Libertarianism? Lets play devils advocate...

[josephadel_3]

Thanks Joe. ...I agree, or at least I thought so.

What did I say that you didn't agree with? Anyways, I think that dude is banned.

 

[FindLiberty]

Joe, sorry... everything you've said is just fine. I'm just running a parity check after that dog lover (?) raised such a fuss about Ron Paul, Liberty and goading...


***************************
* NO PARITY ERRORS DETECTED *
***************************


So, I'm back to 100% RP support and Big L Libertarian philosophically as the cure.

There is room for ev-ah-body under that tent if you can just keep your hands to yourself (unless you have informed adult consent from a taxpayer)!

 

[Ladiliberty]

[mod edit- this post contains misinformation]

Paul is most certainly an isolationist .... as shown by his own words and campaign platform. For that and many other reasons, he is seen as unstable. He is simply Ross Perot, Jr., and he will be met with the same political fate as Ross .....

Talk about unelectable and very unstable: how bout liberals portraying themselves as conservatives through placation, not actions... IE: McCain...

Being an isolationist is completely different from being a non-interventionist. RP is the latter... And yes, since the 40's we've been meddling in the middle east... We propped up all the rulers that ultimately turned on us... We trained most every country and dictator in the Middle easts troops and armed them... In fact they usually turn on us because our foreign policy is to play (financially as well as arms) both sides in a war! Including OBL! Arf Arf, now go lie down... Unplug the tube and try reading some books for a change...

 

[Mini-Me]

Here is some truth to the matter .....

http://www.hinzsightreport.com/kntr/ken-052007.html

"Now to his non-intervention platform. Paul in his comments at the debate stated that the attack on September 11 was due to interventionist policies of The United States and added to this ten years of , "bombing Iraq, " after the first Gulf War. He believes that we should keep our troops within our borders and stop intervening in the affairs of countries around the world.

His contention that 9/11 was a result of anger that Islamic fanatics have toward The United States due to our intervention in Middle East affairs is also based in part on the Fatwa manifesto that was given by Usama Bin Laden in 1998. He also bases his theory on CIA evaluation that US policy in the Middle East and other areas of the world has a, "blow back, "effect, which means that out intervention in certain areas could have an adverse effect on the US by in sighting anger.

Paul's theory on the , "blow back, " effect concerning 9/11 finds one major flaw in its premise setting aside the contention that we not Al Qaeda are at fault for the attacks. His theory does not take into account the fanaticism of radical Islam.

How so? Well, I'll let this article continue (since you are not capable of making any points yourself, and instead you resort to name-calling and misrepresentative labels). From here on out, when I use "you," it refers both to Beaglelover and the author of this amateur attack on Ron Paul's policy.

Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."

This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies it is because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefore we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we die and our way of life no longer exists.

Okay, so the author of this article subscribes to a moronic "class of cultures" viewpoint. What the author fails to understand is this:
Will there be radical religious fundamentalists who want to kill all of the nonbelievers? Yes, there will. You see them in Islam, and you see them in Christianity. It happens everywhere.
The difference with Islam is not that "those dirty brown people in the Middle East" are inherently stupid and evil, nor that their religion itself forces them to have an "us versus them" mentality (as evidenced by the fact that most Muslims do not take this attitude). As a matter of fact, the only people I see who are espousing this viewpoint are the extreme minority in groups like Al Qaeda.

Under ordinary circumstances, almost everyone in the Middle East would see terrorist groups as fanatical religious nutcases (and in fact, most of them still do!) However, people in the Middle East are not under ordinary circumstances. They live in a world where America and other western nations bully everyone else with "free trade" agreements if they want to trade anything at all. They live in a world where America finances both sides of almost every war. They live in a world where Israel is constantly at war with the Palestineans, and America has Israel's back all the way, no matter how many stupid and reckless things they do. They live in a world where the United States overtly uses their military might and presence to control the oil trade, and where it covertly uses the CIA to create agitation and revolutions in their own countries. The people of the world, especially people in the Middle East, have every right to detest our policies and our government.

So...over in the Middle East, we have people who are poor, desperate, religious, and who hate the US for legitimate reasons. Is it really that hard to understand how religious fanatics can use this situation to their advantage? The reason terrorism is on the rise is because religious fanatics are able to draw upon the righteous anger people feel in order to brainwash outraged, impressionable, and confused young men that they have a sacred duty to fight jihad. The existence of religious fanatics is something nobody can fix, but we should recognize that the "ringleaders" are so few in number that they're completely powerless by themselves! We give them power because our short-sighted interventionism creates a situation where it's easy for them to warp the minds of young people to persuade them to join their cause...and until we reverse this mistake, we will continue to create our own enemies.

There's something quite ironic about your quickness to believe in polarizing "us or them" rhetoric: It seems that if you were born in the Middle East, you'd probably be one of the first ones lining up to join Al Qaeda...just something to think about.

