hell’s handmaiden

There are currently 32 responses to “Now let’s talk about Ron Paul”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On November 13th, 2007, BlackSun said:

   I lean toward economic libertarianism (with regulations requiring payment of all externalities, of course).

   Having said that, I disagree with almost every Ron Paul position. He is not remotely credible. The only exception is that he opposes the war on drugs. But his other policy positions are so extremist and wrongheaded it boggles the mind. Fortunately, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting elected.

   A political counterpoint to Paul is Kucinich, who is just about as wacky on the other end of the spectrum, and who also will never get elected.

2. 2 On November 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Blacksun,

   Probably, I lean mildly toward economic libertarianism as well, but I do not lean very far toward libertarianism in general, as libertarians strike me as constructing social orders that simply wouldn’t work.

3. 3 On November 13th, 2007, Joe Magarac said:

   Maiden -

   I think your list would be more correct if you distinguished between Federal control over issue X, and issue X itself. For example, I don’t think Dr. Paul has a problem with clean water; he just thinks that under our federal system the states should decide how clean their water supplies should be. Similarly, he is in some ways more open to contact with the international community than most presidential candidates (he opposes the embargo on Cuba, and opposed sanctions on Iraq); he just doesn’t think the constitution authorizes the USA to surrender its sovereignty to organizations like the United Nations.

   For all these reasons, when Dr. Paul says that the Federal government should stop legislating issues like abortion, he is not forcing liberals to subsidize a conservative outcome. On the contrary, he is referring the issue to the states, so that nobody’s Federal tax money is being spent on abortion one way or the other.

4. 4 On November 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Joe,

   I don’t trust state’s rights positions. Generally, they aren’t about rights really, but are about restricting freedom. People arguing for state’s rights typically are motivated by a desire to limit someone’s rights, not to expand those rights. They want the federal government out of the way– that is, they want the last court of appeals removed– so as to make such removal of rights easier. Take a look at history. So, in a very real sense, I don’t care that the intent is to ‘give back’ the power to the states.

   Secondly, and probably more importantly, population density and technology have made old school states rights effectively impossible anyway. Activity is one state has consequences far outside of that state’s borders. This realization is the reason we’ve got much of the federal legislation that we have, and Paul wants to chuck it. Bad idea.

   Third, population density, the global economy, and modern weaponry have made it shear lunacy to not participate in such things as the UN.

5. 5 On November 13th, 2007, jmklein said:

   About the little balls of cells, what about a little ball of cells with a cereberal cortex, or a beating heart. Does the ball of cells become human when it comes in contact with the atmosphere? Or is there some stage of development?

6. 6 On November 13th, 2007, jmklein said:

   Oh yeah, and a bit of news. Masthusian population theory has been refuted and trampled on thoroughly in recent years. Population growth trends downwards with development, not downwards. Overpopulation was the global warming of the past, get up to date on your authoritarian scare stories.

7. 7 On November 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

   jmklein,

   Why in the hell are you talking about Malthus? Did you have nothing to say in the absence of a hook on which to hang your talking point?

   I didn’t say anything about trending up, down or sideways. I said population density is already such that we cannot… and so on. That point has absolutely nothing to do with Malthus, with rates or population growth… or with global warming.

   By the way, that Malthus has been ‘refuted’ is right wing fantasy. It is pretty standard population biology. “Make more people than you can feed, and people die” — really kinda hard to refute that, honestly, I mean, unless you think that you can somehow magically keep people alive even though you can’t feed them. Do you in fact believe that you can feed people without food?

   A key element of Malthus’ work– but I bet you’ve never read him, have ya?– is the idea that humans are actually smart enough to avoid the problem of overpopulation so long as we aren’t stupid enough to ignore the problem until it is too late. Guess which side you just put yourself on?

   It is really a bit funny. People like to claim that “we haven’t died yet” and so Malthus was wrong when said that “populations are going to explode and then we die”, when actually he said something more like “populations are going to explode and then we die– unless we do something about it”. Big difference. And he mentioned some things that we ought to do. Didn’t know that either did you?

   The best you can really do when addressing Malthus is argue that he missed some details– namely time-frame– and he did, mostly because he underestimated how long technology could keep ahead of population.

8. 8 On November 13th, 2007, Anonymous said:

   whoa you can’t read very well and your interpretation of what Ron Paul says is way off…would like to know what your education is in and suggest that you study just a bit more before you “interpret” policies from a tenth term congressman. But thanks for pluggin the name…whether you realize it or not each time you bash him you make his campaigne stronger..keep up the good work

9. 9 On November 13th, 2007, Rand said:

   I have read many articles critical of Ron Paul, but I don’t know if I have read as unfair of an article as this one.

   “a number of bills to stifle birth control and family planning. Because we know, right, that in the absence of family planning no one has sex– especially not teenagers– unless they get married first and then only have sex when they want to make a baby.”

   Paul is against federal involvement in many things, not just birth control and family planning. However, birth control and famility planning would necessarily get caught in the crosshairs of any person whose political view is that the federal government’s powers should be severely restricted.

   One might argue that this is all well and good, but Ron Paul is personally pro-life and therefore is biased o nthis issue. I can only answer that I agree with him and I am 100% pro-choice.

   “This folks in idiotic. Population is one of the more pressing human problems of the next century …”

   Says who? Haven’t we heard all this “population bomb” nonsense before? You must forgive all of us who are skeptical this time around.

   “Note, please, that his stance is not just domestic but stretches around the globe– “No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such program or activity is foreign or domestic.” Paul is damning millions to unnecessary suffering.”

   Paul is against international aid by principle. Again, population control/planning necessarily would get caught in the cross-hairs for any person who is against the federal government sending U.S. taxpayer money overseas. I, too, am against most foreign aid and have absolutely no problem with population control/planning, but I agree with Paul on this one. Accordingly, I think you are trying to paint Paul with an unfair brush by just stating that he is against foreign aid for population control – he against foreign aid from the federal government, PERIOD. He would be against foreign aid to purchase bibles to ship to Africa, he would be against foreign aid to buy clothes for kids in Romania, he would be against foreign aid to spread creationist research – he is against foreign aid no matter what it is used for.

   “Paul also apparently thinks that little balls of goo are human. They aren’t.”

   I agree. However, Paul also does not believe this is an issue for the federal government. He has not proposed a federal ban on abortion. He believes it is a states rights issue. He believes most issues are states rights issues. Those who only use abortion as an example are hoping to play to those “abortion litmus test” voters, which, again, is an unfair brush with which to pain Ron Paul.

   “He wants to cripple the Supreme Court, which means, in effect, that he wants to limit US the citizens last shot at justice.”

   How has he proposed that the Supreme Court be CRIPPLED? This is vague nonsense.

   “He doesn’t seem to like safe working environments or decent wages.”

   Again, I don’t know what you mean by this. He is AGAINST safe working environments and decent wages? You mean, all else being equal, if he has the choice to, say, magically pick between safe work conditions for coal miners or unsafe conditions for coal miners, he would choose the latter? If he had the choice, all else being equal, to make a wish but he could only choose between fast food workers making $2.00 vs. $20.00 per hour, he would choose $2.00? Wow, this is really convincing.

   “He does like corporations.”

   In what way do you mean? Paul has consistently throughout his career opposed corporate welfare. Do you mean that he has some special affinity for the corporate form (as opposed to a sole proprietorship or partnership)? Do you know what specific corporate form turns his crank the most? (I personally get hot from the C-Corps, but to each their own I suppose)

   “He doesn’t like cry-baby nonsense like clean water.”

   Yeah, I heard that he doesn’t drink from the tap when there is a good mud puddle he can gulp out of. Again, what exactly does this mean? I suppose he is against the overreaching EPA, again not believing that it is within the federal government’s proper constitutional bounds be regulating water.

   “He seems to have a fondness for nukes.”

   Citation? He has also been consistently non-interventionist.

   “He spits on international law. The US apparently is a special case and doesn’t have to play by the same rules we apply to everyone else.”

   “He’s proposed a frightening number of bills to get the US out of the international community. Idiotic. There are too many of us with too many guns for us to not play nice.”

   He does not believe the US is a special case. He believes that each country has a right to its sovereignty. He would not impose rules on a sovereign nation and would not respect any other nation’s attempt to impose rules on the United States. That really does not seem like him treating the US as a special case.

   “He likes guns– a lot. Really, why in hell would anyone think that more capability to kill equates to a safer populace? Nonsense.”

   You are not going to get the guns out of the hands of criminals who, by definition, do not obey the law. Therefore, it only makes sense that law abiding citizens be allowed to protect themselves.

