HyPaulthetical Question

ziggy wrote:...whereas overt military violence to achieve a primarily economic end for the agressor is less morally defensible.

Why???

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:...whereas overt military violence to achieve a primarily economic end for the agressor is less morally defensible.

Why???

Is it morally defensible for my husband and I to invade our neighbor's home armed with semi-automatic weapons because they are wealthier than we are and we want their HDTV?

Would it be defensible for MA to launch an attack on WV in order to guarantee access to WV coal for MA citizens?

Sorry Cato, I missed this post.

Cato wrote:First, Why do we have to change "who or what"? It isn't for us to change anyone or anything in another nation. That responsibility belongs to the citizens of said nation. Over the past 5 decades we have meddled in the affairs of other nations and what have accomplished? Are we safer? Are we more secure? What about our liberties are you as free was your were 50 years ago? The answers to the questions is No. Apperently our interventionist policies haven't been as successful as one would think.

While I'm not advocating we mess in the internal affairs with others, you can't know if the answers to your questions are no or not. You have no idea how many plots against this country have been disrupted in the past 50 years as a result of our foreign policy.

As for our interventionist policy, we opposed the USSR during the Cold War for almost 50 years. I would say our 'meddling in their internal affairs' of that country was successful and as a result we are definitely safer.

Cato wrote:The drivers behind our entry into World War 1 go beyond the attack on the Lusitania. We will never know the workings behind the scenes but I believe that we learn alot about why we entered the war from a statement by Woodrow Wilson.

He stated that "When properly directed, there is no people in the world not fitted for self-government." Notice the cavet "When properly directed". I don't proclaim to know what he meant by that, but one can assume he believed the US could properly direct any nation toward democracy. In fact, when American entered the war Wilson made a now famous statement, "We must make the world safe for democracy".

Really? One incident can't lead to war? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't World War 1 sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian irredentist.

How can you be so sure that the sinking of one ship isn't what led us directly into the war?

Cato wrote:First, I looked back over my posting and I never did say we weren't isolationist.

I disagree with that statement. You described a policy in a previous statement and then you said....

Alot fo floks don't think this approach will work. The catch is we don't know because it has never been tried.

I think maybe you need to look up isolationist policy and non-interventionist policy. If you do, you'll find that what you term 'non-interventionist' is a merely a part of an isolationist policy. That should clear up your confusion.

Cato wrote:Secondly, The treaty of Versallies hobbled Germany economically. Between the depression and the treaty life became a hell for the average German. Additionally, there was a general feeling that Germany should have won the war, but that their leaders sold them out. Hilter came along an capitalised. As I said, we can argue this until the cows come home, but neither of us know what would have happened had the US not entered the War, but the probability is good that without the treaty of Versaillies and our meddleing in WW1, Hilter would have never had the necessary platfrom for his rise to power.

Read Wilson's 14 points here. Maybe if you understood all that happened and the circumstances surrounding them it might clear up some more of your confusion.

Cato wrote:And that is true. However, it is not our purpose to say this one is evil and that is not, simply becasue they are unfriendly to us, our policies, or don't accept our form of government.

If we are trading with someone then it most certainly is our place to say who is and isn't good or bad or evil. Not only is it our place, I submit it is our moral obligation and responsibility.

Would you buy the alcohol for your neighbor who beats his wife when he gets drunk? By freely trading with countries without any restrictions whatsoever as you suggest, you are supporting their policies, good, bad and yes, evil.

Stephanie wrote:
Is it morally defensible for my husband and I to invade our neighbor's home armed with semi-automatic weapons because they are wealthier than we are and we want their HDTV?

Would it be defensible for MA to launch an attack on WV in order to guarantee access to WV coal for MA citizens?

Neither is an answer to my question.

Would you buy the alcohol for your neighbor who beats his wife when he gets drunk? By freely trading with countries without any restrictions whatsoever as you suggest, you are supporting their policies, good, bad and yes, evil.

So we support the policies of Communist China? Do you know the kinds of things the Chinese government does to its citizens?

Stephanie wrote:
So we support the policies of Communist China? Do you know the kinds of things the Chinese government does to its citizens?

Yes I do and as far as I'm concerned, it should come into play in regards to our trade policies with China. Unfortunately, all anyone sees is the almighty dollar so our government overlooks what they do.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Is it morally defensible for my husband and I to invade our neighbor's home armed with semi-automatic weapons because they are wealthier than we are and we want their HDTV?

Would it be defensible for MA to launch an attack on WV in order to guarantee access to WV coal for MA citizens?

Neither is an answer to my question.

The answer to your question is the first quote in my signature tag.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Is it morally defensible for my husband and I to invade our neighbor's home armed with semi-automatic weapons because they are wealthier than we are and we want their HDTV?

Would it be defensible for MA to launch an attack on WV in order to guarantee access to WV coal for MA citizens?

Neither is an answer to my question.

The answer to your question is the first quote in my signature tag.

And what constitutes an attack upon you that would authorize you to use "self-defense"? Is that ONLY when your body is personally attacked under the threat of immediate danger?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
So we support the policies of Communist China? Do you know the kinds of things the Chinese government does to its citizens?

Yes I do and as far as I'm concerned, it should come into play in regards to our trade policies with China. Unfortunately, all anyone sees is the almighty dollar so our government overlooks what they do.

What almighty dollar? Our dollar is sinking in value because it is backed by nothing. China now threatens to tank our dollar if we even just move towards protecting the American people from inferior, dangerous Chinese products.

You'd better wake up, Aaron. Nobody is looking out for the American people. Nobody else is even discussing issues like our monetary policy other than Ron Paul.

btw.......we lose any "moral authority" we may have had when we provide perks, cash, and/or weapons to countries who arrest and detain without trials, practice ethnic cleansing, and other human rights violations. As if supporting governments who do such things, now our government is commiting these same types of atrocities.

And what constitutes an attack upon you that would authorize you to use "self-defense"? Is that ONLY when your body is personally attacked under the threat of immediate danger?

No

Stephanie wrote:What almighty dollar? Our dollar is sinking in value because it is backed by nothing. China now threatens to tank our dollar if we even just move towards protecting the American people from inferior, dangerous Chinese products.

You'd better wake up, Aaron. Nobody is looking out for the American people. Nobody else is even discussing issues like our monetary policy other than Ron Paul.

So do you believe we should return to the gold standard?

We never should have gone off it. Do you realize the Federal Reserve is a private bank? Are you aware of this?

Stephanie wrote:We never should have gone off it. Do you realize the Federal Reserve is a private bank? Are you aware of this?

Really, we never should have left the gold standard. Do you realize that there is only a finate amount of gold in the world, somewhere around 2.9 Trillion dollars worth which the world economy surpassed that years ago at the current price of gold.

So what does Dr. Paul propose we issue currency against when there we run out of precious metals? Seashells???

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:We never should have gone off it. Do you realize the Federal Reserve is a private bank? Are you aware of this?

Really, we never should have left the gold standard. Do you realize that there is only a finate amount of gold in the world, somewhere around 2.9 Trillion dollars worth which the world economy surpassed that years ago at the current price of gold.

So what does Dr. Paul propose we issue currency against when there we run out of precious metals? Seashells???

Aaron,

If I find some reputable sites with relevant information about our monetary policy and the gold standard, will you read them? I don't want to bother if you're just going to continue to talk foolishness.

Foolishness is printing money out of thin air, for the record. btw......what do you suppose has happened to the nation's gold? You know, the gold that used to be in Fort Knox in the days when we were on the gold standard.

BTW......just how much do you know about the Federal Reserve?

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron,

If I find some reputable sites with relevant information about our monetary policy and the gold standard, will you read them? I don't want to bother if you're just going to continue to talk foolishness.

Foolishness is printing money out of thin air, for the record. btw......what do you suppose has happened to the nation's gold? You know, the gold that used to be in Fort Knox in the days when we were on the gold standard.

BTW......just how much do you know about the Federal Reserve?

Steph, what I posted is fact. At the current price of gold there is approximately 2.9 trillioin dollars worth in the world.

I've read reputable sites and while I don't claim to understand all of it, I'm smart enought to know that there are real cons out there in the Gold standard. It's not all hunky dorey. There is a reason that no country uses it anymore.

Post Dr. Paul's sites on another thread where it belongs and I'll read them and we can see if we learn anything about our monetary system.

Aaron,

The conversation just progressed from Dr. Paul's foreign policy, the thread's topic, to monetary policy and the gold standard. I posted the links to Paul's websites because you continue to misrepresent his foreign policy views and just how we should relate to other nations.

The fact that gold is in limited supply is precisely what makes it valuable. You and I aren't old enough to really remember living under the gold standard. It is a concept that most Americans are now unfamiliar with so perhaps you begin discussing it, perhaps you should do a bit of reading up on the gold standard and our current monetary policy, including but not limited to, the history and composition of the Federal Reserve.

When you have done that, if you're interested, then you can begin the thread. I have no more interest in discussing the gold standard with you than you have in discussing major league sports with me.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:...whereas overt military violence to achieve a primarily economic end for the agressor is less morally defensible.

Why???

Because there is a better way. Build an economic system that does not require resources purloined from others at the point of a gun.

