PLEASE help me with the best answer to an on-the-fence voter!!
Hi All,
I just received this email from my friend who is all for Ron Paul except there is one issue she is not sure of. I'm already going to tell her he's not an isolationist but a non-interventionist, but can you help me elaborate on this point? What DOES Ron Paul feel about helping less fortunate countries? Here is her email (edited):
I was hoping to get some more information for you guys since you have done much more research on Ron Paul and the election. I have read thru Ron Paul's website and definitely agree with his stance on healthcare, education, immigration, etc. But I have had a hard time with his stance internationally (isolating America and withdrawing our troops globally). And I'm not referring to Iraq exclusively. I forwarded your email Sierra to quite a few people in hopes that it would simply help their education process and therefore make them better informed for making a decision. I do very strongly feel that we as a country do have a responsibility to help others who are less fortunate. This is actually the main thing that would keep me from voting for Ron Paul b/c I do think we have a responsibility and our country should as well. Yes we of course could do things differently to not spend billions and put more focus on our own country, but I don't think isolating ourselves and leaving the rest of the world to themselves is the best answer. So, I just thought I ask if there is something more to Ron Paul's stance that explains this. So I just wanted to see if I'm missing something.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
Not so bad.
Individuals are happier to give than to have taken from them. What's more, by placing the onus on the individual they're given the opportunity for genuinely moral behavior. Generally, our society isn't used to this mode of thinking, of giving because it might be the right thing to do, of personal responsibility. Grass-roots campaigns, webcomics, radiohead and the soforth hopefully presage a reverse in this trend. Additionally, individuals giving has the opportunity to be more efficacious.
As for, say, military bases in south korea. Why isn't this the responsibility of korea, china, and japan? Are they all not brave, industrious, wealthy, populous nations capable of taking care of that problem themselves?
In any event, if your friend doesn't vote for ron paul, then they're throwing their vote away...
Do not mistake...
Paul's caution, and strong desire to see sanity restored to our foreign policy as evidence of him being cold hearted. Paul has never contended that we, as Americans, should not help those who find themselves unlucky enough to grow up in portions of the world that are in turmoil. He simply acknowledges that we are not omnipotent, and has designed his foreign policy accordingly.
Preemptive war, and military misadventures are the calling cards of Rome, Nazi Germany, and the Imperialist powers of old Europe. For most of our history, with the exception of the past 60 years, we have avoided such policies of dubious merit. However we now find ourselves smack dab in the middle of not only Iraq, but many other well intentioned but misguided and ultimately futile attempts to "make the world safe for democracy."
We often do more harm than good by supplying the wrong people with our aid. I will point to the help we provided to various Afghanis such as Osama Bin Laden when we provided funding, training, and participated in the radicalization of various Muslims in order to thwart the advance of the USSR, and to our current aid to the military dictatorship in Pakistan. Paul questions not whether Americans ought to be providing aid to others but whether our government, which tends to have ulterior motives, ought to be the apparatus by which such aid is administered. Humanitarian missions ought to be the domain of the Red Cross, and other charitable institutions, not the federal Government.
But the important thing to note here is that Paul is running to be neither a King nor an Emperor but the President. He will be bound by the will of congress. The reason to put Paul into the oval office rather than Joe Republican or Jane Democrat is that he, unlike the others, would not push our country into any hasty, unwarranted and disgraceful alliances or military actions. There would be no runs up to war, no pressure from the executive branch for arbitrary alliances with mid-east dictatorships, only reasoned debate in congress. And when they had reached their decision and provided their orders to Paul, he would implement them to the best of his ability.
So in short if it were all up to Paul yes we would move all our troops from foreign lands, stop providing money to dictators, and cease our involvement in the internal affairs of Jerusalem, Iran, Korea, etc but at the end of the day it is our elected representatives in congress that are responsible for our foreign policy decisions. President Paul can not single handedly alter our entire foreign policy but he sure as hell stop waging undeclared wars, keep the CIA from inciting revolts and subverting foreign governments, and generally raise the bar when it comes to getting involved in other peoples business.
The aid you think just and moral will still flow from our country to those that need it: a Paul presidency only means that congress will be forced to allocate it with greater care.
Perfect
Previously known as DCALIFANO
Previously known as DCALIFANO
Isolation v Non-intervention
Let's suppose that you and I live in a neighborhood of 150 or so other households. Every household is nominally independent, but depends on other households in the neighborhood for trade. Because we are so inter-dependent (yet individually sovereign) there will be some amount of disagreement and strife. Household x thinks household y is charging too much for a service. Or perhaps household w is collecting a big pile of firearms and bombs in their garage and in so doing is spooking the households around him.
And so we have the World and its various nations.
Everyone for the most part gets along, because everyone is to some extent or another dependent on others.
Intervention (the current US foreign policy) is Household(USA) using its capital and superior firearms to manipulate other households into doing what Household(USA) wants. Sometimes we pay them to do this, and sometimes (if they don't have nuclear weapons) we simply attack them and install a government of our choosing. Sometimes we do this selfishly. Probably more often we do it because we are trying to help one particular household that we perceive to be receiving unfair treatment from others, or even to keep the whole neighborhood from falling into chaos.
Even if we don't intend it to be, this is presumptuous.
While we are doing this, Household(USA) is unprotected and its inhabitants distracted from their own problems. Not only that, but the consequences of the other households not solving their problems are removed by our interference. Net result? The households in strife never solve their core problem because we subsidize the "solution".
Now to the point:
Household(USA) could decide to be isolationists: "F*** this. We're locking our doors and stopping trade and communication because y'all can't get your acts together. We are going to be self-sufficient and take the hits that our isolation will cause (no trade, no diplomacy). But we might still send troops to force our will on you."
And then we post armed guards at our doors.
Think "China and their Great Wall".
This is a sensible strategy when your house is functional and everyone else has lost their minds.
Household(USA) could also decide to be non-interventionists: "We aren't going to pretend to know how to solve your problems, and so we won't try with force, and we won't buy-off your enemies. You will have to face the consequences of your relationship choices with the others in the neighborhood. But we don't want to lose the benefits from trading with you, and we don't want you to lose the benefits you get from trading with us, so we are going to continue to trade."
We still might post armed guards at our doors, but anyone can come in who's purposes are to trade, talk, observe, etc.
Think "Switzerland and their well-armed citizens and neutral government".
This is sensible always, because it makes other people solve their own problems and keeps us from taking any sides and causing the bad-blood that side-taking has a habit of causing. Household(USA) can focus on keeping itself in order and in good shape and would therefore implicitly trust everyone else to assume the responsibility for doing the same.
It is a libertarian philosophy extended to the world.
"Take responsibility for yourselves and don't interfere with other people who are doing the same. When conflicts arise, go to a neutral third-party."
That "neutral" third-party was supposed to be the UN. But we see how well that's been working. This idea of a "World Government" and/or International Law is a related matter. And that is a problem yet to be solved.
I trust that our sorry lot (humans) can make this work. But we have to clean up our own house first.
Foreign Aid
Always sounds like a good idea in the short term, but always leads to dependence. It also makes that country, more often than not, beholden to the wishes of the country that provides the aid. Also, financially responsible governments must tax their citizens (since they have no way of generating their own money, nor should they) in order to raise the necessary capital with which to give the country in need -- which is extremely unfair. Of course one also has to expect that the govt of the country in need is a truly honest govt (a rarity) and will use that aid properly to aid its citizens -- not likely.
The best aid we can provide as a govt and as a free people is to speak out on issues of injustice and lead by example. Freedom can never be provided by a foreign govt to an oppressed people -- it never works. Because the people don't have the will, nor the means, to make it sustainable. Change must be organic and come from within if it is to be a lasting change. The best we could ever do is show by our own example of one way it can be achieved. And if we're talking about aiding a people that suffer through poverty, then private charities are a much more efficient way to deliver aid to people in need than to filter it through the hands of TWO governments.
--------------------------
"I killed the banks"
What I included in my response!
This is written from a friend of mine that I included in the response to the email I received. Thank you all for your help!!!:
Actually, based on our own country’s charter and the Monroe Doctrine, the USA is definitively NOT supposed to be out fighting wars as the world’s policeman. My personal position is that if individuals want to go out and spend their money fighting other peoples’ wars, then go for it, but this country is defined by the way that we have established inherent rights and privileges, particularly property rights, states rights and federal rights.
