NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html

Thoughts?

Happy I live in Texas when someone says stuff like that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html

Thoughts?
He's extraordinarily short-sighted in this piece at least. The US can't withdraw from the world stage--it would kill us economically. Certainly we shouldn't keep doing what we're doing right now, but the polar opposite isn't an option either. I'm glad this guy has no chance of actually winning the presidency.

I think that he was right about foriegn aid to Israel etc, though actually dropping trade relations with other countries in the world is so far outside of anyone's ability to do with the current government that it hardly needs to be feared, even if the article said anything about that (which it doesn't).

He's extraordinarily short-sighted in this piece at least. The US can't withdraw from the world stage--it would kill us economically. Certainly we shouldn't keep doing what we're doing right now, but the polar opposite isn't an option either. I'm glad this guy has no chance of actually winning the presidency.

So, not wanting to be world policeman = wanting us to withdraw from the world stage?

So, not wanting to be world policeman = wanting us to withdraw from the world stage?The way he describes it, yes. How else am I supposed to read "That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations."

So, not wanting to be world policeman = wanting us to withdraw from the world stage?

It's more that our economy as it stands depends upon us being the world policeman. Sucks, but there it is.

Personally, I think the ME needs a real peace conference. Not a hosted one.

And there really has to be a two state solution to the isreal problem, but the palestinians have to give up the right of return. Sucks for both parties, but there it is.

Of course, it would help if any of those countries could get coherent leadership for more than a second.

Yeah! Let’s just let the foreigners kill each other because some rich white men who lived two hundred years ago said so.

The problem with his argument is that he tries to say that we shouldn’t intervene in the world simply because we’ve done it half-assed and selfishly in the past. There are other ways of doing things.

So, not wanting to be world policeman = wanting us to withdraw from the world stage?

Note also that he advocated ending foreign aid, not cutting off all diplomatic relations and trade with the outside world. Big, big difference.

Yeah! Let’s just let the foreigners kill each other because some rich white men who lived two hundred years ago said so.

The problem with his argument is that he tries to say that we shouldn’t intervene in the world simply because we’ve done it half-assed and selfishly in the past. There are other ways of doing things.

There's another thing called "diplomacy" which he mentioned. But maybe if you read the article, you'd know that.

It's more that our economy as it stands depends upon us being the world policeman. Sucks, but there it is.

Personally, I think the ME needs a real peace conference. Not a hosted one.

And there really has to be a two state solution to the isreal problem, but the palestinians have to give up the right of return. Sucks for both parties, but there it is.

Of course, it would help if any of those countries could get coherent leadership for more than a second.

I said it in the thread about whether we should cut off aid to Israel, but I'll say it again. What I think Israel and Palestine both need is a third party who will honestly threaten and carry out consequences for the breaking of a cease-fire, and will be the honest broker between them. Right now, neither side has to do much more than pay lip service to any agreement, because there's no political downside to breaking it. Israel knows the US won't act against it; Palestine knows that too, but also knows that the US is too bogged down in Iraq to be able to do more than waggle a finger at them. So why should they honestly parley? There's no upside for either side.

There's another thing called "diplomacy" which he mentioned. But maybe if you read the article, you'd know that.
I did read the article and I know about Ron Paul. He’s not interested in helping foreigners, poor people or minorities.

There's another thing called "diplomacy" which he mentioned. But maybe if you read the article, you'd know that.
If the US does not back its diplomacy with its economical and military power, that diplomacy might as well be performed by Andorra. The net effect would be the same.

I said it in the thread about whether we should cut off aid to Israel, but I'll say it again. What I think Israel and Palestine both need is a third party who will honestly threaten and carry out consequences for the breaking of a cease-fire, and will be the honest broker between them. Right now, neither side has to do much more than pay lip service to any agreement, because there's no political downside to breaking it. Israel knows the US won't act against it; Palestine knows that too, but also knows that the US is too bogged down in Iraq to be able to do more than waggle a finger at them. So why should they honestly parley? There's no upside for either side.

I'm in total agreement with you pretty much. My only difference would be that I don't see the need for an honest broker, because given the region I can't think of anyone who would fit the bill. (Norway or Iceland maybe, but even then ... oil, you know. The Swiss could do it I suppose but it is against their principles).