   Also, “the more capability to kill” equates to a populace safer from tyranny.

   “He has an infatuation with gold that is just cracked. We definitely do not need this man proposing the nation’s finances.”

   As opposed to the worthless currency currently issued by the federal government which is backed by nothing as opposed to a currency backed by a scarce resource. Yeah, he is cracked just like all of those economist against the current U.S. money system.

   “oh, and given the tax cuts he proposes one wonders if he think that a government can run without funds.”

   Given the amount he would like to reduce the size of the federal government as (partially) set forth above, the government would require less expenditures and thus less tax revenue.

   “Ron, ever think that your policies would force some of us to subsidize programs and practices that we find morally abhorrent? Doesn’t that make your programs immoral?”

   Can you name one program that Ron Paul has proposed that would require the federal government to take your money against your will and give it to a program you oppose?

   As to the racism stuff, it has been beaten to death and there is no need to sidetrack the rest of the discussion – there are other posts and comments on this blog which address that “issue.” I will just say that unless you can prove that Ron Paul is knowingly and willingly accepting donations from racist organizations, it would, again, be unfair to paint him with that brush.

10. 10 On November 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Rand,

    First, read. I didn’t say Paul was a racist or a nazi. Actually, I explicitly denied that I think that he was either of the two.

    Second, unfair? it is funny how ‘unfair’ manages to have more to do with ‘disagree’ than with the issue of ‘fairness’. I took a look at Ron Paul’s record and I don’t like it. Read the record yourself. That is why I linked to it. Hint: You might find some answers if you follow that link. I don’t disagree with everything he says and I’ve applauded him for a thing or two, and I concluded by saying I think he is good intentioned but misguided.

    Yeah, Ron Paul wants the federal government out of most everything, foreign and domestic. That seems to drive a lot of what he does. I think he is wrong to want this and think that pulling those funds would have tragic consequences in the general direction of those I mentioned. That, really, is the crux of it.

    No, I don’t mean that, for example, “if he has the choice to, say, magically pick between safe work conditions for coal miners or unsafe conditions for coal miners, he would choose the latter” but he is removing the safeguards that were put in place because the market or the state or whatever you want to invoke wasn’t doing the job. This is irresponsible, and it is in this way that I say he doesn’t like safe working environments. We have various regulations because experience has taught us that we need it. I’m sure you are smart enough to construct similar interpretations for other issues.

    I do mean to suggest that Paul has a vision of government that is far out of synch with the world we live in. He is several steps back, not a step forward.

11. 11 On November 13th, 2007, Rand said:

    themaiden:

    You say that you are only criticizing the potential consequences of Paul’s proposals, yet you wrote:

    “… a number of bills to stifle birth control and family planning. Because we know, right, that in the absence of family planning no one has sex– especially not teenagers– unless they get married first and then only have sex when they want to make a baby.”

    That really misses the issue. It is not as if Ron Paul is proposing that the federal government withdraw these funds because he believes that “in the absence of family planning no one has sex.” Ron Paul obviously does not believe that. You are building up a Ron Paul made of straw with this and many of your other comments, such as that he hates clean water, he hates safe working environments, he hates “fair” wages, loves corporations, etc. I would be no different that a Christian saying you are against an individual’s right to freedom of religion because you oppose teaching ID in schools. You (and I) would call that unfair and an attempt to confuse the issues.

12. 12 On November 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Rand,

    Consequences. Pull this funding, in this particular world in which we live right now, and you get negative consequences. You get those consequences whatever Paul’s motivations happen to be. And those consequences are bad for everyone, not just for the pregnant teenagers. The consequences are especially acute in place like Africa, to choose an example about which Paul is doubly disinclined to care. If you want to argue good intentions, fine, but these are still bad ideas.

13. 13 On November 13th, 2007, Rand said:

    “Pull this funding, in this particular world in which we live right now, and you get negative consequences. You get those consequences whatever Paul’s motivations happen to be.”

    That was exactly my point. If people argue the merits of any particular policy that is great and productive. It is when people start making false statements about a person’s beliefs that the conversation because base and unproductive.

14. 14 On November 14th, 2007, Aaron said:

    Maiden,

    One thing you fail to mention is that while Dr. Paul is pulling the funding for all the social programs you want he is also returning the money to the people to do with as they like. If you feel the need to send money to Africa to help pregnant teens you are more than welcome to do so and encourage as many people as you can to join you. Myself I would prefer to support my Alma Mater, my local women’s shelter, and charities in Costa Rica. I do that now, but would be able to do more if men with guns didn’t take half of my earnings every year. I would also have an easier time saving for my children’s’ educations and my retirement. Who knows, I might even buy a few more consumer items and create some jobs in the economy?

    To borrow your phrasing, in this particular world in which we live right now, people have become lazy in their efforts to convince others that there cause is just and have resorted to the organized violence of governments to achieve their desired goals. Wouldn’t it be better to use reason and appeal to people’s compassion to achieve our goals than the threat of violence, imprisonment and death? Instead of making our own decisions about our money we send it off to Washington and hope that after the bureaucrats and lobbyists are done there is a little left over for the programs we support.

    I don’t know how anyone can look at how governments are run and truly believe that this is the best way to achieve our social goals. Do we need a social safety net for this country and the world? Yes. Is the best way to provide it through government action? No.

15. 15 On November 14th, 2007, Mike said:

    Ron Paul is not against aid to Sudan, he is against using coercion to give that aid.

    Remember taxes are coerced from the citizen at the threat of facing prison sentences/fines. Government has no right to tax people for foreign aid, which is basically philanthropy. Each individual should choose for themselves what philanthropic cause their money goes towards. Don’t buy into the socialist propaganda. Respect people’s freedom.

16. 16 On November 14th, 2007, The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States said:

    I have started a new political party called the Liberal Democratic Party of the United States. You can read the web page at http://www.dmocrats.org and you will find that this party works differently from other political parties. Take a look and help enact progressive legislation and end the war where you work as a legislator and you vote on legislation.

17. 17 On November 14th, 2007, lady macleod said:

    it’s good you are covering the field..

18. 18 On November 14th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Aaron and Mike,

    You both made similar points so forgive me if I respond to both of you at once.

    You both seem to think that foreign aid is all warm fuzzy feeling. It isn’t. It is diplomacy as well. There are good selfish Machiavellian reasons for it, if you need those kinds of calculations. We haven’t poured billions– I didn’t check the number but I’m pretty sure it is in the billions– into Israel because, as my mother believed, it is God’s country and when it falls Armageddon begins. We’ve spent that money because we want a military ally in the reason. I happen to think that project is flawed but that is besides the point except to illustrate that there might be particular reasons to take a stand against particular foreign aid policies. Fine. But blanket foreign aid bans, or positions, are ill conceived. We are not an isolated entity on this planet and we cannot by fiat make ourselves one. What happens elsewhere effects us here whether we like it or not.

    Aaron, to paraphrase Churchill, government is the worst of the options except for all the others.

    Mike, to say that you are coerced into paying taxes makes about as much sense as saying that you are coerced into paying for the soda you’ve already opened. Government is a service industry. You have to pay for those services. The trick is to make the system work.

19. 19 On November 14th, 2007, themaiden said:

    lady macleod,

    I’m not sure how to take that. I hope it is positive and not sarcasm. But good that you dropped by.

20. 20 On November 14th, 2007, Aaron said:

    Maiden,

    As far as the donation side is concerned military aid is no different than humanitarian aid. If your mother feels the need to help defend Israel she is more than welcome to write a check to one of the many charities set up to do this. As a matter of fact one article I read says Israel already receives about 1 billion dollars a year from the US in this way. In addition about 500 million is spent on Israeli bonds by US citizens. Americans could even volunteer for service in the Israeli Army if the felt strongly enough and the Israelis would have them.

    Military foreign aid is much worse than the humanitarian aid in its consequences though. Not only does it steal money from our citizens it creates problems for us and the people in the rejoin it is sent to. Take Israel, which was you example, we spend about 2.1 Billion dollars a year on military aid to them. This gives us some influence over the policies they follow. Recently we pressured them not to deal with Syria when they wanted peace negotiations because we don’t like the Syrian Government. This aid is also often sited as the basis for the hatred many in the Middle East feel toward us. To counter balance this we give 1.3 billion a year in military aid to Egypt and 200 million to Jordan. We are also providing training and expertise to the Saudi Arabian military. In this way we are arming both sides of the conflict. The support of these Arab dictators is often cited by Muslim extremists as additional reasons to fight us and of our hypocrisy.

