Bitcoin Forum

If Ron Paul became the next President would this be good for Bitcoin

Yes, Dr. Paul is HIGHLY educated in Austrian economics.

He has suggested several bills that would remove the barriers that government imposes on currencies that would compete with the dollar.

There were some posts on his blog (that I'm having trouble finding now) that were fairly hostile towards bitcoin, and strongly implied that bitcoin users had no idea about Austrian economics.

I doubt that is true because Ive talk to a lot of paulites about Bitcoin and nobody has mention, not even the ones that did not like the idea. You are probably confusing with someone else.

Yes, Ron Paul is a free banking advocate and has introduced bills to remove legal tender laws.


He doesn't have an official blog that I'm aware of unless you are talking about paul.house.gov, in which case I highly doubt that Bitcoin has ever been mentioned there.

If I was a Bitcoin. Who would I vote for..?

Ron Paul :D

This is so apt right now:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/secretary_part_4.png

Yah...  I think that I must vote for Ron Paul.  The other Republican candidates all exhibit a loose to completely disconnected grip on reality.  Obama will almost certainly be selected as the Democratic Party candidate.  And I -really- don't want four more years of that.  If Ron Paul is elected, then we can likely expect at least a four year period of non-intervention w/r to BitCoin.  Worst case, we might see four years of benign neglect...best case, we might see BitCoin recognized as legal tender.  Also, Ron Paul opposes regulating or taxing "the internet".  BitCoin and BitCoin transactions should be viewed by his administration as being a part of "the internet" and thus something to be kept unregulated and untaxed.  It would disturb me if the IRS decided that the BitCoins I'm mining are "taxable income".  So I guess I need to go out and register as a Republican, so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary. 

It wouldn't be good for Bitcoin because Ron Paul would "fix" the dollar, so no reason for people to adopt Bitcoin to escape the dollar inflation. :->

How sweet, Americans thinking who they elect president actually would make a difference  ;D

You have a point there. But it really depends.

If Ron Paul only manages to change a bit the direction and put some control on the dollar but without changing the monetary laws, then yes, it would be bad for Bitcoin.

BUT Ron Paul has proposed laws and has stated several times that his intention is not trying to influence the central bank system (he thinks its unworkable), but to eliminate legal tender laws and allow competition in currency. If he managed to acomplish this it would be HUGE for Bitcoin.

How would he "fix" the dollar? His number one plan is to crash it as soon as he gets into office.

He dosen't BELIEVE in the current system that we have now, therefore he does not believe there is a way to "fix" it other than by scraping it all and implementing some sort of Deflationary Standard like gold (or Bitcoin).

Bitcoin would be a seriously destructive way to start from scratch, but hey at-least we'll all be millionaires right?  ;)

I'm not American, and I was being a bit ironic. :->

And yes, I'm aware of "Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws. (http://www.google.com?q="Let+me+issue+and+control+a+nation's+money%2C+and+I+care+not+who+writes+its+laws")"

It would likely eliminate any possibility of bitcoin or its operators coming under legal scrunity.

Actually he has a non-disrubtive way of changing the monetary system and that is just removing the privileges the Federal Reserve receive from the government and allow competition of currencies. That way the change would be progressive.

He has always welcomed and advocated a market of "competing currencies".
This means he would allow Bitcoin to compete with other kinds of currencies. By eliminating the Fed there would be no more monopoly on money.

Ron Paul winning will be BAD for freedom. The writing is on the wall and a major shit storm is coming no matter what policies are implemented. It's way past that point. The economy will vaporize and they'll blame the current captain of the titanic even if it were the previous ones who thought they could sail through rocks.

Best case scenario IMO is Paul wins the GOP nomination and Obama rigs the Presidential election so that people will realize that "democracy" never really existed and blame goes where it is due.

I somewhat agree. If Ron Paul cannot remove the chains from the market in time and without massive opposition then they may very well blame him.

I don't know enough about the American legislation machine and how long it takes to implement change or in this case remove legislation. If he can simply get rid of what he wants to get rid of and implement the "opt-out" options he is suggesting within his first year, the economy will both crash and recover incredibly within 4 years.

Obama does not have the power to that, others do, but they are "going down" next year.

Ron Paul must be in his 70's by now.  Most likely, 2012 is the last time that he will be able/willing to run for President.  This is both a pro and a con, in multiple ways.  For example, he has nothing to lose by trying to enact legislation that pis**s off the other politicians.  Likewise, he has nothing to lose by enacting legislation that would oppress common citizens.  But I don't think he will.  I think his 30-year record of trying to follow the letter and meaning of the constitution will be a habit he cannot easily discard.  And his repeated mention of "competing currencies" implies that he would be quite agreeable to BitCoin as a recognized form of money. 

Here is a YouTube video.  The good stuff is right around 2:05.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50kXVg3lGgc

At the least, he appears to oppose the idea of putting people in jail for trying to establish non-federal-reserve-note currencies. 

- TFeagle
{Send excess bitcoins to: 1FKHCUrKR8ahAFHP44pvbURsRxtfrgoNgG}


 

lol i pity the fool!!!

I doubt he would either because Ron Paul is:


http://www.greyhavens.itgo.com/images/galadriel_and_frodo.jpg

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.

Weimar Germany tried this, allowing the businesses and municipalities to print their own notes and it "accelerated the acceleration" of price inflation. Granted the notes were redeemable for future marks, but what's the difference? If fifty states, JPM, WallMart, Facebook, and Google can print money, won't that hyperinflate prices regardless of denomination? Who says everyone will rush to bitcoins and gold?



Unless you have another reference, his personal views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4puYp5F0) seem wishy washy, but states that that the question is not for government to decide (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/).

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.

Here's a video with a cut around 0:30 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw) and a less altered video which retains the cut at 0:39 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4puYp5F0). 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?

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.

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.

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

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 (http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-on-seperation-of-church-and.html)".

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.

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.

Meh, I don't really know Ron Paul's official stance on these things, but the hostility of government towards religion is hardly imaginary.  One can hardly rely on a blog called "no god zone" for an objective commentary.  The facts appear to be correct, but all of the subjective conclusions go in one particular direction.  For a bigger view, I suggest that you research state churches in the colonies, and after that the quirks in the first clause of the first amendment to the Constitution will make a lot more sense.  In essence, the constitution codified an antidisestablishmentarian position before it was even a word.

The founders are generally considered to have been largely deists and theists, neither of which is exactly common today, so a larger context is pretty much necessary to understand their statements.  Also, Christianity back then was very different from the way it is today.  You would hardly recognize it; the reformation was still young, and the seeds planted by it wouldn't germinate into the structures that we know today for another hundred years or so.

It's been a while since I studied any of the founders in detail, so I might be thinking of the wrong guy here, but my recollection of Jefferson's religious views was that he thought of God as a non-anthropomorphic deity (the creator in the Declaration of Independence), and Jesus as a non-divine prophet.  No one back then had access to Q or the Dead Sea Scrolls, so we can't be sure how they would have felt if they'd had access to Jesus's life and sayings, uncorrupted by the editors at the First Council of Nicaea.

As for abortion, I avoid discussing it, both on the internet and in real life.  As far as I can tell, neither side is really interested in debating the other side honestly.  They both prefer to just set up straw men composed of what they imagine the other side to be "really thinking", and knock those down instead of listening.

Anyhow, back to Ron Paul.  I don't believe him to be a religious nut bent on imposing his view on everyone else.  I would be totally willing to revise that view if some decent evidence was presented.  Even so, I would still consider him to be a good thing, overall, because in his attempt to push his view, he would be naturally opposed to everyone else currently pushing their views.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

Zoinks!    :o

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.

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.

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.

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.

The non-aggression principle can be applied or ignored by both atheists and religious people. There is no monopoly on rationality and life is simply to complex to claim that you are rational on all fronts. Remember one of the least rational and most destructive systems ever was sold as "rational" and run by atheists, unless I've just misread this whole thing about the soviets and they were all closet Catholics.

Currently the truest and most consistent libertarian with any political power is a Christian named Ron Paul.

Ack, the old argument about the Soviet Union and North Korea being atheist.

Are you truly suggesting that the failings of communism had to do with their insistence on open and free enquiry? Is that what was wrong with communism? Is the real problem in North Korea that there are too many opinions being voiced, and that nothing is taken as an article of faith, or on the authority of the "dear leader".

The Soviet and North Korean versions of communism (as well as quite a few others, if not all) are essentially religious systems. In the case of the Soviet Union they did not believe in a supernatural deity, but they sure as hell believed in a long litany of natural ones... you'd typically find them leading he Communist Party.

The North Koreans don't even presume to do away with a supernatural deity. It's called Kim Il Sung. He's been dead for ages, yet he's still the official leader of the country. He has a son, who also has a son... it is, in fact, a Holy Trinity! As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it: At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!

