1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6383/the-original-american-foreign-policy/

The Original American Foreign Policy

March 15, 2007 by

From Ron Paul’s historic new book: Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” FULL ARTICLE

{ 10 comments }

Gamito March 15, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

This is the most important message to be conveyed. Many demagogues confuse the terms “noninterventionism” with “isolationism” in order to obfuscate the main premise of non interventionist ethics – that people should not initiate violence. Open trade, open borders… these are NOT isolationist practices, and yet the empire-builders would want to think it is.

We see then the contradiction in empire-loving politics: The interventionists want a strong foreing policy saying that not doing so, is isolationist; but at the same time seek ISOLATIONIST policies domestically, by proposing: Mercantilism, Protectionism, anti-immigration policies, you name it (!)

Sag March 15, 2007 at 12:19 pm

This is really great stuff:

“Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?”

I’m glad he’s running. Hopefully, the other republican candidates will be ignorant enough to include him in the debates. Judging by how effective he was on C-Span, he would slaughter them even with a nominally interventionist audience.

josh m March 15, 2007 at 1:20 pm

“Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?”

Careful. As Thomas Woods has noted, the reductio ad absurdum argument can be a dangerous one given the absurd thinking so prevalent of our time.
:)

Marc Holt March 16, 2007 at 5:42 am

Ever since I read about Dr. Paul and his straight, consistent voting for the Constitution and all it stands for I have followed his work. Here is a man who could lead America to greatness. Not just equal to the past, but to true greatness. A kind, compassionate, fair, America that applies the rule of law without fear. If the US is to regain its place in the world, please, please vote for Dr. Paul. Make sure all your friends, family, and associates all learn about this great man. He deserves our support. And the world needs him.

Gene M March 16, 2007 at 6:04 am

I should like to reinforce and extend the comments by Ron Paul to remind us all of some particularly relevant cautions expressed at the time of the founding of America.

To sustain his claim of full and unrestricted sovereignty over the colonies, George III had sent large standing armies to intimidate and police them. The American colonists were outraged. They had learned from history that standing armies in time of peace were tools of oppression and that the security of a free people was best preserved by a militia of the people, and NOT by a standing army representing the government.

Article I, Section 8 of the proposed constitution provides the following authority:

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;

Clearly, the suppression of Insurrections CANNOT be taken to refer to suppression of Insurrections in OTHER countries. Further, repelling Invasions CANNOT be taken to refer to any authorization of Invasions of other countries by an American Army and Navy.

The spirited debate over these provisions in the Federal Convention reflects the purposes and fears of the framers of the Constitution. In June of 1787, James Madison stated:
… A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Patrick Henry asked; “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished?”

The founding fathers would be horrified by the idea that an American standing army would have hundreds of permanent military bases in over 100 countries of the world and that the standing army’s budget would be so large as to bankrupt America.

It isn’t only that we should heed Washington’s warning about steering clear of alliances. We should also heed the warnings of many of our founding fathers offered about the abuses of a standing army that represents the government, in contrast to the state militias that represent the people.

josh m March 16, 2007 at 6:46 am

Gene,

But don’t you know that ‘times have changed?’ After all, we’re in ‘modern times’ for cryin’ out loud– and you expect us to follow quaint admonitions from the 1700′s??

(Seriously, that was an outstanding post).

pete March 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

Here‘s a great clip I found that aired in 1987. Shows nicely what does it mean when goverments get involved to foreign matters.

Stephen G. Dees Sr. May 2, 2007 at 12:45 pm

When it comes to the perspective of the self-centered internationalist I just love both the clarity and completeness of their thinking.

New, proven as false, but touted anyway, theories of Supply and Demand, unfortunately all false, and also, unfortunately, demonstrably so. For over 35 years these “theories” continue to be spouted by high level “gubbamint” types all the time.

The beautiful part of it is that, whether they are appointed by democrats or republicans, they always say the same thing.

Let me help them. Yes, by allowing foreigners to participate in the American market place the domestically located seller (of real estate) experiences an increased demand and higher potential price of sale than, in say, Communist slave labor using China.

Yes, the American International Trade Importers do obtain many consumer products at dirt cheap rates and continue to low ball and destroy domestic competition which uses American labor.

This MBA standard overhead cost reduction and maximization of profit approach, does yield significant cash flow incentives for such importers. As we know the MBA holding portion of the population is now approaching about 100,000.

As the rest of us number 300 million, it is obvious that the direction of economic policy has been decided upon by democratic means.

Back to the chase, this leads to further pressure upon domestic parties to attempt to compete against Chinese, Malaysian, Vietnamese, and to a slightly lesser extent Latin American labor markets.

The only problem is Americans live neither in thatched huts, bohias, nor trees as the competing work force does,….yet. Their cost levels are too high, they dress in store bought clothes, live in houses, own cars, don’t subsist on bananas grown in the back yard and only eat rice about twice a month.

All this must immediately change; the fellatio rendering banking bozo backed by bush has spoken!

Hence the wonderful illegal alien problem, which so neatly reduces the domestic manufacturer’s cost structure, while simultaneously putting the double screw on the tax payer, for all the governmental program burden, which instantly is impressed upon the lower and middle class.

