Ron Paul and Bitcoin

[tfeagle]

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}


 

[1713295675]

1713295675

[1713295675]

1713295675

[1713295675]

1713295675

[lxFlasHxl]

lol i pity the fool!!!

[sunnankar]

Likewise, he has nothing to lose by enacting legislation that would oppress common citizens.  But I don't think he will.

I doubt he would either because Ron Paul is:

[Minsc]

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.

[netrin]

"competing currencies"

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?

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

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

[hugolp]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[netrin]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

[hugolp]

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.

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

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?

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.

Would the US government still exclusively require dollars for taxation?

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.

Would the government continue to deal only with the dollar in all trade?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Sjalq]

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.

[Gabi]

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

[BubbleBoy]

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.

[netrin]

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.

[kjj]

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.

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.

[JohnDoe]

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.

[rannici]

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.

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

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.

[Piper67]

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.

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...

[JohnDoe]

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?

[Piper67]

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.

[kjj]

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!   

[JohnDoe]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.