washingtonpost.com — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) told supporters in early March, through a Web video, that he knew he was no longer in the running for the presidency, and aides said his campaign would be "winding down." But it turns out Paul never stopped running for president...
May 6, 2008 View in Crawl 4
pdubyaMay 6, 2008
well, I am at least glad you are considering him. as far as the foreign policy comment, dr. paul has a very specific one:- non-intervention- strong defense- stepped up trade and commerce- treat all foreign state countries equally- trade fairly, not "freely" (fair trade IS free trade)- only congressionally approved wars- sound currency- no federal reserve (compete with it into non-existence)To me, that is a very specific foreign POLICY.
ncairnsMay 7, 2008
1. You're conflating isolationism with non-interventionism, whereas the two are only vaguely related. Paul wants to withdraw all US troops stationed in bases throughout the world and dissolve all international agreements. Speaking as someone who lived in Seoul, the results of those actions would be perhaps the single most significant destabilization of world politics and the world economy in recent memory. It is arguably the most deeply, profoundly naive, outright stupid policy of his - and that's high distinction. Non-interventionism means not doing things like trying to effect the outcome of international elections by throwing support to pro-American politicians, not becoming entangled in *unreasonable* alliances and agreements, and generally keeping our hand away from where it is unwanted and unneeded. It does not mean revoking foreign aid, withdrawing unilaterally from all military and economic alliances and understandings, or generally pretending the fate of the United States is dissimilar from, unrelated to, or noncontingent upon that of the rest of the world. The former would have of the effect of (gradually) restoring the international respect for the States that has been lost to the ether over the past eight years, and improving domestic conditions by allowing the reallocation of funds tied up in undue international 'projects' like the Iraq war. The latter would make the nation insular and even more fully broken than it has been of late.2. National defense is a domestic policy issue, not a foreign policy issue.3/5. I grouped these together because they're really the same thing stated two somewhat different ways to make Paul's foreign policy seem more substantive than it really is. Unfortunately, even combined they don't make a cogent point. The reality is that trade agreements exist to ensure fair trade, and in there absence 'fairness' is an empty term defined arbitrarily by the people in power to placate the people who give them their power. Yes, many of the trade agreements we have now are far from ideal, or even adequate. That doesn't mean they're inherently bad - it just means our execution sucks so far. I really don't understand why libertarians think business is a benevolent entity. The analogous domestic policy would be the deregulation of companies on the premise that doing so would make them self-regulating and more profitable, the fruits of which would eventually be passed down to the average worker. Well, they won't be. In the free market business cares only about business. Workers and consumers are commodities which are only valuable to the extent that they aren't immediately replaceable - and that's not a very deep trench. In the same way domestic regulation of business is required to protect the workers and the general public from the profit-centered self-determinism of unchecked business, trade agreements are required to ensure that the people who make the trade possible get a fair fraction of the sum of their labor.4. This one is pretty meaningless, and taken as you stated it hugely worrisome. Treat all countries equally? Really? In all respects? This goes back to the false conflation of non-interventionism with isolationism, which I sense stems from a complete misunderstanding of what the two actually mean. Although I already fleshed that out, this is too good an example to pass up. You think Ron Paul would not be an isolationist because he would 'treat all foreign state countries equally'. In reality, that's a huge component of what isolationism is - a complete disregard, and lack of all responsibility, for the welfare of the rest of the world. The best tool we have to shape the global political climate is in how we deal with other countries. In fact, aside from open hostilities that's pretty much the only tool we have to shape the global political climate. Dealing with Sudan the same way we deal with Canada is not a good idea. It is not interventionist to refuse to deal with countries which fail to meet a minimum standard of human rights. It's diplomatic, it's humanitarian, and it's simply logical. And, for the love of God, don't go talking about how America has no right to assert moral authority in its international relations. Tapping phones and waterboarding detainees, while morally and legally repugnant, is not ethically equivalent to orchestrating a genocide. Sorry. 6. I'll give you this one. It's one of the few things I theoretically like about Paul - an appreciation only dampened by the feeling that he's completely dishonest, or at best incompetent to live up to the principles he claims to have.7/8. Again domestic issues, but I can't miss commenting on two mutually exclusive claims. Your parenthetical qualification of eliminating the Fed is nondescript enough to offer you some rhetorical shelter, but the concept itself is inadvisable enough to merit objection nonetheless. Like it or not, the Fed has made the dollar relatively stable. Not objectively stable, but relative to most currencies in the world the US dollar is very stable. Simply calling for it to disappear as Paul has is one of the main competitors for that 'stupidest policy' title I mentioned earlier. There is plenty of room for improvement in the State's monetary policy. So suggest some improvements. Competing currencies have never worked for what should be obvious reason, and libertarian monetary theory in general has been resoundingly disproved in New Zealand, Chile, and most recently Hong Kong - but by all means suggest ideas for improving the US monetary policy. All I've heard from Paul and his groupies so far is nonspecific silliness about the gold standard and getting rid of most of the federal government.
h4cklerMay 7, 2008
Read the book. You may actually wake up. You've NO idea what is going on. Are you voting for minimal changes and a failing economy? Well then don't vote for Ron Paul. :D
peppermintpigMay 8, 2008
What a load of conceited bulls**t. Tell me, who cares, and what constitutes a measure of validation? Feel free to use examples that aren't related to the political process, even though that's the context in which this discussion was established.
ncairnsMay 8, 2008
Dugg down, sans reply?Yep, that's about right.Why do I even waste my time with you zombies...
Closed AccountMay 9, 2008
Up for 2 days and only 28 diggs... na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, good bye. Good bye Paul-bots.