"Imagine" By Dr. Ron Paul
VINNY GOOMBA
Posts: 1,818
Below is a great little piece from Ron Paul as part of his weekly "Texas Straight Talk" postings. I couldn't agree more with what he is saying here. ===================================================================================
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLO ... tail.shtml
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column
Imagine
Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.
Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.
According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLO ... tail.shtml
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column
Imagine
Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.
Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.
According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
How do Austrian free market principles take away from personal freedoms? Secondly, when was the last time such an idea was actually implemented in any society anywhere? It sure hasn't been the way this guy would have wanted it in America within the last 70+ years, and maybe even further back.
To say that Ron Paul's principles would support sweat shops is ludicrous. In fact, following his ideas would render sweat shops voluntarily inoperable in a few years. If Dr. Paul was our president, he would clearly cut our entire country's 'overhead' in half by ending the trillion-dollar-a-year empire all over the world (just like the article above states), among other bullshit subsidies that we pay to oil companies, huge agri-business, etc... Now, figure in cuts of USELESS government bureacracy in the form of a FEDERAL Department of Education, (why have a federal dept, when every state has their own?), The IRS***, etc... Even if we just cut the empire spending, it would do us tremendous good. Then, and only then could we have some sensible taxation in this country for individuals AND BUSINESSES. Currently, it doesn't make any sense for any manufacturing business to be based in this country... Why? The taxes on gains are absolutely ridiculous, let alone payroll taxes, and every other absurd tax that businesses pay by operating here, and are totally avoidable elsewhere. Which businesses do you think are hurt more by over-taxation (which is a direct result of our over-spending): The Nikes of the world, or the Joe Shmoe's Shoes of the world? You guessed it. The little guy is KILLED by these taxes far worse than Nike for obvious reasons. So, let's let it make sense to operate here on our own soil again, and just watch the cost gap narrow between using Chinese slave-labor (whose products still have to be shipped half-way around the world, which is expensive) and Joe Shmoe making shoes out of his garage, or Nike factories in Kansas. Now, it may not cost less to make shoes domestically than to go to China, but at least they will be competitive with the Chinese-produced shoes, and if they are competitive, there WILL be a new market created-- for a couple of bucks more on each pair of shoes, you can now support AN AMERICAN BUSINESS, perhaps even an American SMALL business rather than support Chinese slave labor. I believe they will sell-- I would buy them myself, wouldn't you? And don't kid yourself, give China a few years, and they won't be working for pennies on the dollar. There are a lot more cars, and a lot less bikes there now than there were even five years ago. They are going to turn into us in terms of their consumer "needs" eventually. It won't happen overnight, but give it time. Then, where will the sweatshops be? Non-existent in China, anyway. Yes it will take time, but not one piece of legislation dictating how we should trade would need to be written, and not one embargo enforced. Cut the size of the Federal Government, tax less, and you will see us making things here (with our own people, and the Chinese being paid fairly, as they will be buying their own Reebok Pumps in a few years) and exporting them again.
As you can see though, it all starts with decreasing spending via ending the empire, which you seem to agree with. It's like a Liberty-induced domino effect. Cut the empire, and kids in China aren't slaves anymore? Believe it. Ron Paul isn't the problem... The other 534 members of both houses of Congress are. Did I even mention how much good it would do us to get rid of the Federal Reserve which charges interest on our own money, that we pay back in taxes? At this point, we can't afford NOT to listen to Dr. Paul.
Also, the guy isn't 100% against the government providing services to people-- he believes it should be on the part of the state and local governments to decide for themselves just how much government should be involved in the lives of the people-- at least this way, it is self-determining, and each state can act more in the accordance of the will of their own people. The federal government should ALWAYS keep out of as much of our business as possible. They can't give us even close to what we want for the amount we pay for it, plain and simple-- so, let's solve our problems ourselves at more local levels, and in the private sector.
Let's see here, under the current system, money is forcefully taken from us, and our economy is pretty much centrally planned and 'stimulated' by the Federal Reserve BANK. Why not try something bold and different, and actually putting stock into FREEDOM for a change? Don't believe the lies, Freedom is good. No more government creation of monopolies with terrible, unconstitutional laws. What have we got to lose by trying it? If it doesn't work, it'll be easy enough to go back to the corporatist-socialist system that we have right now, that really, really doesn't seem to be working.
***IRS - I realize that we probably need some sort of tax collecting body, but with spending down, it would be nowhere near the size, or have nowhere near the power that IRS currently yields over us.
A. Economic freedom does not equal personal freedom
B. So in this far-fetched idea that we could produce and sell shoes cheaper here in the United States, you really think that we couldn't find sweatshop labor in countries not named China? We haven't yet infiltrated Africa...there's plenty of cheap labor left.
C. Does this free market marketize everything? Healthcare? Didn't Ron Paul's campaign manager die with no health care and leave his family in massive debt? Who decides what is marketable and what is not? Like would you market being a housewife or househusband? How much could people charge for their labor? The environment? What about child pornography...there's a market for it do we allow for it? Murder/Suicide on the internet? Drugs? Which ones? Animal fighting rings? How do you justify doing this or not doing this...if we have a free market economy it's gotta go up on the market right?
Forgive me for not getting it...
I honestly don't know enough about the 3 countries you mentioned, and how their "free market" economics worked or didn't worked, but I will look into them, thanks for the heads up.
A. Going to disagree there. They are not the same, but they are closely related. Large percentages of choices you make (what you buy, what you do for a living, how you spend your time-- working or not, or whether or not the government FORCES you to pay for something-- such as insurance) are based on the money you have, and the actual strength of that money.
B. I only used China as an example. However, you'd still have to set up shop in Africa, and ship goods halfway around the world... So I'm sure the cost of doing business in Africa must be greater than or equal to that of China, seeing as how Africa is technically closer, and we don't seem to be having the do all that much of our manufacturing as it stands right now? So, I believe it will still make sense to buy American made shoes, and everything if it made sense to do business in America-- that only happens when we cut spending. Also, when we make things here, we not only get to sell them to ourselves, but to other countries as well, and we could finally reduce our trade deficits. Seriously, what do YOU, or any of us have to lose by decreasing the size of our Federal Government? You have everything to GAIN.
And this idea is only far fetched because we have a congress, and a white house that refuses to obey the Constitution, which doesn't give any of them any power to legally do just about anything they've done in the past who-knows-how-many years.
C. True, Ron Paul's campaign manager did die, and had some bills to pay. His choice not to have insurance, no? Ron put out a few bulletins on myspace and a few emails, and I was one who personally contributed. I have no idea how the family is doing right now, to be completely honest, but if the people who supported Ron's campaign were 1% as generous with this guy as with the campaign, his family is probably OK now, if not doing just fine. If this was the case, it's a shining example of people taking care of each other, by their own accord, and not with the forceful collection of our money by the government. Now, IMAGINE if we had more of our own money to give as we see fit to causes that we personally support? How can we achieve that? Again, by limiting the size of government. Bigger government always means less personal freedom AND less economic freedom.
I don't think you understand what is meant by 'markets.' Markets operate within laws-- You make it sound like Paul endorses a crazier version of the wild wild west here in America. Obviously for good reason, laws exist on STATE levels that protect children from child pornography. Ron is a Libertarian at heart, which basically means you are free to do as you choose as long as no one else is harmed by your actions... What's wrong with that?
Now onto your definition of 'markets.' A free market means allowing businesses to sell whatever it is they sell within the law, and where the only role of government is to enforce contracts, and to make sure any other laws aren't broken in the operations of the business. It's not just because something can be sold, illegal or not, that there is, or has to be a 'market' for it. That's WAY off.
It may be easier to show how government interference in the market doesn't achieve the most desired result for buyers:
What if I told you that there was a fuel out there that was completely renewable, burned relatively clean, could be produced cheaper than corn ethanol and gasoline, and was less volatile than either?
Wouldn't you want to buy this fuel? Wouldn't everyone, to the point where, maybe even gasoline would become obselete? Well, I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, this fuel CAN be made from hemp seed oil-- which, it is illegal to grow hemp on a federal level, but several states allow it to be grown with major security restrictions, and other costly provisions which inhibit it from being a competitive fuel product.
Now, combine that with the fact that taxpayer money actually SUBSIDIZES oil companies-- so the price we're paying at the pump is actually LOWER than it should be, BUT, we're still getting banged for whatever gas REALLY costs, since our tax dollars pay to take some of the cost off the top.
NOW, eliminate stupid government policies from this whole equation, which means:
1) Hemp, which can't even get you high, is legal, and all unreasonable restrictions are lifted from people growing hemp for industrial use. If they want to build 20 foot high electric fences to protect their crop, it's THEIR choice, or it is up to the states to decide. You want to avoid laws that make it difficult for this potentially good alternative to dirty gasoline to take root, and help us all pay less at the pump, and reduce emissions simultaneously.
2) Taxpayer dollars stop funding subsidies for oil. Let the true price of oil and gas show up at the pump, which could be several dollars higher than they read currently, and let hemp fuel pumps show up at fuel stations around the country. Now, we have another choice instead of just gas and diesel-- Now, if Mobil/Exxon wants to stay in business, their prices should come down just to compete with this new, kick ass cleaner fuel.
This is the free market that Ron Paul wants. If Hemp oil was 3 times as volatile as gasoline, there would be laws barring it from use for that very reason, as it would actually be DANGEROUS to people. Until now, hemp has only been banned to minimize competition of the oil companies for fuel oil, plastics, synthetic rope, etc... This is not freedom, this is a regulated MONOPOLY. Lobbyists write these laws, legally bribe the congress, and get them passed to further their own business and agenda.
As for health care, this system should operate on free market principles, as government intervention is what drove all of the prices in that industry UP. All the insurance that became mandatory by law created a nation of ambulance-chasing lawyers out to grab for all the money that was now available with a good lawsuit-- and doctors had to abandon their own codes of providing cheap or free care to the poor, since taxpayer money now does it for them. Add all the layers of oversight into the overall cost, prescription drugs being pushed at astronomical prices, since insurance should cover those, yet picks and chooses what they do and don't provide... Put it this way, it's so far gone and screwed, because of government intervention helping insurance companies.
No system is perfect. So long as there is money, there will always be some degree of exploitation-- but people, will generally do what makes sense for themselves, and government should not inhibit this from happening. The only time the government should step in is when someone is really being done wrong, or harmed in some way, and it should be done in court.
Now do you see what is meant by free markets?