Bitcoin Forum

To me this is the perfect ticket.  With Ron Paul you gain the younger vote, the Texas south vote, and you also get a large percentage from the left.  The only demographic you hurt is women who don't like Ron Paul.

RP still attracts massive crowds, and if Paul gave a 10 minute warm-up and Romney at 20 minute crusher, poor ole Obama will be back in Hawaii  in no time.  Maybe the GOP, can sign off on it if RP agree to keep defense spending adjusted for inflation when he was in the service.

But what Ron Paul supporter is going to support Mitt Romney?

Ahahahahahaha.  When he was in the service in World War II ??  Keep dreaming.  We'd have to double our already ridiculous war spending in order to reach those levels.  Not going to happen, unless you'd like to start shooting infantry to the moon?

Enjoy your brokered convention fight and split vote then...

How on Earth could Ron Paul be on a ticket with Romney ?  He'd need to abandon everything he stands for.

If you actually listen and understand what Romney says you will see he follows Paul almost 100% on economic issues,  except for ending the fed and supporting the bank bailouts.  On social issues they are similar, federal government should not be involved.  They are both from the working sector.  They both have character.  Both understand that people work at corporations and stockholders are people.  They understand the importance of the choice in the private sector as oppose to planners in the public sector.   Both oppose unions,  that they prevent people from getting jobs there.  Both support a strong defense at home.  

I support both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

I'm not an alcoholic, except for 3 beers a night and passing out in bars on the weekends.

I think you missed the point... where did you learn about ron paul?

Other then military action, what does the president have immediate executive power over? I mean, I see presidents promise all sorts of shit that they can't even hold since they don't have control over it.

And wouldn't military action be one of the most important differences between these two men?

I don't know much about Romney's stance on it to be honest. I want a president that isn't going to pussy out when we are threatened (Iran, NKorea). Nukes, mother fucking ninjas, whatever it takes to get the job done. Show them we don't fuck around.

'Merica, fuck yeah!

Never vote for someone who hasn't killed another man then.

+1

The Republican party will never do anything to legitimize Ron Paul.  Sorry :(

The current crop? No. The new crop, who knows:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/04/ron-pauls-alaska-payback-121953.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-pauls-stealth-state-convention-takeover/2012/05/02/gIQAjJVPwT_blog.html

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/ron-pauls-quiet-takeover-republican-party

Don't worry, I'm sure power will corrupt all of these people. But it's still interesting.

I use to say that until last week.  I will give you until Texas.  But, if he does not win that, is not it over?

Well that gives me more hope for Ron Paul.

I just saw him speak on UC Davis campus.  Of course, since I already know how Ron Paul stands on his issues, I didn't learn anything new.  Not like being at a Romney rally ;)

I wish the US used Single Transferable Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote).  Then people wouldn't feel like they are "throwing away" their vote by voting third party.

I won't vote for a Romney/Paul ticket, I'm pretty sure most of the RP supporters won't either.

If you have the choice between Obama-Biden and Romney-Paul.  Most people that like Paul would pick Romney.   If you vote third party you are wasting your vote.

I'd consider myself a Libertarian, and I don't think what you said will be so. Last election (2008), I know plenty of my friends and family didn't vote for either since it would be "Voting for the lesser of two evils". If it ends up being Mitt/Ron, you are defiantly going to be getting a lot of confusion on what to do. I won't be voting for either Obama or Romney, but if Paul joins in, I am not sure what I will vote. I think a lot of others will feel the same way two.

Although, the "Hurr Derr Ron Paul R3volution! Legalize drugz!" double-digit IQ supporters will vote.

Wasting my vote? Wtf. It's my right to vote for what I believe, not some fucktards.

To not vote is saying you like Obama-Biden and Romney-Paul equally.  That may be fine with you, but I voted for Gore over Bush and I am happy I did, as I don't have the deficits, 9/11, or the Iraq war on my conscience.  If you re so stubborn that you have to vote for the perfect candidate, I bet you end up divorced in the end.

How did you get from "If you vote third party you are wasting your vote" to "To not vote is saying you like Obama-Biden and Romney-Paul equally"?

I guess you're under the impression that the US is a democracy?

Well, the Ralph Nader supporters learnt a valuable lesson in what happens if you waste your vote.  If Michael Moore and his fanbois had voted Gore, Bush would never have been elected.

Of course, Moore made millions for films about Bush so I guess that was a win/win for him :P

I've always been a bit confused as to the specifics of certain types of voting and it's purpose.

