Tomorrow I head to the Lions' Den....

[cbeast]

Ideology has never been a force for progress. Only technology drives society toward an improved quality of life. Ask yourself who has the best plan for improving and delivering technological invention and innovation for the future.

tasteless food, pollution, stupid games, abundant porn, more old people, more ways to kill, loss of privacy,  ... i fail to see anything good that tech brought us
And what's ahead: nukes in every country, GMed viruses, rich people living to 300 years and AI that will make all of us redundant.

And don't forget forum trolls. 

[1713958693]

1713958693

[1713958693]

1713958693

[dancupid]

Ideology has never been a force for progress. Only technology drives society toward an improved quality of life. Ask yourself who has the best plan for improving and delivering technological invention and innovation for the future.

I 100% agree with this statement.
The French have just voted in a socialist president and are about to vote in a socialist parliament. It doesn't matter 1 jot unless this governemnt fails to ensure it's people have access to the highest level of technology. If they fail to ensure access to technology then France will fail.
But it hasn't happened before - all industrial democracies have managed to keep up with technological progress irrespective of the local politics. Life in France is comparable with life in Britain, Spain, Italy, Japan, USA  - this is becasue they have a shared technological history.
Politics is broadly irrelevant beyond ensuring access to technology. The poor countries of the world are the ones that limit access to technology through political incompetence.

[Hawker]

dancupid - that is a great post.

[DublinBrian]

The fact that governments can't run a balanced budget is the problem. The unfunded liabilities they are trying to fulfill out simply can't be paid. IN the attempt to do so, however, they are going to suck an exponentially-increasing amount of the economy into their fiscal black hole until the cash flow can no longer be sustained. That's when we get a "disbanding of the USSR" event.

I wonder how the collapse event will happen. Heres what I think. The Fed will finance the budget deficit with QE, until one day the bond market will refuse to buy any treasuries at all. The yield instantly shoots up to 7% and America must make massive spending cuts, or default. Thats how it started in Greece, Ireland and Spain. 7% yield is the tipping point.

The question is who bails out the USA? The IMF? I dont think so. It can only be China. What will China demand in return? A vast reduction in the US military.

When the meltdown happens, savings wont count for anything. Even gold will be useless. The huge surveillance databases will mean its impossible to do anything, to transact or own anything without the state knowing about it. They only thing that will count is skills and relationships. And Bitcoins.

[justusranvier]

The fact that governments can't run a balanced budget is the problem. The unfunded liabilities they are trying to fulfill out simply can't be paid. IN the attempt to do so, however, they are going to suck an exponentially-increasing amount of the economy into their fiscal black hole until the cash flow can no longer be sustained. That's when we get a "disbanding of the USSR" event.

I wonder how the collapse event will happen. Heres what I think. The Fed will finance the budget deficit with QE, until one day the bond market will refuse to buy any treasuries at all. The yield instantly shoots up to 7% and America must make massive spending cuts, or default. Thats how it started in Greece, Ireland and Spain. 7% yield is the tipping point.

The question is who bails out the USA? The IMF? I dont think so. It can only be China. What will China demand in return? A vast reduction in the US military.

When the meltdown happens, savings wont count for anything. Even gold will be useless. The huge surveillance databases will mean its impossible to do anything, to transact or own anything without the state knowing about it. They only thing that will count is skills and relationships. And Bitcoins.

The US (and other Western governments) is going to default on its unfunded obligations; it's just a matter of how. In a hard default situation they instantly balance the budget which means breaking a lot of political promises. In a soft default scenario the Federal Reserve keeps printing money to cover the shortfall and the price of essential things like food and energy keep rising until the majority of the population can't afford to eat. This is followed by civil unrest such as we saw recently in Egypt.

The USSR was going the soft default route but before they got to Egypt the inner party got together and voted to disband the government. You could call this a hard default because the entity which made the promises ceased to exist. That's more or less what I expect the US and Europe to do in the intermediate term.

[DublinBrian]

In a soft default scenario the Federal Reserve keeps printing money to cover the shortfall and the price of essential things like food and energy keep rising until the majority of the population can't afford to eat. This is followed by civil unrest such as we saw recently in Egypt.

This soft default period of rising prices. How will it look politically? Will law and order break down, or will law enforcement actually become more intense.  Will the Dep of Homeland Security intensify its harassment and surveillance programs? Will they conscript the poor into the army? Will they force people into labour camps like the Foxconn factories in China? Or will the USA fragment into separate sovereign states?

[justusranvier]

This soft default period of rising prices. How will it look politically? Will law and order break down, or will law enforcement actually become more intense.  Will the Dep of Homeland Security intensify its harassment and surveillance programs? Will they conscript the poor into the army? Will they force people into labour camps like the Foxconn factories in China? Or will the USA fragment into separate sovereign states?

I would prefer the last scenario.

I don't know, but one thing to consider is the purchasing power of government employees and retirees is being eroded at the same time as everybody else. How much of that can happen before the government stops functioning as an organization (people stop coming to work) is unknown.

[MoonShadow]

This soft default period of rising prices. How will it look politically? Will law and order break down, or will law enforcement actually become more intense.  Will the Dep of Homeland Security intensify its harassment and surveillance programs? Will they conscript the poor into the army? Will they force people into labour camps like the Foxconn factories in China? Or will the USA fragment into separate sovereign states?

I would prefer the last scenario.

I don't know, but one thing to consider is the purchasing power of government employees and retirees is being eroded at the same time as everybody else. How much of that can happen before the government stops functioning as an organization (people stop coming to work) is unknown.

Take a look at what happened in Zimbabwee and you might have some idea.

[RodeoX]

@MoonShadow Why not drop those fools in the republican party. You know they are just not that into you libertarians. They are playing the tea party the way they used to play the Christian right.  Promising things they have no intention to deliver while stealing your tax money for their business cronies.
They are never going to let someone like Ron Paul have a voice.  They just want you to vote republican and STFU. If the libertarians and the liberals joined forces we would have a viable third party that could shake things up. I might vote for such a party, but I would never vote republican.

[MoonShadow]

@MoonShadow Why not drop those fools in the republican party. You know they are just not that into you libertarians. They are playing the tea party the way they used to play the Christian right.  Promising things they have no intention to deliver while stealing your tax money for their business cronies.
They are never going to let someone like Ron Paul have a voice.  They just want you to vote republican and STFU. If the libertarians and the liberals joined forces we would have a viable third party that could shake things up. I might vote for such a party, but I would never vote republican.

This is the endgame of a decade long endeavor among small-L libertarians to take over the Republican party.  Keep in mind, that the Libertarian Party was born about 1971 because of a liberty purge that followed Barry Goldwater's unsuccessful presidential campaign.  But a generation of activism as a third party has netted zero gain.  During that entire time, libertarians never exceeded 6% of the electorate; which in our system (as opposed to a parlimentary system such as is common in Europe) that amounts to zero representation.  It had become obvious to the Gen-X libertarians (and some of the old guard) that this third party thing was never going to amount to anything.  So around 2002, or perhaps even earlier, a new plan was hatched.  One that didn't require the total commitment of a population that is known for doing thier own thing.  A campaign of educating (or indoctrinating, according to a certian perspective) of the young Millinial generation using their own, and at the time very new, methods of communications on the Internet.  Ever noticed how the Internet, in general, appears to be very libertarian with pockets of liberalism?  This lifted up a new generation of educated young voters, and now they are ready.  I'm not saying this is what what was supposed to happen, this is what did happen.  And I have to admit that I am more than a little suprised to see it working, but it is.  I am now a voting member of my local Republican Excutive Committee, in addtion to being a district chair.  Nor am I alone on the committee.  Our intent, and successes, are to inject ourselves into the party structure, demonstrate our political will as a block, and take over the party from the grassroots up.  Ron Paul has been aware of, and agreed to be the figurehead of, this movement.  So has his son Rand.  I know this to be fact personally, as I have met both of them.  Honestly, Ron Paul never expected to win the nomination, and probably didn't really want it anyway.  But not only will we be a force to contend with at the national convention, local and state candidates that wish to stand a chance at winning officeare going to start talking to us and talking the talk.  This doesn't mean that they will actually be liberty minded candidates, but it does improve those odds.  The (R) nest to your name, as a liberty minded candidate, is a huge political advantage compared to trying to run an independent or (L) campaigin.  In another 4 years, the demographics & votin trends says that enough Boomers will have died off that the center of the electorate in the US will shift directly to the Millinials, skipping my generation completely.  This was never some off-the-cuff plan by a bunch of disorganised kids.  This is a well executed long range plan, and the Republican Party will be the liberty party again for another generation.  We have already affected change.

