Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The United States actually voted for 'Nobody' in 2012

In *2011* the *voting age population* of the USA was 237,657,645. It's obviously even more in 2012.

61,173,739 voted for Obama.
58,167,260 voted for Romney.

That is 119,340,999 out of a total voting age population of 237,657,645.

That means that *more than half* of the population voted for *NOBODY*. Approximately 24.4% of the voting age population voted for Romney. Approximately 25.7% of the voting age population voted for Obama. Literally, about twice as many people of voting age voted for nobody as *either* Obama or Romney.

What does this mean? It means that *over half* of the voting age public (understandably) believes that it is not worth their time to vote for the options presented, or vote for the system at all. Some (rightly) believe that it is simply one big sick joke.

In any case, ultimately this means that over half of the voting population has completely rejected 'our' system of governance, or at the very least the system that determines who will run the system of governance.

It is particularly disturbing that only about *one fifth* (those of the total population who voted for Obama) of the population has decided how to dictate the lives of the entire population (312 million people).

I'm not a fan of democracy - as it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. However, *this isn't even democracy* - this is the tyranny of the minority over the majority, backed by the aggression of the State.

It is a sick farce.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 11-20-2012.

Friday, July 27, 2012

How should we Vote if Ron Paul is *NOT* the GOP Nominee???

We need to have a serious discussion about how we should vote if Ron Paul is not the nominee for the GOP. Between a likely outcome of either Obama or Romney, which is a more preferable outcome, and why?

Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...

/puts on flame retardant suit

Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.

There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this.

1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).

2) When the proverbial $#@! really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.

3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treatment of Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again. See my post 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context.

4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.

5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama.

Remember, take this all within the context of Obama and Romney really being only inches apart. It's not like one is that much different than the other, anyways. Obama's rhetoric may be socialistic - but his policies are corporatist. Romney's rhetoric may be much more free-market, but his policies would be corporatist as well. They both support the drug war. They both support imperialism, militarism, war, and have talked about pre-emptive war with Iran and elsewhere (Syria, etc). They both ultimately support big, bloated federal government. They both support the IRS and income taxes. Neither has any plan for significant cuts, anywhere. They both support domestic welfarism and foreign aid. They both support the IMF and the UN. They both support bailouts. They are both owned and funded by the largest players on Wall Street and special interests. They both support the Federal Reserve. They both support massive deficit spending. They both support Keynesianism. They both support the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA - deplorable violations of civil liberty.

NEITHER offer any real change and are mere inches apart on substantive issues.

Understand, I'm *not* saying we should vote for Obama. Absolutely not. What I'm implying is that you might think supporting and voting for Romney *over* Obama out of a more or less greater fear of Obama sounds like the best alternative between two crummy outcomes. Please understand that this sentiment is short-sighted and unproductive (and potentially destructive if the establishment GOP takes control of the executive *and* legislative branch - think of the Bush terms). This is exactly what the GOP establishment wants, and is far too often what it gets. Resist the urge. Try to look at the big picture and think of the long run.

So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.

[missing IMG link]

Write-ins (for Ron Paul) will be pointless. They will not be counted, only ignored. They certainly won't be reported. It might make you feel a little better, but practically speaking - a completely wasted effort.

Some advocate not voting at all - as some form of protest. This accomplishes (and has accomplished) nothing, in and of itself, and has been proven completely impotent in discouraging further Statism. One merely needs to look around to realize that our current state of affairs illustrates this fact. The vast, vast majority of Americans already have not been voting for decades, if not since the(se) United States were founded. What happens instead is that the Statists are simply *further* encouraged. They only see and acknowledge percentages of the *voting public* supporting either the 'blue' or 'red' version of oppression. It actually gives them a greater feeling of legitimacy, regardless of how invalid that feeling is (self-deception and rationalization play a big part here), and despite the fact that reality actually reflects a colossal rejection of the left/right false-choice dichotomy, along with the entire political system itself.

This is not to say that voting by itself can and will accomplish what we want - but voting is not mutually exclusive from other methods of achieving socio-economic change. See my post on 'Why Even Anarchists Should Vote'. But I digress.

