Ron Paul is a good guy. But he is naïve when it comes to foreign policy. 

His position is that America can better achieve security and world peace by showing good examples to other countries, including rogue nations.

 

The reason rogue nations come into being is not that America have not shown good examples. Muslims, Marxists, socialists, North Korean leaders, etc. are those who prove themselves good guys by defining Americans as bad guys.

 

Devils (bad guys) earn their raison d’etre by painting his opponents as devils. Their secrets of holding power and earning absolute loyalty from their people is to paint America as blak as possible. 

 

The reason organized gangs and other criminals come in to being is not that officers do no show good examples. Bad guys come into being all the times. It is what nature does. Nature grows all kinds of enemies and by doing so facilitate the evolution of the strongest or the fittest. Naive and weak guys have no place in this world.

 

In fact, the ancestors of modern man were not particularly good guys; they were simply strong guys.

 

If Ron Paul pursues national security of America by showing good examples to bad guys, America would soon become the prey of the bad guys.

 

More often than not, idealists ruin the world by pursuing daydream type of ideal.

I think Ron Paul is dangerous because he is naïve.

 

Views: 139

Replies to This Discussion

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000002859 StartFragment:0000002657 EndFragment:0000002823 I agree, Ron Paul is a good and decent man,

 

I agree, Ron Paul is a good and decent man, as far as I can tell, and that if a person or nation lives according to principles that consider life and all material things as worthy of consideration, and refuses to stoop to barbaric principles, such as torture, and exploitation, and manipulation of all that exists for one’s own benefit, then that person/nation speaks and acts consistently and honorably. Strength and power does not have to be denied, but used judiciously. No one benefits by weakness or powerlessness. 

 

Power of an eagle over a rabbit depends on seeing and doing what eagles do, just as the power of a rabbit over an eagle is doing what rabbits do. 

 

Power of criminals depends on moral and ethical codes that disregard others even as the power of principled people depends on care and compassion for others, even those who are weak.  If we were animals of the jungle with red tooth and claw instead of homo sapiens that rise to principles of law, fairness, justice and peace then we could get away with living according to the laws of nature.  Humans have the capacity to think, reason, self-regulate, make decisions and join with others of like mind, which might include using law enforcement and even war. 

 

Some individuals are born weak or malformed or injured or diseased.  If we live out our animal nature, these would be put on ice drifts to perish in the cold, or starved or denied water.  Because we think of ourselves as being “human” we willingly and ably care for such people. 

 

Yes, some individuals are born evil, without a sense of care or community.  Some criminals become so because of environment.  Does it matter wither nature or lack of nurture causes the criminal?  Yes and no.  Because we have the ability to learn about criminal and anti-social attitudes and behaviors we can intervene from conception to death and strive to provide a society based on good health and a caring community. 

 

Now, the question is, how do we create a healthy and caring community?  Some say religion works to make individuals and nations kinder and more loving.  I disagree with that assessment.  Religions give dogma, rules, regulations, attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions and values that may or may not produce healthy and caring communities. 

 

If Ron Paul pursues national security of USA by showing “good” examples to “bad” guys, we assume USA’s way of government is “good”.  I disagree with that assessment as well.  USA, a capitalist, free market, free enterprise, “Christian” nation is fundamentally flawed.  So? … How deep into this pit are we willing to dig in order to solve these problems? 

 

I think Ron Paul is dangerous because he is misguided.  

 

As far as I remember, you were a socialist or communist. Right? 

 

I read your recent comment on "Occupy Wallstreet?" posted by Park Bierbower  in Politics group as follows:

 

"So many of us are hesitant to even mention socialism and communism or to imply that capitalism has flaws.  The basic design of capitalism is of boom and bust, it can't function any other way without regulations that produce a fair and even playing field.  People who have access to monetary wealth hire and fire workers from a field overrun with unemployed potential workers, and countries that allow slave labor and unsafe working conditions.  The spread between rich and poor grows until the general public makes demands.  Those who do demand equity get labels such as "Pinko", "Commie", "Socialist", "Rabble" or "Fear monger".  No reasonable person wants to have reputations such as these so they self-monitor their thinking ... until things become obviously out of balance.    Such as now."

-----

You are very elated with "Wallstreet occupy."

 

and you said today,

"USA, a capitalist, free market, free enterprise, 'Christian' nation is fundamentally flawed.  So? … How deep into this pit are we willing to dig in order to solve these problems?"

 

For you, not only Ron Paul but also all Americans, except socialists/communists are dangerous.

 

Our group is normally for capitalists, free market, and free enterprise. So we are "dangerous" guys.

Are you going to dig a pit in our group to save us from capitalism, free market, and free enterprise?

 

Why on earth do you think I am a socialist or communist?  Are those the only choices for organizing society?  I think you had better broaden your perception a bit.  

