Topic: Ron Paul and Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 7281 times)

Okay, with all that said, I can't think of anything that would be better for Bitcoin than Ron Paul having a donation address on his campaign website.

My buddy is teaching survival courses up in Greenland. We've got gobs of ancient pristine water, plenty of wildlife and fish, and a culture prepared to go medieval. You can stay at my place, with gorgeous views of the mountains and sea.

It is pretty much Ron Paul winning in 2012 or the United States will go Bust.

The question is, how will a United States filled with rioting and destruction affect Bitcoin?

If Ron Paul is elected he may be able to slow the destruction if it is not too late.

As for me, I have already started planning my escape. I have very little faith in my fellow Americans to make the right decision this time around.

Their track record is horrible.

Then, by definition, Ron Paul is not religious so it's all good.


Agreed, but refusing to vote for a politician based solely on this is a Nirvana fallacy. All candidates running for POTUS are religious anyway, so all of them are irrational. Ron Paul still manages to be the most rational of them all despite his flaws.


There's this thing called division of power which prevents the president from turning the state into a theocracy. So yes, when it comes to choosing the leader of a government, I'd say his or her religion, and the depths to which he or she believes in it as a matter of faith, are utterly unimportant.

Zoinks!   

Actually, pretty much, yes... unless you happen to be a Buddhist, being religious, by definition, requires taking positions as an article of faith. In other words, you take a position because you are given the authority to do so (by whatever book is the underpinning of your particular religion), and that authority trumps any other position.

And being religious also speaks to your inability to detect irrationality, by the way. Never an inspiring quality in a political leader.

Finally, I don't care what your political affiliation happens to be. If you think evolution is "just a theory" and you "don't believe in it", you're a bit of a wingnut.

So yes, when it comes to choosing the leader of a government, I'd say his or her religion, and the depths to which he or she believes in it as a matter of faith, are of pretty paramount importance.

Because being religious instantly means you hate freedom and want everyone to obey the will of god or else?

Really? I mean, really really?

Do you have even the remotest sense of what life is like in a theocracy? Nah, didn't think so. Try Iran.

Sheesh...

by others, you mean the GOP?
http://www.truth-out.org/new-court-filing-reveals-how-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked/1311603015

yeah, they are most certainly "going down" next year.

Who gives a shit if he is religious and anti abortion? You have to be pretty far removed from reality to think this issues are important when choosing who to vote for.

BubbleBoy, that was an inspired argument in the discussion of abortion. I have equally respected the opinion of (non violent) pro- and anti-abortionists. It seemed axiomatic, when does life begin, or suffering cost, etc. How would you argue that the mother is not actively killing the child rather than simply refusing to save it? And if you successfully argue that, what about negligent manslaughter?

I fully respect Ron Paul's stance (as I hear him) that the issue of evolution is irrelevant and he would ensure that this was a choice by parents, schools, and students, not government. +1 on political index, -1 on the idiot index, but on balance, he's doing very well.

Ron Paul is a religiously-motivated conservative who incidentally believes liberty is good because that's the conservative tradition, only in so much as it does not interfere with the church's ability to shove it's crap down people's mouths. He openly rejects the doctrine of the separation of church and state as "hostility to religion".

Take for example his stance on abortion. The libertarian view is that a person's body is the ultimate property that can't be seized under any circumstance. Yet here Ron says that since life begins at conception (debatable, but let's go along with that), the new being's right of life takes precedence over your use of your property and your free will, and you should be forced by society to let the new person use your body without which the child cannot survive. To do otherwise is murder against a human being.

But if that's the case, if you have a legal obligation to relinquish your body for the sake of others, we can easily construct absurd examples. Many people die every day for the lack of suitable organ donor, yet there are plenty of organs around - you too have the moral obligation to use your body to save other people, their right to live takes precedence your desire to have two kidneys, since you can perfectly live with one. We could have an organ lottery where the "winner" had the opportunity to save other people's life. We could chop-up convicted murderers and save a dozen people.

The fact of the matter is that you don't have any moral obligation to use your body to save others. For as long as the baby cannot live without using your body, his life is subsumed to your liberty, and his survival is entirely a matter of choice. Your body is your ultimate property and regulating what you do with it and how many babies you make is the domain of totalitarian and theocratic governments.

Of course, the obvious contradiction between Ron Paul's rhetoric and his behaviour stems from his deep religious convictions. The man has done untold damage to the image of the progressist right to the point where people associate free market advocates with the bible thumpers of the religious right.

