PDA

View Full Version : Question for RP




SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 10:04 AM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

Icymudpuppy
03-22-2011, 10:05 AM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

You ask your conscience (the american people and congress) if it is right to get involved, and make a formal declaration that you are going to get involved and suffer the consequences that might result from the full support of your republic backing you.

Feeding the Abscess
03-22-2011, 10:06 AM
Don't make friends who go to bars and get into fights.

gls
03-22-2011, 10:06 AM
You certainly don't force someone else to intervene on your behalf at gun point...

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 10:11 AM
Don't make friends who go to bars and get into fights.


You certainly don't force someone else to intervene on your behalf at gun point...

Those are non-answers. Would you or would you not help your friend?

AGRP
03-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Family > One stupid friend

The U.S. Constitution says we must consult our family before we act via Congress.

That's not an opinion. That's the law.

gls
03-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Those are non-answers. Would you or would you not help your friend?

Um yes but what does this hypothetical have to do with foreign policy? Nothing as far as I can see since it doesn't involve coercion.

Feeding the Abscess
03-22-2011, 10:19 AM
It is an answer. If we're going to make alliances with countries (which we shouldn't), we most certainly should not ally ourselves with belligerent, insecure nations who feel the need to resort to violence against other nations.

I mean seriously, you might as well ask "if someone is anally raping you, do you fight and risk potentially damaging yourself or do you relax and try to enjoy it NO BACKSIES YOU HAVE TO ANSWER WITH ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS LOLOLOL" or something.

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 10:29 AM
Um yes but what does this hypothetical have to do with foreign policy? Nothing as far as I can see since it doesn't involve coercion.

In foreign policy you have to have friends. A friendship is worthless if you aren't willing to help each other in times of need.

Let me turn this around. Say the United States is being invaded (it doesn't matter by who) and is going to lose. Would you want other countries to come in and help? Of course you would. But why should they help us if we aren't willing to help them?

Teaser Rate
03-22-2011, 10:30 AM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

I don't see how it was a non-answer, he clearly said that he would not use the military to stop genocides under any circumstance. So Ron's answer to any hypothetical scenario which would involve stopping another Holocaust with military power would be no. Agree or disagree with him, that's his principled stance, there's no need to make silly theoretical scenarios to flush out his point of view.

PS: of course I would help my friend out, and I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone who wouldn't do the same for me.

RyanRSheets
03-22-2011, 10:47 AM
The people who vote to take us to war, by a very clear mandate, should be required to fight in that war. Only then would I accept this scenario as a half-reasonable analogy. It still ignores that the ones doing the fighting will be mostly young men who just wanted a scholarship. It still ignores all of the collateral deaths. In fact, let's fix your analogy.

You're at the bar. Some guy over at the other end of the bar is being attacked by a larger guy. You're old or something, so you don't want to fight. The guy next to you is tough and can easily take on the aggressor on the other end, but he also lacks control. You order him to go over there and stop the fight. Everyone in the area over there joins in because people tend to associate with the people around them. The guy who was previously next to you enjoying his beer starts having trouble identifying who's fighting him and who's just trying to get out of the area. People are fighting on both sides, so it is really hard to tell who's who, and in typical barfight fashion, beer gets spilled and bottles get broken on the wrong heads. Your pawn doesn't know who the hell to hit, seeing everyone as a potential enemy at this point, and he's not alone in this regard. Indeed more and more and people in the area do become the enemy as people join in. In the end, the guy who was getting beat down and everyone around him at the time, and the guy you sent in are all in pain. And you? You just sat on your ass and encouraged the rest of the bar to cheer, sending in some macho guy every once in a while only so they could get beat down just like the person you thought you were saving.

gls
03-22-2011, 10:51 AM
In foreign policy you have to have friends. A friendship is worthless if you aren't willing to help each other in times of need.

Let me turn this around. Say the United States is being invaded (it doesn't matter by who) and is going to lose. Would you want other countries to come in and help? Of course you would. But why should they help us if we aren't willing to help them?

No I wouldn't want another country to come in and "help". Entangling alliances only serve to perpetuate war. Thanks to the Second Amendment the United States is impervious to any kind of prolonged occupation.

Besides, if you haven't noticed America has a massive debt/deficit, the federal government is incapable of meeting its current commitments never mind taking on new ones.

JamesButabi
03-22-2011, 11:01 AM
Are you insinuating that I have to kill the person trying to beat up my friend and then steal his car? Bad analogies are bad.

mczerone
03-22-2011, 11:04 AM
I'm sure RP would be able to answer this question satisfactorily for you.

As this thread has turned into our opinions, though: Yes, I would step in. I would use my rightful resources to de-escalate the situation, and ensure due process. Maybe the other guy has some rightful reason to be beating my friend, after all.

I would not:
(1) force others in the bar to donate their resources to stopping the fight,
(2) use any more force than was necessary to stop the fight (e.g. I would not beat the other guy to death)
(3) act against the will of my friend (e.g. if he said "let him go, I'll handle this", I would consider whether this plea should be respected in light of how much the friend has his senses about him)
or
(4) violate an express mutual aid agreement (i.e. the U.S. Constitution) that sets out requirements upon me if I wished to use the powers of that agreement in my aid.

These debates remind me of the beginning of the Iraq war. There are certain arguments that some action is necessary, but no good arguments as to why tyrannical behavior of the state is needed to enact them.

skyorbit
03-22-2011, 11:09 AM
Whether you would help your friend is irrelevant. The issue here is that the only way for the Government to help it's "friend" is to steal, kidnap, and maim it's own citizens to pay for helping it's "friend." You can't make analogies between the actions of 3 individuals, and that of 3 collectives. It's a completely false analogie.

A Better analogie could perhaps be if you were comparing the individuals to 3 different mercenary companies or something.

Tracy

libertybrewcity
03-22-2011, 11:13 AM
Well chances are the United States government would make you believe the friend about to be killed it your friend and you need to step in even though you have been supplying the one who is killing with food, weapons, and money for decades.

