Strictly speaking, however, Rothbard could only claim the welfare effects of government intervention upon "social utility" are indeterminate; i.e., since the victim loses and the intervener gains, it is impossible to say anything about social utility without making a verboten interpersonal welfare comparison. [. . .] Rothbard's own theory strips him of the ability to call any act of government "inefficient." By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. [. . .] Rothbard's welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about - not denial of - the benefits of statism.
What's the value of a libertarian economic argument that fails to condemn statism?
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Also, when I was looking up background information on Bryan Caplan and his employer (George Mason University), I noted that two libertarian Nobel Prize winning economists are also professors in his same department. one of whom (a Dr. Buchanan) won his for founding "public choice theory", which claims that government actions are inherently a part of economics, not merely an outside force. Under this theory, politics *is* an economic force. That strikes me as a powerful truism.
Thanks for the link, Wizard!
JJ
Active Member
Posts: 431
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:50 am
Laird wrote:
JJ also calls his campaign unappealing, which is fine to say since it's just an opinion. But when he calls his campaign immature, he doesn't seem to have any idea where his positions come from (probably because he doesn't get much airtime) and seems to think that Paul just pulled his platform out of his ass. This kinda pushes my buttons because there is a lot of thought and debate in the libertarian philosophy which he just seems to dismiss as loony and stupid. Remember that the founding fathers and anti-Communists in the USSR were far-right radicals too. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.
Sorry for the lateness of my reply. This is certainly shaping up to be quite an epic discussion, as I expected.
I like to think that I am fairly familiar with libertarianism, and libertarian talking points. I'm not a fan, but I am familiar. That being said, Dr. Paul is really like no libertarian I have ever seen before. I think he's more of a populist disguised as a libertarian; a man who uses libertarian appeals, but does not nessisarily come to conclusions that I believe are really as pro-freedom as he claims. I'm obviously not a libertarian myself, but I think I do have a right to evaluate Mr. Paul's rhetoric and see if it matches the positions he actually supports.
I think it does not reflect well on the ideological consistency of Mr. Paul when he springs to defend a socialist tyrant like President Mossadiq of Iran, who sought to sieze and nationalize British-owned petrolumn plants without any regard for the property rights of their owners. His decision to defend such a regime, along with the “grivances” of Islamic radicals, suggests to me that when it comes to foreign nations, governments, and organizations he is incapable of understanding the moral and strategic reasons for forming friendships, alliances, and partnertships. He argues from the rigid, absolutist principle that every foreign adventure of the US is unjustified, and therefore any “blowback” delt to the United States, no matter how irrational or stupid, is a fair and understandable response. I think that is a cowardly attitude, frankly, for it implies that the United States should never aspire to use its power for the betterment of the collective planet, or work to assist the cause of human rights and freedom outsie our own borders.
I also think it reflects poorly on Paul's understanding of the rule of law and economics when he treats US treaties with foreign powers and American membership in world bodies like the UN and World Bank as unimportant trivialities that the United States is free to unilaterally abandon at whim. The real world does not operate according to childish absolutes where one can simply pick up his ball and go home the second things don't go exactly your way. I think a President should understand that fact, and seek to work within institutions, like John Bolton did, rather than just throw a hissy fit and “leave” (which is impossible anyway).
It is very immature and irresponsible for a prospective Leader of the Free World to advocate isolationism, and suggest that all other nations of the planet are basically dangerous, wicked places that exist only to weaken American strength, take American tax dollars, or retaliate, bee hive-like, against American “meddling.” His views are not mainstream for a reason, and the reasons are not simply that everyone else in Washington is part of some evil big-government agenda. Successive State Departments composed of people who are, frankly far more educated about the world than Mr. Paul, have realized that it is an inescapable reality that we now live in a globalized world, and that the United States is one of the most dominant, leading players in this world order. One can oppose American foreign policy without going to the opposite extreme and advocating America cease to even have a foreign policy.
As I said, there are lots of sensible libertarian ideals and libertarian people. My biggest problem with hardcore libertarians, however, is that they tend to view compromise and co-operation as signs of weakness, and pride themselves on espousing policies that are radical and sweeping to the point of impossibility. Ron Paul seems to relish this role. That's his whole brand appeal, “I'm the most radical candidate of either party, the only candidate who honestly challenges the establishment, etc etc.” Fair enough, but if you are going to make a career out of being unrelentingly dogmatic then the last thing you should do is run for president. The best presidents are the clever negotiators and compromisers, who are receptive to the interests of the public and the wants of the Congress. I don't think people with the sort of close-minded rigidity of Paul are particularly useful to most forms of democratic governance, really.
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:48 pm
Quote:
I like to think that I am fairly familiar with libertarianism, and libertarian talking points.
Obviously not, seeing as your saying many things that are 100% at odds with the main Libertarian tenet, paraphrased by the Bible, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
You claim a Libertarian would advocate colonialism and imperialism, that sir is groundless slander.