I think all relevant parties in the ME need to actually be pushed towards holding their own conference on neutral ground they all have equal access to - like the UN for example - and hammer out their own problems once and for all, without outside interests looking over their shoulders. It'll never happen, of course, because all of them are used to being puppets one way or another, and none of the outside interests can be trusted to stay away.

It's sad, because you'd think the foolishness of blowing each other up for five decades plus would be self evident.

There are other ways of doing things.

Yeah... except that in the real world, those aren't the ways things are actually done.

Alternative policies are theoretically possible but will never be practically implemented, at least in societies whose economic and power structures resemble present ones.

And even with the most benevolent of foreign interventions, the possibility of disaster is immense.

Yeah... except that in the real world, those aren't the ways things are actually done.

Alternative policies are theoretically possible but will never be practically implemented, at least in societies whose economic and power structures resemble present ones.
Indeed.
And even with the most benevolent of foreign interventions, the possibility of disaster is immense.
You have no examples to draw from. There has never been a benevolent foreign intervention.

honest broker

The chance of the US, or any other world power, being an "honest broker" in any conflict, and especially in Israel/Palestine, is negligible. It just isn't going to happen.

The chance of the US, or any other world power, being an "honest broker" in any conflict, and especially in Israel/Palestine, is negligible. It just isn't going to happen.

I think the point is that it wouldn't be the US.

But there is no honest broker when it comes to the ME.

Indeed.

So why object to a non-interventionist national policy?

You have no examples to draw from. There has never been a benevolent foreign intervention.

While there has never been a foreign intervention motivated solely by benevolence, plenty of foreign interventions have been motivated in part by benevolence. They have still often been catastrophic failures, largely for three reasons: the interference of more selfish motives, the arrogance and incompetence that seems to regularly accompany large-scale statist interventions of any kind, and the simple fact that outsiders rarely understand the needs and problems of the people they try to help anywhere near as well as they think they do.

He’s not interested in helping foreigners, poor people or minorities.

ROFL

So why object to a non-interventionist national policy?
As someone who thinks of himself as a citizen of the world first, it just feels wrong to abandon part of the humanity that I am a part of.
Anyhow, does it really matter? Not as if my ideas will ever be implemented.
While there has never been a foreign intervention motivated solely by benevolence, plenty of foreign interventions have been motivated in part by benevolence.
And there's your problem.They have still often been catastrophic failures, largely for three reasons: the interference of more selfish motives,
Which makes it not benevolent.
the arrogance and incompetence that seems to regularly accompany large-scale statist interventions of any and,
Which makes you sound like a libertarian, and not the good kind.
and the simple fact that outsiders rarely understand the needs and problems of the people they try to help anywhere near as well as they think they do.
Which means they were not properly prepared.
ROFL
Is this not the same man who once ran for president for the Libertarian party?
I enjoyed how an Austin radio show referred to him as the guy “who wants everyone to have guns so they can all shoot each other.”
Then a Libertarian called and got angry. They hung up and one host asked the other “are they all that crazy.” “Pretty much.”

Yes. Now show me evidence that he doesn't care about foreigners, the poor, or minorities.

He doesn't care about americans, that is pretty clear.

As someone who thinks of himself as a citizen of the world first, it just feels wrong to abandon part of the humanity that I am a part of.

If the available means to solve a problem are so flawed as to not constitute much of a solution, there's not much you can do but give up.

Of course, imperialism is not the only way to help people in other countries.

Which makes you sound like a libertarian, and not the good kind.

You''ll have to do better than that... I stopped caring who I sounded like a long time ago.

Which means they were not properly prepared.

They will never be properly prepared.

Is this not the same man who once ran for president for the Libertarian party?

Yes, it is.

Is this not the same man who once ran for president for the Libertarian party?

Yes. Now show me evidence that he doesn't care about foreigners, the poor, or minorities.

If the available means to solve a problem are so flawed as to not constitute much of a solution, there's not much you can do but give up.

Of course, imperialism is not the only way to help people in other countries.
Imperialism? Personally, I want as few American soldiers oversee as possible. The best solution, I think, is to cut off foreign aid to aggressing powers, which at this point would just be the State of Israel. They can either move or play nice.
And of course I'm all for charities whose goal it is to help refugees and others, but this guy, Ron Paul, he basically doesn’t give a fuck. That's what I'm arguing against.
You''ll have to do better than that... I stopped caring who I sounded like a long time ago.
It wasn't supposed to be a serious rebuttal...:(
They will never be properly prepared.
Not with what you think I'm referring to anyway. You can't solve a shooting war by adding more guns, but it's not as if the situations are beyond the entirety of the West's understanding.