The United States is also the major obstacle both in our power and influence to preventing Islamic radicals from converting and controlling the world as they do many areas in the Middle East. Our presence in that region is a constant reminder of the power of the Infidel and of our disobedience to Allah and their form of Islam. This religious fanaticism from radical Islam drives their Jihad and promotes their fighting and attacks which includes 9/11.

In case you haven't noticed, the countries we have the biggest problems with are usually the moderate ones, like Iran. On the other hand, we're perfectly fine with Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most barbaric countries on the planet, and which is the birthplace of most of the 9/11 hijackers?

Our presence does nothing to "keep them from spreading." No...our presence fans the flames and causes more young people to flock to the "cause" of terrorist groups. What do you think we're actually accomplishing over there? Do you think bullying the world as we have for generations is just a good way of "showing them who's boss?" Do you think we have any hope of "killing all of the terrorists?" You cannot fight a mindset with bombs and bullets. For every person we kill, terrorist or not, two more will join their cause in hatred of us.

Paul's contention that 9/11 was a result of US interventionist policy fails the historical test also. If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention.

Errr, why would you have to conclude that? That's a ridiculous argument. Just because you believe in cause-and-effect doesn't mean you believe war always has the same exact cause. However, continue...

Prior to the attack of December 1941, United States policy had us intervening in Far East countries like the Philippines and China as a stop gap for Japanese expansion. We also had a major oil embargo against Japan which hampered the country who was totally dependent on imported oil. Other sanctions were also in effect against Japan.

The Japanese claimed that our policies are the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japans declaration of war against The United States. It is historically accepted that US policies were not the blame for the attack and tat it was then and still now accepted as an unprovoked attack.

The jingoistic Japanese nationalism of the early 20th century has some pretty complex causes dating back to the beginning of the Meiji Restoration, and some of them had to do with western imperialism and encroachment on Japanese sovereignty. You're right that US policy leading up to the attack doesn't tell the whole story (especially considering how, although we shouldn't have intervened, Japan was obviously in the wrong with their own imperialistic pursuits), but the story goes back much further.

Anyway, you already admit that the US was doing things that were pissing Japan off (for good or ill). You also admit that the Japanese claimed those as a reason for the attacks. While the ruling class of Japan surely had other ideas and reasons of their own, is it really that hard to believe that the ruling class used these perceived injustices to rally public support? It doesn't matter what the "real" reasons for Japanese imperialism were in the minds of the rulers - what matters is how they convinced the public...and the bottom line is, the public became jingoistic and nationalistic for two major reasons:
1.) Real or perceived injustices committed by the west
2.) The natural tendency of people to buy into the "greatest nation/people on the planet" propaganda...which is exactly what Germany bought into, and it's also exactly what America has bought into for the past several generations.

9/11 likewise was an unprovoked attack against The United States. We in 1941 and today have the eternal right to defend our self as a Nation when attacked and that is why we went to war and why we fight the Islamic radicals today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh, whoa, whoa, wait up there! Do we have a right to defend ourselves when attacked by countries? Yes, we do - that's what war is for. Do we have a right to defend ourselves when attacked by terrorist groups? Yes, we do - that what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are for. Indeed, we even had a right to go into Afghanistan when they refused to give up terrorists they were harboring - however, we did a whole lot more than just go in. We're still there, and that's something we did not have a right to do.

The best part of this assertion, however, is your inclusion of Iraq! Yes, we're going to war to defend ourselves against Iraq, who attacked us on 9/11...right? Right?!? Are you kidding me? Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and it's ridiculous that anyone would continue to try to claim otherwise. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no Al Qaeda there - Saddam hated terrorists, probably because they were a threat to his own secular regime. Iraq was never a threat to our national security. We invaded for numerous reasons, but none of them had anything to do with terrorism - that's just the way the Bush admin was able to convince morons (like me, at the time) to support the unprovoked invasion. We were not defending ourselves from Iraq - we attacked Iraq. Islamic radicals are there today because they poured in from other countries and because our invasion created more of them. I'm not even going to bother arguing this point further.

Additionally looking at the , "interventionist," policy of The United States, the question must be asked in light of Ron Paul's non-intervention ideas "how much different would the world be today if we had not intervened?"

Pre-WWII Europe for example survived greatly because of US intervention assistance to Great Britain with supplies and money to fight Hitler. We then intervened in the war not because we were attacked but because it was the right thing to do and victory was the result. A victory that would not have been possible were it not for US intervention.

First of all, we were justified to go to war in World War II because Germany had a clear pattern of invading other countries, they were set on world domination, and they were therefore a direct threat to us, even though they had not yet directly attacked us. However, that's a far cry from saying that backwater third world countries with tiny armed forces are somehow such a threat to us that we need to go to war with them. Notice how the Russians had 40,000 nukes, yet we were able to stand them down without war! They were a bigger foreign threat to the United States than just about anyone, yet we avoided going to war with them.

Secondly, remember that the Nazis would never have come to power in Germany in the first place if it wasn't for US interventionist policy in World War I. Here is my post in a relevant thread.

Countless countries throughout the world are saved from starvation and genocide under brutal dictators by US intervention. In a very real sense The United States intervention feeds most of the third world countries. Our intervention has prevented ecological and genocide disasters.

This is in complete contradiction to reality. Our financial aid is partially what props up these brutal dictatorships in the first place (in addition to our CIA having helped install a bunch of them). The topic of aid is worthy of its own debate, but the main point there is that we cannot feed people in other countries without putting their own farmers out of business and destroying their long-term self-sufficiency. Our horrible trade policies, as implemented through the WTO and our trade agreements (which essentially set the western powers up as a cartel and have the policy of, "allow us to trade with you in every way, shape, and form, or you cannot trade with us whatsoever), have also destroyed these countries...and then we further destroy them with our loan sharks, the IMF and World Bank, who have no intention of their loans being repaid - rather, they wait until third world countries default, and then they take control of their economies and hollow them out for the gain of US corporations. As mentioned before, this is its own complex topic, but it also provides a very good argument against our interventionism.

As the worlds lone superpower we have a great responsibility to the world and we take that responsibility seriously. Does it have its draw backs ? Sure our intervention does anger some but the positive far our weighs the negative and the good exceeds the bad tremendously.

No, it does not. Does the rest of the world want us to play the role of world police? No...we are the most hated nation on the planet. In fact, does ANYONE need to play such a role? It's sheer arrogance on our part to think we have the right or the responsibility.

Besides, this whole "lone superpower" argument is tiring and asinine: We are not a superpower anymore in anything other than military might. Because our economy is crumbling and our dollar is crumbling, we're becoming more and more of a paper tiger. We are not a "superpower," and we should stop pretending to be.

Isolationism and non-intervention does not make Ron Paul a conservative as many suggest but a naive politician who would take The United States backwards and more vulnerable to attack in a world that has grown and become exceedingly more dangerous in the years before our superpower status. Paul's ideas are dangerous especially in a post 9/11 world and in light of the many countries who depend on our support and our strength for their defense."

As mentioned above, neither you (Beaglelover) nor you (article-writer) have made any case for the "isolationism" label. The rest of this entire paragraph is full of nothing but unsubstantiated catchphrases like "take the United States backwards," "more vulnerable to attack," (how so?) "superpower status," etc. Honestly, do you guys really believe this crap for any reason other than it makes you feel all good and righteous on the inside to believe it?


EDIT: DAMN IT, that guy was banned? Sure, he deserved it more than just about anyone I've ever seen, but now he won't be able to rebut my post with jingoistic hubris and "little black helicopters" comments.

 

[RonPaulalways]

he's not an isolationist. Isolationism means non-interventionism combined with protectionism. Paul advocates free trade, military non-interventionism, and diplmatic neutrality.

 

[dbhohio47]

Libertarianism sounds good in theory. It has never been tried in practice on a large scale for an extended period of time. No-one knows what the result of libertarian style government would be. It would be a grand experiment. My guess is that, once established, it would quickly begin trending back toward socialism and large government. Government grows, that is what it does, like a virus or a cancer. You can set it back a notch but all it does is start growing again.

huh? Libertarian philosophy is what THIS country was founded under. The constitution was written from a libertarian perspective. That is RP's entire point....how far we have strayed from those ideals.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A monopoly isn't evil. In a free market monopolies can only exist by the consent of the people. If a monoply happened in a free market it would be because they provide the best service, for the best price. Which would not be bad. Assuming monoplies are bad is anti-capitalistic in nature. Monoplies are only evil when they're created WITHOUT the consent of the people.

Big government is a monopoly. And it has been created with the consent of the people. But you will not convince me that big government is good, or that it provides the best service for the best price...

 

[Campusanis]

Mini-Me, I just added this thread to my favourites because of your GREAT post. Debunking irrational criticism in a concise fashion is the way forward.
/bump

 

[Kade]

Why was BeagleLover banned?

Listen, I don't agree with him at all... but the moderators here are out of f***ing control. The regulars here can take care of these people in civil debate, there is no need to ban them for making disagreeable statements, what has this so called "Liberty Forest" come to?

Unbelievable.

 

[therealjjj77]

Here is some truth to the matter .....

http://www.hinzsightreport.com/kntr/ken-052007.html
Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."

This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies it is because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefore we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we die and our way of life no longer exists.

Let's see, between Editor of "The Hinzsight Report" and CIA bin Laden Unit Chief, Michael Scheuer, who do you think has more credentials to talk on the subject? Ron Paul doesn't get his information from light reads. He goes straight to the best sources we have.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOqXdbe7CVM

Ron Paul takes the time to read and study very well on a subject before making a stand. He doesn't just watch the TV and expect them to be honest and in depth on the issues.

 

[snaFU]

Libertarianism sounds good in theory. It has never been tried in practice on a large scale for an extended period of time. No-one knows what the result of libertarian style government would be. It would be a grand experiment. My guess is that, once established, it would quickly begin trending back toward socialism and large government. Government grows, that is what it does, like a virus or a cancer. You can set it back a notch but all it does is start growing again.

then lets have...NO GOVT YAY