You claim Ayn Rand is a Libertarian, she was in fact very much NOT a Libertarian. She was admired by some Libertarians, but fundamental differences in Objectivism politcs makes them incompatible. She completely denies the existence of 'collective rights', and does not beleive in animal rights, sustainable development, or in public property! Libertarians on the other hand beleive in government, Ayn Rand is all about anarchy, she was a foolish idealist with a retarded optimistic view of human nature. The BIGGEST critics of objectivism are in fact Libertarians. Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Michael Shermer for example.
Objectivism is about saying what humans ought to do.
Libertarianism is about what works best for humans.
Quote:
Dr. Paul is really like no libertarian I have ever seen before
Well then WHY did the Libertarians choose him as their running candidate in 1988? If hes popular with Libertarians, then he must have values in common with the majority of them would he not? I can't think of ANY of his political stances that are not Libertarian or constitutionality based. Really this is just proof you have no clue what a Libertarian is about.
Quote:
Mr. Paul when he springs to defend a socialist tyrant like President Mossadiq of Iran
Isn't that a Neo-con tactic, to slander someone by claiming they support the said person? Besides, remember the Shah was the person the CIA decided should be in charge, and he was an actual tyrant. Mossadeq founded the National Front, a secular democratic party. The nationalization of BP assests in Iran was passed by the Iranian Parliament, as a newly elected President he then enforced the act. So it was the majority position of the entire government. Even after the economy started to choke from Britains oil blockade, he still was re-elected. He asked for emergency powers, the Shah refused, so then Mossadeq RESIGNED. The shah appointed a new PM, who then sought to give Britain what it wanted, the populace revolted, and the shah re-appointed Mossadeq with the emergency powers he had requested before. So at this point in time, he was in no way a tyrant.
But.... then the CIAs plans to stage a coup became known, then Mossadeq started acting like a tyrant. In his defense, when you know the western powers are actively trying to take over your country, you usually resort to drastic measures to keep power out of their hands. I'd bet that he would have never illegally dissolved parliament or refused to resign, if the CIA hadn't being planting the seeds of revolt, especially since the Shah was known to be a traitor, why else would Mossadeq ask him to leave. You a fan of Madeleine Albright? Because she did directly come out and say that it was a mistake to overthrow Mossaddeq.
Quote:
who sought to sieze and nationalize British-owned petrolumn plants without any regard for the property rights of their owners
He sought to compensate the British BP, he in fact was open to discuss compensation from the beginning. It was the British BP that REFUSED to discuss compensation. Iran only made a measly 100 million a year from their oil, the rest went into the pockets of the Westerners, it was blatant theft, that only neo-cons would EVER defend.
Quote:
absolutist principle that every foreign adventure of the US is unjustified, and therefore any “blowback” delt to the United States, no matter how irrational or stupid, is a fair and understandable response
HOW IS BLOWBACK IRRATIONAL? Western powers ROB a nation for years, then DESTROY their SECULAR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, to be replaced with a TYRANT, whom successfully killed a person in EVERY SINGLE IRANIANS FAMILY, did you expect Iranians to be THANKFUL? Then supplying Saddam with arms (no much compared to others) and intelligence directly to help kill as many Iranians as possible? How about giving Saddam the thumbs up to invade Kuwait for angle drilling their oil, then turning around to attack them? How about funding the Israeli nation, which slaps the prophet Mohammad in the face with the Quranic decree that 'all Muslim lands will remain so forever, thus proving Islam is the true faith'? You just don't get international politics JJ, your too wrapped up in your narrow little view of the world to understand that people can have fundamentally different values that lead them to different conclusions.
Quote:
it implies that the United States should never aspire to use its power for the betterment of the collective planet, or work to assist the cause of human rights and freedom outsie our own borders.
Ok, I'm pro-interventionist, but the current score has the United States supporting more dictatorships and doing more harm than any other nation on Earth. Now sure, the American PEOPLE do great work donating all around the world... but all the government does is sell weapons to warlords, bomb/mine countries, destabilize regions, force their War on Drugs down every nations throat, fund dictatorships and last but not least, economically impoverish nations on purpose... and then the FEW UN missions they do join in on, the are usually guilty of holding back the UN in the first place, which is why they are usually too late. Please tell me the GOOD things the US government has done that make up for all those other horrible things it has done?
Quote:
he treats US treaties with foreign powers and American membership in world bodies like the UN and World Bank as unimportant trivialities
You called him an isolationist, this is untrue, he is an non-interventionist, but not an economic-isolationist. He is a free trade advocate, as most Libertarians are, he often has said that we shouldn't be invading countries, we should be trading with them. He does speak out against many of the so called "free trade" agreements, but like NAFTA, most of them hamper free trade more than they help it. The UN does what exactly? Allowing dictatorships in and NOT Taiwan are exactly why no one should respect the UN. The World Bank has done more damage than good, Joseph Stiglith a previous economist for the World Bank has written about how it and the IMF are not helping countries develop at all. History has pretty much proven the IMF and World Bank as failures, countries that receive their aid are NOT developing, neighbour countries that receive no funding on the other hand ARE.
