I like Ron Paul's stance on non-intervention. I like Ron Paul a lot.
But what he is saying on Syria and the convoluted power system there is simply not true. There are Al Kaida fighters on the sides of the rebels. However, there are also Hezbollah fighters on the side of the Assad Regime.
If America's stance on what asserts a terrorist group and what not holds true interpolitically they, by their own theory can not stand by passively and watch. America HAS to do something- they allready "invested" too much into the region to now sit back and not act. WHAT exactly this intervention should look like is the question and you can see the current adminsitration suffer with a good answer to it.
Don't listen to the currently popular theme of "Gas-weapons are just another way to kill people". If you think the deployment of poison gas weapons into a urban warzone is the same as just "regular" bombardment you have to seriously go and read up on how gas-weapons behave in an urban environment especially WHEN combined with regular bombardment.
The use of this weaponry is an absolute show stopper, which makes it a lot more painful to realize that the USA itself is using enriched Uranium munitions and clusterbombs) - Nonetheless- the USA not acting now would be like saying: "You might not be as powerful and omnipotent as we are, but go ahead since we take this so seriously that we trivialize it to start our own wars".

Does it have to be military intervention? Hell, no.
Can it be expensive? Hell, yes.

The Use of UEAE-weapons (undiscriminatory extended area effect weaponry- i.e. stuff which even gets into protection shelters and doesnt worry which ones) is like lining up and shooting an entire part of a town by principle. Kinda like a poor man's nuke and even if it was a ruse by the rebels- this certainly warrants the current drama.
The USA invaded Iraq because they thought that Sadam Hussein had these weapons (fabricated charges or not, thats what they started the war on) so what exactly would be the consequences now if America sits back?
John Steward said on the daily show that this is like 7 year old bullies fighting on the playground. The irony is that he is frightingly right.
Again, I am against military intervention but this is some serious stuff.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

I vehemently oppose Ron Paul's "non-interventionist" foreign policy. If that's his stance, one of the first things he aught to on becoming president is revoking America's signature from the global convention against genocide since it clearly demands signatories maintain a policy of intervention when genocide occurs. Ron Paul opposes this and on those grounds I similarly oppose his viewpoint as unpalatable.

Your video, Ron Paul's CNN interview on U.S. Interventionism in Syria, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 25 Badge!

i like ron paul.
we dated for a bit because we had so much in common in regards to civil liberties and a non-intervention foreign policy.
i had to dump him due to his free-market corporation obsession.
it had just turned creepy...
he still calls on my birthday though,very sweet.

the american people are against any military action.up to 80% of the population kind of against,but what have we learned over the past 10 yrs?
the american government ignores the population and relies on bobbleheads like blitzer and this other cunt to promote the propaganda.

"so let me just say,that after being briefed the gas attacks took place"
ok..im listening,please continue.
"and that the assad administration is responsible"
the assad situation is responsible?
really? are you sure? because as far as i can tell there is not one shred of evidence.
well,thats not quite true.isreali intelligence says the assad regime is responsible.
and if the isreali intelligence says its assad then it MUST be true right? they wouldnt,,you know..lie.

whoa whoa whoa mr quigley.
am i correct in assuming that your entire argument is basically "trust us"?

you sir,are a whore who would sell his integrity to the highest bidder.you have lost any right to speak on this situation or for any of your constituents to show you any form of respect.
i revoke your right to participate in human affairs and i bid you good day.

i said good day!

and look at our little slut blitzer trying to snipe from the bleachers.
oh blitz...
you sold your soul a looong time ago.
nobody listens to you anymore.
they are just transfixed by the beard.

to imply that military force is a righteous and just course of action due to 100,000 people dying ignores the fact that america has used chemical weapons.

so when THEY use chemical weapons it is a crime against humanity but when WE use them it is justified?
nice logic captain propaganda.

and if we are to take your argument to have any validity.then i am forced to ask this question:
"if the united states has the right to invade another country for crimes against humanity.that the invasion is for humanitarian reasons (as if bombing and killing is humanitarian),then explain to me why so many countries were NEVER invaded by the united states,even when THEIR crimes against humanity were far more egregious?"
see:rwanda
see:east timor
the list is NOT short.

cant answer?
then i submit that your argument is no argument at all.
because if you were a true journalist you would have asked "where is the diplomatic solution?"
"why are we we going in to drop a limited sorte of bombs?"
"in what reality could that produce positive results for the region?"
"where is the international political pressure to bring these factions to the negotiation table?"
"where is the evidence that assad's regime is responsible?"
"why is the obama administration ignoring the military commanders advice of non-intervention?"

i could do this all day.

there is a bright spot in this otherwise dreary and dystopian picture.
the american people are not as politically gullible as they were 10 yrs ago.
we SEE whats going on.
the world SEES whats going on.

welcome citizen to the united states of empire.
please have a seat.
be quiet and obey.
your government is in control.

I do really like Ron Paul and agree with him on most things (there are some BIG caveats, but for the most part), but he could really use some work on staying on point, hitting his logical arguments ONCE, and then knowing when to stop talking. I agreed with Paul much more than the Democrat that was also being interviewed, but he managed to get his points across in a much more clear and concise way in spite of having a sentence count of like 3 vs Paul's 50 here.

Everyone should listen to Blankfist.

Because Ron Paul, who is to this day against the CRA, thinks that rewarding corporations as opposed to citizens, is the #1 Amercan-ist thing ever!!!

Blankfist = fucking failure.

*promote

Ron Paul is a true American.
Lets hope the apple does not fall from the tree with his son, Rand.

There is a large piece of my soul that's missing, and a chunk of my heart that will never heal, because as much as I disagreed with more than half of Ron Paul's domestic positions, I cannot help but hurt and regret the future we will never see because of his loss of political support and failure to win the presidency.

What if Rupert Murdoch sanctioned this?

Actually, fuck that. Here's a better question: what if Ron Paul actually was a credible alternative, instead of a racist, homophobic old whack job who doesn't accept evolution, climate change or a womans right to choose?

What if Ron Paul defunded all social welfare programs and cause thousands upon thousands of people to die from preventable diseases in his own country all in the name of liberty?

Wait, that'd only make him WORSE than every other president before him.

What in the Fuck is this a Ron Paul ad? Ron Paul is a nutcase, who will give more power to corporations who fuck us in the ass daily. Just because he's out of the mainstream of Politics today, doesn't mean he's a better choice.

The Republicans are basically an official arm of the rich, they cease to be an actual political party. Democrats are now what used to be called Republicans. We need to change our system, electing Ron Paul won't do that.

What if Ron Paul is just another politician?

My love affair with Libertarianism was crushed by reality. I was a big Libertarian, pushing for Ron Paul up until the actual election of 2008 (I pushed Paul through the primaries). Then the company I worked for at the time sent a memo saying that if Obama won, and put his tax plans in place, they would have to fire over 300 people. Then before Obama even was in office, the company fired 350+ people, and sent a memo to the rest of us that there would be no raises (nobody at that company but the executives have had raises since) as the company couldn't afford it, and claimed that the cost of living went down anyhow. The owner then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in a gated community where he already had the second largest mansion in it. I called BS on that, as did a few others. I then started looking at the rich and corporations as a whole and started doing some real studies, not just Libertarian propaganda, and realized that they wouldn't operate on the rational interests of society, but would gladly screw over anyone just to advance their own short term self interests. That owner who fired over 1000 people and kept everyone else under his employ at the same pay rates over 5 years wasn't an aberration, he was the norm, a very high percentage norm. Libertarians are under a delusion that corporations and the rich will act in the rational interests of society, but they could care less about anyone but themselves, and that isn't misusing the phrase "could care less" because less than 2-3% of them care about what would be best for society as a whole, and sure I'm pulling that figure out of my ass, but I'm sure I'm being generous with that guess).

It became clear that without minimum wages, companies like McDonalds and Walmart would gladly pay their workers $1 or $2 an hour. The Libertarian response that people just wouldn't work there then, is BS, because nobody really wants to work at those places for minimum like they do now. The workers would be stuck, just like they were in the days prior to labor unions and minimum wage laws. The 40 hour work week that we have the unions to thank for, would be gone, as companies paid less, people would be forced to work more, and with the Libertarian ideal of removing overtime laws and other pay laws, people would end up working 80 to 100 hour work weeks just to make what used to be minimum. I'm sure we would see child labor return too, as families would have no choice but to put their kids to work to help make ends meet.

It became clear that without government in the way they would gladly pollute and destroy the environment if it means better short term profits and if they don't have to worry about paying clean up costs later, and in a Libertrian world, they won't have to pay for the clean up costs later as nobody would force them to.

I still believe in individual freedom. I believe drug laws are an impairment to individual freedom, the right to do with your body as you will. I don't believe that a company has unlimited freedom, corporations are not people my friend. I believe in the social contract, that we have an obligation to help lift people up, and the only way to do that is via a government that is designed to help those that need it, and that taxes must be collected to achieve that. I believe that if we teach people that greed is bad, to work in the rational interests of all, then we could eventually get rid of government, but it is needed for now to overcome those that would abuse the people. Bring government back to the people and away from the corporations and rich.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Great post - good discussion.

Maybe they also hate us for our hypocrisy. Supporting autocratic leaders like Saddam and Mubarak with money and weapons - while spouting the virtues of democracy. That certainly bugs the shit out of me.

George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Ron Paul would like to see the US disentagle from foreign entanglements - close bases, pull back troops, stop military support.

At first, I say Yes! Then I think about it ... Nature abhors a vacuum. In a unipolar world, what happens when the pole removes itself from the game?