OnlyAmbrose wrote:Neutrino wrote:Oh, and for a Ron Paul supporter who isn't Xtra: I don't know much about Ron Paul (or US politics in general), but is what Xtra says about Ron Paul advocating an isolationist state true? If so, why do you consider this to be a good idea?

Isolationist might not be the best term to use in this case.
Non-interventionist is more like it. Dr. Paul is a fan of the "Commerce with all nations, alliances with none" quote from Thomas Jefferson.
He has said that the only isolationist nations are those who impose embargoes and sanctions. That would be us right now.
While I don't think the "no alliances" part of non-intervention is too bad, I don't support the implied "we don't give a crap about the rest of the world" feel to non-intervention.
As long as the trade with important partners continues smoothly, you won't care what happens to everyone else...
Also, I don't see how imposing embargoes is an isolationist activity.
Sure, you're limiting trade with a single or group of countries, but presumably they did something worthy of embargo-ation: you'd maintain full trade with everyone else.
In fact, it is the exact opposite of isolationist, because you are taking an interest in the world around you.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
The Rogue State!