Ron Paul opposes linux - was Re: [OT] Isolationist vs. Non-Interventionist [was: Re: HB 139]
von at fugal.net
Thu Jan 24 12:58:31 MST 2008
* Michael L Torrie [Thu, 24 Jan 2008 at 12:26 -0700]
> 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.
OK, since we are in a trade deficit precisely _because_ we are so
stretched thin, our dollar is failing (and has been for a long long long
time) and we're borrowing trillions to fund a war (both from other
countries and from the value of our own economy). If people are willing
to pay 5 bucks for a coconut, and five bucks was worth what it was 20
years ago, other countries would be insane to not jump on that. Nobody
wants to sell a coconut here for 5 bucks because the american dollar
just sucks, so we have no leverage, we have to let them trade free. And
even then probably lots don't because it's simply not worth it. And with
a pending economic crisis it's just going to get worse. WE NEED TO FIX
IT!! Then we'll do what we will with trade policy. We can't do nothing
right now in terms of that, you're right, because of the god aweful
position we're in. I honestly don't know about trade tarrifs, but I
could see rather paying a little extra for foreign products to fund a
modest government than paying insane income and sales taxes for DOMESTIC
products to fund an out of control government. Especially if we had a
healthy economy where we probably could buy most things domestic.
> But I guess all empires have to fall sometime.
Or we could stop being an empire.
> >> 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.
Well, if you pay a little tax on foreign goods (indirectly, through the
importers) then they would still have to compete with domestic products,
and if domestic products are then cheaper, then I guess you'll just buy
the domestic ones, and the importers would just have to lower their
prices anyway. Add to that that you have a ton more money because you
don't pay exhorbitant taxes AND YOUR MONEY IS ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING,
then well, sounds pretty good to me.
> 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).
Again, OPEC WILL start trading in euros unless we do something FAST.
You're basically arguing that we should help our economy because it's
already not worth anything, but that's exactly why we should help it.
Add to the food crisis the money crisis and that's a double wammy, and
then you're really paying for things twice.
> Protectionism destroys competition and stifles innovation, leading to
> higher costs and ultimately inflation, all of which affect us here
> domestically, not globally.
We already have inflation, and it has nothing to do with trade policy.
Let me draw in as an example late medeivel england. They simply stopped
going to war, imposed a tax on passing through their seas (any sea, they
had a powerful navy) and it was a glorious time for england. Granted,
the privateers were less than a wholesome approach. But stopping the
wars was probably the best thing they could have done. And they never
could have kicked spain in the butt if they hadn't.
> 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?
Nobody is standing in a mall kiosk selling you linux.
Microsoft can just get their butt in gear and make viable products.
And if the government was by the people and for the people, then the
government would be the people and you wouldn't be making that
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080124/31abc970/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG