and get out before the borders close. Ayn Rand was not stupid. She understood that the solution to a collapsing society to stop fighting and allow the system to carry it’s own weight. Thus the title and the central theme of her greatest book: Atlas Shrugged. John Galt and his friends left the society they were living in to build something new, from scratch.
You wouldn’t invest in a company that had no hope of ever paying back it’s shareholders. It’s much better to start a new company. Why then do you waste your time and money on a society that’s far beyond bankrupt?
Join The Discussion
44 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Andkon April 14, 2015 , 8:00 pm Vote4
“According to Peter and austrian economics, what would happen after that? There would be a massive depression, much more severe than 1930s depression, because this bubble has been building since about 1971. ”
I don’t think this is correct. The problem with depressions and recessions is generally what the government does to meddle in a vain attempt to correct them, not the downturn itself. Tom Woods talks about the (non-existent) depression of 1920 as an example of how quickly downturns go away if the government does not meddle much: http://tomwoods.com/blog/warren-harding-and-the-forgotten-depression-of-1920/
John Midas April 15, 2015 , 4:12 am Vote0
The .gov has been meddling for too long. The patient; the economy, is almost dead. If we at this point get libertarian ideas in politics, the real state of the economy will be revealed, and libertarians will be blamed.
Kevin Victor April 15, 2015 , 6:52 pm Vote2
“If we at this point get libertarian ideas in politics, the real state of the economy will be revealed, and libertarians will be blamed.”
Interesting point. Superficial libertarianism has already been introduced in the political sphere and we always hear about how “privatization” and extreme “capitalism” has made things worse off.
Double Crossed Radio X X October 3, 2015 , 3:34 pm Vote0
Exactly…
Mike Parziale January 19, 2016 , 1:40 am Vote0
As long as there is confiscation of a percentage of private income there is deflation in the market. Income tax is deflationary because with every transaction 20-30% of the money is removed from the market. It would take a few months for the stock of money available for trade to dwindle to nothing.
No, as long as the IRS and courts persecute and prosecute people (arguably illegally) the government cannot stop spending. Government spending must replace the money taxed out of the market by the government.
The only other alternative is to use another currency that the government doesn’t know about.
Ned Netterville March 29, 2016 , 6:39 pm Vote0
Mike, I think you may be mistaken. The money confiscated by the government isn’t removed from the market, or at least it isn’t deflationary because the government can and does readily replace it by creating more money. And of course some of what it takes from people is put back in the market through government spending, however inefficient or counterproductive its spending may be. Some folks even argue that it isn’t necessary for the government to tax since it can create all the money the economy needs whether by the Treasury printing it or by the Federal Reserve creating bank reserves. This argument would be valid, but without the illusion that the government was getting the money it spends from taxpayers, people would see through the practice of creating money through monetary inflation and the value of the dollar would rapidly fall to its intrinsic value = zero.
While I don’t agree with your monetary analysis, I am in full agreement with your point that the IRS is a predatory agency, taking what isn’t its to take and enforcing internal revenue law illegally.
Mike Parziale March 29, 2016 , 7:40 pm Vote0
Ned, it is true that the stock of money increases exponentially over time and that as that newly borrowed money is spent in the market the value of each Dollar unit decreases. I tend to think (in black and white) about income taxes only paying down the Treasury’s debt and government spending only coming from new borrowing (more debt through bond issuance, which created new money.) In reality the distinction is blurred, but this perspective illustrates the reality that taxpayers repay bond holders and bond buyers fund government spending. This is especially true since the government is constantly running deficits. So, government spending is a combination of newly created money supplied to the money stock (which is a “negative interest rate” inflation tax) and income taxes.
Michael Redchanskiy January 21, 2016 , 5:58 pm Vote0
It would be idiotic to cut 90% of the government budget overnight. It would have to be a gradual 2 – 4 year plan. I also agree that the depression would only last 18 months. This is an estimate given by Lawrence H. White. Dr. White is one of the leading libertarian experts on the economy.
Rick Rule April 14, 2015 , 8:13 pm Vote10
Please note that despite Peter’s ” FLIRTATION” with republican politics, describing him as an enemy of liberty is ill considered. Peter is a competitor, and a friend. He preaches about liberty every day, to an audience that frequently exceeds 50,000 people. While his message is futile to many, it is heard, and is persuasive to many.