[justusranvier]

And I have to admit that I am more than a little suprised to see it working, but it is.  I am now a voting member of my local Republican Excutive Committee, in addtion to being a district chair.  Nor am I alone on the committee.  Our intent, and successes, are to inject ourselves into the party structure, demonstrate our political will as a block, and take over the party from the grassroots up.  Ron Paul has been aware of, and agreed to be the figurehead of, this movement.  So has his son Rand.  I know this to be fact personally, as I have met both of them.  Honestly, Ron Paul never expected to win the nomination, and probably didn't really want it anyway.  But not only will we be a force to contend with at the national convention, local and state candidates that wish to stand a chance at winning officeare going to start talking to us and talking the talk.

I sincerely wish that it works out for you but I'm not particularly optimistic. You saw what happened in states where Paul got a majority of the delegates - the rules were suddenly changed at the last  minute to prevent them from changing the overall outcome. The national party has ways of keeping the state and local parties in line as well as co-opting people on their way up the ladder.

[RodeoX]

I see the merit in the strategy you outlined. I just feel like the top of the GOP is nothing more than a group dedicated to transforming millionaires into billionaires at all our expense. Some of their contributers would enslave children in crack factories if they could get away with it. They are not libertarians. Look what happened when the bankers lost their money in 08. The GOP turned into communists and gave out my tax money. Is that the free market?

 

[DublinBrian]

This is the endgame of a decade long endeavor among small-L libertarians to take over the Republican party.  Keep in mind, that the Libertarian Party was born about 1971 because of a liberty purge that followed Barry Goldwater's unsuccessful presidential campaign.  But a generation of activism as a third party has netted zero gain.  During that entire time, libertarians never exceeded 6% of the electorate; which in our system (as opposed to a parlimentary system such as is common in Europe) that amounts to zero representation.  It had become obvious to the Gen-X libertarians (and some of the old guard) that this third party thing was never going to amount to anything.  So around 2002, or perhaps even earlier, a new plan was hatched.  One that didn't require the total commitment of a population that is known for doing thier own thing.  A campaign of educating (or indoctrinating, according to a certian perspective) of the young Millinial generation using their own, and at the time very new, methods of communications on the Internet.  Ever noticed how the Internet, in general, appears to be very libertarian with pockets of liberalism?  This lifted up a new generation of educated young voters, and now they are ready.  I'm not saying this is what what was supposed to happen, this is what did happen.  And I have to admit that I am more than a little suprised to see it working, but it is.  I am now a voting member of my local Republican Excutive Committee, in addtion to being a district chair.  Nor am I alone on the committee.  Our intent, and successes, are to inject ourselves into the party structure, demonstrate our political will as a block, and take over the party from the grassroots up.  Ron Paul has been aware of, and agreed to be the figurehead of, this movement.  So has his son Rand.  I know this to be fact personally, as I have met both of them.  Honestly, Ron Paul never expected to win the nomination, and probably didn't really want it anyway.  But not only will we be a force to contend with at the national convention, local and state candidates that wish to stand a chance at winning officeare going to start talking to us and talking the talk.  This doesn't mean that they will actually be liberty minded candidates, but it does improve those odds.  The (R) nest to your name, as a liberty minded candidate, is a huge political advantage compared to trying to run an independent or (L) campaigin.  In another 4 years, the demographics & votin trends says that enough Boomers will have died off that the center of the electorate in the US will shift directly to the Millinials, skipping my generation completely.  This was never some off-the-cuff plan by a bunch of disorganised kids.  This is a well executed long range plan, and the Republican Party will be the liberty party again for another generation.  We have already affected change.

Great post Moonshadow. Very informative. Thanks

Whats your opinion on the Tea Party candidates? Many of them voted for TARP (the bank bailout). They seem to be pushing deregulation for big business, especially in environmental regulations. But they dont seem to be in favour of any deregulation for ordinary people, like legalising soft drugs, or removing licencing requirements.

[MoonShadow]

I consider them to be fake libertarians.

Sometimes that's what you get. Rand isn't fake, though. The Tea Partyy started off about 50% lib, but didn't stay that way. Still that is an improvement upon some of the neocons I've met since joining the exbaord. I really didn't think that intelligent people actually beleived some of this crap before, but I now have real examples of party officials who will talk about fidelity to the constitution except (whatever).

