Ron Paul is an isolationist.

[Elwar]

Ok, as I was about to attempt to discredit a news source that referred once again to Ron Paul as an isolationist, I went to dictionary.com to show that no Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

So here's what I found at dictionary.com on the definition of isolationism:

isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.


So...I guess he is. It also says that the US was isolationist up until WWI.

[torchbearer]

Ok, as I was about to attempt to discredit a news source that referred once again to Ron Paul as an isolationist, I went to dictionary.com to show that no Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

So here's what I found at dictionary.com on the definition of isolationism:

isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.


So...I guess he is. It also says that the US was isolationist up until WWI.

one part your eyes must have skipped over:

foreign economic commitments

How many times has Ron said, we should trade with countries?
To be a complete isolationist, you'd have to be a protectionist on trade.

[Epic]

the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations

nope

[coyote_sprit]

Dictionary.com isn't the de facto standard for words in the English language. And isolationist to me is someone who isolates from all foreign matters and the only way you can do that is by forcing people not to interact with foreigners. This is the definition shared by most and it certainly doesn't sound like RP's platform to me.

[Jeremy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Look at #2.

So Pat Buchanan is one, but not Ron Paul.

[lester1/2jr]

BUchanan is closer to an actual isolationist because he favors more protectionism.

the word does get misused a great deal.

[Elwar]

one part your eyes must have skipped over:


How many times has Ron said, we should trade with countries?
To be a complete isolationist, you'd have to be a protectionist on trade.

I saw foreign economic commitments as something like NAFTA or any of the other many trade agreements...which Ron Paul opposes.

He's for free trade for all, but not trade agreements...

[torchbearer]

I saw foreign economic commitments as something like NAFTA or any of the other many trade agreements...which Ron Paul opposes.

He's for free trade for all, but not trade agreements...

how can you be an isolationist if you want free trade with nations?
Paul objects to Nafta because it isn't free trade, not because its trading with other nations.

[Elwar]

how can you be an isolationist if you want free trade with nations?
Paul objects to Nafta because it isn't free trade, not because its trading with other nations.

Exactly...he's against "foreign economic commitments"...which would be free trade.

Perhaps I'll stick with the wikipedia version, I know he's not protectionist.

[Wampy]

Edited for idiocy...

[pacelli]

Looks like the entire campaign, CFL, and forum have been trumped by.... dictionary.com. Next thing you know, we'll analyze the meaning of the words in "war on terror" and agree that we should be fighting it.

[max]

i have a problem with the word itself...no matter how it may be defined...

we should coin the term "Neutralist"

[virgil47]

It would appear that Ron Paul is indeed an isolationist as he is for free trade without any commitments. The type of trade he claims to want is like someone walking through a flea market and doing some shopping or bartering. This type of trade is well and good but has no guarantees that the same trade partner will be willing to engage in trade with you the next time you need something. Trade without some form of commitment to your trading partner is not trade. It is shoping.

[Pacis]

Weird how liberals and conservatives who promote ludicrously stupid, autarchist ideas like "energy independence" are never accused of isolationism..

[silverhawks]

If isolationist means "should not be marching troops over most of the planet while bankrupting citizens in the process" or "not becoming slowly subject to the insane whims of a global government" or "not being part of a manipulative transnational corporate central banking network doomed to failure"...SIGN ME UP FOR ISOLATIONISM.

[torchbearer]

It would appear that Ron Paul is indeed an isolationist as he is for free trade without any commitments. The type of trade he claims to want is like someone walking through a flea market and doing some shopping or bartering. This type of trade is well and good but has no guarantees that the same trade partner will be willing to engage in trade with you the next time you need something. Trade without some form of commitment to your trading partner is not trade. It is shoping.

it is trade. and every transaction should be voluntary and negotiable.
that is trade. flea markets are trades. Shopping is the act of looking for trades.

[Pacis]

The only thing Ron Paul wants to isolate is the criminal American state.

[Wampy]

Weird how liberals and conservatives who promote ludicrously stupid, autarchist ideas like "energy independence" are never accused of isolationism..

I don't think it is stupid at all to consider the stability of your sources of energy. The stability of those sources can directly effect the entire economy. Purporting a desire to be less at the mercy of such things is not stupidity.