Quote:
take American tax dollars
If you were an American, I don't think you'd appreciate how much aid goes to Egypt, Saudia Arabia etc, countries that have values completely 180 of our own. All that aid is not even encouraging them to improve, otherwise it would be decreasing each year, and not increasing.
Quote:
Successive State Departments composed of people who are, frankly far more educated about the world than Mr. Paul
AHHAHAHAHA. Give me a break, if they are SOOOO great, why did they create the retarded 40 odd years we refer to as the Cold War? Why havn't they won a war since WW2?
Quote:
espousing policies that are radical and sweeping to the point of impossibility.
Slightly agree, his positions on FEDERAL government branches does come off as radical, but only if you don't understand that its because of a constitutional stance, the federal government was never supposed to be in charge of Education etc. They were to be state issues. So hes not actually a radical zero government Libertarian, he believes the states have the responsibility instead. Even the CIA, he would allow to exist if it was more like Canadas, simply an information collection agency.
JJ, your kinda a neoconservative aren't you?
Last edited by EmperorLiam on Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kjorteo
Forum Junkie
Posts: 639
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:53 pm
EmperorLiam, we're trying to have a civil discussion here. If you disagree with someone, that's fine, and all views are welcome here--just look at how rarely I agree with Psudo, who at this point I would consider a friend--but the inflammatory and immature tone of posts like that is entirely uncalled for. Please either play nice or stop posting.
I dunno how bad inflation is compared to other countries, but inflation is the main reason that many hard-working people are poor right now, no matter what their country. Many of the other problems like lack of health care and lack of quality education wouldn't be as much of a problem if our money was worth what it used to be worth.
Quantum_Wizard wrote:
How come? What evidence you have for this?
And on the subject of Austrian economics here's some critique of it by an economist.
Simple, the wages that they earn would be able to buy more stuff, like health care and education. I admit that the gold standard wouldn't solve everything. The corporatism in the health care industry would have to be dealt with by getting the government out of it, for example.
I'm certainly not as well-read on Austrian economics as Paul is. Most of my knowledge of it comes from Rockwell and Block, not Rothbard. Truth be told, I find Rothbard to be pretty boring. But I'll take a look at that link when I get a chance. I gotta go to work right now. I'll respond to ya tonight probably, JJ.
Calbeck
Active Member
Posts: 260
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:09 am
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
I like to think that I am fairly familiar with libertarianism, and libertarian talking points.
Obviously not, seeing as your saying many things that are 100% at odds with the main Libertarian tenet,
It should be self-evident that one does not have to embrace a given philosophy to understand its tenets.
Quote:
You claim a Libertarian would advocate colonialism and imperialism, that sir is groundless slander.
Not at all. Since the essential Libertarian view is that government should be reduced to a minimalist structure, necessary only for the basic purpose of holding the nation together and not for the regulation of its citizens in any fashion, then government MUST advocate colonialism and imperialism IF that is what its citizens choose to undertake. A private army which annexes Mexico cannot be opposed by a Libertarian government which believes in the sort of absolutist "freedom of choice" rhetoric that every Libertarian I have ever met --- and run against for public office, when I have done so ---- has advocated.
Quote:
She completely denies the existence of 'collective rights', and does not beleive in animal rights, sustainable development, or in public property!
Neither have the last three Libertarian candidates for Governor of Arizona. That would be Kat Gallant, Barry Hess, and some guy named Hancock who once personally threatened to sue me if I ran as a Libertarian WITHOUT supporting 100% drug legalization.
Quote:
Libertarianism is about what works best for humans.
So is every major political theory developed since 1700. Including Objectivism.
Quote:
Well then WHY did the Libertarians choose him as their running candidate in 1988?
Because he won the nomination, which pretty much only involves the loonies of the party, who control the upper echelons and purse strings.
Let me give you a picture here: when I was on the ballot for Arizona Governor in '98, I got to see Kat Gallant in action on numerous occasions. With exactly one exception, she had absolutely NOTHING concrete to say. She actually got up on stage at one point and said "I think we should all have freedom", and that was it. She had nothing to elaborate on, nothing specific to say. She just rephrased and repeated herself several times and then sat down after maybe three minutes.
Hell, I was a total unknown backed by a party of about 800 registered voters at the time, and I actually had people jumping up and down in the aisles cheering and pumping their arms by the time I was done. If I'd had a serious war chest behind me, I could have won that election.
But the Libertarian could have thrown millions into the race and still lost, because she had NOTHING to say. She nonetheless got the "party faithful" vote. THAT is what Paul is running on...the people who will vote for ANYTHING that has "L" in front of its name on the ballot, including a dead hamster.