[cryptoanarchist]

Well, I'm back.  It wasn't a success, but nor was it a complete failure.  There were no dirty tricks, but that may have been because we didn't quite have a majority, so there wasn't a need for any dirty tricks.  The trendline is obvious, however.  In 2008, Paulites represented about 1/4 of the state delegates; today almost half.  I suspect that if Rand had held off his endorsement for another week, we would have had a majority.  That took the wind out of the sails of many of the activists that were married to the idea that Ron Paul was actually going to be the nominee by some miracle last minute move.  It even seemed to me that the party structure here has recognized the inevitablitity of a takeover of the party structure and ideologies by the young & the libertarian.  There were several cases that I noted that the chair (and by proxy, the state party, since he was also the head of the state executive committee) went out of his way to permit the liberty leaning crowd leniency in their misunderstandings of Robert's Rules.  We ended up with some great resolutions, but not a single delegate to the national convention.

Ah, well.  Time carries on.  Whether by ideology or simple demographics, the concepts of liberty will once again dominate in the Republican Party.  It is simply inevitable now.

Sounds like Kentucky is where Colorado was 4 years ago. Unfortunately, there'll be no Ron Paul movement in 4 more years. Ex-Paulers can either join Romney with their tails between their legs, or become anarchists and start using bitcoin.

[MoonShadow]

Well, I'm back.  It wasn't a success, but nor was it a complete failure.  There were no dirty tricks, but that may have been because we didn't quite have a majority, so there wasn't a need for any dirty tricks.  The trendline is obvious, however.  In 2008, Paulites represented about 1/4 of the state delegates; today almost half.  I suspect that if Rand had held off his endorsement for another week, we would have had a majority.  That took the wind out of the sails of many of the activists that were married to the idea that Ron Paul was actually going to be the nominee by some miracle last minute move.  It even seemed to me that the party structure here has recognized the inevitablitity of a takeover of the party structure and ideologies by the young & the libertarian.  There were several cases that I noted that the chair (and by proxy, the state party, since he was also the head of the state executive committee) went out of his way to permit the liberty leaning crowd leniency in their misunderstandings of Robert's Rules.  We ended up with some great resolutions, but not a single delegate to the national convention.

Ah, well.  Time carries on.  Whether by ideology or simple demographics, the concepts of liberty will once again dominate in the Republican Party.  It is simply inevitable now.

Sounds like Kentucky is where Colorado was 4 years ago. Unfortunately, there'll be no Ron Paul movement in 4 more years. Ex-Paulers can either join Romney with their tails between their legs, or become anarchists and start using bitcoin.

This was never about Ron Paul per se, even though he has done a wonderful job of motivating the young.  Nor is it about Rand Paul.  Romney is someone who isn't strong in any convictions, so he is just as influence prone from a Republican base that has turned strongly lib as he has been influenced by liberal voices while governor.  If this proves not to be the case, there is always Gary Johnson.  If Romney ignores lib concerns, and loses because 6% of the Republicans voted for Johnson, the next nominee in 2016 will certainly not repeat that error.  The key is displaying that there are more libertarians (and voters who lean libertarian) than has been assumed by all sides.  The voter turnout from the Ron Paul primaries should be proof enough of this, but if not, a Gary Johnson spoiler will certain be enough. 

[cryptoanarchist]

This was never about Ron Paul per se, even though he has done a wonderful job of motivating the young.  Nor is it about Rand Paul.  Romney is someone who isn't strong in any convictions, so he is just as influence prone from a Republican base that has turned strongly lib as he has been influenced by liberal voices while governor.  If this proves not to be the case, there is always Gary Johnson.  If Romney ignores lib concerns, and loses because 6% of the Republicans voted for Johnson, the next nominee in 2016 will certainly not repeat that error.  The key is displaying that there are more libertarians (and voters who lean libertarian) than has been assumed by all sides.  The voter turnout from the Ron Paul primaries should be proof enough of this, but if not, a Gary Johnson spoiler will certain be enough. 

I'd like to think its about something bigger - people turning their back on this nonsense altogether. If Romney is the nominee, you can bet on record numbers not even showing up to vote. I know I didn't in 2008, and since there are a lot more people today thinking the way I was 4 years ago, their line of reasoning will likely be the same. Most RPers are too woken up at this point to go back.

Either way, if bitcoins and crypto-currencies in general succeed, this whole president thing isn't even going to matter.

[MoonShadow]

Either way, if bitcoins and crypto-currencies in general succeed, this whole president thing isn't even going to matter.

Maybe it won't matter anyway, but you certainly can't fault us for lack of effort.