If we had developed energy independence as Jimmy Carter recommended 30 years ago, we would have middle eastern nations begging us to buy their oil- at a fraction of what it costs today.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
So we support the policies of Communist China? Do you know the kinds of things the Chinese government does to its citizens?

Yes I do and as far as I'm concerned, it should come into play in regards to our trade policies with China. Unfortunately, all anyone sees is the almighty dollar so our government overlooks what they do.

What almighty dollar? Our dollar is sinking in value because it is backed by nothing. China now threatens to tank our dollar if we even just move towards protecting the American people from inferior, dangerous Chinese products.

You'd better wake up, Aaron. Nobody is looking out for the American people. Nobody else is even discussing issues like our monetary policy other than Ron Paul.

btw.......we lose any "moral authority" we may have had when we provide perks, cash, and/or weapons to countries who arrest and detain without trials, practice ethnic cleansing, and other human rights violations. As if supporting governments who do such things, now our government is commiting these same types of atrocities.

Steph,
Great post. I have always found it incredible that we have allowed ourselves to become so dependent upon other nations. I think the problem that people have with the gold standards is that it necessarily leads to responsibility and realism. If you can only spend what actually exists and has value, as opposed to what has been artificially created and has no intrinsic value, you don't spend nearly as much money, and you hold people accountable for that which they do spend. We treat government spending as if it were a credit card that we never had to pay off.

BTW, I do disagree that our government is engaging in anything approximating an atrocity. The war may have been unwise, but I just don't think we can equivalate our actions with that of China or the Taliban. Granted there are some soldiers, a few, acting irresponsibly, but war does stink and people are bound to have negative reactions.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:...whereas overt military violence to achieve a primarily economic end for the agressor is less morally defensible.

Why???

Because there is a better way. Build an economic system that does not require resources purloined from others at the point of a gun.

If we had developed energy independence as Jimmy Carter recommended 30 years ago, we would have middle eastern nations begging us to buy their oil- at a fraction of what it costs today.

The question I ask Cato before your comment was if it was ok to respond to an economic attack. You stated that it was ok to respond if one was attacked, either reasonably or unreasonably (I don't understand the difference) but not to respond for economic gain implying that's what I meant (at least that's how I took it) so I'll ask you. Is it ok to respond to an economic attack and why?

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

The conversation just progressed from Dr. Paul's foreign policy, the thread's topic, to monetary policy and the gold standard. I posted the links to Paul's websites because you continue to misrepresent his foreign policy views and just how we should relate to other nations.

The fact that gold is in limited supply is precisely what makes it valuable. You and I aren't old enough to really remember living under the gold standard. It is a concept that most Americans are now unfamiliar with so perhaps you begin discussing it, perhaps you should do a bit of reading up on the gold standard and our current monetary policy, including but not limited to, the history and composition of the Federal Reserve.

When you have done that, if you're interested, then you can begin the thread. I have no more interest in discussing the gold standard with you than you have in discussing major league sports with me.

I don't need a link to Paul’s website. I know where it is. And considering the gold standard, at least partially, failed during the great depression and the Bretton Woods system was adopted in 1946, no I don't recall living under the gold standard as I was born in 1965 and am in my early 40's. I was under the impression you were in the same age group but I guess I was wrong, huh.

I've also read about the federal reserve. And if I recall correctly ( I always do ) on the Gaz forum when talking about the Dr. Paul and the gold standard you stated something to the effect of "I don't understand it as I'm just now starting to learn about it..." I take it from you condescending comments that you're now an expert.

Aaron wrote:Sorry Cato, I missed this post.

Not a problem, I'm in and out alot, so I have missed several.

Aaron wrote:While I'm not advocating we mess in the internal affairs with others, you can't know if the answers to your questions are no or not. You have no idea how many plots against this country have been disrupted in the past 50 years as a result of our foreign policy.

I really wonder how many polots we would have faced if we had a policy of non-interference. Of course, its academic because we'll never really know.

One thing I do want to point out. I am not avocating discontinuing intelligence gathering, nor am I avocating a small and weak military. I believe we need both good intelligence and we need to have available a very strong military. We need to always keep both strong, active, and functional.

What I am saying we need to stop fighting wars that have little to nothing to do with us. Bosnia comes to mind as does many of the shooting matches we get into being the policeman ofthe world. Additionally we need to quit nation building and allow the people within a nation to decide what form of government they want and who they will allow to rule them. Additionally, we need to quit proping up dictators, jsut because they are friendly toward us.