    The aid to Israel is about 25% of their military budget. For Egypt it is 80%. Which side do you think we are helping more? Wouldn’t Israel be better off if we just cut military aid and assistance to everyone in the region? I served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm and spent several months working directly with the Saudi Arabian Army. I also did some training with the Israeli Army at a later date. Unless the Saudis have greatly improved in the last fifteen years the Israelis would wipe them out in no time. If the Saudi Arabian military has greatly improved you can thank our government. The Israelis training and expertise totally outclasses anyone else in the rejoin and they definitely don’t need our help. They have a good economy and should be self reliant.

    A little run down of our military aid and adventures in the Middle East.

    Iran

    In 1954 we helped overthrow a democratically elected president because he was a socialist, he nationalized the country’s oil fields and we were afraid he would align with the Soviets. We install the Shah, a brutal dictator that was hated by many in his country. We give him billions in military aid so we have an ally in the region. The Shah is overthrown by religious extremists that don’t like us and take a group of our diplomats hostage. Now they also have all that shiny new weaponry we gave the Shah. We later gave spare parts to these religious extremist so we could finance rebels in another part of the world. This allowed them to keep the weaponry they had from us in service for years longer than they otherwise would have.

    Iraq

    Iraq was set up as a protectorate of England after WWI so they had more to do with them early on than we did. Many people believe that the CIA was instrumental in bringing the Bath party to power in the 1960’s and Sadam in particular in the 1970’s. He definitely became a big ally after the Shah fell. We encouraged him to invade Iran and supplied Iraq with much of the Military Aid it needed to conduct the war. We even gave them the ingredients for chemical weapons even after he used them on his own people. This is the same time we are sending spare parts to Iran. We where supplying both sides of the conflict again. He then invades another neighbor Kuwait and we go to war to expel them and restore the old Dictator of Kuwait to power. We then impose sanctions on Iraq that causes untold misery and death on the population and rail against the use of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that we supplied a decade earlier. I bet Sadam and his cronies never missed a meal though. I don’t have to go into the more recent events in Iraq.

    Afghanistan

    The Soviets invade, so we arm and train the resistance fighters. We even helped set up the Madrassas some claim are used for terrorist indoctrination and training. After the Soviets leave we continue to send aid to the newly installed Taliban government even though it is harboring know terrorists and is totally repressive. Some of the former resistance fighters became the terrorist that planed and executed the 911 attacks.

    Pakistan

    A military dictator overthrows a democratically elected government, but he has nukes so we give him 11 billion dollars in aid.

    Egypt

    Egypt gets 1.3 billion a year in military aid and over 800 million in economic aid. It has a brutal dictator that often represses the Christian minority in the country and was helping North Korea develop long range missiles.

    Jordan

    Jordan receives 250 million a year in economic aid and 200 million a year in military aid. It is a Dictatorship, but is fairly benevolent. I guess you get lucky once in a while.

    By the way, they hate us because we are rich and free.

    From what I can tell we have sent between 150 and 200 billion dollars in military aid to the Middle East in the last 60 years. As someone that wants to disarm your law abiding friends and neighbors do you think this was a good idea? From what I can tell blanket foreign aid bans, especially of military foreign aid, is way over due.

    Instead of a carrot and stick foreign policy Ron Paul wants to have diplomacy and free trade with all nations. He would have us lead by example and show how well a free society can function. He would not build a wall around America and stick his head in the sand. We would still have diplomats and relationships with other countries. We would start being a good neighbor instead of the neighborhood bully that always has to get his way. This would encourage internal change in repressive regimes instead of propping them up as long as they support us. People that live in these countries would look up to us and hold their own governments to a higher standard. Now they see us as helping to create the misery they live in instead. And countries like Israel, South Korea, Germany and Japan can function just fine without our military aid and troops. We can learn from the foreign policies of countries like Switzerland and pursue peace with all. What gives us the right to dictate to other sovereign nations how to conduct their affairs? Why do we need to have a military ally in the Middle East? No one from the Middle East is going to invade the U.S. Why do we need 300 military bases in 130 countries around the world?

    You wrote “to paraphrase Churchill, government is the worst of the options except for all the others.” Of course Churchill would say something like that. He was the head of a government. What do you expect him to say, “By the way, you don’t really need us. We are totally taking advantage of you and we have you so deluded that you thank us for it.” The best option is liberty and freedom.