These situations are very different. A bar fight is much different from nations going to war. A bar fight will subside, but often going to meddling in others affairs brings about unintended consequences. blowback. often times you are friends with neither side. some say you we should stop the genocide in darfur, but who's side do we take? Christians, Muslims?

mczerone
03-22-2011, 11:14 AM
In foreign policy you have to have friends. A friendship is worthless if you aren't willing to help each other in times of need.

Let me turn this around. Say the United States is being invaded (it doesn't matter by who) and is going to lose. Would you want other countries to come in and help? Of course you would. But why should they help us if we aren't willing to help them?

"Of course would"? What? There are problems abound with your emotional and logic wanting scenarios (they are not [I]arguments). And I don't particularly care if "The United States" is going to "lose". Maybe their successors in political power will be more just and fair with dealing with us "subjects". Maybe the consolidation into a N.A.U. would allow further economic growth. Maybe the "enemy" bombs D.C., and leaves the states free to establish "more perfect unions" amongst themselves.

Then you go on to say "us". Who is this "us"? Is it Obama and cronies in D.C.? Is it a cohort of WASPs that currently control the bulk of state-privilege-property? Who is helping whom?

dbill27
03-22-2011, 11:18 AM
The bar analogy doesn't really apply in any sense. If I choose to help my friend then it is 100% my choice and i alone am will feel the negative consequences of it. Even if we have a voluntary army, the soldiers don't get to choose where the go and for what reason, and Americans not in the army receive blowback from the actions of our govt and military.

dannno
03-22-2011, 11:38 AM
Those are non-answers. Would you or would you not help your friend?

The real question is whether you put a gun to somebody else's head to help your friend.

I'm sure Ron Paul would defend his friends, but he's not going to force others to do so.

JCLibertarian
03-22-2011, 11:47 AM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?
That is not similar situation. Ron Paul never said individuals and groups couldn't get together on a voluntary basis to intervene. So of course, you should help your friend, but you should forcibly conscript others to fight for you, or put people into harm's way who have nothing to do with the affair.

RonPaulRocksMyWorld
03-22-2011, 12:23 PM
I would certainly help my friend. But analogies always break down in the end as this thread has proven.

JCLibertarian
03-22-2011, 12:24 PM
I would certainly help my friend. But analogies always break down in the end as this thread has proven.

I thought it was a poorly thought out analogy as well.

dannno
03-22-2011, 12:28 PM
I thought it was a poorly thought out analogy as well.

.... a malogy?

or an amalogy?

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 01:43 PM
I thought it was a poorly thought out analogy as well.

It's not poorly thought out, it's just very simple. RP sort of said 'no' in response to what he was asked which would be a very definitive answer. That would mean under no circumstance would he be willing to step in and help our friends with our military. That won't strike confidence in our allies and could even be viewed as a betrayal. That's not something I could support. Had he answered something along the lines of 'Yes, but only under very specific circumstances' then at least that leaves the door open. But he chose to shut it completely.

RonPaulRocksMyWorld
03-22-2011, 02:03 PM
It's not poorly thought out, it's just very simple. RP sort of said 'no' in response to what he was asked which would be a very definitive answer. That would mean under no circumstance would he be willing to step in and help our friends with our military. That won't strike confidence in our allies and could even be viewed as a betrayal. That's not something I could support. Had he answered something along the lines of 'Yes, but only under very specific circumstances' then at least that leaves the door open. But he chose to shut it completely.

Then clearly you don't understand the Principle of Non Aggression. Coercion is always immoral. Ron is against it for that reason. War is the ultimate coercion: troops, civilians (our side and theirs) are all coerced in some way to either pay for the War or wage it.

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 02:09 PM
Then clearly you don't understand the Principle of Non Aggression. Coercion is always immoral. Ron is against it for that reason. War is the ultimate coercion: troops, civilians (our side and theirs) are all coerced in some way to either pay for the War or wage it.

I would hardly call jumping to the defense of a friend an act of aggression.

low preference guy
03-22-2011, 02:12 PM
I would hardly call jumping to the defense of a friend an act of aggression.

suppose you steal money from one friend to defend another friend. would you call that action aggression to the first friend?

low preference guy
03-22-2011, 02:14 PM
That won't strike confidence in our allies and could even be viewed as a betrayal.

why the heck should we have allies? our technology is superior to everyone else's, and all that "allies" do is drag this nation into unnecessary conflicts which backfire on us.


"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 02:15 PM
suppose you steal money from one friend to defend another friend. would you call that action aggression to the first friend?

Huh?

nayjevin
03-22-2011, 02:15 PM
I would hardly call jumping to the defense of a friend an act of aggression.

That's why the analogy doesn't work. 'Nations' can't be 'friends' but individuals can.

He said it must be voluntary, as friendships are, but wars aren't. And he's right!

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 02:16 PM
why the heck should we have allies? are technology is superior to everyone else's, and all that "allies" do is drag this nation into unnecessary conflicts which backfire on us.

They could also come and help US one day. That's why we have allies.

acptulsa
03-22-2011, 02:17 PM
It's not poorly thought out, it's just very simple. RP sort of said 'no' in response to what he was asked which would be a very definitive answer. That would mean under no circumstance would he be willing to step in and help our friends with our military.

Is that what he said?

Now, suppose he gets elected president and sworn in, and then Congress votes to come to the defense of an ally. Now, what do you suppose a President Paul would do in the face of a declaration of war by Congress?

I suppose he'd do everything he could do to enable the military to kick some serious ass, that's what I suppose.

low preference guy
03-22-2011, 02:17 PM
They could also come and help US one day. That's why we have allies.

they've never done it and never will. all our "allies" give us is trouble.

SamuraisWisdom
03-22-2011, 02:24 PM
Is that what he said?

Now, suppose he gets elected president and sworn in, and then Congress votes to come to the defense of an ally. Now, what do you suppose a President Paul would do in the face of a declaration of war by Congress?

I suppose he'd do everything he could do to enable the military to kick some serious ass, that's what I suppose.

He said "not militarily" so I don't have confidence that he would do as you say.

TexanRudeBoy
03-22-2011, 02:24 PM
In your example you're talking about individuals acting on their own. In the real world this analogy is supposed to represent you would have to FORCE thousands of people not involved in said conflict to take the action you deem needed.