Love that cost shifting strategy! And look at that wage! A whole 5 friggin bucks and change, in a society where it costs close to 16/ hour to stay ahead of the rent, car, food and doctor bills.

But those wealthy, we make better than 90K a year house representatives, will never pass a live-able wage. They want to hold out the path to socialism as their solution.

They “struggle” with the idea of moving that cruddy wage to 7.50 when they know it won’t do a damn thing for anyone, but generate photo opps.

Such wonderful social programs, as State Health Care plans, ESL programs, new construction for schools to cover stresses placed by illegal immigration, new hospitals needed because of the same, job training, new EEO override quotas which screw indigenous peoples out of their access to higher education because of “BAKKE Syndrome”.

Dammit can’t you see the benefit in all this? What is the matter with you, aren’t you patriotic?

Just looking at the Health Care Issue, if the average person cannot afford the doctor, how in the hell are all of us going to pay for all the bills of everybody AND the huge governmental bureaucracy which will be used to “administer” it.

Take a look at Medicare and Medicaid, as screwed up as that is, “Health Care for jeman” will be worse.

The same wizards, like Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr. all like to tout a global economy approach, but only as it operates domestically.

Try going to Mexico, England, Germany, Brazil, or just about anywhere, and buy a house as a private citizen. Guess what that is not allowed. Hence for U.S. citizens, who have drunk from the diversity cup until sick of the crap cannot flee, and most importantly cannot lower their cost levels as far as housing is concerned. Even at retirement age, when it might be possible to “slip away”.

A little lop-sided? Not at all, just ask the gubbamint yoyo he will tell you how it is better for you to be limited in your options because then his are expanded.

OK let’s look at trade again. We will make a game of it! What is the only industrialized nation on the planet without domestic content manufacturing laws?

Which country routinely allows, despite having the largest and best armed forces on the planet other countries to rip off it’s inhabitants intellectual property?

Right again, the good ole U.S.A.. Can you now see a bought and paid for government?
Can you now see who is exerting the influence?

You guessed it, you are truly “in it”. What does that mean? Anywhere else on the monopoly board, the access is either arranged, by virtue of political dealing (meaning huge political contribution and therefore access) or, (for the rest of us) if you want to sell it there you must make it there.

Ever wonder why Ford had to put it’s automobile factory in Germany, and Volkswagen still sends finished imports over here?

And who can blame them, with the EEO laws, you can predict what would happen to their product quality by the time a diversity wand was waved over their new factory. They had one here about 20 years ago, closed up, went back to Germany and immediately their financial problems disappeared.

How’s that for food for thought? If you have to use the EEO process you better get a protected market is one interpretation.

Yep, it sure is not only better, it is fairer here in the U.S.A., which is why there were riots in Seattle the first time and the second time there was enough security in plain view that if you broke wind in the crowd you were going to jail. How is that for for a fair trade talks atmosphere and citizen participation in government?

Smell that FREEDOM!

OK, OK lets look at capital formation and its availability in association with fostering that “good ole American” ingenuity. Ask any business owner of a non-minority business about getting growth financing.

Hell, see if they can even get accounts receivable financing. The choke hold is really in the best interest of you fellow Americans, the more you struggle against it the more your wind pipe gets crushed. So, please, for your own good, just listen to George’s, Bill’s and Hillary’s line of crap.

Now, lets look at export financing, you know, the guy at the other end of the road, despite all the hamstringing by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the foreign government, decides he wants to actually buy something American. In association with that purchase, he wants financing. Well he is not gonna get it here from an American Bank.

Contrast that to the same situation involving a German National. The German Banking system is set up for EXPORT financing. The result is greater wealth for German business, bigger business opportunities and more national prosperity.

The people who are clamoring for isolationist policy enactment are aware of the totally screwed nature of the playing field.

They are pursuing a single card solution because it would take so damn many corrections to the farce of policy and position, which will never occur, that they say screw it. Obviously they are wrong, wrong, wrong, because George’s and others’ puppets say so.

The balance of trade is indeed the major contributor in the matter. Why? The money is leaving the country. The wealth is leaving the country. The incomes of the major taxpayer body is getting slashed.

Simultaneously, because of diminishing tax burdens on the wealthy, lack of taxable manufacturing base remaining, the working stiffs get a more disproportionate load.

Finally, in a more opulent manufacturing-rich society there is a larger Gross National Product, higher paying jobs, more tax base and therefore the ability to pay off that damn intergalactic sized national debt.

That debt financing need causes the government to give the international lenders all the “sweeteners” they demand in terms of trade concessions. It is a never ending cycle of bad fiscal policy which subsequently causes bad political and trade policy which then leads to more bad fiscal policy.

And that is reality as I see it? How about you?

By the way, the previous blog entry was not government financed or influenced in any way so it bears a passable resemblence to truth.

Stephen G. Dees Sr.

Bruce Perrine December 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Excellent article, it’s real awesome. Thank’s. I create some tips about seo outsource.It is exciting what you be able to reply about my seo investigate. WBR.

Mellie Portlock April 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm

I as well as my friends appeared to be analyzing the great helpful tips located on the blog and then unexpectedly got a terrible suspicion I had not expressed respect to the web site owner for those secrets

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: