How do I respond to this argument?

[itsnobody]

Wow this guy's a complete idiot...

I am usually pretty adept at tackling issues raised against Ron Paul, but am now trying to win over an old friend who wrote the following to me in regards to Ron Paul:

"
Philip,

I really must protest a number of points you made. Since I don't have much time, I will be brief:

How does "Friendship and free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none" translate into the purported "turtling" of the United States in any way, shape, or form, exactly??

It's like having your cake & eating it, too: We want to have the freedom to move U.S. goods & money all over the world, but then get upset when our own people buy things made elsewhere. Then, we want to stay out of conflicts worldwide, but refuse to admit how we contribute to those conflicts by participating in the free market system. For example, buying blood diamonds in the U.S. directly impacted the rise of child soldiers in Sierra Leone. I could also argue long & hard about sweat shops maintained by U.S. corporations; the latter refusing to stop polluting environments in third world countries (& pollution does not respect man-made borders); the refusal to pay workers in other countries fair wages & health insurance; & on & on. We (including American participants in the free trade system) go around taking advantage of people all over the world, helping to fuck up other people's economies in the pursuit of our open market system, & then we wonder why things like 9/11 happen to us? As the saying goes, you reap what you sow. If you want a free trade system, be prepared to get involved in global conflicts, 'cause there is a definite relationship between the two.

hahaha

Here he seems to be saying that free trade will cause more global conflicts when in reality free trade causes less global conflicts, and more peace...as history shows us...

...these so-called "militia types".

This REALLY scares me, beyond anything else. The "so-called 'militia types'" I am referring to are the same ones who burn crosses on lawns; who support the KKK; who went on Oprah years ago talking about a race war, & are therefore using the Constitution as an excuse to amass arms, because it is their right; who patrol the Border & take the law into their own hands in order to capture "illegal aliens." The "militia types" I am referring to wouldn't be too keen on having someone who is part Brazilian in their midst, even if he has blond hair & blue eyes... (I realize that not every "militia type" is on board with the things I just mentioned. However, I wouldn't want to associate myself with ANY group containing ANY members who were bigots. That's just my opinion.)

Wow

Seems like some socialist tendencies. It's like Ron Paul says, crime enforcement takes away guns from people who break the law, but we don't take away guns from people who obey the laws...that's unconstitutional

As for people who do bad things with their freedom, either you have a free society or you don't. As Thomas Jefferson says "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it". Taking away people's rights and giving the government more rights isn't the way to go, nor will it solve the problem (as people will still illegally do these things anyway)

I appreciate the quotes you keep throwing out in defense of many of your opinions, but those things were said in a far different context, a very long time ago. This is the 21st century, not the 18th or 19th century. As I said earlier, the Constitution would seem to be very outdated. Instead of arguing in defense of what the Constitution says or doesn't say, means or doesn't mean, maybe it's time for something entirely new, something to fit the times we are living in...

In much peace,
Xochitl[/I]
"

I need to bolster my response as much as I can so I would appreciate any feedback you guys could give me...

Thanks,
Philip

The constitution being outdated? Doesn't he realize the constitution applies to ANY time period of ANY age? The constitutional positions apply to all time periods, as the constitution limits government, ensures freedom, protection of constitutional rights, etc....

What part is outdated that he's talking about? As for the gold standard, it has to do with inflation, you can't print gold out of thin air which is why it was favored.

 

[Broadlighter]

I've had similar problems arguing for the freedom message with liberals.

They say the Constitution is outdated or impractical.

I say that it is inconvenient for those who want to do things they shouldn't be doing.

The biggest problem in discussing these matters is having a premise. You need to understand their premise and educate them about yours. A friend of mine recently said she just didn't get Ron Paul's premise. It sounded very selfish to herI think she grew up believing the government's job was to control people who need to be controlled, redistribute wealth and stop genocides around the world.

Freedom is not just a goal to be achieved. It is an operating principle. When you look at an issue, whether it is a domestic one like illegal immigration or racism or an international one like genocide or forced child labor, you have to ask first how can we the people acting through our government help this situation without exerting coercion on people and nations? I'm sure we can find ways to resolve those problems like mediation, enforcing laws that protect individuals, withdrawing from trade or providing charity-based relief and amnesty. However, if a situation can't be resolved through non-coercive means, are the people, as a whole, willing to go to war as expressed through a congressional declaration?