The USA is very unique in that we were organized as colonies which eventually became states. The states (not State) convened to give limited and special powers to the Federal government. Any rights not explicitly given to that government reside with the states. The foundation of our country was based on strong states’ rights. The states had rights because individuals have inherent rights that they gave to the states. All rights ultimately originate with our God-given rights to property and person. The idea of things like a Federal Income Tax, permanent overseas military, career Congress, public assistance, foreign aid and other modern inventions are not from the design or intent of our Constitution.
I agree that as Christians we each have individual responsibilities to serve and help others, both here in the USA and overseas. I don’t follow the argument that there is a moral obligation for our Federal government to coerce its citizens to pay taxes that are then given to foreign governments and that somehow are supposed to help individuals in other countries, let alone our own. When the US Treasury puts a gun to my head and says that I have to give money to them so that they can give it to someone else, I have no real choice. Without the ability to choose, there is no morality in the act. If I coerce you to give me your coat so that I can give it to someone else, it may make the other person more comfortable, but there is no claim that you can make to being more moral as a result.
Compassion means to suffer with someone else. I think people should go and directly help others. I also think that people should actively participate in non-profits and for-profits that efficiently help improve other people’s lives. Good non-profits deliver 80-90% of the gifts they receive to their intended beneficiaries. Governments usually cost a multiple of the value they deliver to get it into someone else’s hands (see: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6569 ). Giving aid to poor, foreign governments is usually not terribly productive in terms of getting aid to the people that really need it or solving any real problems. From my experience, it is the worst way to deliver aid. I think that wanting the government to take care of our responsibilities is like Rousseau wanting the French Orphanages to raise his bastards – it’s a poor replacement for the work we are supposed to be doing at the very best. That’s why my wife and I work so hard with and give so much to Growers (http://www.growersfirst.org ) – they efficiently and effectively deliver what they promise.
Our military was intended to exclusively protect our borders. My recommendation for those that want to go out and fight wars for their personal interests to help others is to join the Foreign Legion. The US military requires massive funding to be effective. There are 6-7 support staff required for every fighter. Those people and their supplies and weapons need to be paid for somehow. It comes from the US Treasury taxing us by force. We need to remember that the Revolution was fought over an unrepresented 4% tax on tea. Currently the bulk of taxes (federal, state, sales, payroll, FICA, etc. . .) cost many of us over 50% of our incomes. It’s not clear that we are good at being Imperialistic police, the moral arguments are cloudy at best (Just War Theory has not been well-argued in our current adventures) and the costs are outrageous – over $461 billion and counting or $91,000 per person ($360,000 per family of four). We spent over $3,700 per person in Iraq, which is more than twice the per person GDP of that country. I’d rather have the money as a tax credit that I can invest with groups that deliver value.
Ron Paul may not get elected, but he’s the only candidate that makes economic sense and has a clear moral argument that is consistent. I’d rather spend my vote capital on the best choice than waste it on a moderate Democrat or Republican that is effectively the same animal. I’d rather have a lottery for President than the current process. Bush v Kerry was the best – two white guys from the same fraternity at Yale is the best we can come up with?
I guarantee you that
I guarantee you that charities spend money more efficiently with less political strings than the federal govt of the US. Nearly every time.
American charitable organizations could feed the world and provide better education and health serviced across the globe for a fraction of the amount the US spends to provide much lesser services.
If only the wealth was still in the People's hands and not being blown up in other countries and used to further corruption and enslavement on a global scale.
$1 trillion is ALOT of money and we are spending that every year maintaining our global military operations (empire). Ron Paul wants that tremendous wealth back in our hands. Americans are the most charitable in the world. Think what We could do with a TRILLION extra $'s.
;)
When the Government donates
The money is wasted and doesn't get to the people who really need it.
Example=Katrina
The government takes our money, sets up a huge buracracy to
move it around and pay others to move it around, and the people
who meed it might end up with 10% of the total. If they are lucky.
The Citizens do a much better job.