Imperialism? Personally, I want as few American soldiers oversee as possible. The best solution, I think, is to cut off foreign aid to aggressing powers, which at this point would just be the State of Israel. They can either move or play nice.

Agreed.

And of course I'm all for charities whose goal it is to help refugees and others, but this guy, Ron Paul, he basically doesn’t give a fuck. That's what I'm arguing against.

He didn't say he didn't give a fuck; he just pointed out the negative consequences of intervention. Actually, his essay was thankfully devoid of the "solve America's problems first!" attitude so common among isolationists.

It wasn't supposed to be a serious rebuttal...:(

Sorry. I guess I take things too seriously sometimes. :)

Yes. Now show me evidence that he doesn't care about foreigners, the poor, or minorities.
He’s a Libertarian/Republican and also anti-choice, so he doesn’t care about the poor and by extension most minorities, and he’s for cutting off foreign-aid which means he doesn’t care about foreigners.

The only half-way decent thing he ever did was that speech he gave before congress last year about not going to war with Iran. It was so boring that no one listened to him. Never mind the fact that anyone with half a brain could tell you that no way in hell do we posses the ability to invade Iran at this point in time.

Yeah! Let’s just let the foreigners kill each other because some rich white men who lived two hundred years ago said so.


Yes. Because them being rich, or white, or male, or living 200 years ago makes their opinion irrelevant... wait.

No.

He didn't say he didn't give a fuck; he just pointed out the negative consequences of intervention. Actually, his essay was thankfully devoid of the "solve America's problems first!" attitude so common among isolationists.
He’s really good at pretending not to be extreme.
Sorry. I guess I take things too seriously sometimes. :)
I've noticed that you do.

There's nothing wrong with extremism, you know.

He’s a Libertarian/Republican and also anti-choice, so he doesn’t care about the poor and by extension most minorities, and he’s for cutting off foreign-aid which means he doesn’t care about foreigners.

And he's anti-gay. He supports DOMA and opposes same-sex adoption.

Yes. Because them being rich, or white, or male, or living 200 years ago makes their opinion irrelevant... wait.

No.
Not always, but it does tend to make you a bit out of touch with the modern world.

Not always, but it does tend to make you a bit out of touch with the modern world.

Says... who?

Far as I'm concerned... the really important things about humans don't really change much.

The insights of guys like Plato or Aristotle are still highly relevant, and they lived far, far earlier then 200 years ago.

P.S. And I'd rather base my political views on Aristotle then the latest New York Times editorial.

There's nothing wrong with extremism, you know.
Sure there is. In fact, its about a third of the problem in the whole Israel mess.
And he's anti-gay. He supports DOMA and opposes same-sex adoption.
Not surprising. When push comes to shove, most Libertarians decide their economic issues are more important.

Extremism in and of itself is not a problem. It's the question of what you're being extreme about. If you're extreme about freedom of speech, it's one thing (But surely you would not mind if we banned hentai.... right? I mean, you're not a pedophile, are you? And surely you don't care if we also ban the KKK from meeting... just be reasonable). If you're extreme about RAWR KILL THE FOREIGNERS, that's quite another thing.

And for the record:

I'm bisexual and I think the economic issues are more important then DOMA.

I'm bisexual and I think the economic issues are more important then DOMA.

They are, but how does that excuse voting for DOMA?

Says... who?

Far as I'm concerned... the really important things about humans don't really change much.
However, situations change. Two hundred years ago, peace was being maintained in the holy land by the Ottomans, if I remember correctly.
The insights of guys like Plato or Aristotle are still highly relevant, and they lived far, far earlier then 200 years ago.

P.S. And I'd rather base my political views on Aristotle then the latest New York Times editorial.
I wouldn’t base my political views on Aristotle or Plato, but that’s because I don’t approve of slavery and raping teenage boys. Now, basing one’s view of the metaphysical on Aristotle or Plato's work, not a bad idea. Personally, I prefer Lao Tzu, whose politics also happen to be out of touch with the modern world.

...well... do you really want to make this a thread on my philosophy of gay marriage?

But surely you would not mind if we banned hentai.... right? I mean, you're not a pedophile, are you? And surely you don't care if we also ban the KKK from meeting... just be reasonable.
I would mind immensely if either of those things were banned and I’ve no involvement with either. I don’t think that’s an extreme position because the harm done giving the government that kind of power is far worse than good such actions will cause.
I'm bisexual and I think the economic issues are more important then DOMA.
There are some economic issues that are more important than DOMA, but not his.

However, situations change. Two hundred years ago, peace was being maintained in the holy land by the Ottomans, if I remember correctly.

Yes, situations change. However, the very big point is that the main operating principles behind humanity do not change. Which is what is the main important thing we can learn about from these people in the past.

As for Ron Paul:

He supports my right to own a gun, take drugs, engage in business, work as a part-time prostitute, or download advanced cryptography software from the Internet, as well as such 'minor' rights as complete freedom of speech, privacy (PATRIOT Act ring a bell), private property, and so forth.

So yes, he doesn't want me to be able to get a government license if I marry a man.

Compared with all the other rights he wants to protect that nobody else in Congress, Senate, or the White House is willing to protect...

yes, if I were an American citizen and lived in District 14, Texas, I'd have voted for him.

I'm Israeli and I think Israel would benefit from aid being cut off... does this make me anti-semitic?

Also see my huge post above.

He’s a Libertarian/Republican and also anti-choice, so he doesn’t care about the poor and by extension most minorities, and he’s for cutting off foreign-aid which means he doesn’t care about foreigners.

The only half-way decent thing he ever did was that speech he gave before congress last year about not going to war with Iran. It was so boring that no one listened to him. Never mind the fact that anyone with half a brain could tell you that no way in hell do we posses the ability to invade Iran at this point in time.

He's a Republic in name only.

I don't see how being "anti-choice" means he doesn't care about the poor or minorities. So if a poor minority was "anti-choice," would that mean they didn't care about the poor or minorities, either?

Paul advocates volunteer charity to both Americans and foreigners who aren't well off. So he can hardly be accused of "not caring" about the poor. As for opposing foreign aid, that's not a sign of "not caring" about foreigners, it's a sign of sanity. Just look at the track record of foreign aid. We've poured untold billions into the Third World, yet many of those countries remain just as poor or are poorer than ever.

He supports DOMA

Wrong.

He opposes gay marriage (which is one of the issues I don't agree with him on [which is ironic, given the "as always" part of the thread title]), but he also opposes federal involvement in marriage. Read. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-22-2004/marriage.htm)

He's a Republican in name only.
Let's see, doesn't like gay marriage or abortion, holds archaic economic views, isolationist. Seems like a Republican to me.
I don't see how being "anti-choice" means he doesn't care about the poor or minorities. So if a poor minority was "anti-choice," would that mean they didn't care about the poor or minorities, either?
Yes, or maybe they're just too stupid to understand the issue, as most people are, but I'm no going to let Paul get away with that excuse.
Paul advocates volunteer charity to both Americans and foreigners who aren't well off. So he can hardly be accused of "not caring" about the poor. As for opposing foreign aid, that's not a sign of "not caring" about foreigners, it's a sign of sanity.
He advocates volunteer charity because then his rich buddies don’t have to help the poor and when they do, get to write it off, thus hurting the poor with charity more than helping them.
It’s a sign of the same heartlessness that all our politician posses.
Just look at the track record of foreign aid. We've poured untold billions into the Third World, yet many of those countries remain just as poor or are poorer than ever.
That is an indictment of the system, not the idea.

thus hurting the poor with charity

You will find that Ron Paul supports a tax system with no loopholes like charity.

Also.... hurting the poor by giving them money... mwahahaha.

At any rate, did you notice my previous post?

That is an indictment of the system, not the idea.

Oddly enough the two biggest reciepents of foreign direct investment in the world are the US and the UK. By a long way.

Let's see, doesn't like gay marriage or abortion, holds archaic economic views, isolationist. Seems like a Republican to me.

ROLFMAO

Paul is not an "isolationist." He opposes America being the world's nanny state, and he opposes America policing the world. He does favor peaceful trade with all nations, diplomacy, etc. So much for being an "isolationist." Oh, and most Republicans are even less "isolationist" than he is. Most Republicans relish our status as world policeman.

Economically, Paul is much different than most Republicans. Most Republicans are corporate socialists and huge spenders. Paul opposes subsidizing businesses, supports sound money, a balanced budget, etc. Can you say the same of other Republicans?

