[wideawake]

That means that we would not trade freely with nations that do not wish to. Trade embargos would then be appropriate where other nations seek to restrict our access to their markets. That looks pretty well qualified.

The sentence you reference talks of the United States - the sentence I referenced talks of US citizens.

You cannot have it both ways: either Ron Paul is the ultrafederalist that he claims to be - in which case he is saying that the United States as a political entity will engage in trade only with countries that trade freely with it, while he is also saying that this government cannot forbid its citizens to spend money "wherever" they choose and "not (be) told" that there are embargoes they have to honor.

Or, in the alternative, Ron Paul is not a federalist and his references to the United States and the citizens of the United States refer to a consolidated entity - in which case he contradicts himself, saying in one place that America will only engage in reciprocal trade and in another that there are no restrictions on trade and that Americans may spend money "wherever."

[tacticalogic]

The sentence you reference talks of the United States - the sentence I referenced talks of US citizens.

You cannot have it both ways: either Ron Paul is the ultrafederalist that he claims to be - in which case he is saying that the United States as a political entity will engage in trade only with countries that trade freely with it, while he is also saying that this government cannot forbid its citizens to spend money "wherever" they choose and "not (be) told" that there are embargoes they have to honor.

The context is the United States, as a political entity, controlling what nations it's citizens may trade with. It'll take more that comparing a couple of cherry-picked statements out of context to make a convincing argument.