Quote:
Isn't that a Neo-con tactic, to slander someone by claiming they support the said person?
Not at all; it's in common use by all parties that have ever existed.
Quote:
Besides, remember the Shah was the person the CIA decided should be in charge
Quite incorrect. First, it was Britain's operation, not the US's. We assisted the Brits in attempting to preserve their legal rights to the oilfields Iran had sold them in the first place. Second, the dynasty of the Shah traces its way back to the 16th Century. The government of Iran was not overthrown and replaced with another, as the common mythology claims.
Quote:
The nationalization of BP assests in Iran was passed by the Iranian Parliament
Which does not for a moment change the illegal nature of the act. Since British Petroleum was itself a nationalized industry, this was an attack on British property. The Falklands War was fought over less.
Quote:
In his defense, when you know the western powers are actively trying to take over your country
And at what point did any power attempt to take over Iran? Your point is overextended by hyperbole.
Quote:
He sought to compensate the British BP
British BP was not required to accept any such "compensation", short of the return of their property. You are favoring one group by ignoring the rights of the other.
Quote:
Iran only made a measly 100 million a year from their oil, the rest went into the pockets of the Westerners, it was blatant theft
Without the Westerners, Iran would have made ZERO a year from their UNDEVELOPED oil. Iran thought it was a fine deal when they made it. Where is your theft? "Shoulda/coulda/woulda made a better deal" doesn't cut it.
Quote:
HOW IS BLOWBACK IRRATIONAL? Western powers ROB a nation
And where and when did this robbery occur? Making a bad deal for yourself, then blaming the guy you cut the deal with, IS irrational.
Quote:
How about giving Saddam the thumbs up to invade Kuwait
Classic mythology. Would you like to show where Iraq SAID it was going to invade? It didn't happen. Instead, Iraq and Kuwait had an ongoing dispute over oil and war debts. What the US ambassador said was that the US would not become involved in that dispute.
It's also blind to forget that even if the US had completely bowed out of the matter, the UN was going to liberate Kuwait anyway. It would have done so with only a quarter of the troops that did the job in '91, but it still would have succeeded. Then you'd be finding reasons to blame the Brits instead of the US.
Quote:
for angle drilling their oil
Often claimed and never shown to have actually happened. Both Iraq and Kuwait shared the Rumaila oilfield. You might as well accuse someone of trying to steal your "side" of the soda when you're using two straws in the same glass. "Angle drilling" would have had absolutely no effect on the amount of oil Kuwait could have produced. You can only fit so many wells on a given piece of land.
Quote:
How about funding the Israeli nation, which slaps the prophet Mohammad in the face with the Quranic decree that 'all Muslim lands will remain so forever, thus proving Islam is the true faith'?
Obviously, Israel is not "Muslim land", since it did not remain so "forever". To claim that Israel IS Muslim land, one must hold the view that Islam is NOT the true faith.
Fortunately, that's not necessary: Mohammed didn't control so much as modern-day Saudi Arabia when he made that statement. It didn't apply, in the least, to any other part of the world. Unless, of course, you wish to hold the view that Islam intends to seize and possess the entire world's landmass.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:23 am
I'm right on board with JJ on this issue.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Isn't that a Neo-con tactic, to slander someone by claiming they support the said person? [. . .] it was blatant theft, that only neo-cons would EVER defend. [. . .] JJ, your kinda a neoconservative aren't you?
Isn't that kind of a libertarian tactic, to call anyone who opposes your views a neo-con, as if that made their ideas invalid? Not exclusively libertarian, I suppose, but an irrelevant cheap shot none the less.
EmperorLiam wrote:
Quote:
absolutist principle that every foreign adventure of the US is unjustified, and therefore any “blowback” delt to the United States, no matter how irrational or stupid, is a fair and understandable response
HOW IS BLOWBACK IRRATIONAL?
The question is How does blowback prove the immorality of it's "cause"?
EmperorLiam wrote:
How about funding the Israeli nation, which slaps the prophet Mohammad in the face with the Quranic decree that 'all Muslim lands will remain so forever, thus proving Islam is the true faith'?
This is a perfect example. Why should Muslim imperialism be considered a moral consideration? And then you drive your point home with an ad hominem attack. Well done!
EmperorLiam wrote:
If you were an American, I don't think you'd appreciate how much aid goes to Egypt, Saudia Arabia etc, countries that have values completely 180 of our own. All that aid is not even encouraging them to improve, otherwise it would be decreasing each year, and not increasing.
Normally I'm against it, but you make an excellent case for foreign aid. It slows the economic development of the enemies of our values!
The thing I'd most like to hear from EmperorLiam is his answer to this question: "What is the difference between ideology with which you agree and fact?"
Quantum_Wizard
Active Member
Posts: 258
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:11 pm
Calbeck wrote:
Quote:
The nationalization of BP assests in Iran was passed by the Iranian Parliament
Which does not for a moment change the illegal nature of the act. Since British Petroleum was itself a nationalized industry, this was an attack on British property. The Falklands War was fought over less.
Actually it does. Oil fields located in Iran are under Iranian jurisdiction not British one regardless of the owner. You could perhaps argue that the decision was unjust or unwise but not illegal. Or can you actually point to a law that was broken?
Calbeck wrote:
Quote:
Iran only made a measly 100 million a year from their oil, the rest went into the pockets of the Westerners, it was blatant theft
Without the Westerners, Iran would have made ZERO a year from their UNDEVELOPED oil. Iran thought it was a fine deal when they made it. Where is your theft? "Shoulda/coulda/woulda made a better deal" doesn't cut it.
Take into account that the deal was made by a previous Shah to fund his own lifestyle back when Iran did not yet have democratic government. But even disregarding this supporting a coup to turn a democratic country into a non-democratic one is a disproportionate and barbaric response that would never be tolerated in this (much more civilized) age. It was an act that has caused the Iranian people a great amount of grief. (I'm not saying it justifies any 'blowback' though.)
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Quote:
It should be self-evident that one does not have to embrace a given philosophy to understand its tenets.
Agreed, the question here is, what made you say this? I never insinuated any such thing, you pulled it out of nowhere.
Quote:
then government MUST advocate colonialism and imperialism IF that is what its citizens choose to undertake.
But the main tenet involves not initiating force, colonialism and imperialism if against the wills of the indigenous populace, is an initiation of force. A Libertarian government would even have laws against the government doing such a thing in the first place, whether the populace demands it or not.
The fact Libertarians are for the most part non-interventionists, is proof enough they wouldn't support colonialism or imperialism. What you and JJ are saying are bold faced lies, neither of you have shown any proof of even a fringe element supporting this. I'm a pro-interventionist Libertarian, I've argued with other Libertarians about this often, I have yet to ever encounter a single one that agrees with me, let alone condones imperialism and colonialism!
Quote:
and not for the regulation of its citizens in any fashion
Courts, police, democracy, public property, taxes, immigration policy, are all part of the Libertarians small government, they all involve regulation of citizens. People that advocate a world without these are anarchists, they do no represent Libertarians or Socialists, but they often crash their parades and start riots though.
Quote:
if I ran as a Libertarian WITHOUT supporting 100% drug legalization.
If you have no comment on the issue or wisely wanted to remain quiet about it, the guy is an ass. But if you support the War on Drugs then you have no business calling yourself a Libertarian.
I researched two Arizona Libertarians you mentioned:
Kat Gallant: I had to use the internet archives, I found no evidence of a stance against public property, she was in favour of public courts and police, and therefore public property. Although she doesn't seem to support a national army, which would be public property (soldiers are GI afterall). Nothing related to sustainable development, I assume she trusts the industry to do so, which actually has been proven to be the case. She supports the right to guns, which BTW is a collective right. Now on animal rights, amazingly there is a direct article on this! She was accused of animal cruelty for riding a horse 2000 miles... she claims to be no animal abuser. http://web.archive.org/web/199904290450 ... ticles.htm Hmm, I'm not educated enough about horses and couldn't find any info on it. Lets just assume shes cares nothing of animal rights, since you already lost on your other points I'll be generous.
Hess: He supports the state constitution of public education, ergo must also support public property. Once again, nothing indicating his views on sustainable development, and also nothing on animal rights. Against gun control, so he supports collective rights.
So... on a scale of 1 to 10, of how WRONG you were, I'm going with a 9.
Quote:
So is every major political theory developed since 1700. Including Objectivism.
Quote:
Libertarianism is a political theory that was cobbled together from other theories that had been proven through the test of time and history. Communism was a prediction, Objectivism was Ayn Rands opinion of the way things OUGHT to be if mankind were heroic good beings, socialism is based on unrealistic ideals of human nature etc etc. So no, you are once again wrong.
I admit there is no 100% conclusive proof that Kuwait was slant drilling Rumalia, but the current Iraqi government accused Kuwait of it again in 2005. http://www.ww4report.com/node/868
Those CIA 'family jewels' recently released 100% disagree with you, unless you meant "At first it was".
Quote:
in attempting to preserve their legal rights to the oilfields Iran had sold them in the first place
Right off the bat I should warn you, I dated a Muslim woman for three years... I have been completely submerged in Muslim history, culture, and politics. You are obviously ignorant of the facts.
1. The shah gave a 60 year concession in 1901 to an independent entrepreneur to SEARCH for oil. 2. 1906 Iran gets its first democratic constitutional monarchy 3. The same shah terminated that concession in 1932. New concession agreed upon by the Shah without the approval the government, was barely more favourable than the previous one. 4. 1941, Britain and USSR invade Iran, steal their oil, and force the shah to retire, his son made the new shah. Over 1000 Iranians die. 5. WW2 ends, the British leave, the Soviets don't. Promising oil concessions to the Soviets, they do leave... Iran revokes the oil concessions to the Soviets. 6. US government apologizes in 2000 for the overthrow of the Iranian government, "Back in 1953, Washington and London organized a coup to oust Iran's government and establish a military regime under the shah, Reza Pahlavi"
BP by the way is infamous, the are routinely voted as human rights offenders, and having a horrible environmental record. Remember that refinery that exploded in 2005? That was theirs.
The main problem here is that you are assuming that the monarchy had the RIGHT to sell the nations oil in the first place... they in fact did not. Iranians never really followed their constitution though, so they are to blame.
Quote:
And at what point did any power attempt to take over Iran?
First, historical precedent, foreign powers HAD taken over Iran before. Second, USA has ADMITTED to this act, the Shah was a puppet dictator, he was made shah way back in WW2 by Britain in the first place. So you are WRONG.
Quote:
British BP was not required to accept any such "compensation", short of the return of their property.
They did take some of their property and personnel, and refused the International Courts fair offer. Since when is the monarchy or oil company the owner of oil in the ground, does that not belong to the nation? You make it sound like Iran sent out troops to steal the oil equipment, no such event occurred, BP unilaterally pulled out after the legislation was signed.
Quote:
Iran thought it was a fine deal when they made it.
ONE MAN, the shah, thought it was a fine deal. He had no regard for private land owners or any sense of national resources belong to the people. It was afterall a MONARCHY aka DICTATORSHIP.
Quote:
Would you like to show where Iraq SAID it was going to invade?
Did I state any such platitude? Saddam showed a CLEAR intent to invade, US even set an emergency meeting with Saddam, where America stated it would not intervene... kinda leads one to conclude that Iraq was going to invade... you know all those troops deployed to the border and propaganda against Kuwait in the months before. Kuwait claims to have been blindsided, but
Only the United States is actually stupid enough to say they will invade and then give the enemy 6 weeks to prepare.
And where and when did this robbery occur? Making a bad deal for yourself, then blaming the guy you cut the deal with, IS irrational.
<engage sarcasm> Yeah, America has honored ALL of its agreements, they enforced Kyoto, Geneva conventions, they followed the NAFTA agreement... yep, America is the land of sticking to commitments, all those promises to First Nations they kept. <disengaged>
So I take it you don't give a shit what happened to Native Americans? Hey JJ, that so called Libertarian you were describing that advocates colonialism and imperialism, yeah I guess they do exist, but they also support the War on Drugs, so I think that just makes them hypocrites and not Libertarians.
Quote:
the UN was going to liberate Kuwait anyway.
Sigh, apparently you've never heard of the Security Council. Besides, the US was the primary nation pushing the bills through the UN, I actually doubt they would have gone in without the US, look at how little of a presence the UN has in Darfur. I recall days after Yemen voted against the use of force, their aid was entirely cut off by America. Many of the coalition troops were bribed into joining, America forgave dept. and sent extra aid to many countries to get them to join. I seriously doubt Kuwait would have been liberated without active encouragement from the US. If the 500,000 US forces were not there, the 380,000 coalition (many who wouldn't join without US support). would be facing the 450,000 of Saddams forces.
Quote:
Islam intends to seize and possess the entire world's landmass
Its in the Quran, it states the world will be at peace once Islam has conquered the world.
Mohammed didn't control so much as modern-day Saudi Arabia when he made that statement
I actually subscribe to the belief that he never even existed, that it was the third caliphate that wanted to unify their vast empire with a religion, this would explain why so many Greek mythos and 'lost' knowledge are in the Quran. At that period they had access to ancient scrolls and were in process of translating them all to Arabic. This is why the Quran has Mohammad flying into heaven on a pegasus, why the Greek view of embryology is presented etc. Much like the fictional Jewish exodus from Egypt, so is the existence of Mecca and Medina at the supposed time of Mohammad. Also other nations speaking of the Arab invaders, made no mention of their religion until the time after the 3rd caliphate... then they started doing their, "convert or die" demands. So, much like how Jesus was fabricated to exist in the past, so was Mohammad.
Now I've actually talked to Robert Spencer about this, and he decided that arguing that Mohammad existed is preferable to that he didn't, in order to convince Muslims and others to dislike Islam, he also doesn't like using arguments that also apply to his own Catholic faith, so I've always distrusted Jihadwatch.org, as biased towards faith.
Psudo Admittingly I have been fairly vague when referring to foreign aid. There obviously different forms of aid, the economically harmful ones are where we sell rice for example to a nation at below market value, initially we do this during a drought, but even after the drought, we continue to. This causes the local rice farmers to lose their livelihood permanently, cause unemployment, and government expenditures on rice that it used to supply itself. Other times we give military foreign aid to governments that we really shouldn't be, they use it to stir up conflicts with neighbouring nations and subjugate their own people. Other times we just send money, and in those cases it just props up the government, and really depends on that government if they use it for good or bad. Foreign aid isn't something I'm totally against, I just think were doing it all wrong.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:22 pm
Thank you, Liam, for your clear, articulate answer to my rather flippant comment on foreign aid. I'd like to hear similar answers to my other points, namely:
1) How does blowback demonstrate anything about the ethics or value of a military operation?
2) Specifically, why should Muslim imperial blowback against Israel be considered a reason not to protect Israel? (I use the term "imperial" because I consider claims of sovereignty or control beyond one's borders to be imperial, and I see Muslim claims over Israeli land as an example of that.)
3) What is the difference between ideology with which you agree and fact? (I am not suggesting any answer, I'm just interested in your thinking on the topic.)
Laird
Newbie
Posts: 15
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:39 pm
JJ wrote:
I think it does not reflect well on the ideological consistency of Mr. Paul when he springs to defend a socialist tyrant like President Mossadiq of Iran, who sought to sieze and nationalize British-owned petrolumn plants without any regard for the property rights of their owners. His decision to defend such a regime, along with the “grivances” of Islamic radicals, suggests to me that when it comes to foreign nations, governments, and organizations he is incapable of understanding the moral and strategic reasons for forming friendships, alliances, and partnertships. He argues from the rigid, absolutist principle that every foreign adventure of the US is unjustified, and therefore any “blowback” delt to the United States, no matter how irrational or stupid, is a fair and understandable response. I think that is a cowardly attitude, frankly, for it implies that the United States should never aspire to use its power for the betterment of the collective planet, or work to assist the cause of human rights and freedom outsie our own borders.
I don't recall him ever defending Mossadiq. This argument that "if you're not with 'us' you're with the 'bad guys'" is the biggest straw man constantly thrown at anti-war people. He merely said that it was bad idea to overthrow the guy and replace him with another dictator, since it fanned flames of anti-Americanism, which led to the Iranian Revolution and the kidnapping of the embassy staff. Paul never defended Islamic radicals. He only suggested that we learn why they attack us. You know, so we don't get attacked. And he never said that terrorists were fair in attacking us, either. But just because terrorists were unjustified in attacking America doesn't mean that the US government was justified in all of the foreign interventionism it took part in.
It's not brave for a politician to use US tax dollars and soldiers lives to pay for this intervention while they chill in their air-conditioned offices, so I don't think it's cowardly to end this policy. I've got no problem with championing rights. My problem is when these policies that are supposedly for freedom end up contradicting these rights by killing innocent people and destroying their property, while at the same time making it more likely that terrorists will unleash some destruction of their own. The beauty of America comes from what the government doesn't do. When it tries to do something "for the greater good", it fails, is counter-productive and is anti-freedom almost all of the time. FEMA, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Education, etc.
Quote:
I also think it reflects poorly on Paul's understanding of the rule of law and economics when he treats US treaties with foreign powers and American membership in world bodies like the UN and World Bank as unimportant trivialities that the United States is free to unilaterally abandon at whim. The real world does not operate according to childish absolutes where one can simply pick up his ball and go home the second things don't go exactly your way. I think a President should understand that fact, and seek to work within institutions, like John Bolton did, rather than just throw a hissy fit and “leave” (which is impossible anyway).
C'mon man, you and I both know that the UN is a joke. Do you still feel that the UN is going the way of the League of Nations or did you change your mind? You're free to do so, but I personally don't think that the US should have any business supporting a corrupt world government that exploits people through various scams like Oil for Food. And the WTO, along with many "free" trade agreements, make a mockery of capitalism by only supporting well-connected companies while regulating everyone else into the ground. What is the UN going to do if we leave, invade us? They couldn't invade Iraq or the Sudan. But what will they do if we stay? Keep using our tax dollars to fund their socialist and corporatist schemes, that's what. John Bolton and others who share his beliefs only want to use the UN to secure the US government's interests. "There is an international community that, occasionally, can be led by the only real power left in the world (and that's the United States) when it suits our interests..." He's no humanitarian, and neither are a lot of the politicians that promise peace, freedom, and prosperity through government force.
Quote:
It is very immature and irresponsible for a prospective Leader of the Free World to advocate isolationism, and suggest that all other nations of the planet are basically dangerous, wicked places that exist only to weaken American strength, take American tax dollars, or retaliate, bee hive-like, against American “meddling.” His views are not mainstream for a reason, and the reasons are not simply that everyone else in Washington is part of some evil big-government agenda. Successive State Departments composed of people who are, frankly far more educated about the world than Mr. Paul, have realized that it is an inescapable reality that we now live in a globalized world, and that the United States is one of the most dominant, leading players in this world order. One can oppose American foreign policy without going to the opposite extreme and advocating America cease to even have a foreign policy.
