Bergie Bergeron
Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,114
Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud
- Thread starter Bergie Bergeron
- Start date
Kaizen
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15
What a terrible piece.
That entire article rests on a strawman. Bidinotto makes the correct claim that Ron Paul looks at the causal nature of crime, associating his views with a liberal's view of domestic crime. The incorrect claim, however, is that Ron Paul is sympathizing with those who commit crimes against America because they have been violated in the past, feeling they should get away with their violations. That is completely FALSE.
First of all, Ron Paul voted to authorize force against those terrorists who did infact commit crimes against America, whether or not he believed they were influenced by former foreign policy. Ron Paul clearly leaves his analysis of causal factors behind when a criminal actually commits a crime. He believes entirely in punishment and treats them as such. But it's completely irresponsible to ignore the causal nature that leads to the crimes. Afterall, one would think it beneficial to have less terrorist attacks against one's nation, correct?
Ron Paul is simply outlining the reasons that lead to their criminality. He's not saying we have no right to punish them, as Bidinotto curiously implies, but we should equally try to prevent such things in the future in a way that won't lead to further transgressions that may lead to more future crimes. The logical extension of this is to get out of Iraq. Iraq committed no crime against America, and the occupation of their lands may in fact lead to more in the future! It's quite simple, really.
These guys just seem to conveniently forget that Iraq commited no crime against America.
In the rest of his article, where he criticizes Paul's views on what happened in Iran, I could only laugh. He makes out this curious moral argument that it was our duty to protect BPs legitimate property. Well I certainly apply to the Lockean idea of property and consider those wells drilled in Iran to be BPs, however, what I do not subscribe to is the idea that's the American taxpayers duty to subsidize the international property protection services of BP. Committing a crime against Americans (taxation) to pay for BPs international protection from crime is laughable. I literally fell out of my chair.
Should we invade Venezuala now Bidinotto? He just kicked out Exxon, afterall. It is our moral obligation to be Exxon's security service, yes?
That is article is just the ramblings of a quasi-libertarian who hasn't quite got this "logic" thing figured out yet.
That entire article rests on a strawman. Bidinotto makes the correct claim that Ron Paul looks at the causal nature of crime, associating his views with a liberal's view of domestic crime. The incorrect claim, however, is that Ron Paul is sympathizing with those who commit crimes against America because they have been violated in the past, feeling they should get away with their violations. That is completely FALSE.
First of all, Ron Paul voted to authorize force against those terrorists who did infact commit crimes against America, whether or not he believed they were influenced by former foreign policy. Ron Paul clearly leaves his analysis of causal factors behind when a criminal actually commits a crime. He believes entirely in punishment and treats them as such. But it's completely irresponsible to ignore the causal nature that leads to the crimes. Afterall, one would think it beneficial to have less terrorist attacks against one's nation, correct?
Ron Paul is simply outlining the reasons that lead to their criminality. He's not saying we have no right to punish them, as Bidinotto curiously implies, but we should equally try to prevent such things in the future in a way that won't lead to further transgressions that may lead to more future crimes. The logical extension of this is to get out of Iraq. Iraq committed no crime against America, and the occupation of their lands may in fact lead to more in the future! It's quite simple, really.
These guys just seem to conveniently forget that Iraq commited no crime against America.
In the rest of his article, where he criticizes Paul's views on what happened in Iran, I could only laugh. He makes out this curious moral argument that it was our duty to protect BPs legitimate property. Well I certainly apply to the Lockean idea of property and consider those wells drilled in Iran to be BPs, however, what I do not subscribe to is the idea that's the American taxpayers duty to subsidize the international property protection services of BP. Committing a crime against Americans (taxation) to pay for BPs international protection from crime is laughable. I literally fell out of my chair.
Should we invade Venezuala now Bidinotto? He just kicked out Exxon, afterall. It is our moral obligation to be Exxon's security service, yes?
That is article is just the ramblings of a quasi-libertarian who hasn't quite got this "logic" thing figured out yet.
Last edited:
"Iraq commited no crime against America."
The USS Stark incident would have provided sufficient reason for me to declare war on Iraq, but of course we did not.
So much crap out there that is worse than bad reporting, its not going to be possible to track them all down.
The USS Stark incident would have provided sufficient reason for me to declare war on Iraq, but of course we did not.
So much crap out there that is worse than bad reporting, its not going to be possible to track them all down.
khorbis
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2007
- Messages
- 115
the folly of the self-righteous-know-it-all
My (short) response:
Ehn, most of your reasoning is suitably logical, I suppose. Logic isn't a straight line though, pal. There is no ONE course that will lead to some predetermined joyous outcome for the future generations of mankind. All you've provided is an "illusionary correlation" between non-interventionism and political/moral irresponsibility that is, frankly, disingenuous at best.
Here we go again. It seems everyone, political historian or otherwise, grandiosely thinks that THEY know THE REASON for all of the world’s woes; many even presume to know how to FIX them. Well, presumption be damned, because if I'm going to be forced to sacrifice absolute freedom (as all those who live under any kind of government institution must) then I insist it should be for a truly, truly GOOD human being. Now, the true meaning of "good" is, of course, debatable, but I'm sure we all agree that certain things are very, very BAD - like, ahem, killing a profoundly huge number of innocent people to get to a relatively small number of "bad" people, for instance? That makes us so much MORE justified to spread "our goodness" HOW exactly?
It is my nature to disrespect any and everyone who would willingly choose to sacrifice moral integrity for political/social/economical gain - ESPECIALLY if said person is involved with a station involving the REPRESENTATION OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE! People with "loose morals" have no right touting morality to the masses. This formula applies to American especially, and I'm certainly NOT "anti-government" either. Government is absolutely necessary to keep people from stepping (accidentally or not) on other people's "liber-toes" (admittedly, a very cheesy metaphor) by stripping them of "absolute freedom." Ron Paul supporters aren't all anarchists, but "less government" is definitely in the agenda. It's like the "glass ceiling" of the working class. We don't want to break it; we just want to get as close as we possibly can to it. Whatever happened to the "crazy" idea that people have a right to do what they want, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others? Gee, I guess that makes me a CRAZED, CONSPIRACY- DRIVEN MOONBAT! ...bah...HUMBUG!
What? "National sovereignty" has little or nothing to do with why Ron Paul's ideology is so appealing! Someone even commented that mainly "white supremacists" support Paul? Surely, sir, you jest. In fact, if you WEREN'T jesting (and if this wasn't a digital medium), I would kick your ass for saying something so blatantly asinine. The underlying foundation of Ron Paul's character is FAR more important than HIS belief in American's "goodness." Ron Paul is perfectly justified in believing everything that he does; just like everyone else...even YOU Bidinotto. Doesn't it feel good to say whatever the hell you want to say and think? Ron Paul thinks so too.
I say YOU, Bidinotto, rely too heavily on cynical political interventionism, and underestimate moral, social, and economical interventionism. I'm ashamed that I live in a world in which people HONESTLY believe that war is anything but a LAST resort (self-defense, imminent attack) - and NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER a "pre-emptive" solution. The whole idea is both immoral and grossly irresponsibility - even more so than the so-called "irresponsibility" of allowing Iraq, and every other country in which we meddle, to solve their OWN problems, unless, of course, their people ask for help directly.
Your stance will, unfortunately, provided nothing but short-term relief to a relative few and long-term suffering to everyone else, including me. However, it is my generation, and others after me, who will inherit the world long after you are dead (which, based on your photo, will be much sooner than mine if all goes well, sorry). Ron Paul's Revolution will certainly outlast Ron Paul as well. You don't even understand that Ron Paul is just a focus, not a catalyst. Ron Paul's supporters may be turning everyone's head now, but they'll be SPINNING them in another decade if the current generation continue to undermine the future with false pretenses of "doing good" and "knowing what is in the best interest for everybody."
I've said too much, I fear. I do wish you would rethink your positioning Bidinotto, and all of you other naysayers for that matter. Unfortunately, you've all probably lived the way you do too long to turn back now. Enjoy what you all have created while you can. At this rate, it won't be around much longer.
Peace.
My (short) response:
Ehn, most of your reasoning is suitably logical, I suppose. Logic isn't a straight line though, pal. There is no ONE course that will lead to some predetermined joyous outcome for the future generations of mankind. All you've provided is an "illusionary correlation" between non-interventionism and political/moral irresponsibility that is, frankly, disingenuous at best.
Here we go again. It seems everyone, political historian or otherwise, grandiosely thinks that THEY know THE REASON for all of the world’s woes; many even presume to know how to FIX them. Well, presumption be damned, because if I'm going to be forced to sacrifice absolute freedom (as all those who live under any kind of government institution must) then I insist it should be for a truly, truly GOOD human being. Now, the true meaning of "good" is, of course, debatable, but I'm sure we all agree that certain things are very, very BAD - like, ahem, killing a profoundly huge number of innocent people to get to a relatively small number of "bad" people, for instance? That makes us so much MORE justified to spread "our goodness" HOW exactly?
It is my nature to disrespect any and everyone who would willingly choose to sacrifice moral integrity for political/social/economical gain - ESPECIALLY if said person is involved with a station involving the REPRESENTATION OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE! People with "loose morals" have no right touting morality to the masses. This formula applies to American especially, and I'm certainly NOT "anti-government" either. Government is absolutely necessary to keep people from stepping (accidentally or not) on other people's "liber-toes" (admittedly, a very cheesy metaphor) by stripping them of "absolute freedom." Ron Paul supporters aren't all anarchists, but "less government" is definitely in the agenda. It's like the "glass ceiling" of the working class. We don't want to break it; we just want to get as close as we possibly can to it. Whatever happened to the "crazy" idea that people have a right to do what they want, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others? Gee, I guess that makes me a CRAZED, CONSPIRACY- DRIVEN MOONBAT! ...bah...HUMBUG!
What? "National sovereignty" has little or nothing to do with why Ron Paul's ideology is so appealing! Someone even commented that mainly "white supremacists" support Paul? Surely, sir, you jest. In fact, if you WEREN'T jesting (and if this wasn't a digital medium), I would kick your ass for saying something so blatantly asinine. The underlying foundation of Ron Paul's character is FAR more important than HIS belief in American's "goodness." Ron Paul is perfectly justified in believing everything that he does; just like everyone else...even YOU Bidinotto. Doesn't it feel good to say whatever the hell you want to say and think? Ron Paul thinks so too.
I say YOU, Bidinotto, rely too heavily on cynical political interventionism, and underestimate moral, social, and economical interventionism. I'm ashamed that I live in a world in which people HONESTLY believe that war is anything but a LAST resort (self-defense, imminent attack) - and NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER a "pre-emptive" solution. The whole idea is both immoral and grossly irresponsibility - even more so than the so-called "irresponsibility" of allowing Iraq, and every other country in which we meddle, to solve their OWN problems, unless, of course, their people ask for help directly.
Your stance will, unfortunately, provided nothing but short-term relief to a relative few and long-term suffering to everyone else, including me. However, it is my generation, and others after me, who will inherit the world long after you are dead (which, based on your photo, will be much sooner than mine if all goes well, sorry). Ron Paul's Revolution will certainly outlast Ron Paul as well. You don't even understand that Ron Paul is just a focus, not a catalyst. Ron Paul's supporters may be turning everyone's head now, but they'll be SPINNING them in another decade if the current generation continue to undermine the future with false pretenses of "doing good" and "knowing what is in the best interest for everybody."
I've said too much, I fear. I do wish you would rethink your positioning Bidinotto, and all of you other naysayers for that matter. Unfortunately, you've all probably lived the way you do too long to turn back now. Enjoy what you all have created while you can. At this rate, it won't be around much longer.
Peace.
USCisCarolina
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 33
Just another pro-imperialism stance to counter RP's nonintervention theory. We should expect many more as the campaign picks up momentum.
There are really only two sides to this coin.
You either believe that we Americans are smarter than everyone else in the world and we need to point a gun at them and tell them how to live their lives. or....
you support Dr. Ron Paul.
There are really only two sides to this coin.
You either believe that we Americans are smarter than everyone else in the world and we need to point a gun at them and tell them how to live their lives. or....
you support Dr. Ron Paul.
Similar threads