 

As to "Occupy Wall Street", I say that is the only thing that works, given the resistance of 1% of the population to realize they are part of a nation and can prosper if they have workers.  Only employed workers can buy products.  What good is wealth if it is owned by 1%?  Sure, they can have nice home, cars, education, health care, clothes, and stuff ... but the time will come when the 99% will rebel. History tells a vivid story of popular rebellions. Is that what you want?  Even the workers who work for slave wages rebel. What are the 1% going to do?  Build a spaceship, fly to another planet? Leave the workers behind?  OH!  That might solve all our problems.  

Small business and wage earners have to fight for justice, freedom, democracy, or whatever they want ... these attributes are not going to be given without a fight. If small business and wage earners think 1% of the population will relinquish their profits without a fight, perhaps they don't know what justice, freedom, and democracy are all about.  

You know, I think you are right!  I do not belong in this group.  

 

Joan Denou, your philosophy is upside-down.

 

"1% is the enemies of people and they shall be destroyed by the 99 %" is the ideology of communists/socialists.

 

The haves are not the people who make the have-nots poor. 

The property of the haves eventually spread out through economic activities which produce jobs and industries.  Let people spend and earn money by exchanging goods and services.

 

 If government takes control of the flow of economy, business dies and jobs disappear. At the beginning of welfare government, poor people may be happy but they become pampered and learn irresponsible behavior.  They become dependent to government more and more until the government bankrupts.  

 

There so classless society.  Thos who cry out class-less society produce even nastier system of absolute class society and most people become suffer from lack of food, freedom, human rights, and voluntary activities.

 

Den Xiaoping brought miracles to China by the policy of “Let some of us become rich first.”

 

The haves are the business creators and job creators. They are bread makers and job makers and saviors of common people. Their money and property would eventually spread out to all people over time.  There are no individuals or family that remains the rich forever.  Hating and punishing the able people and block their f bread-making activities will make the common people hungrier and more miserable.

 

America has been exceptionally successful and affluent not because she maintained the policy of equal possession of all but she let brilliant people succeed as much as they could.

 

The recent economic failure of America is that she has mimicked socialist policies for quite a while (for decades).

 

Economy is not a zero-sum game. Economy grows better when the able are allowed to succeed as much as they can keeping law. They spend money. They innovate industries. They create jobs. They hire people. The haves are the prime movers and the engines of economy. Wise wage-earners become the middle class.

 

Those who are lazy or irresponsible remain poor. This is fair and natural game. This is what nature has been doing for millions of years. The poor are not the special class that should be honored and crowned in the name people. This is not the way to help poor people.       

 

What equality-worshippers do is to suppress the able. We have seen the due results.

Economy is not the thing that grows in the socialists/communists states where the able people are hated and maltreated by the government.

.

Reply by Brian 9 hours ago

Joan Denou, your philosophy is upside-down.

 

Well, first of all Brian, my last name is Denoo.

You start your sentence: "1% is the enemies of people and they shall be destroyed by the 99 %" is the ideology of communists/socialists.

I don’t know who you quote, but it was/is not me.  I do not believe nor did I say such a thing.  If anyone is to be destroyed it is U.S.A.  In addition, I have been to socialist and communist countries and observed the long-term effects of those political systems.  Just as Kondratieff claimed in the early 1900s, that communism, socialism, and capitalism will not survive because the seeds of their destruction are in the structures themselves.  You might want to read some of his stuff. Just Google Nikolai Kondratieff, a Russian economist under Stalin and you will find pros and cons of his theory.  It is fairly obvious why he could predict the failure of socialism and communism and for his ideas Stalin put him to death in 1938. 

 

Kondratieff looked at production, consumption, stagnation, growth, changes in technologies, profits, earnings, interest rates, debt, investment opportunities, speculation, inflation, deflation, recessions, and stuff like that.  He predicted the Achilles’ heal of capitalism was the boom and bust and the consequences on an economy on owners of labor and on owners of capital. 

You say, “The haves are not the people who make the have-nots poor” and then you describe the trickle down theory of economics. Gee, I thought we had figured out that fallacy of thinking years ago.  You then fault government for regulating business and causing failures.

OK, owners of capital can plan, design, build, hire people to make a product, sell the product for more than the costs of production, and because of an oversupply of labor, wages can be forced down.  Regulations intended to protect workers and insure living wages benefit owners of labor and that benefit comes out of the profit of owners of capital.  Over time, Kondratieff and others state that the gap between owners of capital and owners of labor spreads.  Over-production occurs, people don’t have money to build homes, buy cars, pay for health insurance or educate their kids, medical expenses get out of control for working people, banks make some stupid and greedy decisions, get in trouble, tax payers bail them out and greed continues; an economy under such pressure cannot sustain prosperity.

I am not saying owners of capital do not earn their pay, if it is kept in relation to wages of working people.  Who benefits by the stagnation of our economy?  Who pays the bills?  Who suffers under these conditions? 

When I was in China in the 1980s, the Chinese people were so happy to see a white person and they would bring their children with them to translate between us to learn about my culture.  They wanted to know about housing, jobs, education, health care, retirement plans, food and just about everything you can imagine.  I was the only Caucasian in some of the towns I visited and they just couldn’t hear enough about U.S.A. They wanted to know about freedom, liberty, justice and how we had such a high standard of living.  Those people in those times wanted a higher standard of living.  They didn’t want mansions or cars or fancy clothes.  They just wanted an easier life. 

Working hard is not the answer in our nation.  I lived for a few years in El Paso, Texas.  We all had maids because we could get a full day’s labor from hard working, dependable, reliable, honest women and paid them only $2.00 per day.  I raised my maid’s wages to $10.00 per day and you would have thought I committed a crime.  My neighbors scolded me, threatened me, shunned me and every other thing you can imagine to get me to restore her wages to $2.00 per day.  My response was that if we continued to pay those wages we were setting up the conditions for rebellion.  Indeed, that is what happened. 

Your statement, “The haves are the business creators and job creators” ignores or denies the role of good and decent people working to make the engines of our country run.  Without carpenters, electricians, plumbers, grocery store people, nurses, police, fire fighters, caregivers, teachers, sales people, tree trimmers, roof repairers, auto mechanics, garbage collectors, janitors, maids, farmers, and small businesses, where would our nation be?   

It is not the nurse’s aid that makes our country poor, it is the attitude that nurse’s aids do not deserve a living wage. 

It is not the person who cares for the elderly in nursing homes that makes our nation poor, it is the belief that caregivers do not deserve a living wage.

It is not policeman on the beat that is making our community poor, it is the attitude that cuts in budgets that require laying off law enforcement that diminishes our quality of life. 

There is no place in my philosophy that says there should be equal wages for all, from CEO to janitor.  I do say there is work that needs doing, people who are ready and able to do that work, and they deserve/earn a living wage. 

Where is it written that owners of capital can expect to exploit, manipulate, cheat and lie without sanctions?  What gives them a right to millions or even hundreds of thousands of benefits, while the ones who make enterprise work are the ones who show up every day and do their assigned tasks.

NO! You are wrong!  Poverty comes from much more than lazy or irresponsible behavior.  It comes from systemic conditions that suck time, effort, sweat, and resources out of working people into the pockets of those who willingly exploit others. 

A country that acknowledges the important roles of owners of capital, owners of labor, and government, working together to make life healthier, happier, cleaner, more peaceful and more just is the kind of society in which I want to live.  

 

So you are against the U.S.A. and you want to make America a socialist welfare state.

 

Your ideology is fixed to Marxist ideology that the capital owners are bad guys. 

 

Greedy?  Who are not greedy?  Living things are all greedy creatures.

The secret of the success of American economy of the past century were the results of the greed of all American people.  

 

Free capitalist countries allow people’s greed and they make much more affluent and humanitarian societies than socialists do.

 

Socialists try to destroy wage system in the name of humanism.

You can give money free to any body if you want.

But you should not disrupt the wage system of business.  That will kill the economy and eventually make poor people even poorer as Greece.

 

The problem with Marxists is that they are daydreamers.  Yet they do not know reality and economy. If they run business or a nation themselves, they never fail to fail it.  

Have you ever hade any experience of running a company?  You need to run a company or two according to your angelic philosophy to see what would happen.

 

America is the country all the poor people and even well-to-do people of the world want to immigrate into.  

America is deteriorating by mimicking socialist system.

 We cannot make human society like the paradise in the sky. Humans are not angels. 

 

Those who make angels’ voice have destroyed the lives of millons of people.

Your philosophy is not naïve; your philosophy is detrimental.

Your purpose is to indoctrinate our members with your angelic voice.  You are wrong.

I am not going to reply further to your comment.  

I do not feel like a long discussion, but yes, Ron Paul is naive in his foreign policy stance, you can't just withdraw military forces from around the world all at once and expect no consequences... the power vacuum created by complete retreat to the 'homeland' would make good kindling for WW3.

You are right.

There are many allies or friendly governments of America in the world; the roles of these nations are important for the mutual interest in economic, political, and security matter.

 

Once American forces withdraw from these nations, they become easy prey for enemy powers, and their people are conscripted to fight against America.  System overrides the will of individuals, and indoctrination will make them solid enemy forces of America.

 

Even if America is still the most powerful military nation in the world, America alone cannot maintain its own security and world peace.

 

Again, the problem is the economy of America. If recession continues, there would be no way to keep overseas garrisons.

 

I would say the correct way to mend the recession is to lower the tax and let the business people do their economic activities as much as they like.  

 

It is not that America lacks money, material, and labor force. What is lacking is the incentive or reward for the investors. Investors do no do economic activities as long as they think their investment would not make enough profit.

 

(Continues to the discussion “An Episode Concerning the Chinese Economic Miracle.)

 

     

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service