Globalism [Ron Paul]

House.Gov ^ | 16 July 2007 | Ron Paul

[rhombus]

Is this an anti-Walmart tirade?

[rhombus]

Sounds like WHAT’s OK with me?

[Puddleglum]

PS - yes, deomcracacy is a new word

PPS - It’s a kind of national defense, protecting our rights from other crappy cultures just because they make cheap stuff and don’t have so many pesky civil liberties.

[Paperdoll]

That I’ll get another globalist president whether I want one or not. Sounds like a globalist president is okay with you. Do I misread you?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So a "notion" such as free trade is non-globalist if it is for your own benefit but globalist if it benefits both parties?

Trade is never free. Buyer and seller each act in their own self-interest, whether "enlightened" or not. Benefit is simply a vector measurement in one or the other direction.

[rhombus]

I’m just being realistic here. The next President will be a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t think being a “globalist” is a digital situation... it’s much more analog, if you take my meaning.

[Eagle74]

As a Jacksonian Libertarian many of Ron Paul’s positions are the same as mine. However, as a US citizen I have stock in the economic well being of this country, and the world trading system that is dominated by this country, and is responsible for most of our wealth. If we don’t protect the global trading system, the Barbarians will destroy it by making it unsafe, and the US and mankind’s continued advancement will end. The Roman Empire ended when Barbarians made trading unsafe, through piracy, highway men, and sacking of cities. The same thing could happen to the West.
It isn’t a sure thing that mankind will continue to flower under western democracies. It certainly isn’t, if we allow the Barbarians free reign to do as they will. We must learn how to fight them, we can’t do this by taking defensive positions, while the Barbarians destroy air travel, shipping, and global trade. Look at the targets they select for the bombings, The World Trade Towers, Trains, Airplanes, and Markets. They know the West’s strength is trade. And so they attack our center of gravity. Trade and air travel are already being affected with security delays, thereby driving up the cost of doing business.
In conclusion, Ron Paul’s position is short sighted and endangers us and our way of life, while leaving no hope that things might improve if we can just figure out how to win.

[rhombus]

Agreed. It’s also easier to trade with people who don’t want to kill you. Maybe I am a globalist. ;-)

[rhombus]

Although I’m not a big fan of Old Hickory, what you wrote was damn good.

[Paperdoll]

>I don’t think being a “globalist” is a digital situation.

I think it is just as “digital” as being pro-abortion, or pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. And for the future of the sovereignty of this country, far more “digital”.

[Puddleglum]

Is this an anti-Walmart tirade?

Naw, folks can shop where they want. But the key concept (I think) is becoming beholden to other countries for necessities, not luxuries (or plastic crap). Countries go to war when they can no longer eat or run their factories. Sometimes they even go to war when they cannot do one or the other "cheaply."

When your country becomes beholden to protect other countries for the basics, you have in effect made it more difficult to secure your national security, and or you made it a US citizen's responsibility to protect someone who has sworn no loyalty to the Constitution of the USA. the connection between competing products (marketplace) and competing ideologies (Westernism vs say Fundamentalist Islam) comes into focus when one must make "deals with the devil" - folks who hate us - to secure our basic necessities.

You become beholden to them, get all PC, and yes, abridge things like free speech in order not to insult them or, heaven forbid, make them shut off the tap. Or you pat down every old lady in the airport rather than selectively developing a profile of likely criminals. You inconvenience a whole nation of traveller because the House of Saud might get its panties in a bunch.

That's just one of many examples of house the marketplace of stuff and the marketplace of sovereignity become intertwined.

[applpie]

Ron Paul may not be popular for whatever reason but which part of his essay is not true? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots (yet how many people are doing it?) and see that rich elitists want to have unlimited wealth and power and our sovereign nation, with its regulations and rule of the people, limits that. Before too long we may wish there were more Ron Paul’s. It is really obvious, in the bible, that someday the elitists get their wish in establishing a global totalitarian rule which is led by the antichrist.

[applpie]

they did. they created a government that has successfully held those tyrants at bay for several hundred years. technology and greed have finally caught up and threaten to undo it.

[rmlew]

Jefferson wanted to go to war on the side of Revolutionary France in the 1790's.
He held parties with cakes adrned with guillotines.

He almost destroyed the American economy by trying to cut off all trade. He was an idiot limited only by our lack of power.

[dforest]

Few people seem to recognize the threat of globalism, to their peril. I would like to hear what Rep. Hunter has to say about globalism.

I agree with you. Paul does stick to the Constitution.

My question about Ron Paul is "Does he see that we have been attacked by terrorists, terrorists are in Iraq"?

Did he support going to Iraq in the first place, before we stayed to nation build?

My problem with Paul is that I am not sure if and what he would consider to be an attack and a reason to fight back.

He can criticise this war, but I also do not think we can shake hands with Iran and the jihadi's, nor can we ignore them.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Note to whiney Republicans:

Ronald Reagan was the only reason I’d have anything to do with your party in the past. Ron Paul is the only reason I’d have anything to do with your party in the future.

I am well aware that you don’t think you need or want my vote. Think again. I am not alone and I’m not going to be persuaded by the anybody but Hillary nonsense.

[SJackson]

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

Not exactly "bring democracy", but we did unsuccessfully attempt to overthrow the Bey of Algiers and replace his government by one led by his estranged brother. That was the shores of Tripoli thing.

Do I assume from your statement that Paul was in favor of invading Iraq, but was opposed to creation of a stable government. I admit a quick exit leaving the country in the hands of a strongman of our choice was a option.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Agreed. It’s also easier to trade with people who don’t want to kill you. Maybe I am a globalist.

Well, we trade all the time with people who, in other circumstances, would rather kill us. We always have. Three hundred years ago, for example, New England's most important trading parter was l'Acadie, home of those vile, evil papists that New Englanders would one day "racially cleanse" from l'Acadie so that the New Englanders could re-settle it with good Protestant stock. Not that the Acadians ever threatened the New Englanders militarily, of course---they were, after all, the French neutrals. New Englanders simply coveted what they had, and used the excuse that they were French and Catholic to justify what they did.

I think we modern Americans are wrong in thinking that democracy can be exported; that democratic institutions can be grafted upon any and all cultures. That which sustains a democratic form of government is organic; a culture has it, or it doesn't. These feudal, patriarchal cultures, which are far older than ours, are based on a certain alchemy that does not foster or even desire our democratic forms. These cultures know our ways---they just don't want them. They just want our money. Yet Americans are largely tone-deaf to this, because we want others to love us, and we don't understand it when they don't---when they don't understand we're just trying to do good.

As for me, I stand with Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors."

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Yes, Rep. Hunter’s bill to force foreign transport vehicles to abide by the same rules and regulations as domestic transport vehicles is certainly vital to the safety and well being of American drivers and pedestrians. It would also drastically curb drug running and illegal alien smuggling.”

Hunter

B U M P

[George W. Bush]

All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Classic Ron Paul, a sample of why so many of us have loved him for ten years or more. He was a great hero here at FR in the pre-Bush era.

The "globalists claim a moral high ground" part has actually become "Republicans intent on legalizing their criminal dereliction of guarding our borders call their own voters racists and ignoramuses because they expect them to enforce the laws of the country on those who have invaded it".