Yes, or maybe they're just too stupid to understand the issue, as most people are, but I'm no going to let Paul get away with that excuse.

Still, how does being "anti-choice" mean he doesn't care about the poor?

He advocates volunteer charity because then his rich buddies don’t have to help the poor and when they do, get to write it off, thus hurting the poor with charity more than helping them.
It’s a sign of the same heartlessness that all our politician posses.

Or he could view the idea of forcibly taking money from some people to give it to those who didn't earn it "theft." Whether that's right or wrong is up to your discretion, but it's not due to "heartlessness."

That is an indictment of the system, not the idea.

Come again?

ROLFMAOPaul is not an "isolationist." He opposes America being the world's nanny state, and he opposes America policing the world. He does favor peaceful trade with all nations, diplomacy, etc. So much for being an "isolationist." Oh, and most Republicans are even less "isolationist" than he is. Most Republicans relish our status as world policeman.
He's a modern day isolationists. The kind of things he says are no different than what most other Texas Republicans tell their constituents.
Economically, Paul is much different than most Republicans. Most Republicans are corporate socialists and huge spenders. Paul opposes subsidizing businesses, supports sound money, a balanced budget, etc. Can you say the same of other Republicans?

Corporate socialist, there's a word. Everyone supports a balanced budget in theory. In fact, the ammendment has gotten past the House several times.

And did I read right. Sound money? Is it 1908 again and no one told me?
Time to bust some trusts! (http://thetaftinator.ytmnd.com/)
Still, how does being "anti-choice" mean he doesn't care about the poor?
When abortions are ilegal, the rich can still get them. It's the poor who suffer.
Or he could view the idea of forcibly taking money from some people to give it to those who didn't earn it "theft." Whether that's right or wrong is up to your discretion, but it's not due to "heartlessness."
Perhaps I view taking full advantage of a society that allows one to accumulate excessive wealth and then feeling that one isn’t obligated to give something back to be theft.
Yes, situations change. However, the very big point is that the main operating principles behind humanity do not change. Which is what is the main important thing we can learn about from these people in the past.
And these men did horrible things and allowed terrible tragedies because of what they believed.
He supports my right to own a gun, take drugs, engage in business, work as a part-time prostitute, or download advanced cryptography software from the Internet, as well as such 'minor' rights as complete freedom of speech, privacy (PATRIOT Act ring a bell), private property, and so forth.
You said you’re Israeli not American? Sorry, but he doesn’t support anything like that for you. Those are the rights of Americans. As far as he’s concerned, you can rot in the desert.

You said you’re Israeli not American? Sorry, but he doesn’t support anything like that for you. Those are the rights of Americans. As far as he’s concerned, you can rot in the desert.

So... because he opposes bankrolling a government that violates all of these... wow, that's an argument.

At any rate, my point remains:

Had I been american, it'd have been a worthy tradeoff.

Perhaps I view taking full advantage of a society that allows one to accumulate excessive wealth and then feeling that one isn’t obligated to give something back to be theft.

There's no such thing as 'excessive' wealth.

So... because he opposes bankrolling a government that violates all of these... wow, that's an argument.
No. It has to do with you being foreign, period. I’ve known people like Ron Paul all my life, and I’m not fooled by his bullshit.
There's no such thing as 'excessive' wealth.
As long as there are still people starving, there is.

The Israeli government is (from a libertarian standpoint) oppressive. As such, I don't want America to be funding it.


And no, there is no excessive wealth. That'd assume you can somehow judge what goods people need or don't need... and that economics is a zero-sum game.

Which it isn't.

He's a modern day isolationists. The kind of things he says are no different than what most other Texas Republicans tell their constituents.

He's not an isolationist by any stretch of the imagination. The closest example to "isolationism" would probably be Japan (prior to Perry's visit) or modern-day Myanmar.

Corporate socialist, there's a word. Everyone supports a balanced budget in theory. In fact, the ammendment has gotten past the House several times.

Paul is a minarchist. He supports as little spending as possible and as little taxation as possible. He opposes spending money we don't have.

And did I read right. Sound money? Is it 1908 again and no one told me?
Time to bust some trusts! (http://thetaftinator.ytmnd.com/)

Money that's backed by gold. Not the worthless fiat paper "money" we have now.

When abortions are ilegal, the rich can still get them. It's the poor who suffer.