What is stupid, is to insert the feds into the market, bow to the demands of unions and "environmentalists" and others to the point where a natural desire to produce energy as close to home as possible is squashed in favor of whatever best fits with current government "incentives" or "disincentives".

What is stupid, is to claim that one desires energy independence while disrupting the market with all sorts of fed intervention in the marketplace. As with most every other industry, there is no need for further regulation or incentivization of the marketplace, merely a removal of government from the marketplace.

[virgil47]

it is trade. and every transaction should be voluntary and negotiable.
that is trade. flea markets are trades. Shopping is the act of looking for trades.

If shopping is the way to go then why are there contracts for anything. All contracts are is a form of formalized trading agreements. If this is wrong then why does anyone expect to have an employment contract. If you can not count on being paid the same amount in each pay check then you can not plan for your future. The same applies to trade contracts. If a country can not count on buying products or raw materials at a set cost for a period of time then that countries economic future is in doubt. Very few businesses will be willing to invest in a country that has an unstable economy. Without trade agreements of any sort contracts and of course contract law no longer have any reason to exist.

[YumYum]

one part your eyes must have skipped over:


How many times has Ron said, we should trade with countries?
To be a complete isolationist, you'd have to be a protectionist on trade.

What is the difference between a "complete isolationist" and an "isolationist"?

[lester1/2jr]

being against any war means you are an isolationist and an anti semite

this is you if you are anti war

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/imperial-wizard-kkk.jpg

[YumYum]

Weird how liberals and conservatives who promote ludicrously stupid, autarchist ideas like "energy independence" are never accused of isolationism..

Great point!!

[catdd]

Well, I would prefer every neighbor on my block was an "isolationist" rather than busy-bodies.

[Bucjason]

If you want to engage in trade with other countries, doesn't it become impossible not to also become interventionist at some point??

Say for example you trade with Country A , and Country A provides you with most of the oil you depend on. Then Country B attacks Country A ... doesn't it then become hard to stay neutral , when the attack effects your ability to trade and therefore your economy also ??

Trade naturally leads to alliances, which naturally leads to interventionism.

It's naive to think things are always as black and white and some of you seem to make it out to be...

[catdd]

Everyone wants to trade, you are not forcing it or invading anyone's space. It's more of a relationship rather than intervention.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

this thread is noobie central

[catdd]

this thread is noobie central

Why do you say that? Don't you have anything important to contribute?

[Bucjason]

Still hoping someone can explain to me how you get involved in international trade, and rely on it as major part of your economy, and not eventually get caught in the middle of some international entanglement...

I think you can't have it both ways . You either have to be totally isolationist , or be interventionist. International trade ,in itself, is a form of intervening , because some countries have more to offer you than others. Some can offer you nothing. This simple engagement helps the tradees economies , hurts others, forms alliances , forms resentments, etc. etc.

[YumYum]

Why do you say that? Don't you have anything important to contribute?

No, if he did he would be an interventionist.

[dannno]

I think what some people are missing is that a Ron Paul style Federal Government would allow private enterprise to contract and make economic commitments with those of other nations without the GOVERNMENT making contracts and economic commitments to other nations...

A true isolationist country would take steps towards PREVENTING private enterprise from interacting and making contracts and economic commitments with foreign countries.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

YouTube - Ron Paul: Trade Wars and Protectionism are not Free Trade 9/21/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riOPrMnWttQ)

[Elwar]

Ok, then if we take the definition from wikipedia:

it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Then he is as isolationist as anyone who wants trade agreements...

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Free Trade - Lou Dobbs/CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtR-h8oKqU)

[dannno]

I think what some people are missing is that a Ron Paul style Federal Government would allow private enterprise to contract and make economic commitments with those of other nations without the GOVERNMENT making contracts and economic commitments to other nations...

A true isolationist country would take steps towards PREVENTING private enterprise from interacting and making contracts and economic commitments with foreign countries.



I think the main reason people have this issue is because they still have that predisposition that Government has to be involved in everything. Having this discussion is a great exercise in helping to unlearn these ideas that have been trained into our heads.


Bottom line: Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

[Elwar]

If you want to engage in trade with other countries, doesn't it become impossible not to also become interventionist at some point??

Say for example you trade with Country A , and Country A provides you with most of the oil you depend on. Then Country B attacks Country A ... doesn't it then become hard to stay neutral , when the attack effects your ability to trade and therefore your economy also ??

Trade naturally leads to alliances, which naturally leads to interventionism.

It's naive to think things are always as black and white and some of you seem to make it out to be...

No, because with an open market you can just go to another country for your resources, or not have those resources.

I used to take my clothes to a laundry mat that washed and folded my clothes for 25 cents a pound. It was a great service for a single guy. When the restaurant next to them wanted to expand, the strip mall decided to kick them out to make room for the expansion. There was no other laundry mat that provided such a service in my town. I didn't attack the strip mall in retaliation for losing my laundry service. I ended up just doing my own laundry.

If a country that supplies your oil is attacked...you start relying on your own oil production or cut down to the point of not using oil if there are no other sources. Supply will tend to meet demand though.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

No, because with an open market you can just go to another country for your resources, or not have those resources.

I used to take my clothes to a laundry mat that washed and folded my clothes for 25 cents a pound. It was a great service for a single guy. When the restaurant next to them wanted to expand, the strip mall decided to kick them out to make room for the expansion. There was no other laundry mat that provided such a service in my town. I didn't attack the strip mall in retaliation for losing my laundry service. I ended up just doing my own laundry.

If a country that supplies your oil is attacked...you start relying on your own oil production or cut down to the point of not using oil if there are no other sources. Supply will tend to meet demand though.

so then explain to me why you think Paul is an isolationist?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

YouTube - Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism: Ron paul Explains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM&feature=related)

[Bucjason]

No, because with an open market you can just go to another country for your resources, or not have those resources.

I used to take my clothes to a laundry mat that washed and folded my clothes for 25 cents a pound. It was a great service for a single guy. When the restaurant next to them wanted to expand, the strip mall decided to kick them out to make room for the expansion. There was no other laundry mat that provided such a service in my town. I didn't attack the strip mall in retaliation for losing my laundry service. I ended up just doing my own laundry.

If a country that supplies your oil is attacked...you start relying on your own oil production or cut down to the point of not using oil if there are no other sources. Supply will tend to meet demand though.

Who knows , if you had a tank at your disposal , and no one to stop you from using it ( and more than 25 cents was at stake), maybe you would have tried to stop the mall people.

But you did your own laundry ..exactly ! You became self-sufficient.

So, wouldn't the smartest move be to become as totally self-sufficient as possible?? Drill for our own oil , manufacture our own goods , etc ?? Then we could truly be non-interventionist...

[Elwar]

so then explain to me why you think Paul is an isolationist?

Simply based on the dictionary.com definition. Though by the wikipedia.com definition he is not.

And then there's Websters:
a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

The key gray area for all of the definitions is the economic portion.
dictionary.com: declining foreign economic commitments
wikipedia.com: legal barriers to control trade
websters: abstention from economic relations

[Bucjason]

I think the main reason people have this issue is because they still have that predisposition that Government has to be involved in everything. Having this discussion is a great exercise in helping to unlearn these ideas that have been trained into our heads.


Bottom line: Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

This is a good point , but at the same time , if most of our private gas companies are buying thier oil from the same country, and that country gets attacked and thier becomes a oil shortage, it is still going to crash our entire economy .

At which point , the government will step in and probably go to war.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

YouTube - CNN: Ron Paul on Isolationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeEOy4EukdI&feature=related)

[Elwar]

This is a good point , but at the same time , if most of our private gas companies are buying thier oil from the same country, and that country gets attacked and thier becomes a oil shortage, it is still going to crash our entire economy .

At which point , the government will step in and probably go to war.

The link between your first paragraph and the second is what is wrong with this country.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

have we forgotten this.......

YouTube - Ron Paul teaches Mccain on Nonintervention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt3-1NI45wI&NR=1)

[Austin]

i have a problem with the word itself...no matter how it may be defined...

we should coin the term "Neutralist"

My YAL chapter supports "a sensible foreign policy of armed neutrality" :)

[dannno]

So, wouldn't the smartest move be to become as totally self-sufficient as possible?? Drill for our own oil , manufacture our own goods , etc ?? Then we could truly be non-interventionist...

Well first we need a level playing field by trading in commodities like gold instead of fiat currency... The global banks are doing a terrible disservice by artificially inflating and deflating specific currencies.

When you make something locally it costs $X. When you make something and sell it to a foreign country suddenly it costs $X + Shipping... so MOST things should be cheaper to produce locally, and the market forces would naturally keep the production of certain types of goods in the domestic market.

Then what trade is good for is if you produce an excess of something that you are really good at producing... Like if the U.S. makes 25 billion computer chips every year, but only needs 5 billion.. Then let's say China gets really good at making computer monitors. They make 10 billion computer monitors each year, but they only need 2 billion.

That doesn't mean the U.S. should stop making computer monitors, and we wouldn't without the artificially manipulated currencies and trade deficits, but that kind of situation I described shows a great opportunity to trade. Overall we will end up with a lot more computer chips and monitors than if we had decided to manufacture them ourselves, because the U.S. is a lot better at making computer chips and China is a lot better at making monitors (in my hypothetical example..)

The reason our country has become dependent on oil is because of our interventionist foreign policy. If we had minded our own business and drilled our own oil along with simply buying oil on the global market, we would have paid a lot more for it and other energy options would have emerged much earlier.

[Bucjason]

The link between your first paragraph and the second is what is wrong with this country.

Which is why free trade isn't going to make us non-interventionist, but being as self-sufficient as possible will.

We need to remove all the economic restrictions that make this impossible , especially when it comes to energy.

[Bucjason]

Well first we need a level playing field by trading in commodities like gold instead of fiat currency... The global banks are doing a terrible disservice by artificially inflating and deflating specific currencies.

When you make something locally it costs $X. When you make something and sell it to a foreign country suddenly it costs $X + Shipping... so MOST things should be cheaper to produce locally, and the market forces would naturally keep the production of certain types of goods in the domestic market.

Then what trade is good for is if you produce an excess of something that you are really good at producing... Like if the U.S. makes 25 billion computer chips every year, but only needs 5 billion.. Then let's say China gets really good at making computer monitors. They make 10 billion computer monitors each year, but they only need 2 billion.

That doesn't mean the U.S. should stop making computer monitors, and we wouldn't without the artificially manipulated currencies and trade deficits, but that kind of situation I described shows a great opportunity to trade. Overall we will end up with a lot more computer chips and monitors than if we had decided to manufacture them ourselves, because the U.S. is a lot better at making computer chips and China is a lot better at making monitors (in my hypothetical example..)

The reason our country has become dependent on oil is because of our interventionist foreign policy. If we had minded our own business and drilled our own oil along with simply buying oil on the global market, we would have paid a lot more for it and other energy options would have emerged much earlier.

makes sense to me

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Which is why free trade isn't going to make us non-interventionist, but being as self-sufficient as possible will.

We need to remove all the economic restrictions that make this impossible , especially when it comes to energy.

Ron Paul disagrees with you. Watch the above videos.

[Elwar]

Which is why free trade isn't going to make us non-interventionist, but being as self-sufficient as possible will.

We need to remove all the economic restrictions that make this impossible , especially when it comes to energy.

No, that's because people rely too much on the government to save them instead of taking care of themselves. If the oil stops flowing then it's not up to the government to save us, but up to us to find an alternative way of doing what we need to do. Or planning ahead of time, including the risk factor when making decisions to build a whole system based around a foreign resource.

[virgil47]

No, that's because people rely too much on the government to save them instead of taking care of themselves. If the oil stops flowing then it's not up to the government to save us, but up to us to find an alternative way of doing what we need to do. Or planning ahead of time, including the risk factor when making decisions to build a whole system based around a foreign resource.

How would this scenario work when applied to rare metals that are needed to manufacture certain items of value in our society? Our country does not possess any rare metal deposits.

[virgil47]

I think what some people are missing is that a Ron Paul style Federal Government would allow private enterprise to contract and make economic commitments with those of other nations without the GOVERNMENT making contracts and economic commitments to other nations...

A true isolationist country would take steps towards PREVENTING private enterprise from interacting and making contracts and economic commitments with foreign countries.

Private enterprise cannot make economic commitments without government approval because if they did the entire economy of our country could be adversely affected if they were not able to live up to their commitments. Say a large farming conglomerate made a trade commitment with China and for some reason was not able to fulfill that agreement. What recourse would China have? Well they would use our court system to strip the conglomerate of it's resources. China would end up owning a large chunk of American soil and that could adversely impact our society in general.