A more apt analogy would be:

You and a friend are at a bar. You're friend gets attacked. You pull a gun and force a group of un-involved men to break up the fight and save your friend.

Whether or not YOU would help is irrelevant because when you extrapolate this analogy out to the real world you are no longer talking about taking actions as an individual, but are talking about forcing the entire nation to take the action on your behalf.

Grubb556
03-22-2011, 02:24 PM
They could also come and help US one day. That's why we have allies.

We don't rely on allies, because Americans tend to want to be self sufficent, and not dependant on aid from others.

Live_Free_Or_Die
03-22-2011, 02:27 PM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

Abstract concepts such as governments or states do not have friends... people have friends.

acptulsa
03-22-2011, 02:29 PM
He said "not militarily" so I don't have confidence that he would do as you say.

Well, since I know him to be an ardent Constitutionalist, I have the utmost confidence that he would. Whether he liked it or not.

That said, I understand how you could come to believe otherwise, and I do wish he'd address the subject himself.


they've never done it and never will. all our "allies" give us is trouble.

Except, of course, during the Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

JCLibertarian
03-22-2011, 02:54 PM
It's not poorly thought out, it's just very simple. RP sort of said 'no' in response to what he was asked which would be a very definitive answer. That would mean under no circumstance would he be willing to step in and help our friends with our military. That won't strike confidence in our allies and could even be viewed as a betrayal. That's not something I could support. Had he answered something along the lines of 'Yes, but only under very specific circumstances' then at least that leaves the door open. But he chose to shut it completely.

Your bar fight analogy is not applicable to committing troops to a foreign conflict separate from our own national security. Your analogy would have been more appropriate if you model it like this: Say an acquaintance(because I wouldn't consider these Libyans friends) was getting beat up by two other guys, and you had at your disposal a personal body guard who has no attachment, affiliation, or connection to the said acquaintance, and that bodyguard is paid for by other bar goers(not you)you can either use them or not use them and either abstain all together or go in on your own. Mind you, your bodyguards and the boar goers are not threatened in anyway by the other two guys, and you are not yourself. But in this case, it would still be immoral in my opinion to commit others to your own battles, the bodyguards for the fighting, or the resources of the bar goers.

RonPaulRocksMyWorld
03-22-2011, 03:03 PM
We keep trying to fix the analogy here when the OP doesn't understand the idea of state coercion. Ron Paul is against coercion in all forms as a matter of moral principle. War is by definition coercive.

dannno
03-22-2011, 03:20 PM
Huh?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284449-Question-for-RP&p=3171920&viewfull=1#post3171920


Why are you making ME stick up for YOUR friend?

You have every right to stick up for your friends, but you don't have the right to tell me who my friends are or make me stick up for one of yours!

Fox McCloud
03-22-2011, 03:25 PM
I know what you're going to do next, and that extrapolation doesn't work; you can't compare intervening on a friend's behalf (one individual) to a state intervening in another state's affairs.

erowe1
03-22-2011, 03:32 PM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

Yes, I would step in and help my friend (or at least, if I didn't, it would be cowardice and not scruples that prevented me).

However, I would not have any right to force others to help my cause involuntarily by stealing money from them to pay for the weapons I use, or conscripting them into fighting alongside me lest I do violence to them as well, or by intervening in their free economic exchanges with one another to influence the market in such a way as to make it easier for me to intervene at their expense.

When a nation goes to war, it isn't merely someone doing the former deed, but the latter as well.

erowe1
03-22-2011, 03:34 PM
They could also come and help US one day. That's why we have allies.

That would be true if they were genuine alliances. But they're not. They're just ways of burdening the American taxpayers with everyone else's problems and getting nothing in return. Those nations aren't allies, their vassals. And even that relationship isn't one they have to us, the American people, but to the regime in Washington, D.C. that subjugates us.

Theocrat
03-22-2011, 03:42 PM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

I don't think your scenario is analogous to what our President did to get us involved in the Libyan War. Delivering a friend from certain death in a fight is much different than a President overriding an entire body of representatives to go to war, based on his sole authority and judgment (especially when the war will be paid at other people's expense). The President is bound by oath to act in accordance with the laws of his office, and when he fails to do that, he is no longer fit for that office because he has just broken the law. Helping a friend in a fight who is about to be killed is actually working from a law of love towards that friend because you value his life.

Also, our country has no reason to be involved with what's going on in Libya, if it is no imminent threat towards our national security. America, based on our national rulebook (the Constitution), is not supposed to police the world. Our Founders wanted our country to stay out of entanglements which did not concern us, just as we, as individuals, would expect our neighbors to stay out of the private business of things which did not call for their aid. Many people have gotten hurt because of that, and many friendships have ended by that, too.

So, once again, your scenario is not analogous to our recent initiative by Obama to get involved in Libyan affairs. Your scenario is one of a personal nature (involving two to three people), while Obama's decision is one of a political nature, involving millions of dollars and millions of lives (both from taxpayers as well as those called to fight in the days to come).

Theocrat
03-22-2011, 03:59 PM
Your bar fight analogy is not applicable to committing troops to a foreign conflict separate from our own national security. Your analogy would have been more appropriate if you model it like this: Say an acquaintance(because I wouldn't consider these Libyans friends) was getting beat up by two other guys, and you had at your disposal a personal body guard who has no attachment, affiliation, or connection to the said acquaintance, and that bodyguard is paid for by other bar goers(not you)you can either use them or not use them and either abstain all together or go in on your own. Mind you, your bodyguards and the boar goers are not threatened in anyway by the other two guys, and you are not yourself. But in this case, it would still be immoral in my opinion to commit others to your own battles, the bodyguards for the fighting, or the resources of the bar goers.

That's why it would be better for private citizens in our own nation to form their own militias/mercenary groups and deal with the Libyan conflict, if they believe it is a worthy cause, than for our publicly-funded military forces (who themselves are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution when there is an issue that affects us nationally) to get involved. Obama could have addressed the nation and asked private citizens and groups to take charge and help with the Libyan conflict from their own resources, if he felt it was so important. But he'd rather take his marching orders from the United Nations.

dannno
03-22-2011, 04:52 PM
Wait, isn't the OP George4Title?

rnestam
03-22-2011, 05:25 PM
Basically, you may be to old to join the US Military...but if Libya is such a friend you could just as easily fly over to the region and join the opposition. Stop sending strangers blindly into situations you couldn't imagine. I would never ask a friend to come help me get the back of someone he didn't know or care about...regardless of how righteous the mission was. I couldn't live with myself if some "unintended consequence" happened...

rnestam
03-22-2011, 05:37 PM
I pay taxes so if some crazy nation tries to wipe my town off the face of the earth the military will try and prevent that. I may wish that something could be done in Libya, or anywhere else, but it is unfair for me to ask a navy pilot to go if I am not willing because it is equally not in our job descriptions. They sign up for scholarships and to protect our country and end up in Iraq fighting for Corporatism. Sign up, serve, and if declared....fight. Yet you want him to fight the monster beating up your friend in the bar.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 12:09 AM
I don't think your scenario is analogous to what our President did to get us involved in the Libyan War. Delivering a friend from certain death in a fight is much different than a President overriding an entire body of representatives to go to war, based on his sole authority and judgment (especially when the war will be paid at other people's expense). The President is bound by oath to act in accordance with the laws of his office, and when he fails to do that, he is no longer fit for that office because he has just broken the law. Helping a friend in a fight who is about to be killed is actually working from a law of love towards that friend because you value his life.

Also, our country has no reason to be involved with what's going on in Libya, if it is no imminent threat towards our national security. America, based on our national rulebook (the Constitution), is not supposed to police the world. Our Founders wanted our country to stay out of entanglements which did not concern us, just as we, as individuals, would expect our neighbors to stay out of the private business of things which did not call for their aid. Many people have gotten hurt because of that, and many friendships have ended by that, too.

So, once again, your scenario is not analogous to our recent initiative by Obama to get involved in Libyan affairs. Your scenario is one of a personal nature (involving two to three people), while Obama's decision is one of a political nature, involving millions of dollars and millions of lives (both from taxpayers as well as those called to fight in the days to come).

My analogy wasn't directed specifically at Libya. It was directed at the answer RP gave to being asked about stepping into ANY conflict. And for the record, I don't support us going into Libya as there are plenty of other countries that belong to the UN that could handle what we're doing over there.

And also, another more general point that's related to this discussion. Is it fair for us, the most powerful nation and "shining beacon of freedom and democracy", to sit back and tell other people who want what we have 'good luck' when they step up and fight for their own freedom? Say we weren't already in 2 (or 3) wars and all of our troops were in our own borders, and a rebel group fighting against a tyrannical government came up to us and said, "Hey, we want our freedom. We want a constitution, free markets, etc but we need help. Can you help us?" Would you say yes? I would. I think that as the leader of the free world we should be encouraging people to step up for themselves and be willing to help others so long as we have the capacity at the time. Remember, we would have never won the Revolutionary War and founded our country had it not been for France stepping in and fighting against Great Britain for us. Why can't we do the same?

Sola_Fide
03-23-2011, 12:26 AM
My analogy wasn't directed specifically at Libya. It was directed at the answer RP gave to being asked about stepping into ANY conflict. And for the record, I don't support us going into Libya as there are plenty of other countries that belong to the UN that could handle what we're doing over there.

And also, another more general point that's related to this discussion. Is it fair for us, the most powerful nation and "shining beacon of freedom and democracy", to sit back and tell other people who want what we have 'good luck' when they step up and fight for their own freedom? Say we weren't already in 2 (or 3) wars and all of our troops were in our own borders, and a rebel group fighting against a tyrannical government came up to us and said, "Hey, we want our freedom. We want a constitution, free markets, etc but we need help. Can you help us?" Would you say yes? I would. I think that as the leader of the free world we should be encouraging people to step up for themselves and be willing to help others so long as we have the capacity at the time. Remember, we would have never won the Revolutionary War and founded our country had it not been for France stepping in and fighting against Great Britain for us. Why can't we do the same?

Why don't you directly respond to the several posts that ask you why you think it is okay to compel someone else by force to be involved in another countries civil war?

Answer that question right now before you type anything else please.

TIMB0B
03-23-2011, 01:58 AM
I would hardly call jumping to the defense of a friend an act of aggression.
Ding ding ding! This is your answer and I believe Dr. Paul has stated as much in agreeing with our role in WW2. Acting in DEFENSE of an ally if asked for help.

What we're doing in Libya is an offensive act of aggression, though. France, Britain, etc. are not being attacked. This is not about humanitarian principles. Libya is not our ally, so we're not defending them either. Their rebel alliance hasn't asked for our help either.

Underlying all of this, though, is the cost in lives and money. It's just not worth it, and world history has proven time and again that empires that spread too far and wide have always collapsed.

BamaAla
03-23-2011, 02:10 AM
Of course I would help my friend, but that's a bad analogy. Plus, bar fights are good fun!

erowe1
03-23-2011, 06:39 AM
Is it fair for us, the most powerful nation and "shining beacon of freedom and democracy", to sit back and tell other people who want what we have 'good luck' when they step up and fight for their own freedom? Say we weren't already in 2 (or 3) wars and all of our troops were in our own borders, and a rebel group fighting against a tyrannical government came up to us and said, "Hey, we want our freedom. We want a constitution, free markets, etc but we need help. Can you help us?" Would you say yes? I would. I think that as the leader of the free world we should be encouraging people to step up for themselves and be willing to help others so long as we have the capacity at the time. Remember, we would have never won the Revolutionary War and founded our country had it not been for France stepping in and fighting against Great Britain for us. Why can't we do the same?

To follow your philosophy is to cease to be a shining beacon of freedom (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the "and democracy" bit was a typo).

rnestam
03-23-2011, 07:23 AM
My analogy wasn't directed specifically at Libya. It was directed at the answer RP gave to being asked about stepping into ANY conflict. And for the record, I don't support us going into Libya as there are plenty of other countries that belong to the UN that could handle what we're doing over there.

And also, another more general point that's related to this discussion. Is it fair for us, the most powerful nation and "shining beacon of freedom and democracy", to sit back and tell other people who want what we have 'good luck' when they step up and fight for their own freedom? Say we weren't already in 2 (or 3) wars and all of our troops were in our own borders, and a rebel group fighting against a tyrannical government came up to us and said, "Hey, we want our freedom. We want a constitution, free markets, etc but we need help. Can you help us?" Would you say yes? I would. I think that as the leader of the free world we should be encouraging people to step up for themselves and be willing to help others so long as we have the capacity at the time. Remember, we would have never won the Revolutionary War and founded our country had it not been for France stepping in and fighting against Great Britain for us. Why can't we do the same?


So what if four "rebel forces" came to us and asked for help, and it turned out we actually fund the "tyrannical governments" in 3 of those scenarios. So we step in and help the forth, letting the other 3 get mowed down, then try and sell it to the world as a humanitarian mission. It has gotten to the point were we can't even help with good intentions anymore because we have been such bullshit in the past. For your scenario to be good and right, to have any glimpse of reality, we would need to immediately stop funding all dictators for a long long time. Actually behave ourselves and maybe in a generation or two we would have the white shiny Armour of freedom needed to really help out and take out the final dictators of the world...Basically we need a few Ron Paul's to run the country first, then maybe an Obama. But not the real Obama of course, the fake one from the campaign....

Southron
03-23-2011, 07:49 AM
And also, another more general point that's related to this discussion. Is it fair for us, the most powerful nation and "shining beacon of freedom and democracy", to sit back and tell other people who want what we have 'good luck' when they step up and fight for their own freedom? Say we weren't already in 2 (or 3) wars and all of our troops were in our own borders, and a rebel group fighting against a tyrannical government came up to us and said, "Hey, we want our freedom. We want a constitution, free markets, etc but we need help. Can you help us?" Would you say yes? I would. I think that as the leader of the free world we should be encouraging people to step up for themselves and be willing to help others so long as we have the capacity at the time. Remember, we would have never won the Revolutionary War and founded our country had it not been for France stepping in and fighting against Great Britain for us. Why can't we do the same?

The problem with helping "freedom fighters", especially in places like Libya, is that we do not know what kind if government will be set up in its place. We could be making Libya safe for Sharia law for all we know. If a Muslim theocracy comes out of Libya have our interests been served?

I realize you aren't talking specifically about Libya but I see few movements seeking to model government after our Constitution.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 10:48 AM
The problem with helping "freedom fighters", especially in places like Libya, is that we do not know what kind if government will be set up in its place. We could be making Libya safe for Sharia law for all we know. If a Muslim theocracy comes out of Libya have our interests been served?

I realize you aren't talking specifically about Libya but I see few movements seeking to model government after our Constitution.

See that's the thing, I'm not talking about Libya at all. In fact I don't support us being there whatsoever. The point I'm making is that you can't shut the door to EVERY possible scenario that might unfold which is what RP did in that interview.


Why don't you directly respond to the several posts that ask you why you think it is okay to compel someone else by force to be involved in another countries civil war?

Answer that question right now before you type anything else please.

That's a very general question. If you're talking about soldiers in the military then here's my answer. When you sign up for the military you do so with the knowledge and consent that you could be ordered anywhere at anytime for any reason. You lose your civil rights the second you sign those papers. You are no longer a citizen. So unless you are willing to do all that then don't sign up in the first place. The draft is another issue entirely and something I don't support unless as a last resort in threat of our survival.

As a taxpayer I can see your point. However, nothing makes everybody happy. If we were only to fight in wars where 100% of the population supported it then we'd probably all be speaking another language right now. That's not an excuse for the government to wage war whenever they want, but sometimes a line has to be drawn.

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:10 AM
That's not an excuse for the government to wage war whenever they want, but sometimes a line has to be drawn.

...And when that line is drawn, or fed to us as being drawn, then Congress should step up and declare war so we can fight. You are talking as if Ron Paul wants to be King, he simply wants congress to go on record and pay for it, or be rewarded for it, if we fight. If he were president and congress declared war I'm sure he would execute it brilliantly and bluntly, whether he agreed or not.

Partly his fault, he should stop answering questions as if he is a running for congress and start answering as a Presidential candidate running on his platform of limited executive powers by just saying "if declared, then I would think about it...but I wouldn't think about doing anything, regardless of the situation until congress stepped up..."

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:13 AM
...And when that line is drawn, or fed to us as being drawn, then Congress should step up and declare war so we can fight. You are talking as if Ron Paul wants to be King, he simply wants congress to go on record and pay for it, or be rewarded for it, if we fight. If he were president and congress declared war I'm sure he would execute it brilliantly and bluntly, whether he agreed or not.

Partly his fault, he should stop answering questions as if he is a running for congress and start answering as a Presidential candidate running on his platform of limited executive powers by just saying "if declared, then I would think about it...but I wouldn't think about doing anything, regardless of the situation until congress stepped up..."

I agree 100%

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:16 AM
As a taxpayer I can see your point. However, nothing makes everybody happy. If we were only to fight in wars where 100% of the population supported it then we'd probably all be speaking another language right now. That's not an excuse for the government to wage war whenever they want, but sometimes a line has to be drawn.

It's not about making people happy. The laws of morality come from the creator. Theft is wrong.

If you want to fight in a war or fund a war, you don't have to involve 100% of the population. You only have to worry about yourself. And however many other people out there who want to join you in the effort only have to worry about themselves. There's no need to take money from those who don't want to participate.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:17 AM
If he were president and congress declared war I'm sure he would execute it brilliantly and bluntly, whether he agreed or not.

There is no way that's true.

Stary Hickory
03-23-2011, 11:18 AM
You step in and save your friend, it's totally different when you are risking your own life and property, the moral problems start when you are using the lives and property of others to do the same thing. If this fight broke out and you tossed some innocent bystander into the fray then you would be in the wrong.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:20 AM
There is no way that's true.

Sounds right to me. In what way is there no way?

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:21 AM
Sounds right to me. In what way is there no way?