    Your Coke analogy is flawed. If I open a Coke I have to pay for it because I opened it. If you just hand me an open Coke should I have to pay for it? If I live in a region were the majority of people want Coke should I have to pay for it just because I was born there? Besides government every other service involves a choice. If I don’t want electricity in my house I don’t have to pay for it. If I don’t want a plumber to come to my house I don’t have to pay him. Government is unique in that it has a monopoly on force in a given region. I believe stealing is fundamentally wrong. Using fraud, force or the threat of force to take someone’s rightful property is stealing. It doesn’t matter if it is a thug on the corner, a dictator that claims Devine Right or if a majority of the populous in a given region thinks it is a good idea. It is still wrong.

    Thank you for a place to discuss these things. Most other sites are just cheering sections or wild unsubstantiated accusations and name calling. Sorry this is so long, but I thought it was necessary to make my points.

21. 21 On November 15th, 2007, Aaron said:

    I see from reading your other blogs that you don’t want to disarm your neighbors, so retract that part. I just asuumed it from reading your coment of “… He likes guns– a lot. Really, why in hell would anyone think that more capability to kill equates to a safer populace? Nonsense”

22. 22 On November 15th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    After that rundown of US policy in the middle east I’m not really sure how you can write, “By the way, they hate us because we are rich and free.” That doesn’t make any sense.

    I don’t like a lot of US foreign policy. A lot of it is tragically ill-conceived. I don’t like a fair chunk of US domestic policy either, but both are necessary.

    Diplomacy and free trade are just fine, but I don’t believe in free market magic. The market doesn’t fix everything. It doesn’t create good people. That is fantasy, and while not stated explicitly, the assumption that the market does have a kind of metaphysical goodness making power seems to be hiding in the wings. This is where diplomacy comes in, but diplomacy itself is limited. People cooperate when they want to or when they have to. This works out fine a lot of the time. Think of contracts between businesses. Much of the time agreements work out fine, but when they don’t there has to be a court of appeals. In domestic cases that court is the court system, but in international cases the options are different and if negotiation doesn’t work out you have violence– warfare. Hence such things as the UN, from which Paul wishes to withdraw. That, especially, doesn’t make sense.

    Paraphrasing Churchill doesn’t mean I am appealing to his authority.

    “The best option is liberty and freedom”? Now what does that mean really? It is very vague and fuzzy and pie-in-the-sky. Of course we want liberty and freedom. I’m not sure that is at issue. But calling it an ‘option’ is like chanting ‘make love not war’ and pretending that you’ve solved something. The question is “How do you get the most liberty and freedom?”

    “Government is unique in that it has a monopoly on force in a given region.” That’s right. Get over it. Every human who has ever lived, probably since before we were human, has lived in some kind of social order. We are social animals. We are piss poor survivors outside of that structure. That is the basic starting point. You were born benefiting from that structure. You benefit daily from it. It is impossible not to open that can of Coke. Show me any surviving group of humans and I will show you government of some kind. Hell, show me any primate and I’ll show you government– not written down of course but social structure nonetheless. Pretending that you ought to be able to opt out like you can opt out of cable TV is not really sensible. Almost everything about your life is made possible by that social structure, by government. The trick, as I’ve said before, is making government work well.

23. 23 On November 15th, 2007, Aaron said:

    Maiden,

    The “By the way, they hate us because we are rich and free” comment was sarcasm. Sorry it doesn’t always come through in writing. I’ll try to denote it better in the future. I try to restrain my sarcastic nature in forums such as these, but sometimes I can’t help myself.

    I am not trying to say that a noninterventionist foreign policy is some how going to cause the world to become a peaceful paradise where the lion lays down with the lamb. I just think that all of our interventions have unintended consequences and that we would be better off minding our own business. It is always the contention of groups that are out of power that the current interventions are bad, but if we would just help a different set of groups or suppress some other people that everything would be better. It is time that we learn that when we support one group we are necessarily alienating another. We often also end up angering the people we helped in the first place when we place demands on them for continued support. There will still be wars and dictators and all kinds of mean and nasty things in the world, but I think there would be fewer than if we continue to try to run it. There would also be a lot less people that hate the U.S. and want to fly planes into our buildings. Not over night, but in time.

    I see that you once again refer to the U.N as a place to resolve international disputes and think it deserves our continued participation. I contend that the U.N. is a complete failure in this regard and is not up to the task in the future. A look at basic psychology shows that people are less likely to compromise when in a situation where they are in front of a large group of their piers compared to a one on one situation. They are worried about appearing weak and decide to posture and be hard headed instead of reasonable. Psychology also shows that when groups make decisions the decisions are often more extreme than ones most of the members would have made if they made them individually. This may seem counter intuitive, but it is true. I think this is the situation we have with the current U.N. General Assembly and Security Council.

    The U.N. is also powerless to enforce the decisions it does makes without the voluntary support of its members. This is especially evident with powerful countries such as the U.S., China, Russia or England. If one of these countries or a dozen others decides to ignore what the U.N. says nobody is going to do anything about it. There have been instances where the U.N. has intervened in internal and external disputes of weaker countries, often with disastrous results. Whether it is standing by while genocides occur or disarming a stronger combatant only to have the weaker one rise up and take its revenge these incidents often turn out badly. In the cases when a group of militaries from different countries could be successful in stopping a conflict or preventing it from happening there is no reason why the hundreds of thousands of international diplomats in the world could not arrange such a coalition without the U.N. Not that I would advocate the U.S. getting involved in such a situation. The U.N. can also pass resolutions on countries like Iraq and then react in outrage when the U.S. uses them as an excuse to go to war with that country. The only way for the U.N. to truly have the power to enforce its will on the world is to give it the power to tax and raise its own military that is large enough to impose it. I think that some would love that, but it would be a hard sell for much of the world and the last thing I would like to see.

    The U.N. does do some humanitarian programs. As stated in previous posts I think these activities could be accomplished by private organizations. If the rest of the world wants to continue supporting these organizations that would be up to them. Besides spending 13 months on the sunny Arabian Peninsula I had the great joy of being in Somalia for 4 months and seeing first hand how they operated. The UNICEF and WFP programs I witnessed were good at two things. One was delivering food to hungry villagers and Ethiopian refugees that was stolen by bands of thugs as soon as they left. The other was giving 6 figure salaries to recent graduates of Ivy League grad schools. I’m sure it looked good on their resumes also. Our mission was to escort the convoys carrying the food that had previously been robed in route. Incidentally the International Red Cross also had an operation going on that was run by a grizzled old Swiss woman that had been working in Africa for years. The Red Cross had a much better record of keeping the thugs from knowing were they were delivering the food and would stay on site long enough for the people to eat some and hide the rest. We suggested this to the U.N. people, but they were in too big of a hurry to get to the next village and they were in charge. I am sure they do a better job in other places (no sarcasm).

    A body where all the countries in the world can come and meet in peace and resolve their differences is a noble idea and looks good on paper. After almost 100 years of the League of Nations and the United Nations it is time to admit that that experiment has failed and move on.

    Up next: The Case for Gold

24. 24 On November 16th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    Strictly, non-interventionist policies aren’t feasible. I don’t even think that we have a choice. It is a function of how tightly we are already packed onto the planet and a function of how inter-related our lives already are via air travel, economy, technology and the associated potential for mutual injury or benefit. You can’t be ‘non-interventionist’ under those circumstances. Mexico builds shoddy nuclear reactors on the US border… not our problem, right? A central African thug starts making sarin gas… not our problem? The UAE stops selling oil to the West… oh, well, mustn’t intervene? An unprecedented drought destroys asian rice production… hmmm, hope the charities jump in? It isn’t that simple. There are problems here that are much bigger than the nations directly involved.

    The UN has its problems. Some of those problems are big ones, and it needs to be restructured. Of your criticisms, the psychological evaluation is also an impeachment of democracy in general and republican democracy in particular. The UN is loosely a republican democracy without teeth. Any group decision making problems are going to apply to other republican democracies as well.

    That said, I don’t think you can support the claim that groups make extreme decisions. Strict angry mobs might make extreme decisions, but organized groups in general do not seem to do so. Watch a bill go through the Senate or the House. And watch how watered down it gets on the way.

    Interestingly, the many of the problems you find with the UN could be solved via the solution you reject– giving it some teeth.

25. 25 On November 17th, 2007, Aaron said:

    Maiden

    Here are some quick answers to your questions.

