Not sure trading with North Korea is such a hot idea — heck, I’m not even sure North Korea wants our trade — but it’s always refreshing to hear calm, reasoned discourse.
(HT to reader)
Ron Paul on North Korea
Previous post: Not Pulling Strings, Per Se
Next post: Another Email Highlight
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I often tend to agree with libertarians in their perception of the world, but disagree with them on many of their solutions.
They say many things that at first glance sound just great, but once given thought lead me say “No, I actually don’t think that would work, and even if it did, wouldn’t be all that desirable.”
Part. Where is that part of the world? Where does it begin and end? It’s not “the business” of Russia, too? Part of the world? All the way over there, where da China man live? How far is Korea from California and Alaska?
Shut the fuck up, Ron. Go stick your head in the sand.
Here! Here! Well spoken, Ron!
I agree that we could continue sanctions and starve NK out, like we do with Cuba. It costs us nothing. However, it gives their respective leaders/dictators/tyrants an external enemy to unite their people against us.
“See! It’s America’s fault that you can’t eat or feed your baby.”
But examining alternatives, that don’t involve subsidizing bad behavior, such as trade, should be considered. You know the old — if this doesn’t work, how about this — kind of methods. I’m not saying that we should have a sunshine policy of giveaways, but perhaps trade where there is a semblance of reciprocity. Trade could take away the external enemy and increase capitalism, just like China. Yes they haven’t become a democracy, but it looks like they’re closer than they were 25 years ago. Trade has shown more positive results than sanctions. Just something to consider.
Thanks for the reminder that, why sympathetic in many ways and in concurrence on domestic issues, I can never support libertarians. Turing your back on the world because you have your own good thing going does not make you noble, it makes you an asshole.
*sigh*
I guess I’ll have to defend libertarianism — not to be confused with liberalism (see Hilary and Obama).
Libertarians do not turn their back on the world. We want peaceful interactions, especially trade. It is often too easy, as with Dram, to confuse isolationism — withdrawal from the world and only being concerned with domestic affairs — with non-interventionism. For example, the war between Egypt and Israel is a classic case of interventionism. Why did we intervene? What business was it of ours? Eventually, we ended up brokering peace that WE, Americans, pay for with payouts to both parties to this day?!!
Libertarians don’t want the government to make these half-assed deals with our taxes. Look to the Constitution, something that hasn’t been done for a while. Bailouts? Not a job for the government. I’m sure Dram and few of you out there enjoy paying for someone else’s mistakes. To my hard-working ass, THAT’s being an asshole. I’d rather NGO’s such as *gasp* the Red Cross take care of helping those that are in need. They’re certainly set up for that kind of work and are more efficient in it. They draw their money from voluntary donations (choice), vs FEMA and taxes (forced). I think that voluntary contributions of YOUR choice to help people in the Sudan is quite noble, but since I’m forced to pay for Bear-Stearns and GM, I have nothing left for the Red Cross.
The recent group of neo-cons/republicans want to intervene and force democracy on others — but they’re not assholes — they’re noble.
The recent group of liberals/democrats KNOW what’s good for you and will force taxes on you to pay for someone else’s health care — but they’re not assholes — they’re noble.
Do me a favor, and please, please, leave my ignoble ass alone. I have my own family to feed and I don’t need my work garnished for those that didn’t earn it nor spent frivolously on wars that were never declared. I guess that makes me an asshole.
Sesame> As I mentioned I am sympathetic, if not in agreement, on many Libertarian issues. However, I really wonder how realistic the policy is.
You point out Camp David as an example. However, part of that was not done in a vacuum. I wonder if we would have ever gained the credibility as a peace-broker in that case if it was not for our aggressive, relative to libertarian, foreign policy in the cold war.
I readily agree that foreign aid needs to be reformed, if not eliminated. However that is only part of the problem. Ron Paul in this video, for example, preaches against generational alliances, which not only includes Korea, but NATO, ANZUS… Given the stability such agreements have given all parties, including the US, I am hesitant to say they do not work.
It is perhaps ironic that we are talking about South Korea, since the country can be very good argument against Libertarian foreign policy. Would the country even exist in the wake of the North’s invasion in 1951? Could South Korea develop into a prosperous modern country with out the judicious application of US Aid (judicious on the Korean side admittedly)? Could all of that resulted in a model for other countries, particularly China, to give a better life to their citizens without all the US help? I fear if Libertarian foreign policy would have held the day in 1951, the South would simply be an extension of the North’s Juche gulag. Such theoretical inaction, would have deprived many with a better life, if not killed them as in the North.
As far as the “asshole” comment, I agree it is harsh, and perhaps crosses the line in a debate. However I was unaware such was to be had here.
America didn’t starve Cuba, Cuba did. Sure, they couldn’t trade with the US, but they could trade with almost anyone else. The trouble is, they ran their own economy into the toilet and ended up with nothing to trade.
You can’t assume that other people share the Western idea that the most important thing is to make more money. It isn’t. The most important thing is to hold onto power. The US can use an economic lever only on countries that have external economic ties. Lose those ties, the US loses the lever. NK is poor, but that makes its leadership “free”, in a sense.
You’ll never get reciprocity. The Norks are just plain better at this than we are, they’ve proven it for years. What they do is every now and then they LET you give them aid, after allowing you to spend months or years begging them for the privelege of helping them. They know that they’re actually DOING YOU A FAVOR. Then, when they stop accepting your aid, it actually hurts you more than them, because it’s up to you once more to cajole and bribe them into taking your aid once more.
As for China, the shift to capitalism was internal. Some in the West might think that we somehow introduced or imposed capitalism on them, and they’re wrong. The Chinese authorities adopted capitalist-like changes on their own terms according to their own schedule. Our companies were literally begging to get in the door when these changes got started, and the Chinese largely kept us out. They’re doing it their way. The Norks have no such plans as far as I can tell.
Too true, too true. The whole world wonders at the US’s devotion to Israel. It has gone to an extreme that is beyond comprehension.
Conservoliberfreaks make me want to kill when they try to shove their oh so educated bullshit down my throat. If you don’t believe in staying out of my business, even if I’m not harming you, you need to die.
Drop the “,even”.
I guess I’m a libertarian too because I believe in a perfect Disneylike world in which animals do not prey on one another and people can be relied on to act in their own self interests without screwing anybody else.
Why be a realist when you have a small following of Sancho Panzas willing to support your eccentric views?
You must log in to post a comment.