Congress doesn't have the right to drive the nation into unjust wars. I have never heard RP say anything to suggest that he, as president, would wage one for no better reason than just that a bunch of corrupt politicians voted on it and said they want him to. What makes you think he would?

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:21 AM
There is no way that's true.

Can the POTUS just not fight even if Congress declares it? I guess as commander in chief he could just strategically not fight, or is it more like a law that POTUS can just veto on the spot.......But is there anything the congress can then do, impeach?? I really don't know...Imagine that ever happened?...

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:23 AM
Can the POTUS just not fight even if Congress declares it? I guess as commander in chief he could just strategically not fight, or is it more like a law that POTUS can just veto on the spot.......But is there anything the congress can then do, impeach?? I really don't know...Imagine that ever happened?...

Sure he could refuse, just like Obama can refuse to defend DOMA in court.

Yes, Congress could impeach him. That's all they could do in that situation.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:23 AM
It's not about making people happy. The laws of morality come from the creator. Theft is wrong.

If you want to fight in a war or fund a war, you don't have to involve 100% of the population. You only have to worry about yourself. And however many other people out there who want to join you in the effort only have to worry about themselves. There's no need to take money from those who don't want to participate.

And how do you suggest we implement a system like that?

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:25 AM
Congress doesn't have the right to drive the nation into unjust wars. I have never heard RP say anything to suggest that he, as president, would wage one for no better reason than just that a bunch of corrupt politicians voted on it and said they want him to. What makes you think he would?

What makes me think you're wrong is I've never seen or heard of him disobey(ing) the Constitution before. Or overstepping his power.

dannno
03-23-2011, 11:25 AM
Wait, isn't the OP George4Title?

:confused:

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:26 AM
What makes me think you're wrong is I've never seen or heard of him disobey(ing) the Constitution before. Or overstepping his power.

How would that be disobeying the Constitution? The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to wage unjust wars. It wouldn't become constitutional just because Congress said they wanted it.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:27 AM
Congress doesn't have the right to drive the nation into unjust wars. I have never heard RP say anything to suggest that he, as president, would wage one for no better reason than just that a bunch of corrupt politicians voted on it and said they want him to. What makes you think he would?

Because it's in the Constitution that the congress declares war?

pacelli
03-23-2011, 11:28 AM
I think in the hypothetical allegory you mention, Ron would get involved to save his friend's life.

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:29 AM
Funny, or not so funny, that I never even imagined the situation until this thread...ahhh, the times we live in.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:29 AM
How would that be disobeying the Constitution? The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to wage unjust wars. It wouldn't become constitutional just because Congress said they wanted it.

See the problem here is you use the word 'unjust'. Define that. What is justice? You can give me examples of something that you think is just, but you cannot define it. That is a very old philosophical conundrum.

TheeJoeGlass
03-23-2011, 11:29 AM
This question is in response to Ron's non-answer on the Arena last night when he was asked whether there were any humanitarian, genocidal, or otherwise moral situations he would have intervened in. The question is asked just after the 3:20 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

So here's my question to Ron: Say you and your best friend went out to the bar one night. Your friend gets into an argument with some other guy and they start to fight. The other guy is beating your friend up really bad and is going to kill him unless YOU step in. So what do you do? Do you get involved in the fight to save your friend's life or do you stay out of it and let him die?

RPF members, what's your take?

This actually happens often. It depends on the size of the guy(Country) beating your friend. If he is a monster, entire groups of people will just sit and watch, in fear for their own lives.

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:30 AM
Because it's in the Constitution that the congress declares war?

Buts makes sense, even if they declare they have zero way or authority, by design, to wage or command forces.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:31 AM
And how do you suggest we implement a system like that?

Having an ideal is important not only as something to be implemented, but also as something that determines the direction we need to move in, and the baby steps that moving in that direction has to include.

We need to cut spending on everything, and cut all forms of federal revenue, and keep cutting them. We need to reduce and eliminate all federal regulations. And we need to oppose all new tax-funding of anything, including wars, and all new regulations.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:32 AM
Buts makes sense, even if they declare they have zero way or authority, by design, to wage or command forces.

Then what you're asking is for the president to go against the will of congress and the constitutional authority given to them to declare war. That sounds like an overreach of executive power.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:32 AM
Because it's in the Constitution that the congress declares war?

The Constitution only gives Congress the power to declare war in providing for the common defense. It doesn't authorize them to declare wars of aggression against other sovereign nations.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:34 AM
Having an ideal is important not only as something to be implemented, but also as something that determines the direction we need to move in, and the baby steps that moving in that direction has to include.

We need to cut spending on everything, and cut all forms of federal revenue, and keep cutting them. We need to reduce and eliminate all federal regulations. And we need to oppose all new tax-funding of anything, including wars, and all new regulations.

OK, that's great, but it's still just idealism. At some point you have to implement a system that works in the real world.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:36 AM
The Constitution only gives Congress the power to declare war in providing for the common defense. It doesn't authorize them to declare wars of aggression against other sovereign nations.

Define 'war of common defense' and define 'war of aggression'. How about this example? Say Country X invaded tomorrow and we fought them off our shores then continued to invade their territory and eliminate their government. Is that aggression?

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:37 AM
Then what you're asking is for the president to go against the will of congress and the constitutional authority given to them to declare war. That sounds like an overreach of executive power.

Not really, he could organize the forces in a defensive posture, say this is my strategy, and wait until his term is over and let the people decide if he is right or wrong. If congress could "force" him to engage then why even make him Commander in Chief, we could have skipped that and handed over the Military to the Generals immediately after the Declaration.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:38 AM
The Constitution only gives Congress the power to declare war in providing for the common defense. It doesn't authorize them to declare wars of aggression against other sovereign nations.

Are you using the Preamble as a basis for this? Because Article One, Section Eight, paragraph 11 contains no such restrictions.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:38 AM
OK, that's great, but it's still just idealism. At some point you have to implement a system that works in the real world.

No you don't.

No matter what the ideal is, you have to start wherever you are now. The role that ideal plays is in guiding the direction we move from that place.