Become a Precinct Leader
Donate to the Campaign
Donate to the Campaign http://ronpaul2012.com
WNY for Ron Paul Meetup http://meetup.com/wnyforronpaul
No one is stopping her from donating to international charities
No one is stopping her from volunteering her time.
Under Ron Paul people will have more money to give away to charities they believe in.
Personally, this is the only fair way, since the government does not support the causes I support. Our government does not support the millions of orphans in Eastern Europe; our government does not stop human sex trafficking.
Our government gives away billions of dollars to dictators every year. Real charities - whom you must donate to on your own, actually do good for people; the government does not.
Oh yeah, for the record: in college I took an African History course, and my professor was from Nigeria, educated at Oxford. He and I actually got along because he agreed that all the aid that is sent to Africa actually does more harm than good. He could not understand the economics, but he knew from first-hand observations that the aid doesn't work. Most of it goes to armed militias, and the rest, who knows.
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat meat!
gunpoint generosity
fine.
imagine you're in a president rp gov't administration and he's used the persuasion of voters to force congress to cut all unconstitutional spending and taxes.
you have all of your money from your labor, now go at it and be generous with your freewill offerings to the less fortunate at home and abroad!
or, is it only generosity at the point of a gun from the irs that has any meaning to the bleeding hearts? the warren buffets, kennedys, etc. who complain of not being taxed enough surely are only held back by the lack of gov't force we all selfishly claim as our liberty...
Why we should stop giving charity to other countries
If you read the book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by Ed Griffin (endorsed by Ron Paul on the back!) you will suddenly become an expert in economics! You will know more than many economic advisors, or so-called experts, in fact. That is what I have discovered! I read it 10 years ago. My friends are all amazed when my economic predictions come true.(Or you can watch various documentaries on the net.to educate yourself...... )
Having studied that book, I can confidently answer your friend's concern.
First, EVERY TIME THE USA give "charity" to another country, they simply print the money out! It doesn't come from taxpayers, but it is called the INDIRECT TAX. This is because it causes INFLATION. As a result of all the "charitable giving," both at home and abroad, we have become the most indebted country in the world. MONEY IS ONLY CREATED OUT OF DEBT. My father said he gets tons of economic newsletters and one expert said "We ---the USA---owe more than the entire earth is currently valued at." Now, this is fine, as long as people around the world are duped into accepting and using the dollar. But THEY ARE WAKING UP. In fact, they are catching on to the funny money before we, as Americans are (due to media blackout in the USA so as not to create panic). Already the Taj Mahal won't accept USD! (This is INDIA, not a particularly rich nation that can afford to be choosey!.) Already IRAN won't use dollars (which is the real reason Bush wants to bomb them, and that is what he did to Iraq when they pulled out of the dollar!) Already many tourist places don't accept our worthless federal reserve notes.
When the SHIFT hits the FAN, and no one at all will take dollars, we become the BANANA REPUBLIC and have inflation rivaling that of Argentina of a few years ago. At that time, it is PAY BACK time! ALL those years of creating dollars out of thin air, the people were REALLY borrowing from the next generation! This is why for the first time, the USA standard of living is DECREASING....So you see, our being "the wealthiest nation on earth" was ONLY DUE TO ONE THING: people believed in the dollar because after WWII it was the world currency. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO GET TECHNICAL, WE ARE ACTUALLY THE POOREST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! If people stop using all those dollars they are currently saving, and use the Euro or gold, guess what? Our dollar will be worth its use as kleenex or toilet paper, no more! The penny is already worth less than the copper to coin it. The dollar is expected to crash this year, esp. if OPEC gets out of it!
SECOND----Nearly every time that the USA 'gives' money to other countries, it is a bribe, and something is expected in return....If not in resources, then in control. It is a way of keeping control of the puppet leader....And the world bank (owned mainly by the USA) gives loans to third world countries that they know CAN"T pay back (esp.since the INTEREST MONEY is never created) and so then the USA or world bank has them pay in resources! In other words, trade worthless paper for real resources!