As for your comments regarding the cause of World War 2, I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with a historian friend of mind. The Tready of Versialles set the stage that allowed Hitler to come to power. As I stated the Tready was humilitating to the Germona people. Additionally, it hobbled the german economy. The german people were looking for someone that could restore Germany to its former self. Hitler came along with that promise. In fact, if he had died before 1938 he would have went down in history as a great leader, who brought Germany out of the Depression. If we had never interfered int he affairs of Europe the Treaty would have never been signed and the odds are quite good Hitler and is ilk would have never come to power.

Aaron wrote:If we are trading with someone then it most certainly is our place to say who is and isn't good or bad or evil. Not only is it our place, I submit it is our moral obligation and responsibility.

Would you buy the alcohol for your neighbor who beats his wife when he gets drunk? By freely trading with countries without any restrictions whatsoever as you suggest, you are supporting their policies, good, bad and yes, evil.

It may be my individaul responsibility, but it certainly isn't the governments to determine who we trade with and whom we don't. So far as I'm concerned the only thing that should be off limits from trade are the secrets that give our a technological edge.

SheikBen wrote:BTW, I do disagree that our government is engaging in anything approximating an atrocity. The war may have been unwise, but I just don't think we can equivalate our actions with that of China or the Taliban. Granted there are some soldiers, a few, acting irresponsibly, but war does stink and people are bound to have negative reactions.

Michael,

I dislike disagreeing with you about more than almost anyone here. However, I must disagree to an extent.

Certainly the US government isn't as bad as the Taliban or the Chinese government, but that doesn't mean it is without major faults.

Our government now secretly listens to the conversations of some of its citizens. Our government now arrests and detains people and denies them access to an attorney, or even a trial. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes. Why would they do that if they weren't engaging in behavior they didn't want the American people to know about.

Perhaps atrocities was too strong a word, but not by all that much.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

The conversation just progressed from Dr. Paul's foreign policy, the thread's topic, to monetary policy and the gold standard. I posted the links to Paul's websites because you continue to misrepresent his foreign policy views and just how we should relate to other nations.

The fact that gold is in limited supply is precisely what makes it valuable. You and I aren't old enough to really remember living under the gold standard. It is a concept that most Americans are now unfamiliar with so perhaps you begin discussing it, perhaps you should do a bit of reading up on the gold standard and our current monetary policy, including but not limited to, the history and composition of the Federal Reserve.

When you have done that, if you're interested, then you can begin the thread. I have no more interest in discussing the gold standard with you than you have in discussing major league sports with me.

I don't need a link to Paul’s website. I know where it is. And considering the gold standard, at least partially, failed during the great depression and the Bretton Woods system was adopted in 1946, no I don't recall living under the gold standard as I was born in 1965 and am in my early 40's. I was under the impression you were in the same age group but I guess I was wrong, huh.

I've also read about the federal reserve. And if I recall correctly ( I always do ) on the Gaz forum when talking about the Dr. Paul and the gold standard you stated something to the effect of "I don't understand it as I'm just now starting to learn about it..." I take it from you condescending comments that you're now an expert.

Keep rolling your eyes, Aaron. The USA didn't get off the gold standard until 1971, the year I turned 7. This lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system you mentioned in your post.

I have never claimed to be an expert on the gold standard, economics, or the Fed. What I am telling you is that I've been doing a whole lot of learning about these issues over the course of the past 6 months or so.

Cato wrote:One thing I do want to point out. I am not avocating discontinuing intelligence gathering, nor am I avocating a small and weak military. I believe we need both good intelligence and we need to have available a very strong military. We need to always keep both strong, active, and functional.

If you're not going to stop your neighbor from beating his wife, why look in the window? Intelligence gathering is looking into the internal affairs of other countries.

Cato wrote:As for your comments regarding the cause of World War 2, I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with a historian friend of mind. The Tready of Versialles set the stage that allowed Hitler to come to power. As I stated the Tready was humilitating to the Germona people. Additionally, it hobbled the german economy. The german people were looking for someone that could restore Germany to its former self. Hitler came along with that promise. In fact, if he had died before 1938 he would have went down in history as a great leader, who brought Germany out of the Depression. If we had never interfered int he affairs of Europe the Treaty would have never been signed and the odds are quite good Hitler and is ilk would have never come to power.

Like I said, read Wilson's 14 points which directly led to Germany surrendering and accepting the Treaty to begin with. Had Congress ratified the points the outcome would have been different. Heck, had Germany known that our Congress wasn't going to back our President, they likely wouldn't have surrendered in the first place. It all goes hand and hand to to blame the conditions only on the treaty is at the very least misleading.

Cato wrote:It may be my individaul responsibility, but it certainly isn't the governments to determine who we trade with and whom we don't. So far as I'm concerned the only thing that should be off limits from trade are the secrets that give our a technological edge.

So the government has no business protecting us from tainted food or lead based paint on toys. That's basically what you're saying. Interesting.