Every other aspect of how those communist systems were and are run is a carbon copy of the most established religions. Their hierarchical nature. Their obedience to the edicts of the "authority". Most importantly, their suppression of free enquiry and open discussion of ideas.

You want to find the counterpart to a theocracy? Don't look for it in the communism of the Soviet Union, North Korea or even Cuba. Go to Sweden instead.

The problem that I see with most secularists is that they don't see that secularism is just as much a religion as any other.

And I find individual fundamentalist secularists to be at least as annoying as fundamentalist christians or muslims or jews, maybe a bit more.  In aggregate though, they are much worse because it is apparently socially acceptable to loudly display secularism as a status marker in bars.

Let me get this straight. So everything is a religion? There is no atheism? Gimme a break!

You've never met anyone that had serious faith in their atheism?

No, I see how you may find this hard to understand, but atheism is the opposite of faith. I don't have faith in atheism at all. All I need is one simple proof of the existence of the supernatural, that would stand up to the most modest form of impartial scrutiny, and I'm sold. No such proof has ever been produced, though.

Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. It is the idea that a deity of some kind is not necessary to explain the universe around us, and that the introduction of the deity makes it far more difficult to explain it. Same reason I (and presumably you) don't believe in fairies, djinns, bad ju-ju spirits or the Pachamama.

Atheism is a form of pantheism.

Translation:

You've never met anyone that had serious faith in their lack of faith?

Sorta.  More like "serious faith that they are superior by virtue of not having the sort of faith that losers and fools have".

The next time you see a debate about religion in person, watch the alleged atheist carefully.  I'll bet a dollar that he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.  He probably hasn't ever had a serious thought on the subject, so he isn't expressing that he has considered religion and rejected it.  What he is really expressing is a desire to be seen as the sort of person that rejects religion, because rejecting religion is cool, and he wants to be cool.

I know some actual atheists, people that have put serious thought into the matter.  In general, they know more about theology than I do.  I have a lot of respect for these people.

But for every one of them, I've seen a dozen douchebags in bars that wear designer clothes because they want to be seen as the sort of guy that wears designer clothes, and they talk shit about religion because they want to be seen as the sort of guy that talks shit about religion.  They regurgitate talking points that would insult the intelligence of a bright six year old because for them it isn't about thinking, or debating, it is about saying things that are congruent with the image they want to project.

I hope that clears things up.

Dr. Paul wants to End the Fed, that's end the current fiat system and when asked what would go in its place, his answer was: Leave it to the people to decide.
And as soon as I dig through my piles of Ron Paul interviews I'll post a link.

He has his opinions but he stands for the freedom of the individual and to give BACK the power of governance to the States and no longer to the Federal Army whose original goal was to protect the rights and well being of the States People, not to control the sovereign individuals living there.

this country needs ron paul, or I do truly believe it will collapse within the next 25 years. I am preparing my B.O.B.'s(bug out bags) for myself and my girlfriend, and stocking up on survival essentials, ammunition and practicing survival skills. A couple of friends of mine are forming am militia actually to organize training sessions for our friends and family's interested in learning how to use the land as a resource. If nothing else it will help us be less "fat Americans" and get back into nature.

I dont think the military industrial complex and the corporation raping can continue for another 25 years without people finally starting to get pissed off. I think it is obvious now to anyone who is willing to look at the Obama administration with objective eyes that he is nothing but another puppet of the global elite. The only politician I have any drop of faith in is Ron Paul. We need to get back to protecting individual liberties and states rights and shrinking our military occupation around the world. Our federal government is far too big and is going to crush us all.

rofl where in Greenland are you? I was in Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq and Kulusuk a few months ago.

Fascinating place. The places humanity will go...

Yea man, I wanna evacuate to greenland or iceland when crap falls apart. Can you organize a bitcoin community transport?!

That shit would be EXPENSIVE, B. Prolly use the whole bitcoin economy to support that plan.

Shit, only thing more expensive than getting to Greenland is living there ;)

I live in Qinngorput, Nuuk. Just climbed down from 1657m north of Kapisillit by the ice sheet where it was snowing horizontal.

Greenland is paradise. You get used to the cold, it's dry and gorgeous. Half of my calories in the last week were from blueberries, black berries, gooseberries, mushrooms, reindeer, and washed it all down with 100000 year old glacier water.

I figure if the global economy gets bad, it'll be really bad in Greenland. But we're experimenting with greenhouses (hydro-electricity is cheap and plentiful) and there's a good chance we have some of the largest untapped oil fields in the world. Still, temperate fruits, veggies, and dairy will be seriously reduced from my winter diet.

But if it gets Armageddon bad, Greenland is about the only place I'd want to be. We can be 100% self-sufficient and we practice it every once in a while (for example, the Iceland volcanic ash clouds knocked out all perishable imports and exports for a month).

But as far as escape plan, after what signal would you decide to move? Let's say hyperinflation kicks in and prices are doubling monthly. Even if you could afford a plane ticket, do you think the planes are gonna be on the same schedules to remote locations?

obviously each passenger would need to pay to get there. But I was thinking more on boat as we can bring arms and other survival gear we could not normally bring on a plane. unless it is a privately owned one.

I'm not going to lie, flying in and seeing the land from above damn near had me in tears it was so beautiful. Sitting out along the coast of Nuuk and just looking out at the water and mountains is also a very serene experience.

Also, reindeer meat is perhaps the most delicious meat there is.

How expensive are domestically grown goods? I got the sense that most everything I had was imported and it was incredibly expensive (in some cases 4x what I would normally pay).

Shit, getting in/out of the country is difficult now. 3 opportunities a week. Boats would be the way to go.

P.S. Taler du dansk? :) eller grønlandsk?

Yeah, and the skies are most often clear, visibility unlimited, boring sunsets/rises are rare, something about the air (dry ambient light?) is perfect for photos. Mountains shoot a kilometer vertical from the sea. Either midnight sun or glorious northern lights a few nights a week.

Reindeer is good and muskox is quite tasty too. And its all 100% free range organic fresh and cheap (in season). Fish, whale, and seal is an acquired delicacy. :) Most everything imported (which is a lot of 'normal' food) is very expensive. Like a wilted yellow broccoli for $10, but we have abundant vitamin rich flora four months of the year. Most of my veggies are frozen, milk is sealed ultra pasteurized, eggs are expensive. There has been some success growing barley and other grain in the south which hadn't grown there in 400 years. We've got potatoes and such in the fjord whose output is small, but packed with flavor and vitamins (the best though most expensive strawberries come from near the arctic region, such as Norway).

Living in the city here is as I imagine it will be like to live on Mars. Its extremely modern though you never lose touch of the extremities around you.

We've got flight connections through Copenhagen and Iceland. There are charters from Canada and the States, typically from the mining and oil industry, but also tourist scientific expeditions.

Min kæreste er en smuk dansker. Er du dansk?

Oh man I really want to see Iceland now! Sounds simply awesome.

From a survivalist point of view though I want a place where the people are relatively non-violent and the state is relatively non-interventionist. When the tropical fruit encounters the rotary blade you will need other people you can co-operate with. I live in South Africa in Gauteng and I really don't think it will be safe here if the supply lines are up-heaved. The people are already on edge. Cape Town in the south would probably truck along like nothing happened and it is probably one of the top 10 most scenic cities on earth. Botswana and Namibia would be ideal for survivalists, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of land and very few people (like 1 person per 3 square kilometers).

Another place on interest would be Zimbabwe. Since it was recently decimated by government hyperinflation I think they'll maintain some sanity and have already developed the means to cope with hard times and shortages and went through that time without going into full on genocide (not that I wish what did happen on anyone).

Praat enige iemand hier Afrikaans?

@Sjalq

I read some news article where a bunch of prude women in Iceland banned all porn.  I don't think that was quite it but my memory was fuzzy and it was something like this.

Would that be the same Iceland, whose mayor Jon Gnarr of the capital, Reykjavik, paraded in drag?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6025/6017242003_86b66513c4.jpg
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lplw2dsCgu1qmiuf6o1_500.jpg

Oh and Iceland != Greenland, though they are close and both were colonies under the Danish King.


Greenland is the least densely populated nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density) on Earth, with 0.026 people per km2 (or 40 km2 for each inhabitant), its quite easy to find entire valleys or mountains where no one has visited in years, perhaps ever. Western Sahara, by comparison is crowded, with a couple people on each sandy km.

Nee, maar ek het jou pragtige land besoek.

Goed, ek wil graag jou mooi land gaan besoek.

My concern with Iceland is that there are simply too few people.

Why is that a concern? If a super power wants something it don't matter how many people are there in the eyes of a nuke.

Interesting. Hopefully this growth continues and some financial burden is lifted from the locals. Those block apartments could use some new paint ;)

I had the musk ox as well. Delicious. Whale was also quite good.


This is probably the best way to describe it. The lack of infrastructure between towns/settlements really gives it that feeling of near-isolation.


I think flying to Reykjavik and then to Greenland is still the cheapest option, and it's still damn expensive for such a short flight. I would not want to pay direct from the US/Canada.


Måske :)



They succeeded in banning the production of pornography in Iceland. Very, very tragic. They also ended their flirtation with prostitution.



If you mean Iceland and not Greenland, just consider that the majority of the population resides in and around Reykjavik. When you go around the island you will come across almost depressingly small towns, but the city population is substantial.

Also, Iceland is probably the most beautiful place on earth <3

The western fjords... goddamn!

Oh yeah and Ron Paul and BC and stuff!

My concern is that lots of the comforts we now enjoy are the result of fine divisions of labour and the ability to trade.

The city I live in has 7x the pop of the entirety of Iceland.

Maybe we define comforts differently, but the females of Iceland are hot.

Yes, women with little Eumelanin (the useful one) and women with a lot of Pheomelanin (useless for UV protection as causes cancer on exposure to sunlight but also is what causes freckles and red hair) is what makes women look good.

Ron Paul's bill would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin:

H.R. 1098: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1098

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress.

How should the first sentence be interpreted: "Repeals the federal law establishing U.S. coins, currency, and reserve notes as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." That dollars are not longer legal tender, that they are no longer the ONLY legal tender, or what is meant here?

Also what about "Repeals provisions of the federal criminal code relating to uttering coins of gold, ..."? American's can't currently talk about gold coins?

Do these 'repeals' only mean that this bill overrides previous bills?

No longer the ONLY legal tender, But as soon as the restrictions are lifted it will quickly loose any users.
I refer you to Google Bernard von NotHaus and the Liberty Dollar

You can no longer be a gold changer with out being licensed. And if you a serf hording gold your targeted as a domestic terrorist. Shhhh The simple act of supporting Ron Paul is cause for the current establishment to label you as such.

It will NULLIFY (a magic word "they" don't want you to know) All the Previous BS that protected the current world currency in use and FREE all those falsely convicted of crimes which the Federal Reserve and others had put in place.

With the federal laws repealed, or with a court willing to read the clear language of Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, no currency would have any special legal status.  This would be the prompt demise of Federal Reserve Notes, because those are only used because federal law says that people must accept them for repayment of debts.

Basically a dollar was once a silver coin of a given weight.  Eventually, we had silver certificates that were redeemable for silver coins.  Fractional reserve isn't exactly a new invention, so people wouldn't always accept these paper dollars.  So, they added a legal tender law.  Before the tender laws, if you borrowed silver dollars, your creditor could make you repay with silver dollars, and a court would enforce a judgment against you if you didn't pay in kind.  After the law, the courts recognized the paper dollars as extinguishing any debt, no matter what the note said.  So, your creditor no longer had the option of suing you to force repayment in metal.

That law is pretty much the key to inflation.  Paper money can be debased without limit, because it looked just as worthless before as it does after.  Metal debasement is a bit harder to do, because people can easily spot differences in metal coins of different compositions.  Not that it stopped the Romans from reducing the silver in their coins from nearly 100% down to homeopathic levels.

Wikipedia has a decent article on Legal Tender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender).  The section on United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_States) gives a very abridged history of how it played out here.  If you want a complete history of these games, you'll have to dig up a copy of Pieces of Eight by Edwin Vieira.

Oh, and uttering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering) is related to forgery.

Second only to the ladies of the Faroes ;)

From the First Article of the United States Constitution

Bitcoin mentioned by Lawrence White in...
Hearing on Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011
http://financialservices.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=258253

Interesting... Do you mind summarizing? I can't retrieve the audio or video.

This gives some details:
http://www.goldmoney.com/gold-research/gold-money-and-currency-competition-in-the-us.html

Gold money and currency competition in the US

He is just telling a list of posible competing currencies and the last one is Bitcoin. Its nice to hear Bitcoin named as currency in the USA Congress.

That's worth recording and submitting to the permanent permanent record, ie a site not in the .gov tld. Also as I understand US IP laws, all government creations, not subject to national security, are in the public domain. MP3 anyone?

Here's the video of the hearings in YouTube

Hearing on Sound Money Sept 13 2011
http://youtu.be/1ChBR0mSWhI

Some pretty interesting comments on bailouts, TBTF, fractional reserve banking, fiat money... definitely worth the watch.

U.K. Member of Parliament: I'd Rather Use a Currency Developed by Google than the Bank of England
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/uk-member-id-rather-use-currency.html