Economic: Trade: Why is Paul against sanctions

[Matthanuf06]

Can someone explain the reasoning why Paul is against sanctions. I think it is highly contradictory. If a state, with representative government elected through the free will of the people, decide not to trade with a certain country, then shouldn't they have the right to carry that through? It is called freedom and liberty, is it not? It is in direct contradiction to Paul's domestic stance in regards to trade and private property. That doesn't mean sanctions are the right move diplomatically, but I don't see how on one hand we can say that I have the right to my private property and could tell you that I'm not going to sell you my goods, yet we must sell Iran our goods? Now if we actually blockade, aka stop the trade of willing actors, then that certainly is an act of war. Not trading because we don't want to is certainly not an act of war.

I think a state has the right to trade with whomever they please, as well as pursue any technology they please. So I don't think Iran pursueing nuclear weapons or the sanctions are immoral in this case. Now if we want Iran to give up their program, or if Iran wants to be able to trade with the bulk of the free world, then they can negotiate. Isn't that what liberty is?

 

[low preference guy]

Because Paul is against unnecessary wars and sanctions are acts of war.

Did you hear in the debate yesterday when Newt and Santorum said that if Iran blocks the canal it would be an act of war? It goes both ways.

 

[low preference guy]

I think a state has the right to trade with whomever they please, as well as pursue any technology they please.

If I want to trade with a Cuban, the state has no right to stop me, just like they have no right to stop me if I want to trade with my neighbor.

 

[erowe1]

Can someone explain the reasoning why Paul is against sanctions. I think it is highly contradictory. If a state, with representative government elected through the free will of the people, decide not to trade with a certain country, then shouldn't they have the right to carry that through? It is called freedom and liberty, is it not? It is in direct contradiction to Paul's domestic stance in regards to trade and private property. That doesn't mean sanctions are the right move diplomatically, but I don't see how on one hand we can say that I have the right to my private property and could tell you that I'm not going to sell you my goods, yet we must sell Iran our goods? Now if we actually blockade, aka stop the trade of willing actors, then that certainly is an act of war. Not trading because we don't want to is certainly not an act of war.

I think a state has the right to trade with whomever they please, as well as pursue any technology they please. So I don't think Iran pursueing nuclear weapons or the sanctions are immoral in this case. Now if we want Iran to give up their program, or if Iran wants to be able to trade with the bulk of the free world, then they can negotiate. Isn't that what liberty is?

Representative government does not enact the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people at the expense of others.

If you don't want to engage in trade with Iran, then don't. And if you think it's important for others to join you in that, then persuade them to go along with your boycott voluntarily. But you have no right to use force to prevent me from engaging in business with people in Iran if I choose to, no matter how many other voters went along with you in some sham election.

 

[bolil]

Sanctions hurt innocent people more than anyone else. It's like a medieval siege... who starves first? The children, then the peasants, tradesman, etc all the way up to and finally the rulers.

It is ironic, isn't it, we sanction Iran and then call it an act of war when they threaten to close the Straight of Hormuz. Historically, sanctions have often been the FIRST act of war, as was the case with the Japanese in the 1930's.

Well put Erowe, well put.

 

[chipvogel]

Like Ron Paul has said "Freedom is popular". Free trade corrupts high control groups with the taste of freedom.

Here is my favorite example:

Western products are considered basically evil is some Islamic cultures.
I took some pride that in Osama Bin Laden's fortress they found Coke and Pepsi.
...and porn, never heard if it was American porn though

 

[ZanZibar]

Sanctions are not actually an act of war in and of themselves. Only of the country in question considers them an act of war.

 

[roversaurus]

Yes.
I don't know why this isn't stated more clearly. If WE consider blocking the Straits of Hormuz a horrible action akin to starting a war then what do the Iranians think when we try to block their whole country!

Because Paul is against unnecessary wars and sanctions are acts of war.

Did you hear in the debate yesterday when Newt and Santorum said that if Iran blocks the canal it would be an act of war? It goes both ways.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

erowe and LPG. I don't need to repeat them. A voluntary boycott is the will of the people. A sanction is the use of government force to distort markets.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Can someone explain the reasoning why Paul is against sanctions. I think it is highly contradictory. If a state, with representative government elected through the free will of the people, decide not to trade with a certain country, then shouldn't they have the right to carry that through? It is called freedom and liberty, is it not? It is in direct contradiction to Paul's domestic stance in regards to trade and private property. That doesn't mean sanctions are the right move diplomatically, but I don't see how on one hand we can say that I have the right to my private property and could tell you that I'm not going to sell you my goods, yet we must sell Iran our goods? Now if we actually blockade, aka stop the trade of willing actors, then that certainly is an act of war. Not trading because we don't want to is certainly not an act of war.

I think a state has the right to trade with whomever they please, as well as pursue any technology they please. So I don't think Iran pursueing nuclear weapons or the sanctions are immoral in this case. Now if we want Iran to give up their program, or if Iran wants to be able to trade with the bulk of the free world, then they can negotiate. Isn't that what liberty is?

Sanctions are embargos(BLOCKADES) enforced by military. In old days embargo was the term used, political correctness has replaced embargo with "Sanction". It is an aggressive military action of blocking trade routes and it is a first act of war against another nation.

 

[Krugerrand]

If I want to trade with a Cuban, the state has no right to stop me, just like they have no right to stop me if I want to trade with my neighbor.

Given the war based nature of sanctions ... then a declaration of war should come before actions of war. If congress declares a war, I would have to support their constitutional grounds to prevent trade with those the country is fighting against.

Other than that, I will agree.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Sanctions hurt innocent people more than anyone else. It's like a medieval siege... who starves first? ....

+1984

 

[Matthanuf06]

Representative government does not enact the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people at the expense of others.

If you don't want to engage in trade with Iran, then don't. And if you think it's important for others to join you in that, then persuade them to go along with your boycott voluntarily. But you have no right to use force to prevent me from engaging in business with people in Iran if I choose to, no matter how many other voters went along with you in some sham election.

If this is the standard, then all government is bad. Even the constitutional government Paul fights for. To be honest, I fall in this camp as well. In an ideal world there would be no government. But that isn't what we have now. Each individual gives up certain collective decision making rights to the government. Under your standard we could never declare war or defend ourselves, even in a blatant act of aggression. I highly doubt you believe that, so then you have to cherry pick which collective rights we give to the government. One is declare war, but not trade agreements? What is your standard?

Given the war based nature of sanctions ... then a declaration of war should come before actions of war. If congress declares a war, I would have to support their constitutional grounds to prevent trade with those the country is fighting against.

I don't agree with your premise that sanctions are an act of war. I see it as voluntary trade. You have to ability to buy from whatever company you want to. Just because you choose HHGregg over Best Buy doesn't mean you are at war with Best Buy. Why is that the case with states?

Sanctions hurt innocent people more than anyone else. It's like a medieval siege... who starves first? ....

Sure, I agree. But isn't Ron Paul against nation building? Nation building, especially spreading democracy and eliminating brutal dictatorships, also help the innocents in that country. Clearly, you do not believe in that. So your standard cannot be "help the innocents", but rather is "America first" (for simplicity). So if America is first, why do we have to consider the ramifications on others on who we trade with, rather than making the best trade decision for our nation? Certainly you do that in your own business dealings.

It is ironic, isn't it, we sanction Iran and then call it an act of war when they threaten to close the Straight of Hormuz. Historically, sanctions have often been the FIRST act of war, as was the case with the Japanese in the 1930's.

I see a huge difference in the infringement of property rights in the closing down of international waters, and a free country deciding where their business is best being at.

 

[Matthanuf06]

Sanctions are embargos(BLOCKADES) enforced by military. In old days embargo was the term used, political correctness has replaced embargo with "Sanction". It is an aggressive military action of blocking trade routes and it is a first act of war against another nation.

If the US military is blockading Iran from trading with say China, Russia, etc. Then certainly I'd agree that is an act of war. If the EU and the US is simply deciding to take their business elsewhere, then how is that an act of war? How is a free actor deciding to do business elsewhere an infringement on the rights of the trading partner that was turned down?

 

[low preference guy]

If the EU and the US is simply deciding to take their business elsewhere, then how is that an act of war?

It is also a violation of MY right to trade. The U.S. government has no right to prevent me from buying or selling anything to my friend living in Cuba.

 

[TonySutton]

I am surprised no one has yet to mention "asset freezing" which is almost always included in sactions. The recent EU sanctions included, "Assets of Iran's central bank in the European Union will be frozen, and trade with Iran in gold, diamonds, and precious metals will be blocked."

 

[erowe1]

But that isn't what we have now. Each individual gives up certain collective decision making rights to the government.

The goal is for this to happen as little as possible, with the ideal being none at all. Pressing toward that ideal means being against sanctions.

 

[No Free Beer]

I am not necessarily always against a blockade. We set up a blockade against the Russians in the 60's under Kennedy. It worked in the short term. After that engagement, we talked with them about taking out our missiles in Turkey for theirs in Cuba. I think it is absolutely inappropriate for a nation to have weapons like that, right next to us, aiming right at our southern coast. Now, the whole argument of why Cuba did this and that, is a separate issue.

In my opinion, foreign policy and foreign issues aren't as simple as many people (here, included) make them out to be. Now, I know I am going to receive a lot of crap for saying this. But it is what it is.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Representative government does not enact the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people at the expense of others.

If you don't want to engage in trade with Iran, then don't. And if you think it's important for others to join you in that, then persuade them to go along with your boycott voluntarily. But you have no right to use force to prevent me from engaging in business with people in Iran if I choose to, no matter how many other voters went along with you in some sham election.

He asked why RON PAUL was against sanctions; not why you were against sanctions.

Ron Paul supports representative government that abides by the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

If the US military is blockading Iran from trading with say China, Russia, etc. Then certainly I'd agree that is an act of war. If the EU and the US is simply deciding to take their business elsewhere, then how is that an act of war? How is a free actor deciding to do business elsewhere an infringement on the rights of the trading partner that was turned down?

How do you figure it's a case of the EU and the US simply deciding to take their business elsewhere?

If I as an American want to do business with people in Iran, does my government stop me or not? If it does, then that's exactly the kind of act of war you concede. If it doesn't, then that's not sanctions.