Ron Paul and Bitcoin

[Elwar]

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.

[netrin]

As for me, I have already started planning my escape.

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.

[Longmarch]

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.

[Sjalq]

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.

[Piper67]

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.

[kjj]

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.

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.

[GideonGono]

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.

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!

[kjj]

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.

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?

[Piper67]

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.

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.

[Minsc]

Atheism is a form of pantheism.

[GideonGono]

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

Translation:

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

[kjj]

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

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.

[Uhlbelk]

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. :->

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.

[heavyb]

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.

[cryptobard]

As for me, I have already started planning my escape.

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.

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...

[heavyb]

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

[cryptobard]

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

[netrin]

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...

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?

[heavyb]

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.

[cryptobard]

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...

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?

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?