Comment: Yes of course there "is" international interventionism

(See in situ)


Yes of course there "is" international interventionism

I did not imply that there wasn't.

What I'm saying is this.

By order (from 1st to Last):
---Regarding which came first and where the 1st order of Abdication Exists

1) Local Abdication -- We buy most products or services (via franchised services) from out-side local markets

2) State or National Abdication -- We buy most products/services from out-side state or national markets.

The above includes all industries and all services
---Including Banking

My argument would be to reverse this prognosis: International Consumption to National/State/Region and from N/S/R to Local Markets.

As a pathway back to consumer-sovereignty.

There are only three logical pathways to get to a Free-Market or it is IMPOSSIBLE to get there (I'll let you decide what-is-what):

1) Consumer-Sovereignty (as Mises and Ron Paul argue for)

2) Voting-and-Lobbying (as all politicians argue for)

3) Force of Arms (militarism -- which RP argues against)

I think RP either does not fully accept the C-S pathway (as the sole means) or if he does then his entire political platform is one of making the C-S model more palatible or obvious -- Meaning he uses "politics" as a vehicle for education showing the obvious truth that it can NEVER lead toward individualism.

Voting -- Taking consumer-power and abdicating POS-Rule over to politician-rule via the Ballot Box (a non-market-good).

If RP thinks that a combo pact of C-S and Voting-Lobbying are the answer then I think he needs to expand his anti-war stance and arguments that "free-trade" and not "war" (his words - he was referring to militarism) are what bring peace (that peace does not come at the end of the barrel of a gun).

If we expand his anti-war (militarism) stance to include all forms of war (war being a non-market-good) -- to include voting and lobbying (in my opinion being a non-market-good and pertetual) then we are ONLY left with C-S (consumer-sovereignty).

Thoughts?

Oh direct answer if not clear above -- I believe that "internationalism" (the abdication to their revenue streams) comes first at the State/National level -- then as with all forms of consumer-supported gov't actions gov't must (and always will) expand.

Gov'ts must expand (as did Monarchies) because every year there's a new batch of people who must be bribed (new wealthy individuals, new family members knighted or made "noble", or new wealthy unions). Each of the latter in turn has a slew of people below them who must be bribed (bought) --- when wealthy people do not get bribed they form unions with other non-bribed wealthy people and seek to overthrow the "other" wealthy folk.

So first -- we must sell out localism to state/nationalims then by the force-factor of ever-expanding gov't bribery we sell out to internationalism.

We need new planets to off-shore our bribery otherwise internationalism will lead us to the first one-world civil war.

NATO-blue vs NATO-red