The Constitution provides or allows for these means for solving problems. We only need to look to it.

Freedom works. We just have to believe in it.

 

[Hayek]

Basic answers...had to type quick sorry for mistakes.

Free Markets as a cause of war

Free markets act against war, strongly. It is actually the erosion of free markets that leads to war. A prelude to war is usually an embargo or sanctions, since trade will prevent war. Corporations will not lobby for investment and profits to be annihilated by war, rather will lobby to protect and expand investment. This is true on both sides of the border.

It is important to note the promotion of Free Market economics serves as a deterrent to war not a solution. The American policy with China is to promote trade and create a scenario whereby trade is more economically beneficial to the Chinese than military aggression will simultaneously maintaining a military deterrent during that transition period.

The abuse of third world resources, be they blood diamonds or child labor are a regrettable reality. They are not caused by liberty and free market economics but rather by a failure to hold our citizens and corporations accountable for their actions outside our borders.

Outdated Constitution and reflection of the times

A common mistake is to believe that "Collectivism" and equality are superior to free markets and liberty. However in reality, collectivism creates a scenario wherein personal and social morals are systematically eroded.

The constitution forms the basis for all law, and its interpretation will continue to change with the evolution of culture and technology.

In Medicare, our affluence leads us to believe we should have universal Medicare. In Canada, they have such a system. Though, it is not equal care. If you are a smoker then you are last priority for surgeries since you have a smaller chance of a full recovery and successful surgery. However this provides second rate care to citizens who invest heavily in the system with a 50% tax rate. Shouldn't a citizen be able to work towards and pay for whatever care he/she chooses? I am <b> not </b>endorsing the "insurance fraud" system so prevalent in the US, but rather a free market system of doctor/patient relationships.

In Canada, you may or may not get treated...in the US insurance companies advocate for the least expensive and not the most successful treatments. Governments are lobbied to eliminate peoples access to medicine, maintain high prices, preserve corporate interest (of insurance companies, pharmaceuticals etc) and dictate specific treatments through excessive regulation. It's a long argument; and I will agree that being sufficiently affluent as a society would create a moral responsibility to provide the best quality of life and care.

However you should not endorse mandatory involvement. The government should not use its powers to legislate monopolies, which it does with health care, energy and so many aspects of our society.

The tax structure should not reward bad behavior. If a divorced family can earn more than a married family, you are effectively rewarding a specific behavior. The tax structure should be indifferent to morality, but it is not.

The constitution forbids this meddling in personal decision making, whether it is choice of medicine (or choice to open a medicine practice) or a choice of personal morality. Many of the moral "problems" of our day are rooted in the "collectivist system".

If we adhered to the constitution, you would not receive a tax deduction to send money to Ethiopia, but nor would you have to pay tax on money you used to assist your neighbor, aging grandmother or divorced sister. In fact, providing "taxable benefits" or financial assistance to your family and community are justification to reduce the government benefits to those individuals. This in effect punishes citizens trying to care for their own, and creates a culture of "not my responsibility" and "why doesn't the government do something about that/them?"

Our elders get divorced for better benefits, young families for better tax incentives. Dual income families are encouraged, and our children are raised by TV, friends and schools. We are losing touch with our communities, our spouses, our children and our morals because we allow the government to legislate morality.

In terms of "Gold and Silver"; the reason for this is because government should not be allowed to arbitrarily steal the wealth and savings of its citizens. It was a time, when a penny saved was a penny earned. That is not true anymore, and no one understands why. The reason is that the constitution is no longer a guard against the looting of our income or our existing wealth. So the value of your wages drops each passing year, and your savings become worth less and less.

If we obeyed the constitution, the US government would still be the wealthiest government on the planet and the population would no longer be "taxed" through the devaluation of the currency on their savings...America could go back to having individual morals and individual wealth.

The essential liberties of the constitution will never be outdated. Certainly the interpretation will change...and it may need to be amended to accomodate an adapting society. However, it shouldn't require much since the rules, regulations, and government people want to see can be implemented by local governments.