If we accept as valid what the Declaration of Independence says, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, then it must be our aim to reduce every power the government now exercises that it derives from conquest over us, rather than our consent, and to oppose all increases in such powers.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:39 AM
Are you using the Preamble as a basis for this? Because Article One, Section Eight, paragraph 11 contains no such restrictions.

Yes it does.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:43 AM
Yes it does.

I think, personally, that what you highlighted is a little too vague for a President Ron Paul to stand on it rather than do Congress' bidding.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:43 AM
Define 'war of common defense' and define 'war of aggression'. How about this example? Say Country X invaded tomorrow and we fought them off our shores then continued to invade their territory and eliminate their government. Is that aggression?

No. That's defense.

Of course, it would still be unjust to pay for any of that with involuntary taxes, or to conscript people into the military, or to regulate the economy in such ways as to benefit the government's acquisition of materials for the war. And it would also be unjust to install a new state in the place of the one deposed if we were successful.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:46 AM
I personally think the subject is unlikely to come up. If Ron Paul had Teddy Roosevelt's 'bully pulpit', he could have, and would try to have, a significant effect on the Congressional debate.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:48 AM
I think, personally, that what you highlighted is a little too vague for a President Ron Paul to stand on it rather than do Congress' bidding.

So you really think that Congress has the right to declare any war the politicians want, for any reason, no matter how unjust, and for no other reason than that vote by those politicians, it becomes the obligation of the President to wage that war?

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. But even if your view were right, what gives the Constitution the right to grant that kind of power to Congress?

rnestam
03-23-2011, 11:50 AM
I personally think the subject is unlikely to come up. If Ron Paul had Teddy Roosevelt's 'bully pulpit', he could have, and would try to have, a significant effect on the Congressional debate.

Thinking about it more, I see it as very likely.

"President Ron Paul, Israel has just gone to war with all it's neighbors and the Congress is thinking of declaring war to help them..."

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 11:51 AM
So you really think that Congress has the right to declare any war the politicians want, for any reason, no matter how unjust, and for no other reason than that vote by those politicians, it becomes the obligation of the President to wage that war?

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. But even if your view were right, what gives the Constitution the right to grant that kind of power to Congress?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. The Constitution is a piece of paper that has writing on it. It sounds like you're putting your own views above written law.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:52 AM
But even if your view were right, what gives the Constitution the right to grant that kind of power to Congress?

The will of the (now dead) people who ratified it, ostensibly. But, in fact, the framers thought it was the people, not the Constitution, who invested in Congress their authority. And, in a perfect world, the people hold them to account when they abuse that power.

dannno
03-23-2011, 11:54 AM
I think in the hypothetical allegory you mention, Ron would get involved to save his friend's life.

Ya seriously, why the hell are we still arguing about this crap? If SW doesn't get it yet, then he's just trolling. I'm also pretty sure it's George4Title, not completely sure though.

acptulsa
03-23-2011, 11:58 AM
If SW doesn't get it yet, then he's just trolling.

Oh, he seems to get it. As much as there's anything confirmed to 'get', he gets it.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 11:58 AM
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. The Constitution is a piece of paper that has writing on it. It sounds like you're putting your own views above written law.

I'm not. It was a question.

Either it is true that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make it the president's positive duty to do something immoral or it is not.

If it is true, then my question stands, where does the Constitution get such a right.

If it is false, then the position that the president in such a situation would have an obligation to obey Congress over the moral law of the creator would be false, and then the constitutionality of it would be moot.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 12:00 PM
The will of the (now dead) people who ratified it, ostensibly. But, in fact, the framers thought it was the people, not the Constitution, who invested in Congress their authority. And, in a perfect world, the people hold them to account when they abuse that power.

Where did those now dead people get the right to give Congress that power?

Did those people have the right to wage unjust wars? If so, then what gave them that right? If not, then how could they delegate it to Congress via the Constitution or any other means?

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 12:01 PM
Ya seriously, why the hell are we still arguing about this crap? If SW doesn't get it yet, then he's just trolling. I'm also pretty sure it's George4Title, not completely sure though.

I don't know who G4T is, and I've been posting on this forum on and off for 3 years. And I'm not trolling. Also, I understand what you guys are saying, I just don't agree with it. Just because the majority of people here have an opinion doesn't mean I have to go along with it. In fact, wouldn't that be against the idea of libertarianism? The point is, as President of the United States, to go out and say that under NO circumstance would you help an ally, a rebel group, or any time of humanitarian cause with your military is very irresponsible. I hope RP goes back and changes his position because that's something I cannot agree with.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 12:04 PM
The point is, as President of the United States, to go out and say that under NO circumstance would you help an ally, a rebel group, or any time of humanitarian cause with your military is very irresponsible. I hope RP goes back and changes his position because that's something I cannot agree with.

So you support forcing taxpayers to fund those things against their will?

dannno
03-23-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't know who G4T is, and I've been posting on this forum on and off for 3 years. And I'm not trolling. Also, I understand what you guys are saying, I just don't agree with it. Just because the majority of people here have an opinion doesn't mean I have to go along with it. In fact, wouldn't that be against the idea of libertarianism? The point is, as President of the United States, to go out and say that under NO circumstance would you help an ally, a rebel group, or any time of humanitarian cause with your military is very irresponsible. I hope RP goes back and changes his position because that's something I cannot agree with.

No, what we're saying is that your analogy is wrong. It is wrong, PERIOD. If you disagree, then YOU are wrong, there is no debating, it's just a fact. It has nothing to do with libertarianism.

You don't seem to read or respond to any of my damn posts asking me about what gives you the right to steal from me to help YOUR friends, or you forcing your idea on me about who MY friends are.

Until you do that, I'm pissed off at you for being a damn troll.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 12:06 PM
I'm not. It was a question.

Either it is true that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make it the president's positive duty to do something immoral or it is not.

If it is true, then my question stands, where does the Constitution get such a right.

If it is false, then the position that the president in such a situation would have an obligation to obey Congress over the moral law of the creator would be false, and then the constitutionality of it would be moot.

Be careful about getting religion and government intermixed. Morality is another thing that cannot be defined. Different people have different ideas of what is moral.

