Would Ron Paul have been a perfect president in 1905?

[Bob]

I have no beef with Ron Paul – I think that America could benefit from a real Gynecologist as president. But I do wonder why some aspects of Libertinism has not come up (during the debates I have seen.) Remember when Giuliani laughed out loud at some of Ron Paul’s statements? That pissed me off too – because if one has a problem with the ideas – you should state why, and not be dismissive, as one would in a school yard argument. I will say, that Ron Paul is also the closest to our founding Fathers – another plus, and he seems honest.

But does Ron Paul’s stance on the place of America on the international stage reflect the isolationist tendencies of our pre-world War I mindset? Would there be unintended consequences? Yes, I wish we could hunker down, and withdrawal from every nation’s problems, and be safe behind a barrier of ocean (that used to be effective in protecting our nation in 1905.) But what has changed in 100 years? ICBM weapons, long range bombers make an ocean less of a barrier – not to mention the interconnectedness of world economies, and the rise of countries like China, and Russia.

So, Taco – you have the scoop on Ron Paul’s policies – am I misrepresenting his stance on the US role?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Bob

I have no beef with Ron Paul – I think that America could benefit from a real Gynecologist as president. But I do wonder why some aspects of Libertinism has not come up (during the debates I have seen.) Remember when Giuliani laughed out loud at some of Ron Paul’s statements? That pissed me off too – because if one has a problem with the ideas – you should state why, and not be dismissive, as one would in a school yard argument. I will say, that Ron Paul is also the closest to our founding Fathers – another plus, and he seems honest.

But does Ron Paul’s stance on the place of America on the international stage reflect the isolationist tendencies of our pre-world War I mindset? Would there be unintended consequences? Yes, I wish we could hunker down, and withdrawal from every nation’s problems, and be safe behind a barrier of ocean (that used to be effective in protecting our nation in 1905.) But what has changed in 100 years? ICBM weapons, long range bombers make an ocean less of a barrier – not to mention the interconnectedness of world economies, and the rise of countries like China, and Russia.

So, Taco – you have the scoop on Ron Paul’s policies – am I misrepresenting his stance on the US role?

This will surely bring down the "wrath of the Paulettes". I have tried to listen to some of his ideas, but some of them are so far out there, you tend to wonder how he plans to get from wishful thinking to reality, and who in their right mind would support his ideas.
He has already stated that if he's doesn't get the nomination, he will not run as an independent. So I can just guess, his goose is cooked.

[Bronco Bob]

TJ can probably explain it a lot better than me, but from what
Ron Paul said in the debates, he isn't advocating isolationism,
he is advocating against military interventionism. That it's
not up to the US to police the world. He's all for trade and
diplomacy and all the other relationships that countries
engage in. Just not at the point of a gun.

[Garcia Bronco]

Paul is a good choice compared to the field/

[Taco John]

Libertarianism is a very misunderstood philosophy...

Here is a great place to start to understand it:



I will address your specific concerns with regards to foriegn policy in a follow-on post...

[Taco John]

The term "isolationist" is just a propaganda term, much like the term "liberal" has become. When people use it in the media, they typically aren't looking to give Dr. Paul the benefit of a doubt. They are typically hoping that the emotion contained in the word will paint Dr. Paul in a negative way.

Dr. Paul is not an isolationist. In fact, he's exactly the opposite. An isolationist believes in the policy of non-intervention, like Dr. Paul, but more importantly, they also believe in controlling trade and cultural exchange, which is a philosophy called "protectionism." Our current foreign policy is a protectionist foriegn policy. A protectionist foriegn policy combined with a militarist foriegn policy that demands that people are with us or against us is actually more of an isolationist foriegn policy.

So to quickly summarize:
isolationism = non-intervention + protectionism

This does not describe Dr. Paul.


Dr. Paul does not believe in protectionism. He believes in free trade. Free trade is the opposite of isolationism. It's market involvement of the most personal level. Dr. Paul believes that when you allow your citizens to trade freely in the world, you not only enrich your country, but you also export your culture as a tag-on benefit. So rather than changing minds at the barrel of a gun, you end up changing them over a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Proof of this is in Vietnam. We got absolutely nowhere with Vietnam in war. In 20 years of French and American occupation, no minds were changed - in fact the opposite happened: they became more resolved to fight us. It wasn't until after the war was over that they were able to make the kind of cultural progress that benefitted them and us, and that progress was made through developing a trading relationship with them. Now their president visits the White House, and our relationship with them is a productive, beneficial one.

Ron Paul's position isn't that if we pull back from the world, we're going to be safe behind our oceans. Not in the least. His position is much harder than that with plenty of heavy lifting to be done. His position is that we should stop pointing our guns at them, and instead open our markets to them, reach out, and develop mutually beneficial relationships with them that ultimately change their nations from the inside out, taking military action only when we are under credible threat of attack.

The bottom line is that we don't need to police the world. Not only does it produce results that get us the opposite of what we want as demonstrated by our installation of dictators such as the Shah of Iran, to Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Ladin to our latest problem Perevez Musharaeff. But we have no authority to do so in the first place under the law of our land: the Constitution.

[Bob]

Thanks for your comments...

As a nation we say that we want people to take responsibility for their actions, but are we mature enough as a nation to let natural consequences teach those lessons? The assumption that seems at the heart of Libertarianism is the goodness of man, that when given a choice he will generally make choices that will benefit himself and society, but I wonder as people are given more freedoms (let say more choices to use drugs, that are now illegal) that we can offer that freedom, but cant handle it when the natural consequences of addiction fall (that may just have the capacity to teach) as liberals will want to swoop down, with a “big-brother” solution, to protect them from themselves and defeat the purpose of natural consequences, while demonizing those that want to let life teach some lessons as being heartless.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Bob

Thanks for your comments...

As a nation we say that we want people to take responsibility for their actions, but are we mature enough as a nation to let natural consequences teach those lessons? The assumption that seems at the heart of Libertarianism is the goodness of man, that when given a choice he will generally make choices that will benefit himself and society, but I wonder as people are given more freedoms (let say more choices to use drugs, that are now illegal) that we can offer that freedom, but cant handle it when the natural consequences of addiction fall (that may just have the capacity to teach) as liberals will want to swoop down, with a “big-brother” solution, to protect them from themselves and defeat the purpose of natural consequences, while demonizing those that want to let life teach some lessons as being heartless.

If we don't want a libertarian constitution (a constitution based on individual liberty), then we need to have a constitutional convention to change it, and then live by the law of the land. What we are doing now is just ignoring the Constitution. If we're going to ignore the very basis of what our nation was founded on because we don't trust people to make the best choices for themselves, then let's get rid of it and put something in its place that we can live by.

What we shouldn't be doing is letting government ignore it whenever it wants simply because we no longer find it convenient to grant people with individual liberty because the least among us can't handle the responsibility. What we get when we do that is a socialist system with two parties fighting over the money on behalf of their interest groups and the rest of us holding the bag.

If we're going to live in a socialist system, we should have a socialist constitution that protects us from the government, rather than puts us in the line of fire.

[orinjkrush]

hahahaha Libertines unite!

somebody famous once said...."beware entangling alliances...."

hmmmmm