What if the doctor doesn't heal you cause he says "it's god will"

It's lulz me to see something as irrelevant as evolution being discussed in relation to Ron Paul. So what!?

If you are having a heart attack and need a qualified doctor do you quiz him on his religious beliefs just in case while he's working on you he decides to pray for you?

The man is the US' ONLY option. His beliefs have clearly given him a grounding and integrity that others severely lack.

In the interview reddit did they ask him the same question. He gives a more complete answer. I dont know exactly in what part it is because I watched it time ago, but it starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKAaps6mFYk


I have not read End the Fed. Ive heard is very good but I tend to read more academic books. But if you want an example it is exactly how Andrew Jackson got rid of the Second Bank of the USA (the third central bank of the USA). He removed the charter and competition appeared. In two years the bank was broke. And yes, it has the added benefit that the Federal Reserve notes, the present dollars, would devaluate and the debt would disappear. Its and added benefit.


Yes, if you think about it allows for more control of the people over the government, because people notice taxation, but inflation is very stealth. So the government only financing itself through taxes allows for more citizen control.


Ideally you could pay taxes in anything you earned. This is nothing extrange, during the majority of the history of humanity its been this way.


Well, I dont support setting gold (or anything else) as legal tender. Gold has qualities to be a good currency and is used as money on its own, it does not need the government. But in the case you proppose, the government would need to set a dollar note/gold ratio adequate for the reverse of gold it has (basically the price of gold would skyrocket).


Again, look at history. Andrew Jackson did it and it took two years for the old central bank to go bankrupt. And in those two years people had migrated to other notes. For me, removing the central bank charter and allowing competing currencies is the best and most smooth solution.


Yes, if Ron Paul or someone similar does not get elected the keynesian maniacs that are in power will keep abusing the currency until it eventually disappears and they will be forced to produce sound money.

Here's a video with a cut around 0:30 and a less altered video which retains the cut at 0:39. If the second video is 'the real deal', then it hasn't increased my confidence much nor has Paul eagerly clarified the point much further or to my liking. I respect his opinion that evolution is and should not be a political issue, but I faithfully hold that a creationist tendency is evidence of unintelligent design.


Yes, I think I grok the gist. I've since read and heard Paul's gloss over its implemented. Rather than tear down the Fed, he would simply decriminalize alternate currencies. I posit that such a declaration would probably have the same effect. It would in practice be a default on both UST and USD. Maybe Ron Paul discusses the transition more thoroughly in End the Fed. Are there documents discussing this transition on the web?

Would the US government still exclusively require dollars for taxation? Would the government continue to deal only with the dollar in all trade? If not, imagine if you will, the US government passes a law that makes gold redeemable for all debts public and private. It would have to be floating because without a global gold seizure, no single entity could enforce a fixed price. Since the government can not back the existing paper up with any existing scarcity, it might as well allow any currency as you and Paul suggest. I'll stick to gold for simplicity.

I don't see how one could gently introduce this policy while keeping the dollar relatively stable from free fall. Any fool with eyes to see will trade his dollars for gold as they see an exodus of the dollar and price inflation in dollars. I take it as a given that this process only needs to start a tiny bit before it rapidly accelerates given the one-sided instability (though since I'm not yet articulating a defense I welcome a lively argument to the contrary). I posit the dollar will be good as worthless before the bill is even passed into law and hell would become paradise.

The gold price today reflect a fear of some such a scenario, but I'm quite sure hyperinflation (which is in fact a gradual process) will be the catalyst of a new currency, not the symptom of such policy. Alternatively, if the US government stopped printing money, defaulted on most debt, and encouraged the use of scrip, would it be any cozier?

Its false that Ron Paul does not believe in evolution. There is a video that goes around where appparently Ron Paul says he does not believe, but its manipulated. Check the complete version of the video. Ron Paul says that evolution is a good explanation on how live evolved but he has doubts about how the first live being came about and for that moment he does not believe evolution is a good explanation. But it does not matter how many times this is repeated the manipulated video is posted around and ignorant people keeps voting it (f.e. reddit today, that place is mainly ignorant and manipulable people).

Btw, one has to wonder who made that manipulated video.


Competing currencies is not having more government imposing different currencies and print them to hell. Competing currencies is private currency where people can stop using the currency whenever they want thus forcing the currencies to behave. Competing currency is f.e. Bitcoin.

Unless you have another reference, his personal views seem wishy washy, but states that that the question is not for government to decide.

No matter how much good people hear about Ron Paul, fact is...

Ron Paul does not believe in evolution and thinks it should not be taught in schools.

Libertarians consider him a bad example.