SamuraisWisdom
03-23-2011, 12:10 PM
No, what we're saying is that your analogy is wrong. It is wrong, PERIOD. If you disagree, then YOU are wrong, there is no debating, it's just a fact. Your opinion is wrong, it has nothing to do with libertarianism.

You don't seem to read or respond to any of my damn posts asking me about what gives you the right to steal from me to help YOUR friends, or you forcing your idea on me about who MY friends are.

Until you do that, I'm pissed off at you for being a damn troll.

Careful about getting personal, and I'm not trolling. You don't like the fact that I'm criticizing RP, that's fine, but he's not perfect and neither are you or me. And by the way, you're telling me that my opinion on a hypothetical situation is wrong. That bold part of your quote sounds like something straight out of Stalin's mouth too. What good is a discussion if there is no debate? If everyone agreed on everything then we would live in a pretty good world, no?

erowe1
03-23-2011, 12:19 PM
Be careful about getting religion and government intermixed. Morality is another thing that cannot be defined. Different people have different ideas of what is moral.

How could a person's views on public policy ever be separated from their religion? And why would I ever want to be careful about that?

When different people have different ideas about morality, it's not because no absolute morality exists, it's because one or more of those people are wrong about it.

dannno
03-23-2011, 01:07 PM
Careful about getting personal, and I'm not trolling. You don't like the fact that I'm criticizing RP, that's fine, but he's not perfect and neither are you or me. And by the way, you're telling me that my opinion on a hypothetical situation is wrong. That bold part of your quote sounds like something straight out of Stalin's mouth too. What good is a discussion if there is no debate? If everyone agreed on everything then we would live in a pretty good world, no?

You are advocating stealing from me to protect your friends and I sound like Stalin? Look in a mirror.

I said your analogy is wrong. It is wrong, it's a BAD analogy, period. If you aren't willing to admit that your analogy is wrong, then you aren't being intellectually honest and this discussion is a waste of time.

I will go fight for MY friends, but you don't tell me who my friends are, and you don't make me fight for your friends. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand?

dannno
03-23-2011, 01:10 PM
When different people have different ideas about morality, it's not because no absolute morality exists, it's because one or more of those people are wrong about it.

I'm having an email debate on this topic as we speak... Do you (or anybody out there?) have any articles on morality that help show what you're saying?

Here's my last couple emails:


It's not about who wrote the definition of moral or who has good or bad brain synapses. If somebody who thinks slavery is moral tries to enslave me, and I use violence to resist, then my actions are moral and theirs aren't. It's not really up for debate.

If I'm starving and need food, if I ask somebody for food and they give it to me then both actions are moral. If I steal it from them then it isn't moral. Does that make the hungry person a bad person for stealing food? Not necessarily, that would be a judgment call, that is what is relative, not morality. A better argument might be does it matter if one is moral or immoral? I'll go along and say that killing animals for food is immoral. But does it matter? To most people, no, it doesn't, one reason is because animals aren't moral, they eat other animals, or they would be eaten by other animals if you weren't protecting them for so long.


The problem is that you are looking at "morals" as a set of different actions of guidelines that need to be categorized, and you think that since everybody will categorize these lists differently that morals must be subjective..

But really it all boils down to ONE principle, ONE guideline that can determine if an action is moral or immoral.. It's all about the non aggression principle. That one, single, solitary principle can determine if an action is moral or immoral, so then morality becomes completely objective.

dannno
03-23-2011, 01:37 PM
bump.. was hoping this thread wouldn't die JUST yet^..

pacelli
03-23-2011, 01:46 PM
Ya seriously, why the hell are we still arguing about this crap? If SW doesn't get it yet, then he's just trolling. I'm also pretty sure it's George4Title, not completely sure though.

yeah right??

georgiaboy
03-23-2011, 02:06 PM
The point is, as President of the United States, to go out and say that under NO circumstance would you help an ally, a rebel group, or any time of humanitarian cause with your military is very irresponsible. I hope RP goes back and changes his position because that's something I cannot agree with.

Why not? Use of the military under the constitution is very limited in scope to defending the nation.

All the other causes you describe should and can be handled by a free citizenry using their own time and treasure as their hearts lead them. You wanna support a rebel uprising? Go for it. There are already private organizations in the US today that provide humanitarian relief around the world. They mainly provide food & clothing & bibles, but hey, why not weapons & ammunition, too?

It is not the role of the federal government under our constitution to tax us all and use that money to go on militarily crusades of their choosing. President Ron Paul would be correct in not abusing his office by doing so.

BamaAla
03-23-2011, 02:10 PM
Because it's in the Constitution that the congress declares war?


Then what you're asking is for the president to go against the will of congress and the constitutional authority given to them to declare war. That sounds like an overreach of executive power.


The Constitution only gives Congress the power to declare war in providing for the common defense. It doesn't authorize them to declare wars of aggression against other sovereign nations.

That was an interesting argument.

Here's my take: President Doe would fully within his powers to deny going to war even if Congress declared it. I agree with erowe1, but not for the same reasons.

Congress is tasked with declaring war under the Constitution, but the President is the Commander in Chief under that same Constitution. Historically, though, the Congress has not taken any leadership role in these requests; rather, the President would ask Congress to declare war and then he would execute it.

If you like the idea of checks and balances, the Constitution really shines on this issue. The constitution really allows for two avenues to go to war or not go to war.
1. The President asks Congress to Declare war on country X. They can either vote to allow or disallow the war.
2. Less likely, but seemingly legal Congress could declare war and ask the President to execute it. The Commander in Chief could either do so or not do so.

erowe1
03-23-2011, 02:26 PM
I'm having an email debate on this topic as we speak... Do you (or anybody out there?) have any articles on morality that help show what you're saying?

Here's my last couple emails:

I should have a ready answer for that question, because there are definitely some great little pieces out there I've read, but I can't remember who said what where. One of the best, most easy-to-follow ways of arguing it that I've seen was from C.S. Lewis. I think it was in either Mere Christianity or Abolition of Man, but I forget which, and I might be conflating things I read elsewhere with what he wrote on it in my mind too. I'll see if I can find something worth recommending.

Edit: This looks like a pretty good source: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm