Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
The talk of sanctions is a dishonest attempt to distract from the obvious failures of socialism.
Every socialist regime in history has always blamed its failures on "imperialist saboteurs" hiding in the broom closet.
That's questionable, since it's not clear that he would be significantly (or at all) better than Maduropraises Juan Guaidó
If they could manage a Pinochet redux, that would be super, but I don't think Guaido is a Pinochet.As if to make the support for a US government-orchestrated regime change operation in Venezuela yet more clear, Varner in the video even promotes that the “Chicago Boys” can improve things in Venezuela after the country’s current government is replaced. “Chicago Boys” is a reference to University of Chicago-connected individuals that played a prominent role in the Chile government after a successful US-supported regime change in that country in 1973.
Libertarians should positively support foreign intervention in Venezuela (by the US or another state) if:
(a) Maduro's replacement would be an improvement,
and (b) this could be accomplished at a low enough cost (in terms of money spent, [innocent] lives lost, property destroyed).
Take it to its logical extreme: 1 US soldiers walks into the Presidential Palace, brains Maduro with a bat, and installs Ron Paul.
Who on Earth could object to this...?
Of course, no real regime change is that easy, which is why you have very carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits.
*IF* that cost benefit analysis comes out positive, there's no reason to oppose the intervention.
Note that I'm actually advocating for any particular intervention at the moment; I'm speaking of the underlying principles.
Well said
EDIT:
I missed that.
Maybe he would be a significant improvement after all.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-11-2019 at 09:23 PM.
To be fair, I think the "free" helicopter rides had a lot to do with this condition. The people who opposed the govt were thoroughly dealt with that the rest just shut their mouths. The Haddi govt in Yemen did the same thing too, 99.9% of the presidential vote was for Haddi, not one living soul had anything negative to say about him. Paradise I tell you
I think the US and the west in general should just take over and run the govts of any country they deem to be socialist. Why even pretend to respect their sovereignty? go in, kill the elected leader and give free helicopter rides to anyone who opposes your rule. Who said freedom wasn't free?
Yea, every socialist country that has failed because of US interference blamed US for it because US cannot stop interfering, imagine the guts on these people to blame the US for sabotaging their govts? Ever wonder about the socialist countries that have succeeded when the US didn't interfere?
Guaido has said that he would open up the Venezuelan govt to foreign investment (i.e. no bid contracts to US and NATO oil companies) the same way the rebel leader in Libya did in the country. A country without IMF loans now have them and paying good interests and the US and french companies were able to get exclusive rights to bid for oil contracts. Free market indeed
And I think any state should regime-change any other state which is socialist, supposing they can do it well.
...and not just socialist: anything which is worse than what it could be made to be.
I've never pretended to respect national sovereignty.Why even pretend to respect their sovereignty?
I have no respect for it whatsoever.
All of my respect is reserved for individual rights.
Are you saying that socialism is preferable to the market economy...?Yea, every socialist country that has failed because of US interference blamed US for it because US cannot stop interfering, imagine the guts on these people to blame the US for sabotaging their govts? Ever wonder about the socialist countries that have succeeded when the US didn't interfere?
I knew you were sympathetic to the "anti-imperialists," but I thought that was limited to geopolitics.
That would fall under the "carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits" portion of my position.Guaido has said that he would open up the Venezuelan govt to foreign investment (i.e. no bid contracts to US and NATO oil companies) the same way the rebel leader in Libya did in the country. A country without IMF loans now have them and paying good interests and the US and french companies were able to get exclusive rights to bid for oil contracts. Free market indeed
If there are no benefits (because the would-be replacement is as bad/worse), then obviously there's no reason to intervene.
I myself don't know enough about Guaido to say; I'd been assuming he'd be more or less the same.
You're the one who mentioned some pro-market comments he made.
As if the CIA would ever install a "Ron Paul" in any regime change operation. Never mind that Ron Paul wouldn't accept the position any way, seeing how it came about.
Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.Of course, no real regime change is that easy, which is why you have very carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits.
*IF* that cost benefit analysis comes out positive, there's no reason to oppose the intervention.
Turning their oil over to BP for control by the banking cabal is never an improvement, no matter where it occurs.I missed that.
Maybe he would be a significant improvement after all.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
You are probably correct, as I detailed to you in other VZ threads previously. There's no real separation between the "western" bankers and the "eastern" bankers. Glad you picked up what I was putting down in that other thread. Intervention these days is on behalf of a global effort, not a national one.
Hey hey now even some of us sociopaths object. Sociopaths at least have the ability to have empathy for the plight of others. Psychopaths...not so much.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Maduro is a criminal who deserves punishment and ought to be prevented from committed further crimes.
If you're opposed to the use of violence to punish/stifle criminals, what would you propose as an alternative: giving them a stern lecture?
Obviously, it was a hypothetical designed to illustrate the underlying principle.
I'd ask you to consider that hypothetical and answer the question.
*IF* the Ron Paul scenario were possible, would you oppose it?
How should the state determine how much to spend on any of its legitimate functions (e.g. policing)?Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.
Each unit of spending has costs (taxes) and potential benefits (e.g. reduced crime).
...mightn't the sensible method be to weigh those costs against those benefits?
If not by that method, how should the decision be made?
Random number generator?
I certainly didn't say otherwise.Turning their oil over to BP for control by the banking cabal is never an improvement, no matter where it occurs.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-12-2019 at 12:13 PM.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
He's objected to intervention without a vote in Congress, but I don't know what he thinks about the underlying policy.
I'd assume he's opposed.
And then for some comedic relief:“The president doesn’t have the authority to do it without our permission,” said libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a frequent golf partner of the president, when asked about a possible military intervention in Venezuela. “There has to be a vote in Congress or it will be illegal and unconstitutional.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...te-gop-1307384Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is also close to Trump and is the polar opposite of Paul on foreign policy said, “I don’t care about voting on the use of force.”
That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Seeing as every patient is different and one cannot predict how the patient would react to the treatment, how do you know which regime change can be executed "well"? I understand always trying to improve ones self but trying to fix every govt to its best potential would lead to perpetual wars and conflict. I dunno about you, but I would not like that.
I was talking about the people who push these wars. They claims they are trying to restore the true leader of the Venezuelan people. They claim to believe in democracy, sovereignty, rule of law and that is supposedly what they are fighting to restore. I know you have been very open about wanting to dominate and rule over people who use the wrong economic system.
Even when the vast majority of the individuals reject your treatment?
We can agree on one thing and that is the fact that capitalism is objectively the better way to run your society, so its not a matter of my preference. Society doesn't always pic whats best for them, they choose Romney and McCain over Paul and that is OK. The question I have for u is this, what if after explaining to the people of Venezuela the very clear and verified pros of capitalism and exposed to them the crimes of Maduro, the majority still chose a socialist type economy and Maduro as their leader after a fair election, would you still support regime change in the country? stated differently, is there anyway you would allow them to run a socialist type economic system without it leading to regime change?
I am anti interventionist with very few exceptions
How does anyone know anything or make any decision?
This all falls under the cost benefit analysis.
If you were looking at a particular, proposed intervention, you'd gather all the available information and see if you can reach a clear conclusion.
Sometimes, if not often, it may well be that your conclusion is "I'm not sure one way or another."
I'm certainly not claiming that such decisions are always easy or obvious.
I also loathe those people.I was talking about the people who push these wars. They claims they are trying to restore the true leader of the Venezuelan people. They claim to believe in democracy, sovereignty, rule of law and that is supposedly what they are fighting to restore.
Yes, I want to impose my views (i.e. libertarianism) on people by force.I know you have been very open about wanting to dominate and rule over people who use the wrong economic system.
...
Even when the vast majority of the individuals reject your treatment?
Now, think about what that actually means.
I want to force people to not murder and rob other people.
...considering that they have no right to do so (i.e. murder and rob), how am I violating their rights?
I see someone getting robbed on the street, and I intervene, using force to stop the robber, have I committed a crime?
No, it's not okay.We can agree on one thing and that is the fact that capitalism is objectively the better way to run your society, so its not a matter of my preference. Society doesn't always pic whats best for them, they choose Romney and McCain over Paul and that is OK.
Robbery doesn't cease to be robbery because 51% of the voters say so.
All day every dayThe question I have for u is this, what if after explaining to the people of Venezuela the very clear and verified pros of capitalism and exposed to them the crimes of Maduro, the majority still chose a socialist type economy and Maduro as their leader after a fair election, would you still support regime change in the country?
As a practical matter, there are many many cases in which I would not favor regime change (cost benefit analysis).stated differently, is there anyway you would allow them to run a socialist type economic system without it leading to regime change?
But, in principle, there is no situation in which socialism (i.e. organized robbery, murder, etc) is okay because the majority says it is.
I'm curious about those exceptions.I am anti interventionist with very few exceptions
I'm not so sure about that.
In any event, rather than speculating about Ron, let me rephrase the question:
Suppose *someone*, who once in power would govern as a 100% libertarian, could replace Maduro simply by braining Maduro.
Justified?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-13-2019 at 12:03 PM.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
And for all non-anarchist libertarians, such as yourself.
What do you think the argument "taxes are necessary to avoid the greater evil of anarchy" is, if not ends justifying means?
I'm consistently impressed with the determination of the "anti-globalists" to not see this obvious analogy.
I do understand cost benefit analysis. Say for example, I am trying to decide if I should physically hold down my neighbours wife and rape her. I think of the cost, the little chance that I would be a suspect, the possibility of her having a gun, me catching an STD while wearing a condom etc etc and the cost is on the low end and the benefits are enormous. She gets a good shagging for the first time in years which I know she will enjoy, I get the rush of being a complete savage and put a spark in the poor lady's marriage. A cost benefit analysis says I should definitely rape this lady in the middle of the night but because I respect my fellow human and the fact that I am not a scum bag, I ignore that analysis and not rape her. So essentially it depends on the decision being made. Not saying overthrowing a country for having the wrong economic system is the same thing but cost benefit analysis is not always employed when making a decision.
I also understand the issue here and the dilemma at hand. You want to stop a violent governing system and out of the possible ways to achieve this, you pick a violent one. You cannot try education, teaching by example, try ostracizing approach. You use see military violence that would result in more death, displacement and destruction as the way to go, btw said military u plan on using was built on a violent governing system.
Very true but what percentage after fully informing them of the benefits of libertarianism would convince you that a certain group of people do not want to live in a libertarian society for you to allow them to have a socialist system? would 90% do the trick? how about 99.99%? I am guessing the percentage factors somewhat into your cost benefit analysis
I do try to respect people's sovereignty, so its not my business if they wanna live in a socialist society and I think that is the difference between me and you. Your focus is on freeing the individual from chains of govt and my focus on minding my own business.
Alien invasion
If that libertarian cannot convince them to elect him then its not justified.
Here's another analogy:
You see 9 men raping 1 woman.
You say "gee, looks like they decided (perhaps after a fair vote) that rape is okay - best not interfere (maybe give 'em a brochure)."
I say, "gee, looks like a capital offense, they ought to be hanged."
It is, actually, though I wasn't claiming that it was, and whether it is or not isn't of any consequence to the issue at hand.but cost benefit analysis is not always employed when making a decision.
I'm in favor of military intervention if it is the best available option.I also understand the issue here and the dilemma at hand. You want to stop a violent governing system and out of the possible ways to achieve this, you pick a violent one. You cannot try education, teaching by example, try ostracizing approach. You use see military violence that would result in more death, displacement and destruction as the way to go, btw said military u plan on using was built on a violent governing system.
If there is a better available option, I would obviously favor that.
That said, color me skeptical about the potential of education et al.
P.S. I might add, you suggest a false moral equivalency here; violence to rob =/= violence to prevent robbing
Unless I missed the memo, libertarianism isn't pacifism; the problem isn't violence in itself, but unjustified violence (aggression).
The percentage of people who favor the aggression in question (i.e. which the intervention ins intended to end) does not factor in at all.Very true but what percentage after fully informing them of the benefits of libertarianism would convince you that a certain group of people do not want to live in a libertarian society for you to allow them to have a socialist system? would 90% do the trick? how about 99.99%? I am guessing the percentage factors somewhat into your cost benefit analysis
The scenario above doesn't become any more acceptable if it's 100, 1000, or 1M men who voted that rape is good.
The cost-benefit analysis I've been talking about isn't complicated:
1. Is there aggression occuring?
If yes, move to step 2.
2. Can it be prevented through actions which involve less than that same amount of aggression?
If yes, go ahead and take those actions, as the result is a net gain.
If you could be assured of not being personally bothered by the government, you wouldn't care what it was doing to other people?I do try to respect people's sovereignty, so its not my business if they wanna live in a socialist society and I think that is the difference between me and you. Your focus is on freeing the individual from chains of govt and my focus on minding my own business.
How's that?If that libertarian cannot convince them to elect him then its not justified.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-13-2019 at 03:19 PM.
In that scenario, I will check and see if the woman in question is actively asking for help and if she is not then I wouldn't do anything with that case. After that, I will send out a message to any woman in the population to leave the society and my guess is that I would consider intervention to remove those people from the society if the rapists block their escape routes. But that would be the extent of my intervention. Its not my duty to right the wrongs in the world, I will try but I will do so with the knowledge that I cannot stop all ills in the world.
Education hasn't even worked in this country so I expect it to be just as ineffective in Venezuela. One thing that even people like you do not understand is this. There are going to be people(many of them) who support libertarian ideology who would at the same time be opposed to war. Me for example, I am a liberty voter who opposes any and all military intervention in this country. The day you start dropping bombs on my house is the day I join the military with the goal of repelling the invasion and will make every effort that you and your children pay for your crimes. I want liberty and not war.
I think the percentage should matter because at a certain level you will end up destroying the whole country to save a small minority. At a certain point, its better to just ask for their release instead of an invasion
Aggression is too simple, how about checking if the victim wants or needs your help? I have seen situations where one couple is abusive to the other and yet they still want to be together. If they are not asking for your help then u are as much of an aggressor as the victim if you forcefully inject yourself in the situation.
I would care but care enough to start a war? maybe, maybe not
If the liberty guy cannot peacefully convince them to let him rule, then his rule cannot be justified. It's just that simple.
So, for example, if there were people in prison in Venezuela for the crime of charging "unfair prices," it would be appropriate to:
-first make sure that they don't want to be in prison (just in case they're raging masochists I suppose)
-then, if they in fact don't want to be in prison, demand that their captors release them
-and then, if they refuse, intervene to free them?
Now, suppose, you rescue the current prisoners, VZ puts another batch into prison.
Do we just repeat this exercise ad infinitum, or might it make sense at some point to just remove the imprisoners from power?
...rather than continually re-intervening to effectively do the same thing?
IndeedEducation hasn't even worked in this country so I expect it to be just as ineffective in Venezuela.
That would be something to take into account in deciding whether a particular intervention would work.One thing that even people like you do not understand is this. There are going to be people(many of them) who support libertarian ideology who would at the same time be opposed to war. Me for example, I am a liberty voter who opposes any and all military intervention in this country. The day you start dropping bombs on my house is the day I join the military with the goal of repelling the invasion and will make every effort that you and your children pay for your crimes. I want liberty and not war.
It's not a reason to reject all intervention in principle.
Again, that's going to depend on the situation, which is why you do a careful cost-benefit analysis.I think the percentage should matter because at a certain level you will end up destroying the whole country to save a small minority. At a certain point, its better to just ask for their release instead of an invasion
Progress!I would care but care enough to start a war? maybe, maybe not
Haven't you already agreed that popular =/= right?If the liberty guy cannot peacefully convince them to let him rule, then his rule cannot be justified. It's just that simple.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Connect With Us