    Shoddy reactors on the border are a direct threat to people in the U.S. so we would be justified in taking action. Sarin gas in Africa is none of our business. How many weapons of mass destruction do we have? I think a charitable response to famine would be much more effective than a government one. Did Katrina teach us nothing? How dare the UAE not sell us our oil that happens to be berried under their sand? (Sarcasm) The reasons to not give our sovereignty to the U.N. are many and varied. Maybe, I’ll go into them some time. Once again we hear the siren song of big government “we know it is not working well now, but if we just make the right changes and get the right people in power everything will get better.” Guess what, it won’t get better. We will just have a new bunch of corrupt bureaucrats milking the system.

    That psychological evaluation of group decisions was just something I remember from Psych 101. That was a long time ago. I will try to find something that supports it.

    [edit]Aaron, your banking stuff now has its own thread.[/edit]

26. 26 On November 17th, 2007, Gold, Gold, Gold! | hell's handmaiden said:

    [...] commenter in another thread posted a rather lengthy piece about the gold. True, the gold standard is relevant to that thread [...]

27. 27 On November 17th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    Ah… so ‘things that might hurt us’ makes it our business, then? Interesting! That is just the point I’ve been trying to make. The difference between us, though, is that you seem to have a very limited view of just what might hurt us.

    Some caution is needed in adopting a purely local view of the Chernobyl disaster, as the major effects of the accident go far beyond the intense on-site radiation fields (these were sometimes in the range of circa 10 Gy min-1 on day one, but they have now decayed to far lower levels). While the majority of the emitted radioactivity was deposited close to the reactor[58] some activity was deposited at remote locations such as Wales, Sweden and other parts of Western Europe. It is now the case that Chernobyl cesium-137 can be found in many topsoils in Europe.[citation needed] While the fallout outside the former Soviet Union did not result in radiation fields with the intensity to cause deterministic effects such as radiation sickness, it has resulted in a situation where restrictions on the sale and movement of food were considered wise and necessary in some cases, and many governments imposed cautious new regulations.

    Chernobyl Disaster

    The point, as I’ve said before, is that we are too populous, too intertwined economically, and we have technology much too powerful to pretend that nations are isolated entities. The sarin gas example is the same. That gas could make it to the US in a day by plane. It is foolish to not care. I’m not saying we should be bullies about it, but we should have some form of international, and enforcible, agreements about these things. I wasn’t even thinking about charity when I mention the collapse the Asian rice production. I was thinking about the global effects of an Asian economic collapse, and the effects of mass migration. These are not local phenomenon and are definitely something worth worrying about. Oil could turn the US into a third world nation almost overnight. Please don’t pretend that isn’t of concern to you.

    Government response to disasters in the US has historically been about an order of magnitude better than the response to Katrina. Choosing that as a case study is not honest. Besides which, despite the problems, there was significant government response. To maintain your claim you’ll have to somehow tease those effects out of the overall picture. I’m sure Katrina was handled horribly. I’m not sure it would have been better with 0% government response and 100% volunteer response. That is a tough question, but had it been handled comparably to past disasters, no one would be choosing it as an example of government incompetence.

    Not to be rude but, you are singing the siren songs, Aaron. Ahem… “Once again we hear the siren song of big small-to-the-point-of-non-functional government “we know it is not working well now has never worked that way ever, but if we just make the right changes and get the right people in power everything will get better.”

28. 28 On November 24th, 2007, bill said:

    I suspect that you meant to say “the brakes on” and not “the breaks on”.

29. 29 On November 24th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Damn it! Yes, Bill, thanks. I’ll fix that.

30. 30 On November 25th, 2007, Becky said:

    “Show me any surviving group of humans and I will show you government of some kind.”

    Yes, of course. The question isn’t whether or not we’ll have government at all, but where the line will be drawn between what individuals are expected to do for themselves and what government will do for them. And also, in our federalist system, what tasks are best suited for the federal government and what is best handled by the states and localities. Ron Paul (and those of us supporting him) believe in following the structure established in the Constitution. Minimal government, maximum personal responsibility and freedom, and keep most government services at a local/state level where individuals can have more influence over their representatives.

31. 31 On November 25th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Becky,

    I don’t object to your first point, that the question isn’t whether we’ll have a government at all. In fact, that was kinda my point. Read my statement in the context of what I was responding to. Aaron was making a kind of ‘government is a thieving bully and so why should I have to care’ argument. Frankly, I think my response was quite appropriate.

Leave a Reply