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

Bryan Sant bryan.sant at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 13:16:34 MST 2008


On Jan 24, 2008 12:58 PM, Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> wrote:
> Oh boy...
>
> * Michael L Torrie [Thu, 24 Jan 2008 at 12:26 -0700]
> <quote>
> > 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.
> </rant>
>
> > 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?
>
> FUD
> 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
> distinction.
>
> Von Fugal

+1 Ninjaful



More information about the PLUG mailing list