Want to know why you keep loosing money on the stock market?
Did the best man win?
Yeah, I know, I just felt like posting on the subject of Ron Paul.
Congratulations, dear reader. Cost of Government Day was last Wednesday, July 16th. This means that after slaving away for over half the year to pay state, local and federal taxes, you’re finally working for yourself.
This year’s Cost of Government Day fell four days later than last year’s, and sixteen days later than in 2000. Ironically, the biggest increases in government spending took place during the “conservative” administrations of George Bush 41 & 43.
It’s up to us to take back what it means to be “conservative” once again. A good place to start will be our upcoming rally in Minneapolis!
I hate to break this to the revolutionaries, but this is what comes of defining yourselves with a term as mutable as Conservative (I’m sure that Senator Goldwater is rolling in his grave seeing what his idea of Conservatism has come to) which has no real meaning politically other than “resistant to change”.
Time to break the mold, reinvent the system.
I don’t know how long The Revolution will continue without Ron Paul to lead it, but I did pick up a copy of his book when he was in town for the book signing tour today. I’ve already read a good portion of it. I wouldn’t do the book justice if I tried to review it myself, so let me just point you here; The Revolution: A Manifesto.
On the subject of Ron Paul and The Revolution, I ran across this video:
I daresay I’ve probably blogged my last on the subject of Ron Paul. But then I’ve been wrong before.
Another Polling Point poll today. They still can’t figure out that politics, like reality itself, isn’t confined to a single plane of opinion. Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative definitions of political views will only serve to keep the citizens at each others throats. If you can narrow the range of opinion down to two valid views, then everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, obviously.
The “Who would you vote for as President” questions were at least not a total waste of time. Given a range of 5 options, including other and not voting, they asked us to pick which candidate we would vote for contrasting first Barak Obama and John McCain, and then Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
My choice, in both instances? Mary Ruwart. I might feel a bit of ambivalence about Barack Obama and his goals for the presidency; but ambivalence isn’t informed opinion. I’ve read enough of Ms. Ruwart’s writings to know she would make a better candidate than any of the chosen front runners.
Neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain can be trusted to run the country; their behavior in the campaigns so far has proven this.
And while I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, I can’t see the Republicans giving him the nomination over McCain, no matter how much the conservatives within the party despise McCain. Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate.
So it’s Mary Ruwart for President, hands down.
“Inflation has now been institutionalized at a fairly constant 5% per year. This has been determined to be the optimum level for generating the most revenue without causing public alarm. A 5% devaluation applies, not only to the money earned this year, but to all that is left over from previous years. At the end of the first year, a dollar is worth 95 cents. At the end of the second year, the 95 cents is reduced again by 5%, leaving its worth at 90 cents, and so on. By the time a person has worked 20 years, the government will have confiscated 64% of every dollar he saved over those years. By the time he has worked 45 years, the hidden tax will be 90%. The government will take virtually everything a person saves over a lifetime.”
— G. Edward Griffin
I actually beat DownsizeDC to the punch and promoted the End the Inflation Tax action item before they did by incorporating it into this previous post and digging it. Of course, I don’t have nearly the reach that DownsizeDC has but…
Well, Perry Willis’ blog entry on the Inflation Tax subject is here.
I stumbled across this teaser on digg the other day:
CATO ran a related subject on the daily podcast recently, titled Is the Gold Standard Still the Gold Standard among Monetary Systems? Personally, I don’t even know how you would justify a different standard. All the counter arguments have now been discredited.
…and the dollar continues to fall, while gold and silver continue to rise.
…it should come as no surprise that the greatest boom and bust in American history happened immediately following the Fed’s birth in 1913. Fed inflation put the inflationary “roar” in the “Roaring Twenties” followed by the biggest bust ever, the Great Depression.
All past inflations, booms, and busts were created through essentially the same process, including the recent stock market and housing bubbles. The Fed is simply the government’s latest-and-greatest tool for legalized counterfeiting.
How You Can End This Con-game
Imagine what would happen if FRNs had to compete with gold, a form of money that can’t be significantly inflated or deflated because of its scarcity and durability…
- People would begin to have gold accounts that they would use to buy and sell. The ownership of the gold would be transferred back and forth using checks, debit cards, paper certificates (currency), and a few coins, just like with FRNs.
- When you went shopping you would start to see two prices, one in FRNs and one in a certain weight of gold.
- If the Fed inflated the number of FRNs you would see the FRN prices rise while the gold price would stay roughly the same.
- You would begin to prefer to pay the gold price, so you would want to be paid in gold too.
- How could the Fed stop the flight to gold? Only one way. Stop inflating the number of FRNs.
Congressman Paul has hit upon the easiest way to end inflation, and the booms and busts that follow in its wake. Simply repeal the legal tender monopoly enjoyed by FRNs, and the coinage monopoly held by the United States government. Allow monetary competition. Not only would this help to end inflation and recessions, it would also limit the ability of politicians to hide the true cost of government through the inflation tax. But that’s not all . . .
Forcing FRNs to compete with gold would also confer one other benefit. Over time the prices you pay will tend to fall as increases in economic efficiency (for example, technological improvements) lower the cost of production and increase the supply of goods and services. A stable money supply tends to become more valuable over time, unlike an inflationary currency that constantly loses value.
Both of these pieces of legislation would be a benefit to those of us seeking shelter from the continuing weakening of the dollar; which is probably why neither of them will see the light of day. Still, nothing happens without effort.
Which is what I figured. The local news station (KVUE) I watch has a candidate selector (that includes Ron Paul, if not third party candidates) and after honestly answering the questions I discovered that Ron Paul is the only candidate that scored higher than 50% (67, to be precise) agreement with my views.
When I answered the questions for the Select Smart candidate selector, Ron Paul came up second (76%) after an LP candidate (Kent McManigal 89%) whose candidacy has been suspended. None of the other candidates listed at the National LP site are on any of the selectors that I’ve seen, but that really doesn’t surprise me either; although why the potential LP candidates can’t be listed alongside the potential R & D candidates is beyond me. But that’s about par for the course these days.
Which is why the inclusion of Ron Paul is a beacon of hope for those of us who really understand what is at stake in this election. Not that I think that beacon will be lit for that much longer, I’m just enjoying it while it lasts…
Voting Irregularities, as in ‘Errors’ Transposing Votes and Diebold Machines Removed Votes From Obama and Paul a link sent to me by a fellow Ron Paul supporter, outlining outright vote counting misconduct, and touching on the already well understood failings of the Diebold voting machines.
This is a major issue, unless of course you’re an Anarchist who just wants government to go away.
Newspeak (the language of engsoc in 1984) is a language that is crafted in such a way as to make it impossible to think wrong thoughts, because the words will no longer exist to express them. Anarchists are engaged in crafting their own version of Newspeak these days, redefining words like Power and Government to meet specific goals.
Don’t believe me? Here’s an example:
power and liberty are opposites; wherever the former appears, the latter disappears.
Power is, in fact, the only way to secure liberty. Individual will, inalienable rights, individual’s power. Not recognizing power unless it’s power relegated to state authority is redefining what power is.
Government exists, and will always exist, because self-government is still government. Unless, of course, you are an anarchist; in which case, state and government are interchangeable concepts, and all government must be abolished (and yet somehow this won’t result in chaos, even though governing oneself would presumably also be a no-no) as the evil that it is.
Libertarians engaging in a political campaign to have someone elected have from my point of view given up their claim on liberty; they are no longer striving for liberty as number one, but are working to give someone power to liberate them.
More Newspeak. The elections will take place whether libertarians participate in them or not (what about the LP? They exist only to participate politically. I guess none of them are libertarian at all in this anarchist’s opinion) Taking part in politics is the only way to secure one’s liberty (politics, after all, being nothing more than the art and science of government) and any candidate with a proven track record like Ron Paul’s is going to be an improvement over any of the other candidates who might get the nomination.
There is this mistaken belief amongst many of the Voluntaryists and Anarchists out there that the state will simply cease to exist once enough of the population refuses to participate. I have no idea why they hold this belief. It’s quite apparent through simple observation that the average world state requires nothing of it’s citizens except tribute…
…which it will take by force, whether force is required or not. Given that, I’ll work to limit government in any way that I can personally, including supporting a candidate in a party that I do not claim as my own.
It’s better than the alternative. Doing nothing.
Gotta love these numbers:
Ron Paul took over 10% in yesterday’s Iowa caucus, handily beating Rudy Giuliani and finishing right behind both Fred Thompson and John McCain. This despite that Rudy Giuliani made more visits to Iowa than Ron Paul. And, entrance polls showed that Ron Paul took first place (29%) among independent Republicans!
Fishing through my gMail garbage the other day, I came across a post that one of my anarchist antagonists had forwarded to a list that I used to run. It contained a link to an article written by Per Bylund, an anarchist that I’ve had occasion to spar with in the past.
Apparently Mr. Bylund has a problem with Ron Paul. I think that’s a major selling point in Dr. Paul’s favor, myself. Here’s a quote from the piece, located here:
The major problem lies in the effect Ron Paul has on the people already identifying with or being part of the libertarian movement. Many libertarians seem to have set their libertarian projects aside in order to work for Ron Paul. They not only work for his presidential campaign, but seem to adopt his views – even anti-libertarian views such as Paul’s stand on abortion and increased border control. Arguing Ron Paul’s case to the general public as well as to the members of the GOP, they take a few steps toward statism (while the opposite would be both better and more honest, considering their libertarian values) – and come to believe in it.
Calling a minarchist a statist as he does in the article, is an insult to anyone who understands the basic principle “power abhors a vacuum”. As I noted previously Mr. Bylund is engaged in propagandizing, and radically oversimplifies what it means to be libertarian, and what libertarians believe. I’m not going to bother going over all that again. Suffice it to say, Methinks [he] doth protest too much.
The Anarchist segment of the ‘libertarian movement’ has been whining about the influx of new people virtually since the name libertarian was coined; and they will continue to whine every time someone dares to make progress, gains popularity, and attracts new people to the ‘movement’. They’d like to impose a litmus test on all new members, just to make sure their views are libertarian enough, before they can call themselves libertarian (am I the only one who sees the irony in this?) and some of them would be quite happy to keep their quiet little debating society to themselves.
For my part, I welcome anyone who wants to make room for freedom in this country again. I’m glad that the Anarchists have a problem with Ron Paul. I hope they get mad, take their toys, and go home. Maybe they’ll finally give up their stranglehold on the Libertarian Party (loosely affiliated with libertarianism in general) and let it have the breathing room necessary to effect the kind of change that Ron Paul had to go outside of the LP to accomplish. Which is the saddest statement of all.
Calling Ron Paul a statist is putting him under the same label as Hitlery (most likely our next president. The press has already nominated her) and her openly socialist agenda. It’s laughable, like most anarchist theory is.