Given the situation in the subject line of this post, I think as many of us (old-school conservatives, libertarians, independents, anarchists, et al) voting for Gary Johnson sends the strongest message, and pushes forward the future potential of a stronger foundation for a third party (especially while working at the same time to take over the GOP party apparatus). It will also at least shock both the Republican and Democrat tribes into realizing how much they are falling out of favor - and how truly fiscally conservative and truly socially tolerant ideas are becoming increasingly popular. This could incentivize them to move in our direction if they wish to retain their power in the meantime, and/or it could further legitimize the third-party option as a real alternative for many more Americans.

For all intents and purposes, during this election... 'right is worse'.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 07-27-2012.

Friday, March 23, 2012

On 'The Zeitgeist Movement', 'The Venus Project', and a 'Resource Based Economy'

... This is from an old forum debate with a Zeitgeister in regards to TZM and an RBE.

Prior to my current career as a Banker, I was actually a certified computer technician. Quite a difference in career choices, I know. I still harbor my passion for technology, I always will, and have the strong desire to get back into the industry...

But I digress.

Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am quite familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say that any computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.

Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the constantly changing, sometimes even fleeting, subjective demands of individuals.

The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems.

Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the changing subjective demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the obvious loss of freedom and individuality involved in being part of such a system) to the central true AI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.

If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.

Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?

Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?

I'm completely serious.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-23-2012.

Monday, March 12, 2012

State Regulation, Market Regulation, and Progressive-Corporate-State Power

The debate (unfortunately) rages on between Progressives, their Statist friends, and the defenders of liberty and the voluntary market. It's time to help put much of that debate to rest.

Much of the argument from 'the left' (whatever that even means these days, considering their ad-hoc defense and support of Obama, AKA Bush 2.0) attempts to center our economic and financial system's woes around the claim of either too much 'deregulation', not enough increased regulation - or some combination of both.

Simply put - such a claim is completely, utterly divorced from reality.

Ever since the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) started back in 1938, there has been a net *increase* in regulation *every year*, with the exception of 1985 and a couple years in the early 90s. Under Bush, net economic regulations *increased* every year he was president. Obviously, I shouldn't have to go into detail regarding the regulatory excesses under Obama.

I work in the banking industry - and it is above and beyond the most *heavily regulated* industry in the United States. There is literally just about one regulation for every letter of the alphabet (regulations are in fact named as single letters) and then some, not including legal tender laws, what are essentially rent controls (and more) dictated down from the Federal Reserve, the CRA, the ECOA, FACT Act, Dodd-Frank, FHA, GSE involvement (such as FME & FRC), and on, and on, and on.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall (which one all-too-often hears about) was certainly significant, but *it* was not the *cause* of the financial meltdown. It did, however, further expose the unsustainability of our system (it's repeal made markets *more efficient*) and expedited the necessary bust. Thank Agora (SEK3 nods) it happened when it did. Our system may be screwed anyways without an extremely significant overhaul, but without repeal it may have gone on longer under the radar, contributing to the hollowing out of our economy even more than it already has - resulting in something potentially much, much more catastrophic.

Clearly, increased top-down, centralized 'regulation' has *not* been lacking (The US has around 168,000 pages of regulations, more than any other country in the world, by far - with thousands more added every year nowadays) and clearly it is not the answer.

Despite *alleged* good intentions, this has all resulted in a concentration of corporate power and market share into those most specially interested and connected companies, those with the most cash to buy and push legislations onto their respective industry (is it really any surprise that most regulations for whatever industry are written and pushed by the biggest players in that industry?), and those with the economies of scale to most easily *absorb* those regulations. Smaller or newer competitors that are more capital-restricted can no longer compete - and not to mention don't have the economic nor *political* capital in order to buy out the legislators themselves, like their (much) larger and more connected competitors. All other costs due to these State-imposed regulations are naturally passed down to the consumer and/or worker.

Of course, I would be doing a major disservice to the defense of the voluntary marketplace if I don't at least mention how the largest and/or most politically connected banks and other corporations received bail-outs at the expense of the taxpayer.

Then, the Corporate-State creates numerous *additional* regulations to expand labor and restrict the flow of capital. In a place where labor abounds but there is comparatively little capital, the businessmen will tend to have more leverage. In extreme cases they'll basically have it all (such as the onset of the industrial-era of the late 1800s to the early 1900s, also known as the 'Gilded Age'). In a place where capital abounds (such as a more modern, evolved market capitalist system) but there is comparatively little labor it's the other way around: high wages, lots of room for employees to negotiate, and plenty of opportunities to jump ship if the cigar chompers aren't making the workers happy.

The 'Progressive' response to corporate power is to strive to control, restrict, and punish capital. In other words, to make labor more abundant and less valuable. Obviously, this results in accomplishing exactly the *opposite* of what they *claim* to want to accomplish.

Mix this all together, and it all ultimately results in the Corporate-State system we have now.

Think of (free-market) Capitalism like sex. When it's voluntary between parties, it's a good thing. A wonderful thing, even. But when it is mixed with coercive force (via the State) - Capitalism becomes a twisted, ugly version of it's original intention. Much like how Capitalism mixed with the State becomes Corporatism - sex mixed with coercive force, becomes rape.

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Thus, to avoid perpetuating the legitimate insanity of our current Corporate-State system, the answer to our problems is not to continue on our current path of destructive, top-down, and centralized 'regulation' - but to finally free our markets and allow organic, spontaneous regulation to take hold instead.

Contrary to the Progressive and Statist claim that this means 'no regulation' or letting corporations and rich individuals 'run amok', it instead means that while markets remain dynamic (as they always will), the regulations that the market itself will impose will be dynamic as well (as opposed to State-imposed regulations which are static, in which a dynamic market will always find ways around them merely at the increased cost to consumers and/or workers).

Which leads me to my next point... see my post on 'Anarchy, Government, and the State.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-12-2012.

Monday, January 23, 2012


This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 01-23-2012.

Sen. Rand Paul and TSA: It's Personal Now (almost sounds like the title to a movie, doesn't it)...

First, some context... Hot on the heels of 'the Rand Paul Incident' today where Rand was demanded of (which he utterly rejected and was ultimately detained for) a full body search and pat-down by the TSA due to an 'anomaly' in his scan (personally, I believe the 'anomaly' to be brass balls... clearly something that runs in the family) - debates once again raged across the internet in regards to 'the War on Terror' and it's many tentacles throughout our 'federal' government.

One such debate took place on a friend's wall on facebook, between me and one of his buddies. My friend began by bringing up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Before I 'get to the point', here is how the event unfolded (with some commentary)...

 Originally Posted by Friend
Personally, I think the 4th amendment makes all of us exempt. Also, as a Senator, he may be exempt from being detained while on official business (Article 1, Section 6), which is why they're being so careful about how they word their statements.
 Originally Posted by Neocon
Yeah, No that's false.
Also, the idiot probably just left his boarding pass in his pocket. Or a coin.
 Originally Posted by Friend
Which is false?
 Originally Posted by Neocon
Whatever bull $#@! 4th amendment $#@! your talking about.
If you want to fly, your gonna be screened in some way.

Yes, apparently the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 'bull$#@!'. Nice.


 Originally Posted by Me
By the same logic, [name omitted] - all the State has to do is require the same TSA screening for subways as they do in airports - based on the threat of 'terrorism' and that it's a high traffic, high population area and are a target and a threat (they often are already) - like airports.

It's a logical slippery slope. Try to see more than 3 inches in front of your face and take the blinders off.
 Originally Posted by Neocon
That's true, and when terrorist start targeting subways and trains, and hundreds (or thousands) of people are dead, we'll see what happens then.

The bottom line is Terrorist are out there, and sure enough they want YOU dead, and for every one terrorist attack, failed or otherwise,domestic or international, that you heard about on the news or some other source, there is four or five that you don't hear about. Happy flying, guy
 Originally Posted by Friend
Let me ask you this, how far should government be allowed to go in the name of security?
 Originally Posted by Neocon
Let me answer your question with a question

How far are terrorists going to going[sic] to insure that you die?
Let's translate this from Neocon-speak to some straight-talk...

 Originally Posted by Neocon (translated)
I feel very uncomfortable explicitly stating how far I'm willing to advocate going - so I'm going to attempt to loosely imply it, instead. But ultimately, I'm willing to advocate that there is no degree in the reduction of our liberties that I consider 'too far' to protect against those who would die for their cause.

Much better.

Who 'Neocon' is, is irrelevant. The point is that *this* is absolutely the mindset that Neocons (and for sure many so-called 'conservatives' and Republicans) have. This is what we're dealing with. Complete disregard, if not even pure disdain, for the US Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and seemingly even *loosely* defined notions of freedom.

Aside from their arrant contempt for the Rule of Law - this fear of terrorists is absolutely, completely, irrational. Statistically speaking, your chances of being killed by a *police officer* are significantly higher than being killed by a terrorist. You are much more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist... more likely to drown, to trip and fall and die... and on, and on, and on.

Well, then! I guess that means we should ban the police. I better also permanently cage myself indoors. I better not think of walking up my stairs! Lock me in a padded room - its the only way to protect me from the horrible, unescapable danger and risk of the world!

No thanks.

Of course, some try to make the claim that it is *because of* the interventions of the TSA, DHS, and other alphabet soup agencies of our 'federal' government, that we haven't had any major terrorist attacks in the first place. For that - I have a story for you...

There is a man who hangs around day in and day out, ringing a bell in the middle of town.
Another man walks up to him and asks, "Excuse me, sir - I can't help but notice that you're always here, ringing that bell. Why?"
The man with the bell shrugs, "It's to keep the elephants away."
The other man is taken aback. "What are you talking about? There are no elephants here."
The bell-man responds proudly, with a smile on his face. "Exactly."

Hopefully, the point is clear.

Not to mention, police statism simply does not work. These people have either never heard of the 'underwear bomber', or have conveniently forgetten about it. He got by the TSA and other security measures without a hitch. Meanwhile, we're having senators stripsearched (okay, that's kind of funny), along with 5 year old girls, grandma, and the extremely disabled. Clearly, doesn't work. We have not achieved safety - we've only given up liberty.

If someone is willing to *die* for their cause, they will *always* find a way(s) around even the most stringent security measures unless we completely transform the country into a ubiquitous, fascist, totalitarian police dictatorship (hell, they can't even keep drugs out of a prison). Yet, this *still* won't protect us - and then the crime(s) to won't be from the terrorists - it'll be from the government, against the people. Our lives will be devoid of freedom.

Is that what they want? Is this their fantasy, realized?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

... and they often end up with neither.

So why do 'they' hate us anyways? Why do they want to kill us?

It's not because we're 'free' or 'prosperous' (does that mean that they're starting to like us, now?) - it's because we're over there, meddling with and puppeting their governments - and have been intervening in their business for over 60 years. Read the official 9/11 Commission report (this is a *federal government* report). Read 'Imperial Hubris' and 'Marching Towards Hell' by Michael Scheuer (who was the head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit). Listen to what Osama Bin Laden himself has said as why they hate us so much and are willing to die for their cause.

I am not justifying these actions at all. I'm not saying we should 'take our marching orders from Al Qaeda' (a quote from Giuliani to Ron Paul in the 2007 Presidential Primary Election). This knee-jerk response is absurd and counter-productive. It is imperative that we understand the motives of our enemies and realize the blowback of the miserable failures our foreign policy in blood and treasure.

If you want to solve the problem of terrorism - don't ask for more government to attack the symptom (terrorism) of the root problem (blowback from a failed and broken foreign policy). This will get us nowhere - it's like trying to cure a rash on your skin by painting over it.

The answer to *all* of our economic and social problems is always *more freedom* and *less government* - not the other way around. Responding to problems in the a backwards manner in which we are conducting ourselves now always results in a vicious cycle of where we keeps asking for more government to try to 'fix' the issues that government creates in the first place. This is true whether we're talking about domestic or foreign policy.

We desperately need to change our foreign policy, stop meddling in overseas affairs and trying to maintaining an empire for what is ultimately the benefit of special interests, at our expense - and we need to stop trampling the constitution and enforce it by getting the government out of our lives here at home.

If we are to forge a true and sustainable solution to the risk of terrorism, it *must* be through more freedom - both here, and abroad. Not more government.

I'm going to end this with an amazing Ad from the R[evoL]ution PAC on terrorism and our foreign policy. It puts everything in a great twist of perspective for those who advocate for imperialism, the wars, et cetera. It's particularly good because it doesn't start out with Ron Paul's voice, so people are more apt to listen and think about it as opposed to having a knee-jerk reaction to shut it out - but then near the end it changes to how it was a speech given by Ron Paul on the House floor. 

If you haven't seen it - then prepared to be blown away.

IMAGINE if this Ad played during the Super Bowl, and the impact it would have?