Welcome those who could be sympathetic into the liberty tent, and then persuade them of the efficacy of your message.
Know you real enemy, our divisions are their strength.
John Midas April 15, 2015 , 4:16 am Vote2
50 000 lulled into taking no action, hoping that all of a sudden, after 250 years of regress, next election things will change for the better. As an investor, you know never to fight a 250 year old trend.
Joe K. April 16, 2015 , 4:33 pm Vote0
Hey Rick….good comment and reasoning, but I really don’t have much faith in Peter at all. I know people invested with his firm that have shown me 20% losses or more over last 3 years. You get on the webinars with Peter and he talks a good talk, he is a good speaker, no doubt but results are not there. I would say ignore Peter and stick to those principles that advance libertarianism. Like every other movement, libertarians need to stop letting others try to define them. Leadership is found in ourselves and not in others. The moment we abandon being leaders ourselves, we end up blindly following people who only have one motive in mind, profits over liberty. If you have liberty you can have both, but in today’s world, especially in U.S., it is more about corporate welfare, who you know, dishonest business practices, etc., that get you profits instead of libertarian principles. I always appreciate your insight Rick, thanks!
Double Crossed Radio X X October 3, 2015 , 3:25 pm Vote0
Wise words Rick.
Luke Liberty April 14, 2015 , 8:26 pm
I think you are correct. I agree completely with the sentiment and I think you bring up a great point regarding who the people would blame in the circumstances that would come if the state was disbanded today by a libertarian. People would of course blame the current administration for the failures of previous ones.
The bottom line is that the state needs to collapse of its own accord and libertarians just need to step back and let people know they warned them. I have listened to Peter Schiff for a few years now and I really don’t think you are painting him fairly. He does not advocate for sweeping political reforms but rather informs fellow libertarians of the folly of the system. I have only heard his message as “get ready and invest in precious metals because the big one is coming and nobody is going to save you”.
I see peter as an ally in the fight for truth not an enemy and although it is misguided to think you can fix the system I really don’t think that makes you an enemy of liberty.
Ken Jons-un April 15, 2015 , 4:46 am Vote2
One thing to consider: How is Schiff (or insert any other name) going to get in the white house without great approval of his views by a majority of voters? If word got out that candidate X is going to cull ABC&D then all the fans of ABC&D are going to crawl out of the woodwork and vate against X. And as a senator no one really gets much done.
It is all about public sentiment.
This has long been the dilemma for Libertarian party candidates; you have to get people to actually want to give up their favorite government programs in order to win. Once you have general agreement on doing much of that then the people are already to accept the fallout. Meaning they’d be willing to sacrifice, deal with austerity, return to a gold standard, stop being the world police, privatize many things, reorder social security so it fades away, etc. etc. etc.
So we promote, point out the facts and fallacies. There are many paths for many people to come to the ideas. Peter’s talk may lead many in the right direction, others will need a different mechanism. Books, other media, there are many paths to become enlightened. 😀
Nico Metten April 15, 2015 , 11:42 am Vote7
Peter Schiff sometimes holds questionable positions. He is not totally sound on foreign policy, he is defending police brutality and I even have seen him denouncing anarchist as too radical. But please, he is not an enemy of liberty. He is extremely sound on economics and is putting a lot of energy and resources into promoting freedom. I think he has influenced a lot of people for the good and is a very valuable asset for the liberty movement.
Marchella April 16, 2015 , 4:55 am
Oh, yikes! He’s suppose to be on my podcast this weekend. Hmmm.
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 5:52 am Vote3
@marchella Use the opportunity!
Tom Wallace April 16, 2015 , 6:03 am
@marchella He is an extremely knowledgeable man and through his work, he has opened the door to liberty for many people. Your very lucky to have him on your podcast and im looking forward to listening to it!
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 9:51 am
@marchella, as it was just “Tax Day” you might ask him about his father Irwin, who has spent many years in prison for being a tax protestor.
Double Crossed Radio X X October 3, 2015 , 3:32 pm Vote1
He recently told the sad story of his father on the Alex Jones Show. Irwin Schiff is a political prisoner who had his natural right to free speech violated. He was thrown in prison for continuing to publish and distribute his book. It was a show trial that would have made Joseph Stalin proud. I would be proud to have Irwin Schiff as my father, as I am sure Peter Schiff is.
