Doing My First Write In Vote

Based on watching the Obama-McCain debate and their absolute ignorance of economics I have decided that both are totally unacceptable candidates.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is talking sense at this point. I'm writing him in.

Share this

At least you tried, right?

Have you seen Hacking Democracy on HBO? You should. Not only will your vote not count, it will go to one of the preferati. I know this to be true, because I voted for Ron Paul in my primary and they reported zero votes for the good doctor at my polling place. This just goes to show that there is no political solution to the problems of the state. The state is the problem.

I enjoy going to primaries though, good place to win converts and pass out literature. General elections are for suckers.

Seriously, do you think that if you got elected Capo in the mob, that you could somehow change it from the inside? If they fired the DMV director in your locale, would the lines get any shorter or would the attitudes of the state employees get any better?

Resoundingly, no.

Yep

"Seriously, do you think that if you got elected Capo in the mob, that you could somehow change it from the inside?"

Actually, I'd make that argument also. I've been asked what I'd do if I was president and when I started saying what I'd do they said, "You couldn't do that, you'd be killed". No kidding, that's why I'm not running for president.

I do think a president can

I do think a president can subtly destroy the state, by making a few small changes, too subtle to attract attention, by intentionally creating loopholes.

The largest attack on the state power can be brought by

- Opt-out option on some government programs ( social security, etc ) to the point of effective secession. Amish can opt out of social security for example, make a law that makes it a bit more generic and act surprised when everyone's "religious belief" conflicts with paying it.
- Monetary reform ( remove legal tender laws, deregulation of money exchange services )

Opting out on SS

"Amish can opt out of social security for example"

Hmm. I didn't know that. I find that interesting because whereas fantasies about seasteading carry too many hurdles for me I have other fantansies about a religion based on deeply held beliefs about money, fractional reserve, etc, that just might fly. In fact with all the people who claim that certain of these beliefs are religious (well cult like) in nature I think "we" might just have a case.

So how did the Amish manage that?

... and btw, I capitualate on the oil-futures stuff. Now that I've read the information I believe my broker was trying to get me involved in oil futures by mischaracterizing them. They do operate differently than precious metals futures here in the US. He had told me they were the same as the futures I was already trading, and that I could trade them if I believed oil was going up, which I did. I was basing my reply on his say so. He lied.

The Amish are actually

The Amish are actually opposed to insurance, which they interpret as lacking faith in god. ( Social security is emphatically not an insurance system but that's irrelevant, they got out, good for them ). Full story here. Unfortunately, part of the story is that they had the media and public opinion with them.

If some small group was insignificant enough not to be deemed a threat and good get such benefits, it could grow very fast and provide a good option for people. Native Americans may have an edge here.

----

As for the futures, both the oil future on Nymex and the gold future on Comex are both physical, if you read the rules for the gold they also describe in details the delivery process. In all cases however, the exchanges waives responsibility in case of default of delivery. During the whole life of the future, you do not have to care about the counterparty because margining, the amount of money added or subtracted to your margin is the exchange's responsibility. However, as soon as delivery comes, you can potentially face anyone.

I was wrong on something though, I thought the rules were different for precious metals and oil and they're not really. It just happens that "delays" or defaults never happen for oil but do happen for precious metals. Recently, it appears Comex has been asking people to provide "a good reason" to receive physical delivery of silver.

You can definitely trade physical oil future without ever seeing a drop of crude, just close the position before expiration. The contract is 1000 barrels though, meaning you lose or win $1000 for every dollar move in the price of a barrel. A bit risky for my budget ;)

Futures

"... just close the position before expiration."

That might be easier said than done. Doesn't someone have to sell you an opposing future? Might be that the market moves so fast that there are no offers that are within your budget. You mentioned musical chairs. Might be you don't get a seat.

I took delivery once but was under the impression that if the opposing party couldn't come up with the physical I would only be given the equivalent price of silver on the closing day of the contract, plus a couple days interest for any delays.

What other penalties are there if you don't deliver? As far as I can tell none.

Which to me seems that the rules are designed to skew the price of commodities downward.

"Recently, it appears Comex has been asking people to provide "a good reason" to receive physical delivery of silver."

Which also seems to be an attempt to skew prices downward.

When was this instituted? Silver dropped from $20 and ounce down to around $12 recently. Why would they need such a rule in a declining price market? I haven't been paying attention because I plan to hold till retirement.

Yes, there is a bit of

Yes, there is a bit of musical chair. However, if the price falls too much prior to expiration, some people will arbitrage by taking delivery... but they will have to have the facilities needed to store it, they will have to find a spot buyer, it takes costs, including the cost of labor to take delivery. These costs are factored in the price prior to expiry of course. All of this breaks down if there are delivery defaults, however there cannot be many defaults for very long, otherwise the market vanishes. With a market liquid like oil (pun intended), you should have no problem selling your future before expiration, you'll just be paying someone to actually take delivery... at a competitive price. Fair and square.

I don't know what the penalties are, it's not determined by the exchange and would be settled in courts I assume.

I don't know about the comex rule on silver, I heard it here.

Amish and SS

Yes I found that site and read this:

"Tucked into the 138 page bill was a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. After Senate approval in July, the signing of the bill by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 13, 1965, made it official and canceled tax accounts of some 15,000 Amish people amounting to nearly $250,000."

Seems like that bit about "since December 31, 1950" is discriminatory against new religions. Might be the grounds for a lawsuit.

Unfortunately it is also due to a law and not grounded as a right. Thus, it can be withdrawn at any time. So if too many used it as you proposed it would soon be rescinded.

It says the sects needs to

It says the sects needs to be in existence since 1950... not that it must have professed opposition to insurance before 1950. How about resurrecting an old sect ?

Let's be shakers. I'll be the new guru. By the way, an angel appeared to me last night, he told me we should actually have lots of sex, and pay not old age insurance scheme. The rest of the doctrine stands.

Bush

"I do think a president can subtly destroy the state . . ."

I think Bush has done more than any other president to destroy "the state," but I wouldn't call it subtle.

How has Bush destroyed the

How has Bush destroyed the state ?

Bush

Same question. How's that? Seems to me that he has increased state power while at the same time letting a crisis unfold that will further increase state power. He could have fired Alan Greenspan at the beginning of his first term.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the growth of the state

"How has Bush destroyed the state ?"

The state will, after many years of expansion, have caused caused so much socioeconomic instability and devastation as to lead to its inevitable failure. If you accept that premise, Bush has clearly brought us closer to the precipice.

It is probably naive to think that a president can "destroy" the state by directly attempting to reduce its interference in people's lives. While I don't think Bush is a closet anarchist working as best as he can to bring about the fall of the U.S. Empire, or that what he's accomplished has been "good," I do believe there's a plausible argument to be made that he's made great progress towards the destruction of "the state."

Nevermind

"So how did the Amish manage that?"

Nevermind, I looked it up.

Moon eyed idealists in a Distributed Republic...

Well, you gentlemen assume that a good individual can ever be elected to the office. A good example of how it could be done is Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith. Unfortunately our stars will never align in that fashion, due to election fraud and a fixed system. Not only can the vote get changed at the polling station, but the electoral college can override the will of the people at any moment. History stands as proof.

Not only is it astronomically improbable for a third party candidate to win, it is impossible for anybody but the preferati to win.

Yeah, a good person could try, and die in office if they succeed in getting elected. This still avoids the real problem, the state. Instead, lets just bring down the whole shebang without sacrificing a great leader of ours.

Unless you really think your vote will make a difference. I know it wont and I think you know it too. These elections are here to sap your vitriol and conceal tyranny, nothing more.

Well, you gentlemen assume

Well, you gentlemen assume that a good individual can ever be elected to the office

No.

So, why vote?

So, why vote?

You Gentlemen

Scalping_Elmo,

"Well, you gentlemen ..."

I can assure you that my thought processes are quite independent from any other posters here.

"Not only is it astronomically improbable for a third party candidate to win, it is impossible for anybody but the preferati to win."

Did I say anything about an expectation to win? You'd be better to explore the issue of conscience to understand my motives.

"This still avoids the real problem, the state. Instead, lets just bring down the whole shebang without sacrificing a great leader of ours."

... and what are the odds of "bringing down the whole shebang?" What are the odds that out of the remnants anything of value would arise? Does "astronomically improbable" come to mind?

"These elections are here to sap your vitriol and conceal tyranny, nothing more."

I'm sure plenty here would agree with you. I think that the statement is only partially true, and as stated certainly false.

Well if I am so wrong on so

Well if I am so wrong on so many levels, please correct me. I am not so dead set in my ways that my mind is closed to new ideas. Yes, I am making assumptions about your logic and thought processes, if only from a lack of information from your side.

You told me what you want to do, all I want to know now is why. Yeah, I certainly can be abrasive when trying to get someones goat.