[Nameless One]

So you'd rather take the powers of the Fed and hand them over to an incredibly dysfunctional congress? I thought the whole idea of separating the central banking system from the government was to keep politicians from fucking up the money supply. Case in point:

Smooth sailing since the great depression, pure chaos before.

Not that there aren't valid arguments to reform with the reserve banking system… but I have a hard time understanding the particular line you're taking here.

[Nameless One]

Seems like it's Ron Paul's moment… even if he snags Iowa is there any chance he'll get anywhere in the rest of primary season?

[Nameless One]

I never found it particularly useful but it is still a loss for the EDM community.

[Nameless One]

There are small but important differences between Democrats and Republicans… but both parties have certainly been co-opted by corporate interests. Not much of a choice, really.

[Nameless One]

Is it even likely Ron Paul can receive the Republican nomination?

This would be a good topic to explore. Aren't most of the Republican primaries back to back? I heard that some of the states were moving their dates way up to stay relevant.

[Nameless One]

Crazy or not, Paul would be way more likely to hold Obama to account than those other nuts, particularly on foreign policy.

[Nameless One]

It's fine for me.

I've been trying to get back into the forums a little more. I really don't like how everyone is voluntarily handing over control of the web.

[Nameless One]

I listen to the Mayans, none of whom made a big deal about this date until it began to draw in Western tourism dollars. In fact, there is, to my knowledge, only a single stone monument in all of Mesoamerica concerned with the date 13.0.0.0.0:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon#Mayan_references_to_b.27ak.27tun_13

There is also the question of correlation (does 13.0.0.0.0 = December 21st, 2012?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count

You know what would have been a helpful prophecy? Something about 11.13.12.4.2 (or something like that; my Mayan mathematics is rusty), the date Columbus landed, or at least a word about Cortez. I wonder if that existed somewhere?

[Nameless One]

What do you see as a viable alternative to taxation? Who builds the roads and other civic infrastructure? Actually, I had to Google that question myself… I became too curious 🙂 Wikipedia outlines what I assume is the default libertarian/anarchist counter-proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads

Metafilter also has an interesting discussion of the topic:
http://ask.metafilter.com/167820/Who-builds-roads-for-anarchists

Still, I find it hard to imagine how this would work in practise, particularly on the scale of nations, as long as we live in an age of prosperity. I can see it happening in the coming age of austerity if long-distance trade and travel becomes impractical due to energy and resource shortages, but now we're talking about how to organize society after the apocalypse…

[Nameless One]

Mayan Calendar (the end of Long Count) actually ends on October 28th 2011 (this year)

Depends who you feel like listening to…
http://montalk.net/notes/mayan-calendar-2011-2012
http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/risk_of_2012.htm

[Nameless One]

Yeah, but it's just a platitude.

Er, you realize a carbon tax won't be taking individual consumers, right? The first on the chopping block would be companies like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil. Yes, lost profits would be handed down to consumers just as the built-in subsidies are. (Gas at the pump is cheaper than its real cost for this reason.) Somehow the big industries have convinced everyone a carbon tax would destroy the economy. It's self-serving propaganda, nothing more.

Abe, I mistakenly thought you might be using this discussion board to, you know, discuss things. Seems like you prefer unidirectional communication. Have you an email newsletter?

[Nameless One]

Sorry, I suppose it seemed self-evident that a Ron Paul presidency would have some serious issues. But hey, fair enough, and like I said: I appreciate that Ron Paul is doing his thing. Since he is unlikely to win the nomination the net effect of his involvement is good as far as I am concerned.

I see what you mean about states rights. He's not inclined to throw the public to the dogs then, perhaps… but here I feel a bit out of my element as I am terribly unfamiliar with state-level politics in the US. I don't know what tendencies legislators have at that level (aside from the recent nonsense in Wisconsin, anyhow, which is not heartening).

As for the issue of corporations, it's a bit foggy to me as well, although I grasp that one of the central benefits is limited liability. There's a reason individuals are not responsible for actions within a corporation: nothing would get done on a national scale if individuals had to answer to every lawsuit thrown at them. Still, it seems like the system errs more in favour of the corporations than the general public, largely because the supposed representatives of the public (elected officials) are much more likely to be under the influence of the corporations, as noted. It's a bad situation all around, but I don't see how dismantling the EPA will help.

Environmental protection is a national concern (actually a global concern) and I don't see how downloading this to individual states would do any good. And really, it shouldn't be up to independent advocacy groups to go after corporations for crimes against the public; that is what government is supposedly for. That being said, I'm not opposed to letting the free market sort it out… the problem is that the market is by no means free; it is riddled with subsidies and hidden costs. I say get rid of the subsidies and factor in those hidden costs (e.g. through a carbon tax and similar measures). Another problem is that we implicitly treat the environment (without which there is no economy) as some kind of limitless resource that we can dump our crap into without moderation. This is not actually the case. We've just been fooling ourselves to think otherwise.

[Nameless One]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

George Carlin:

    The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they”re an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don”t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They”ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They”ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They”ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ­ lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

    But I”ll tell you what they don”t want. They don”t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don”t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They”re not interested in that. That doesn”t help them. That”s against their interests. They don”t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they”re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

    You know what they want? Obedient workers ­ people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they”re coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They”ll get it. They”ll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It”s a big club, and you ain”t in it. You and I are not in the big club.

    This country is finished.

[Nameless One]

It's alright, you're welcome to support whomever. Ron Paul has some good ideas (no question there) as well as some absolutely terrible ones (e.g. global warming is a hoax, or abortion should be illegal–liberty for all except women). From my perspective up north, American politics is consumed with the false dichotomy of big vs small government, with Ron Paul weighing in with an extreme version tantamount to “no government at all”. This is terribly alarming to me and I really wonder why people support this idea. After all, with decreasing regulation you've landed the subprime mortgage crisis and associated financial meltdown, and ushered in an entire generation of corporate kleptocracy at a scale never before seen in history. And those with libertarian leanings want more of this kind of thing? Dismantle the EPA, for instance, and the rich will plunder the natural resources of America and pollute the skies at a profit. You can't simply trust corporations to serve the public good! Never mind the atrocious state of American health care.

As for me, I'm all for a lean government with smart regulations and the power to enforce them. (As long as the penalty is smaller than the crime corporations like Exxon and BP will continue to play fast and loose with the public good.) However, as near as I can tell, there aren't any American politicians advocating anything similar. There is no Ron Paul of the left. Well, maybe Dennis Kucinich, but he's just as batty IMHO. Obama is a total disappointment. Who else? No one comes to mind. Frankly, I think your country is edging closer to oblivion with every passing year. And you're taking the rest of the world with you. Every election you are stuck with the same choices: corporate party number one or corporate party number two. The rich get richer in both cases. Alright, at least Ron Paul would be different, but his politics suit corporations just as well, and stick it to the common people. “Can't pay your medical bills? Tough luck pal!” How such a rich society can lack anything in the way of compassion is really beyond me. But hey, that's just my view from up here.

If I had to identify the most critical way in which American and Canadian politics differ, it would be this: campaign financing laws. We have 'em. In America you must be rich to win. It is a government by and for the rich… hence the 99% movement that you see blossoming on Wall Street today. Ron Paul's position on campaign finance reform? He's totally against it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul13.html

His reasoning is interesting though. And that's the thing about Ron Paul. I'm really, really glad he's got his hat in the ring. He injects a totally different point of view into the GOP debates. He's principled. You know he ain't bullshitting anyone (unlike those other creeps). But I am no libertarian, and I don't agree with his politics even though he does make some good points.

Anyway, I am totally cool with you supporting Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong! Thought you might want to spar a bit instead of pontificate to dead air 😉

[Nameless One]

Ron Paul's superficially appealing politics crumble under scrutiny.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/152397/ron_paul,_rick_perry_and_other_right_wingers_want_to_turn_back_the_clock_to_1900_–_what_was_life_like_back_then/

[Author]

Posts