I don’t agree with Peter Schiff about everything (he isn’t a fan of bitcoin despite accepting it in his business), but make no mistake, he is a Liberty guy 100%.
Marchella April 16, 2015 , 4:11 pm Vote3
I think it will be fun, I appreciated how he went down to Occupy addressing the folks down there, trying to get them to see capitalism as a good thing. @tomwallace
Marchella April 16, 2015 , 4:13 pm Vote1
Thanks David, I was going to ask about Irwin, his girlfriend/fiance follows me on twitter, I wish I could remember her name but we discussed him, but yes, good angle. Did you ever read his book? @davidmontgomery
Ken Jons-un April 16, 2015 , 4:17 pm Vote0
I think he still is being held hostage by the tax gangs minions
Ken Jons-un April 16, 2015 , 4:18 pm Vote1
@marchella link to your podcast?
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 4:22 pm Vote0
@marchella Nope, I never read his book. Looking forward to the podcast!
Rick Rule April 16, 2015 , 5:04 pm Vote1
@marchella
Peter can be very useful in expanding your voice and reach. He has tens of thousands of ardent followers, and he deserves them. He addresses them every day.
He is bombastic, talking over people whom he disagrees with, and he is a master at using yoir question as a platform for his statement. Be patient, circle back calmly to get him to address the question asked, and have fun
Mike Reid April 16, 2015 , 5:13 pm
@marchella That’s awesome! Enjoy the opportunity to reach Schiff’s audience!
Marchella April 16, 2015 , 5:27 pm Vote0
Thanks! @mikereid
Rafael L. April 16, 2015 , 7:13 pm Vote0
Peter would never win a presidency campaing, people don’t like to hear the raw truth.
As Depeche Mode sings in the song “Should Be Higher”
“Your lies are more attractive
Than the truth”
So that it is good that his ideas are known to a greater public than you would get only with blogs like this one.
If a colapse comes then people might remember what he and others said and then maybe we can evade a totalitarian state development as it happened in Germany in the 1930’s.
autonomous April 16, 2015 , 9:31 pm Vote2
Competition for the microphone is fierce. Competition for the truth is nil.
Martin Brock April 18, 2015 , 4:08 pm Vote2
I largely agree with you, but we shouldn’t take “get out” too literally. Totalitarian states cover the Earth, and we can’t escape easily their borders. Maybe seasteading is an option, but I doubt that a seastead will be much more immune to domination by some established state or states than an intentional community within the borders of a state. On the contrary, the first seasteads will be highly capital intensive, and the first seasteaders will be relatively wealthy, i.e. they will already be entitled to rents enforced by established states.
People within the borders of the U.S. are hardly the least free people, and while I agree that the officially sanctioned political process is hopeless here, libertarians have other options. We can create intentional communities resisting the state as much as possible. We don’t want a war with the state. We want to ignore it and for it to ignore us as much as possible. We won’t achieve this goal with “in your face” protests.
When the hundredth monkey exits, the revolution will be over before it begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
Brett Crudgington May 15, 2015 , 2:54 pm Vote3
“To spend your valuable life trying to fix a system that is beyond bankrupt in both financial and moral sense demonstrates how delusional most libertarians are. This system should be allowed to die, and the further away from the collapse libertarians are, the better. Let the system collapse under it’s own weight of irrationality.”
It’s a long-term hopeless sort of cause to try change a system within a system, especially if you feel you have something more fulfilling to do. Like start a business somewhere else in the world, or make some art or something. I suspect the good art that survives is an expression of the frustration at this reality.
Double Crossed Radio X X October 3, 2015 , 3:22 pm Vote0
“What happens next? Peter makes sure the government budgets are slashed down 90% overnight. According to Peter and austrian economics, what would happen after that?
There would be a massive depression, much more severe than 1930s depression, because this bubble has been building since about 1971. What would be the people’s reaction to a severe depression?”
I don’t know what Austrian Economics you have been reading, but the Austrian economics I read would say that with Federal spending cut by 90% most of the destruction of wealth due to Federal spending would end.
The resulting beginning of wealth accumulation would create a pool of savings from which real growth would emerge.
Yeah sure, there could be a short period of devastating deflation, which is better to have as soon as possible because it is inevitable and the longer we put it off the worse it will be, but this would not be caused by slashing the Federal Budget. The real cause would be the endless debasement of the United States currency (not money as money has value).
