Ron Paul opposes linux - was Re: [OT] Isolationist vs. Non-Interventionist [was: Re: HB 139]

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Thu Jan 24 12:26:18 MST 2008


Bryan Sant wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:38 AM, Nathan Blackham <kemotaha at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree that we shouldn't force democracy on everybody.  That isn't the part
>> that I call isolationist.  It is that Ron Paul ( at least from his
>> presidential bid website) thinks that all the international organizations
>> are bad :
>>
>> "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the
>> International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat
>> to our independence as a nation."
>> "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon
>> the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
> 
> Wow.  I like Ron Paul even more now.

Hmm.  Given that the US is a country with a massive trade deficit, this
is quite possibly one of the most bizarre ideas I have ever heard.  And
no, enacting protectionist policies will not change this trade deficit,
and I don't think it benefits American industry.  If anything it puts
them at a disadvantage because they will be cut off from access to the
world's markets.

But I guess all empires have to fall sometime.

> 
>> He also includes the UN as part of those organizations.  I would call this
>> an isolationist.  I feel that we need to work within some of these
>> organizations to resolve conflicts peacefully.
> 
> Can it get any better?  Go Ron!  The UN is THE most corrupt cesspool
> of dog vomit.  They are 100% anti-American, pro-world government, and
> their taking up prime real estate in NYC.  Kick them out!!
> 
>> I do understand that not everyone views him as an isolationist.  From my
>> reading on his website, it has led me to this conclusion.  I understand that
>> he still wants to trade with the rest of the world, he just doesn't want to
>> do it in a framework that has been built to promote fair trade.
> 
> That would be consistent with the framework of our founding fathers.
> The government should have power to tax profits (income is not profit
> it is a trade) via corporate tax, and apply tariffs to incoming goods.
>  America is the largest SHOPPING MALL in the world.  Countries who
> want to sell goods in the world's largest shopping mall should pay for
> the privilege to do so -- not unlike a vendor having to rent a store
> front in a real mall.  I know it's not quite this simple, but "fair
> trade" laws exist so that globalized corporations can make a product
> in China, India, etc., and then bring it into America without having
> to pay a dime.  This produces a trade imbalance, blah, blah, blah...
> It's bad.  Bad business model for Americans.  Good business model for
> global corporations...  Of which I'm a minor share holder...  Woohoo!!
>  Go 401k go!

Wow.  That's amazing.  You want to pay for things twice, eh?  First of
all, the reason that foreign countries can sell their goods to us is
because we the collective people want those goods.  I mean are you for
or against the free market?  Seems ironic to me that the country that
espouses freedom and the idea that the government should get out of the
business of running peoples lives could be so protectionist.  On this
point Ron Paul is totally contradicting his own position on the role of
government.  I think this point of view completely contradicts the
intent of the founding fathers.

Also I think you (Ron Paul perhaps?) grossly overestimate America's
future impact on the world economy.  The moment OPEC starts trading oil
in Euros instead of dollars, we are in serious, serious trouble.  To say
nothing of the looming food crisis (two bad years in a row will cause
food prices here in america to go up dramatically because the supply is
now zero-sum).

Protectionism destroys competition and stifles innovation, leading to
higher costs and ultimately inflation, all of which affect us here
domestically, not globally.

Now as for the subject line, given Ron Paul's position, he *has* to
oppose linux. After all, large parts of linux itself were developed
*outside america* and they can come in and compete without paying a
single dime to the American government (or people, it's unclear what
you're talking about here) in the so-called "American Shopping Mall."
What about our poor, beleaguered, home-grown Microsoft?  How can they
possibly stay in business?



> 
>> Nathan
> 
> Thank you for further illustrating the virtues of Ron Paul.  BTW - I'm
> not a Ron-ulan.
> 
> -Bryan
> 
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
> 


-- 
Michael Torrie
Assistant CSR, System Administrator
Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
+1.801.422.5771




More information about the PLUG mailing list