Now, I am sure that Ron Paul is not against giving under certain conditions, in fact I heard him say so in a speech: only when it is decided by the PEOPLE and not by the BIG GOVT. Ron Paul is all about having a govt. for the people, by the people. Not for the powerful elite, by the powerful elite. I know of NO OTHER presidential candidate that knows as much about economy or freedom as Ron Paul.
A good site to read is http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html
"I Want the World and 5%"
If you were -
a new person at a school, how would you be able to get on the best:
By picking fights with people, trying to provoke different groups against each other, and basically causing a lot of trouble?
Or by trying to get along and be friends with everyone?
P.S. don't be fooled by the prevailing winds that it's impossible for the West to live harmoniously with the Islamic world - that's half propoganda and half stems from the fact that increasing numbers of Muslims are pissed at us for meddling in their affairs for so long. Christians Jews and Muslims have lived together peacefully in many places and at many times throughout history - the Middle East before the 1st Crusade, and in Spain before the Inquisition being good examples. It's always the war-mongerers who muck everything up and try to get everyone to hate each other.
Ron Paul Answered this in the MTV Debate this Weekend in detail
Go to youtube and search Ron Paul MTV Debate
But the Constitution of the United States gives OUR Goverment No Authority to do so but if Individual or company's in America Want to they can
Mostly when you talk about other nations they are in some kind of civil War
We never want to involve ourselves in this because When we send food and aid it ends up being used as a weapon and if our soldiers get involved in a civil War theirs just to much blowback and lost resources now what you have to ask yourself is why did the country need help in the first place aid or civil war because the United Nations and World Bank causes all this to happen because they profit from it sometime population control or profiteering from the war
Back in ROME during the old days if something tragic would happen they had this saying that Said
Well Who profited off this tragedy happening just like 9/11 and the put options Futures stocks on the two airline company's that hit the World Trade Center Future stocks that Went up 3 days before 9/11 and made Millions or billions of dollars off that tragedy i wonder who they where so always follow the Money The Federal Reserve and the World Bank Control everything Thats why they don't teach it in schools about the federal reserve or the World Bank
They control every President why do you think everyone running for president is a Council of Foreign Relations member except Ron Paul you have to look deeper and deeper to know that Ron Paul is Educating people on this Just have to research it all Think about this 6 months before John F Kennedy Died he made Gold and Silver Legal Tender to try to get rid of the federal reserve and u see what happen when you deal with these people Research and dig deeper everything is on the internet why you think they want to shut it down but Ron Paul can explain better then i can i'm just a Child Compared to him But check out the MTV Debate with Ron Paul
Later
And the founding fathers study histroy and know what happen to every Government Much Wiser then US because the system has dumb us down
Trust the Founding Fathers and the Constitution Them MEN Where way before their time its incredible read their quotes on youtube or sites it just WOW Trust them they Know
The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to contro
First...
It's none of our business what's going on in Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, etc.
They handle things the way the handle things, and we aren't supposed to make them change that.
Now, if individual people want to come together to create a charity to send money and aid, that's one thing. But dragging our government into all these problems and being controlled by international organizations mean one thing: the people, all of them, are taxed to go to war. We already pay for just about EVERYTHING that goes on in the world. Yeah, some other countries help a little, but America goes above and beyond its own Constitution and wallet to do it.
Listen, regardless your religion, our Founding Fathers were Christian, but they saw the importance of non-intervention in foreign affairs, staying out of entangling alliances (international organizations) and being friends with everyone and trading with everyone.
Honestly, it really doesn't matter how we feel the govt should work. We should always obey our Constitution and NOT make laws that undermine it, or take actions in other countries that go against it.
We bring the troops home from everywhere...
They are constitutionally obligated to defend OUR borders.
China does not have bases all over the world,and you won't see anyone messing with them any time soon...
By doing this we save 100's of billions of dollars,and have more in our pocket to give to needs like this. But it must be the will of the American people,not its Govt.
People are stretched so thin now they are reluctant to help the guy on the corner,much less in Darfur...or wherever.
We must get our own house in order to be able to help others properly.
Then, I wouldn't mind a National public voting process on issues like these,so that the American public can have a say in where we want to help in the world,and how we want to do it...
You can't help anyone else if you are sick,and broke,and tired,and frustrated,over worked, and scared.