Mike Parziale January 19, 2016 , 1:36 am Vote0
As long as there is confiscation of a percentage of private income there is deflation in the market. Income tax is deflationary because with every transaction 20-30% of the money is removed from the market. It would take a few months for the stock of money available for trade to dwindle to nothing.
No, as long as the IRS and courts persecute and prosecute people (arguably illegally) the government cannot stop spending. Government spending must replace the money taxed out of the market by the government.
The only other alternative is to use another currency that the government doesn’t know about.
Beth Cody November 14, 2015 , 2:30 pm Vote0
This article could be improved by using the correct verb: “lose” not “loose” in the 5th paragraph. Not trying to be a grammar-Nazi, I just don’t want the mechanics of writing to undermine your thoughtful ideas: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/01/loose-or-lose/
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... November 15, 2015 , 4:01 am
Do not be fooled. This is about Ayn Rand, NOT about Peter Shiff. And it has some very good advice! – Dennis Lee Wilson
All but one of the comments completely misses what *I* consider to be the most important points, as I expressed in my previous email.
Perhaps it can be summed up this way:
Wake up, folks! The show is over, the building is on fire and it is best to leave the theater before the roof falls in!
James X November 15, 2015 , 11:37 am Vote2
While I agree that we should not be wasting energy trying to fix a system that is not fixable, even if we thought it was worth fixing, I would not call Peter Schiff an enemy of liberty. He does a lot of work for the cause. He risks his business and his reputation exposing himself to the mainstream media, while running a business focused on helping clients protect themselves from what is happening. Imagine the courage it takes to say some of the things he says, publicly, having seen his father taken as a political prisoner.
There are still some liberty-minded people who think the system can be saved and is worth saving. They have trouble letting go. Many of us were once in that camp until, one day, we woke up. Let us focus on helping those who have seen only 90% of the light, reach 100%. Let us attack those who want to extinguish the light.
Don Duncan November 15, 2015 , 8:48 pm Vote3
Why should I “get out” of the US just because borders may be closed? I don’t obey many laws now, and that is just one more I would disobey.
Fighting for liberty can be done many ways, but not by supporting the political system. Staying within the US borders is neither giving up or fighting. I chose to stay and fight, but many do not and we all fight in our own way, e.g., expats or not, we both can send money to Larken to hasten his completion of “The Mirror”.
Voluntary Law Guy December 30, 2015 , 3:57 am Vote2
There is no Galt’s Gulch elsewhere to run to. If one is to exist, it must be virtual and will exist in the U.S. and elsewhere. Building and growing alternatives to violent, statist social institutions is the real task at hand. Arguably, the U.S. is one of the better places around to do that.
Mike Parziale January 19, 2016 , 1:27 am Vote0
http://elasticrepublic.com is a possible alternative.
Mike Parziale January 19, 2016 , 2:58 am Vote2
Peter’s father Irwin Schiff was a pioneer in the persecution of the IRS. I recommend listening to what he had to say about freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZX1bvj_z0E
Ray Johannessen January 21, 2016 , 5:41 pm Vote2
lol what is this article? Is this a joke? I mean, I know people try to respond to it and address it as if it were serious, but you have to be pretty naive to think that Peter Schiff is actually an enemy of liberty. If he speaks the truth and helps you to become more aware of it (which he certainly has), then it’s irrelevant how politicians and statists use the attempts of those who fight for freedom as scapegoats. The blame should not be put on those who love liberty, but on those who hate it. You’re thinking is clearly flawed. And appears to be downright an attempt to demonize him.
Double Crossed Radio X X January 21, 2016 , 5:54 pm Vote1
Well said Ray! You would think that before someone stated an outcome he believed would be the result of applying Austrian Economics to our current problems, he would actually do some homework on understand what Austrian Economics entails. Creating straw men and knocking them down is hardly the way to persuade thinking people to consider the merits of your argument.
Ned Netterville March 29, 2016 , 7:02 pm Vote2
I liked Peter’s father better. He recently died in prison, an unrepentant victim of the IRS, a corrupt DOJ and an even more corrupt federal judiciary. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/yourtaxes/irwin-schiff-fervent-opponent-of-federal-income-taxes-dies-at-87.html