On it's face, it would seem that voting would indicate your desires as to how you wish to be governed, or in the corporate sense, how you wish your property to be disbursed or invested. In either case, your property and person are involved.

The notable difference between the two is, if you don't vote or the vote is not what you wished for in the case of the government form, you are still forced to accept the outcome (other's decisions imposed upon you). However, in the case of a corporate vote, if you don't like the way the vote went, you can sell your share of ownership and take your "bat and ball" somewhere else where you think it will be better spent or utilized. In which case, there wasn't much force involved or imposed.

To wit, you willingly entered into the contractual shared ownership of combined or aggregated assets, and you can just as easily leave that arrangement if you feel the need (contract rights). In the case of government, there is no leaving the societal system or "social contract", as it is referred to. You're stuck unless you intend on leaving the country or jurisdiction wherein you are constrained. Not really the same thing.

You can't truly vote with your feet. If one could truly withdraw his things and person from the physical reach of government and simultaneously maintain his independence and soveignty in situ, then the definition of property remains intact. Which is to say, property is a thing that one should be able to retain (own and control) without continual defense due to external forces, coercion, or attack (not that defense isn't indicative of property definition, but it does raise the question as to the legitimacy of the violent or coercive acts in the first place).

Otherwise it really isn't property anymore, but remotely manipulated by those who think they can acquire it or alter it thru extrajudicial means.

Try to imagine you would have voted for Gore or Nader and chose Nader because you are a sweet and idealistic person.  You got Bush, your worst nightmare, because you wasted your vote.  Bush only won by a few thousand votes and Nader got over 100k votes. 

If you didn't like the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, the Supreme Court judges, the mishandling of Katrina, you probably feel very strongly that voting matters and that voting the wrong way gets you a very bad result.

This exact problem is why I like STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote)

Actually, for the very examples you provide, illustrate the exact reason why I think voting is irrelevant, or at the very least ineffective and impaired. It seems to be the only system that prohibits a neutral or non-participatory choice. You will force me either way (damned if I do, and damned if I don't).

Every other market environment permits any mutually agreeable choice, or at a minimum, includes by default, refraining from further engagement. Government, disallows the latter as plausible or acceptable. Independence is not an option, it's an illusion painted by the very politicians who claim to hold it in so high esteem.

Government is not a market.  You only confuse yourself if you try to say that you can choose which laws to obey in a free market.  You can't - that's why choosing a decent lawmaker matters.  Even then, you get regulatory capture and a ton of other problems.  Its absolutely not a market.

Instead of talking about wasting your vote, how 'bout the waste of gas to drive to a voting booth? US presidents have the support of ~25-30% of the nation (~50-60% vote for president, winner usually has ~50-55% of the vote). If they counted de facto US residents instead of "legal" residents, I'd assume the majority of US residents don't vote for president, and with how similar the two viable candidates are and how easily laws can be ignored, why should they bother? 10-20m illegal aliens sure don't take the law seriously. The estimated (http://drugsense.org/blog/drug-policy/how-many-americans-use-illegal-drugs) 119m US citizens who've used illegal drugs don't care. The ~140m citizens who don't vote don't even care enough to drive to the voting booth. Fuggedaboudit.

Whether voting for a third-party candidate shows any more disillusionment than just not voting is debatable to everyone but the media talking-heads who've devoted their lives to taking government seriously and reporting on it.

Not following idiotic and unenforceable drug laws and not voting for the president should not be lumped together IMO.

And if your argument is that tons of people don't vote, so you shouldn't vote doesn't make much sense to me.  If most of the populace doesn't vote, and then I do vote, then my vote is worth MORE not LESS.

More what? You can move a candidate's vote % from .690001 to .6900012 as opposed to .6900011 if everyone voted? Whoop-de-fuckin'-doo! Get your whole god-damned town together and you might get that candidate's vote % up to .7! For $.50 in gas per person? C'mon.

My point was that people are going to do as they please whether government exists or not (less those with a compulsion to complain, as I am doing right now when I need to sleep), and I doubt most people really give half a damn about it, because they, in very significant numbers, neither respect the law nor the people who pass 'em enough to vote, perhaps because they're largely unaffected by its existence, whether it's because they do something productive with their lives or really aren't really stopped from praying in school. Yeah, some sorry Arab kids'll have propaganda boxes dropped from an airplane on their head after the parachute fails to open, some fellows'll get shot to death for chopping down wood after dark, murderers will flee instead of sticking around, and only SMBs & average working folk'll ever pay taxes, but really... how much time do we, the people interested in politics and philosophy, waste talking about government and complaining about "oppression," which never affects us until Adam Kokesh dances and puts on puppet shows somewhere he's been told not to, when we could be doing all the things we're complaining about not being able to do while the government's busying itself by creating underwear bombers & gun-runners to thwart? ... Well - when they're not arresting Adam Kokesh for his puppet theater, anyway.

I mean... Alright - so there's this ReasonTV piece I watched about a year ago, and they go on and on about all these regulations which prevent people from doing what they want -- "Oh Billy, you want to fix computers in your garage? Too bad, because the county of regulatoria doesn't allow 'computer technicians' to operate without a $500 permit, a degree in neuroscience, and a workplace inspected and cleared by a grand-master moldonomist to be free of dust and mold." Fix the goddamned computers, Billy! Nobody's going to give a rat's ass, and if they do, just ONE time, you can bet there'll be a hen flock numbering in the millions shouting something along the lines of "OH LAWDY! OH LAWDY! What they done t'that po' gile's lem-o-nade stand? Oh Heavens, kids today -- they gettin' vaccinated, crushed by'da po-lease, and 'ey can't even think f'demselves cuz they teache's don' even let'm pray no more. Oh gee my good-dillyumptions - I had a uhh.... Oh, I better call Susan'n tell 'er bout this TRAVESTY! OH LAWD NOOOOOO!" - And then you'll have at least 5k media sources going on and on about one girl whose lemonade stand was shut down - or Billy, who I've completely forgotten about by this time. Those people could've been doing something productive, like writing this half-hearted post when they should be asleep.

- But don't get me wrong -- there're plenty of millage taxes which actually affect me to vote against, and if it happens to fall on the same date as some federal election, may's well punch in a vote for for Alvin Greene and Vermin Supreme.

(What was I writing about?)

I appreciate you making my point even clearer. Government sucks. I didn't get to choose my lawmaker, somebody else did. That's the whole point of the inaneness of it all. And it is too a market. It's a market in violence and coercion.

Additionally, I can decide to obey whatever laws I choose to obey. The only reason why I even remotely consider half of them, is because if I don't, somebody might come take my property or life. Just writing/proclaiming/enacting/legislating a law, doesn't change the nature or character of the person, or even society in general, it just slightly influences them, because they'd rather avoid pain than indirectly impose it upon themselves.

Government should be quite simple: 1) Respond to initiations of violence, coercion and threats thereto, and 2), respect mutual contract. There you go: One and done (well two, if you want to be technical about it).

Stop the pandemic bullying.

What you are doing is redefining the words "government" and "market" to mean whatever you want them to mean and then rejecting them.  I could redefine "auto-mobile" to be a subset of "dental operations" and reject it on the exact same logic.

Why not use the ordinary meanings of words? 

And those ordinary meanings would be what...???

Here's my simple take on it:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Government
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the exercise of political authority over the actions, affairs, etc., of a political unit, people, etc., as well as the performance of certain functions for this unit or body; the action of governing; political rule and administration
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the system or form by which a community, etc., is ruled: tyrannical government.
--------------------------------------------------------------

If you break down the meaning of the definition into its component parts, you'll catch some of the keywords used to describe it. You'll find the words "exercise", "authority", "action", "function", "rule", and "administration". These words are applied to persons (aka. body, people, and political unit).

To "exercise" one's "authority", also known as "rule or administer" over another person (political unit), via some "function" is to "act" in such a way as to exert a force (to change the physical condition of an object). The object being person or property.

If you exert this force without my express prior permission (consent of the governed), or you do not act in such a way that would be construed or interpreted as to be in defense of your property or person from invasion, then you will have committed an aggression against me. This aggression or violent act would be what I would call a crime.

Now that we got the obvious out of the way, we can certainly see how a person or group of persons can decide either jointly or individually how they wish to defend themselves. They could do this by negotiating and purchasing the material means by which to protect themselves. These things originate from a market. I can make a market in guns, bodyguards, ramparts, forts, roads, planes, courts (arbitration), etc. These things don't spring up from nowhere. People have to make them, therefore markets emerge to meet the needs of the people. So yes, there is in fact a market for government goods and services.

Are we much clearer now as to why I used the definition I did?

Thats what I"m talkin bout!!

If more people boycotted voting then maybe we could get a "none of the above" choice.