Power should be as close to home as possible, so you can offer your voice and have it heard. The more power is centralized and migrated away from communities, cities and states into the Federal government. The more disenfranchised individuals, communities, cities and states become.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

His logic is flawed (if Nazis use free speech, we must eradicate free speech? See Skokie court decision) but Broadlighter is correct that he starts from a false premise that blocks understanding of specific issues.

As RP said, it is the Constitution that is new and socialism that is old.

You must understand today's Orwellian inversion, "progressive"=regressive.

See my brief history of terms: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=49624

He sounds on the left, so you can have fun by telling him that you disagree with his "Bush" policies and he should stop spouting his neocon Bush spin (since "outdated" laws/freedoms are central to "anti-terror" abridgments of liberties).

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

Hi Philip,

Your friend wrote a very complex letter that does require the dissection you're asking for... I shall try my best to help:

It's like having your cake & eating it, too: We want to have the freedom to move U.S. goods & money all over the world, but then get upset when our own people buy things made elsewhere.

Who is this collective we he is referring to? Easy to refute here... challenge him to go one month without buying one thing from China; he will absolutely lose. Then ask him if he's upset by it. He should easily concede that is argument makes no sense.

Then, we want to stay out of conflicts worldwide, but refuse to admit how we contribute to those conflicts by participating in the free market system.

False premise on his part. The Free Market system is NEVER the blame for international conflict. It is intervention via governments that do. Your friend is placing a moral value upon conditions within the free market and a moral litmus test to where the US must "intervene". I personally cannot think of a case where the cost of the collateral effect and cost of intervention justified the usual lack of effect on shifting the moral spectrum to the US's favor.

For example, buying blood diamonds in the U.S. directly impacted the rise of child soldiers in Sierra Leone.

Unbelievably naive. Attack him on two fronts:
1) The spurning of "blood diamonds" was done, not by direct government intervention, but the contraction of the "blood diamond" market. That is, the market itself applied it's own moral litmus on the product it was buying and forced DeBeers and the rest of them to apply an international standard on those diamonds. In this case, the free market HELPED RESOLVE THE ISSUE! Not government intervention.
2) If he's so concerned with causal relationships between US buying habits and it's effect on other "moral issues", tell him that our credit hungry US economy is forcing our country into bankruptcy and by 2020 we will only be able to afford Soc Sec and Medicare and EVERYTHING ELSE GOES UNFUNDED. That is a moral issue.

I could also argue long & hard about sweat shops maintained by U.S. corporations; the latter refusing to stop polluting environments in third world countries (& pollution does not respect man-made borders); the refusal to pay workers in other countries fair wages & health insurance; & on & on.

Other governments have their own rules and regulations in regards to property rights and economic policy. Overseas corporations abide by those governments regulations in terms of wage, insurance, and pollution.

So ask him, is it worth the collateral effect and cost of intervention to shift a foreign governments policy to increase wages and insurance. Would he be willing to go to war over it? Any answer of yes concedes that he is willing to damage the health of the US economy with an interventionist policy with little to no effect on a foreign government's policy.

We (including American participants in the free trade system) go around taking advantage of people all over the world, helping to fuck up other people's economies in the pursuit of our open market system, & then we wonder why things like 9/11 happen to us?

Agree with him, but stilt the conversation. 9/11 happened BECAUSE we try to meddle in the affairs of other countries. If we can simply let other countries develop their own economic infrastructure without us installing military dictators or putting bases on their hallowed soil, then they will want to trade with the world to enhance that economic infrastructure and actually participate in the free market.

If you want a free trade system, be prepared to get involved in global conflicts, 'cause there is a definite relationship between the two.

Ask him to prove this relationship, because you've debunked the only argument he's given.

His stuff about the constitution... Ask him what he would want "modernized"... remind him that the constitution was written so that the states could overthrow a tyrannical government so he's well in his right to suggest that the constitution be thrown out. But also remind him that, unlike a playground where the remaking of rules is optional, we have natural birthrights... we are alive after all... and aside from anarchy, something must replace the constitution. So, I would say to him, "I know you don't suggest anarchy, so tell me what you would replace the constitution with." He'll probably be silent.

Well done.

 

[Knightskye]

I'm not sure you can argue with someone who thinks the Constitution needs to be replaced.

Seriously. Move on to the next sheep.