True, but obviously he doesn't support the right of the rich to get them, either.

Perhaps I view taking full advantage of a society that allows one to accumulate excessive wealth and then feeling that one isn’t obligated to give something back to be theft.

It depends on how they accumulated said wealth. And I too believe we're obligated to help the poor - morally. I don't think we should be legally required to do so, though.

As far as he’s concerned, you can rot in the desert.

Paul cares very much about the people of the Middle East. Which is one of the reasons he wants us to stop sending all those weapons and money over there. As he observed, the Middle East is a very militarized region, largely thanks to us.

He's not an isolationist by any stretch of the imagination. The closest example to "isolationism" would probably be Japan (prior to Perry's visit) or modern-day Myanmar.
He's enough of one.
Paul is a minarchist.
"Are they all that crazy.' "Pretty much."
Money that's backed by gold. Not the worthless fiat paper "money" we have now.
Does that come with another Great Depression?
True, but obviously he doesn't support the right of the rich to get them, either.
Doesn’t matter. You can’t ban abortion and anyone who thinks you can is either an idiot, misinformed, or using the issue for political or religious advancement.
It depends on how they accumulated said wealth.
Oh yeah, sure. I mean, if you can manage to get rich without using infrastructure maintained by the government, any currency, any government education, any labor, and are somehow able to protect all your property, then I guess you don’t owe anyone anything.
And I too believe we're obligated to help the poor - morally. I don't think we should be legally required to do so, though.
All the self-righteousness with none of the actual sacrifice.
Paul cares very much about the people of the Middle East. Which is one of the reasons he wants us to stop sending all those weapons and money over there. As he observed, the Middle East is a very militarized region, largely thanks to us.
No. He wants that to stop because he's an isolationist.

. I mean, if you can manage to get rich without using infrastructure maintained by the government, any currency, any government education, any labor, and are somehow able to protect all your property, then I guess you don’t owe anyone anything.

Why yes, the government forces people to use it's currency. Same goes for public education on the high-school level.

As for labor: This is why SALARIES exist.

After you've paid the person his salary and benefits, you don't owe him anything.

I fail to see how favoring a limited government is "crazy."

You see, in Neo-Undelia's world-view, ideologies 'die' when their 'time comes'.

Limited government is just as much a thing of the past - to him/her- as Nazism, slavery, and the Roman Empire.

Of course.... s/he's wrong.

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."

"Are they all that crazy.' "Pretty much."

I fail to see how favoring a limited government is "crazy."

Does that come with another Great Depression?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Doesn’t matter. You can’t ban abortion and anyone who thinks you can is either an idiot, misinformed, or using the issue for political or religious advancement.

Well, Paul is a Christian, so my guess is for religious advancement.

Oh yeah, sure. I mean, if you can manage to get rich without using infrastructure maintained by the government, any currency, any government education, any labor, and are somehow able to protect all your property, then I guess you don’t owe anyone anything.

I mean people who gained their wealth on their own merits, not people who stole it or received it through patronage.

All the self-righteousness with none of the actual sacrifice.

Meaning?

No. He wants that to stop because he's an isolationist.

Please, stop throwing around words you don't understand the meaning of.

You see, in Neo-Undelia's world-view, ideologies 'die' when their 'time comes'.

Limited government is just as much a thing of the past - to him/her- as Nazism, slavery, and the Roman Empire.

Of course.... s/he's wrong.

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."

Repeating because Jolt shoved it before the post I responded to.

I fail to see how favoring a limited government is "crazy."
Really believing it's possible to have one and maintain our current standard of living is.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Did you really just ask what the gold stard has to do with the Great Depression?
I mean people who gained their wealth on their own merits, not people who stole it or received it through patronage.
No one does anything entirely on their own merit. The government protects your right to property.
Meaning?
Exactly what it says.

Really believing it's possible to have one and maintain our current standard of living is.

...you do realize that there are nations out there which have less government intervention in the economy then America, and yet a higher standard of living?


Did you really just ask what the gold stard has to do with the Great Depression?


A hint: NOTHING.

No one does anything entirely on their own merit. The government protects your right to property.

Umm. So now we use this to justify giving the government power to do anything it likes with siad property via regulation?

I agree with him. It's too bad many people, out of either apathy, bloodthirstiness or a misguided desire to do good, think that the US government actually got elected to preside over the entire globe, and enforce our politics wherever we feel like.

Really believing it's possible to have one and maintain our current standard of living is.

Limited government =/= no government

Did you really just ask what the gold stard has to do with the Great Depression?

Yes, I did. Read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.

No one does anything entirely on their own merit. The government protects your right to property.

Okay, point conceded.

Exactly what it says.

Which means?

...you do realize that there are nations out there which have less government intervention in the economy then America, and yet a higher standard of living?
Acoding to the UN top ten standard of living:
1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Australia
4 Ireland
5 Sweden
6 Canada
7 Japan
8 United States
9 Switzerland
10 Netherlands
All those nations have more "interference" in the economy than the US.
A hint: NOTHING.
The Gold Standard was one of the causes for the Depression, or at least the fact that it fluctuated was.
Umm. So now we use this to justify giving the government power to do anything it likes with siad property via regulation?
No. You just need to recognize that you aren't an island.

Limited government =/= no government
I know that. What it means is rampant crime. The welfare-dependent already supplement their income with crime, what happens when the welfare is gone?
Which means?
Anyone can say that they favor charity. Taxes ensure that they put their money where their mouth is.

All those nations have more "interference" in the economy than the US.

Bah! I was going by the Index of Economic Freedom 2006. At the time Ireland,
Denmark, Iceland, Denmark and NZ were ahead of the US, the US being 9th on the Index.

Now the US moved up to 4th...

And Israel dropped to 37th.

Grr.

I know that. What it means is rampant crime. The welfare-dependent already supplement their income with crime, what happens when the welfare is gone?

I never advocated getting rid of welfare, just shrinking the government.

Anyone can say that they favor charity. Taxes ensure that they put their money where their mouth is.

I put my money where my mouth is.

I never advocated getting rid of welfare, just shrinking the government.
And what do you think they’ll cut to do so? The military? The agriculture subsides?
I put my money where my mouth is.
Good.

If it were up to me, I'd reduce defense spending to about 1% of GDP and eliminate all subsidies (especially to corporations).
Good. Unfortunately that’s not what most proponents of such things have in mind when they’re talking about shrinking the budget, and you know that.

And what do you think they’ll cut to do so? The military? The agriculture subsides?

If it were up to me, I'd reduce defense spending to about 1% of GDP and eliminate all subsidies (especially to corporations).

Taxes ensure that they put their money where their mouth is.

I don't need a government official to ensure I put my money where my mouth is.

And what do you think they’ll cut to do so?

Here's a list of things:

The education system (the US FedGov has no business of being in education at all).

The War on Drugs (20 billion dollars!)

The BATF.

The HUD.

The entire system of subsidies.

The TVA.

The Postal Service (totally unnecessary).

Foreign aid.

The BLM.

And without even outching pweshus welfare!

Good. Unfortunately that’s not what most proponents of such things have in mind when they’re talking about shrinking the budget, and you know that.

I do.

Read. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-22-2004/marriage.htm)

Yeah... read.

However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.

But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.

So DOMA is essential to PREVENTING the federalization of gay marriage. Ron Paul supports it.

Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality.

I love the way this so-called "libertarian" contrasts the "interests of the cultural left" with freedom and morality... perhaps he would like to return to the days where almost all gays were closeted and women and Blacks were kept in their place?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html

Thoughts?
That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
This guy is a dumbass for equating the assumed views of dead men with the views of living people.

When abortions are illegal, the rich can still get them. It's the poor who suffer.
I'm anti-choice and I care about the poor. The rich wouldn't be able to get them if the law were enforced, and the poor would not suffer if they were aided by the government.

This guy is a dumbass for equating the assumed views of dead men with the views of living people.

Yes, and the Founding Fathers also lived in a world where the US was a little teeny country and Britain and France, just to name two, were way bigger and way stronger and way hungrier. Times change.

If it were up to me, I'd reduce defense spending to about 1% of GDP and eliminate all subsidies (especially to corporations).

Well, Never-Never Land sounds like a great place, but we arn't endowed with pixie dust enabled flight.

I'm anti-choice and I care about the poor. The rich wouldn't be able to get them if the law were enforced, and the poor would not suffer if they were aided by the government.
When it comes to the rich, that if is about as big and deep as the fucking Grand Canyon. That's the way it was before Roe v Wade and that's what it will return to if it's ever overturned.