Not isolationism, non-interventionism. Isolationists want to shut down free trade, but non-interventionists know that free trade is the path to peace. People from other countries are cool for trading with, as long as our government isn't bombing, sanctioning, or supporting governments that suppress them. In fact, this will strengthen America, not weaken it. You don't expect them to love us when our government bombs or sanctions them, do you?
Not everyone else in Washington is a big government conspirator, just the politicians. Haha, well, not every politician. Seriously, though, they are mostly self-serving, not serving some "conspiracy." Using government is merely a way to get lobbyists and taxpayers to give them money. But at the end of the day, I don't care how popular Paul is in the mainstream or on the internet. And I don't care if he wins the Republican nomination or the Presidency. He's getting the message of limited government and liberty out there, and that's why I support him. Being that Paul just wrote a book entitled "A Foreign Policy of Freedom," I don't think he'd drop out of foreign policy altogether. He'd just limit it drastically, which would make it run a heck of a lot better than the mess we've got going on now with troops stretched all over the world.
Quote:
As I said, there are lots of sensible libertarian ideals and libertarian people. My biggest problem with hardcore libertarians, however, is that they tend to view compromise and co-operation as signs of weakness, and pride themselves on espousing policies that are radical and sweeping to the point of impossibility. Ron Paul seems to relish this role. That's his whole brand appeal, “I'm the most radical candidate of either party, the only candidate who honestly challenges the establishment, etc etc.” Fair enough, but if you are going to make a career out of being unrelentingly dogmatic then the last thing you should do is run for president. The best presidents are the clever negotiators and compromisers, who are receptive to the interests of the public and the wants of the Congress. I don't think people with the sort of close-minded rigidity of Paul are particularly useful to most forms of democratic governance, really.
Minarchist libertarians like Paul generally support the state as a "necessary evil." Letting the state exist is a compromise. But c'mon, dude, a line's gotta be drawn somewhere. What good are Paul's small government principles if he's willing to sell them out for votes? I think Paul and the Libertarian Party are useful in that they change the way people think about things and point them towards a philosophy that is closer to liberty. I don't think that it is dogmatic to stick to your guns, as long as they're loaded with facts, arguments, and history to back them up.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3070
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:51 pm
Laird wrote:
C'mon man, you and I both know that the UN is a joke. [. . .] I personally don't think that the US should have any business supporting a corrupt world government that exploits people through various scams like Oil for Food.
What does this ethical and efficiency judgment of the UN have to do with it's ability to exist? J.J. is arguing that the statement "the United States is free to unilaterally abandon [the UN] at whim" is false. Your rebuttal says the UN can do nothing about the US pulling it's funding. This seems to suggest military actions have military blowback but political actions do not have political blowback. You see no possible negative effects from US withdrawal?
Laird
Newbie
Posts: 15
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:43 pm
True, the UN can exist without the US. I don't know how long it would last without its main benefactor, though. Without US funding, at least our hands would be clean of the whole corrupt matter, and they wouldn't be able to do as much bad stuff without our funding. If you're talking blowback, for military blowback it follows that if the US militarily intervenes somewhere, the US gets attacked. Likewise, for political blowback if the US drops funding for the UN, the UN drops funding for the US. I don't see the threat here, we probably end up saving money in this deal. I really don't see the UN using military force to attack or sanction us. If it tried, it would probably fail miserably. I don't think I can see it even trying, especially with the US funding cut. The worst it can do is pass a resolution condemning us, which it has done before with zero effects on us.
EmperorLiam
Active Member
Posts: 174
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:42 am
Psudo:
Quote:
why should Muslim imperial blowback against Israel be considered a reason not to protect Israel?
You probably should direct that question to someone that thinks Israel doesn't deserves assistance, I'd guess they'd say that American citizens shouldn't have to die to protect Israelis... but what I mainly hear is that "the evil joos persecute the Palestinians for no reason" and, "the zionists control ze world!"
Laird:
Quote:
Minarchist libertarians like Paul
Not a fan of the minimalists myself, Paul I feel is realistic about how much he can change, so although his stance is one of the slightly overzealous small government libertarians, he doesn't see his role as President of the US working towards that goal. I think if elected, the troops all around the world will be recalled (I beleive the President has that power right?), and a lot of foreign aid would cease... other than that congress and the courts will continue on as usual.
Sometimes I wonder if I should just create a new political philosophy that more unifies and clarifies what I'm all about.... cause I'm a weird direct democracy interventionist/trade-embargo flat-tax Libertarian anti-theist that also wants free disease and accident health care coverage, I also favour federal regulation of food, roads, laws, etc over state/province. Whats funny is I actually side with the leading neo-cons on many issues, but disagree that the US is the best tool to accomplish their goals.
CKA Elite 
Active Member 