When it comes to the rich, that if is about as big and deep as the fucking Grand Canyon. That's the way it was before Roe v Wade and that's what it will return to if it's ever overturned.

Exactly. Enough money will get you whatever you want. And if the suitably compensated doctor doesn't report the procedure, how're you going to enforce that law?

Yes, and the Founding Fathers also lived in a world where the US was a little teeny country and Britain and France, just to name two, were way bigger and way stronger and way hungrier. Times change.
It's disturbing how many Americans deify their founders, and assume their opinions to be infallible.

When it comes to the rich, that if is about as big and deep as the fucking Grand Canyon. That's the way it was before Roe v Wade and that's what it will return to if it's ever overturned.
I don't live in America.

I don't live in America.And that somehow absolves you of the dumbassery that was the comment I quoted?

And that somehow absolves you of the dumbassery that was the comment I quoted?
If I was an American who thought that Roe vs Wade applies outside the USA, I wouldn't rant about dumbassery.

If I was an American who thought that Roe vs Wade applies outside the USA, I wouldn't rant about dumbassery.
If you had any reading comprehension, you wouldn't have made the comment you just did. What law were you referring to when you said "The rich wouldn't be able to get them if the law were enforced, and the poor would not suffer if they were aided by the government?" The entire context over abortion in this thread has been that of the US. You can't just suddenly pull out the "I'm not American" card when we're discussing US law and not look like a dumbass.

And you certainly shouldn't want to exacerbate the problem by continuing the protest.

If you had any reading comprehension, you wouldn't have made the comment you just did. What law were you referring to when you said "The rich wouldn't be able to get them if the law were enforced, and the poor would not suffer if they were aided by the government?" The entire context over abortion in this thread has been that of the US. You can't just suddenly pull out the "I'm not American" card when we're discussing US law and not look like a dumbass.

And you certainly shouldn't want to exacerbate the problem by continuing the protest.



I agree.

I would like to know in which country you reside, The Pacifist Womble. How innocent is the populace there that you can imply the rich would be subject to the enforcement of law so easily. Clearly not in the US.

So DOMA is essential to PREVENTING the federalization of gay marriage. Ron Paul supports it.

He believes gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, and that it's not the federal government's job to either legalize or ban it.

He believes gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, and that it's not the federal government's job to either legalize or ban it.

So? He's still anti-gay.

Maybe, but at least he doesn't support a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

...because it sets a bad precedent for when the evil cultural leftists might decide that another minority needs relief from legal discrimination.

So? He's still anti-gay.

Maybe, but at least he doesn't support a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

If you had any reading comprehension, you wouldn't have made the comment you just did. What law were you referring to when you said "The rich wouldn't be able to get them if the law were enforced, and the poor would not suffer if they were aided by the government?" The entire context over abortion in this thread has been that of the US. You can't just suddenly pull out the "I'm not American" card when we're discussing US law and not look like a dumbass.

And you certainly shouldn't want to exacerbate the problem by continuing the protest.
Abortion isn't the topic of the thread anyway, so I don't see why we have to keep it in America, which is of little relevance to me.

I would like to know in which country you reside, The Pacifist Womble. How innocent is the populace there that you can imply the rich would be subject to the enforcement of law so easily. Clearly not in the US.
Am I the only person who can see the Location field under my name?

Can the rich get around the law? Well in my country's case what they usually do is go to Britain in order to terminate a pregnancy. They don't get abortions in Ireland.

Why are you singling out abortion as a matter where "if the rich can get around it, we shouldn't try to enforce it for anyone in the first place."

You might as well say that we may as well not levy taxes, because the rich often get around them. See how ridiculous this logic is?

He believes gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, and that it's not the federal government's job to either legalize or ban it.

States' Rights is historically a proxy issue brought up by people who wanted to legalize segregation or ban abortion and gay marriage.

States' Rights is historically a proxy issue brought up by people who wanted to legalize segregation or ban abortion and gay marriage.

And legalize marijuana. And oppose protectionism.

And do other nice, 'progressive' things.

Google the words "laboratories of democracy" and "Brandeis".

Interesting.

If it involves business, invariably the answer is "We have to do this because it's a global economy."

If it involves sacrifice with no immediate benefit, invariably the answer is "Hey we can't be the worlds policeman"

Abortion isn't the topic of the thread anyway, so I don't see why we have to keep it in America, which is of little relevance to me.

It's called thread drift, but you knew that.