Reading the Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto is an important book. That’s not so much because of the ideas he presents, which are for the most part familiar fare, already addressed at greater length in recent popular treatments of libertarianism by Charles Murray, David Boaz, and James Bovard, among many others. It’s important because Ron Paul’s candidacy has interested a lot of people in libertarian ideas who probably haven’t read those other books, and because their exposure has come not in the context of academic dissatisfaction with the status quo, but in the context of political action. The book benefits from many of the Paul campaign’s virtues, in the form of accessibility, clarity, and straightforwardness. On the other hand, it also suffers from some of the Paul campaign’s vices, about which more later.
My biggest disagreement, and that of many libertarians with Paul, involves national security. Paul and I are both libertarians, but of different varieties. Paul is an old-fashioned Rothbardian. I’m more of a Heinleinian libertarian and we, like the Randian libertarians, tend to view national defense as more important than the Rothbardians do. Paul’s view, essentially, is that if we quit sending troops abroad, other people and countries would quit wanting to kill us. I’m not particularly persuaded by this. First, even during the minimal-government era of Thomas Jefferson we wound up at war with the Barbary Pirates (in many ways, the spiritual antecedents of today’s Islamic terrorists). And second, Paul is not an isolationist – he favors much more commercial and cultural engagement with foreign countries, something which, if experience is any guide, is as likely to anger Islamic fundamentalists and other varieties of terrorists and tyrants as is the establishment of foreign bases.
Beyond this disagreement – which is a major cleavage among libertarians generally – I find much to agree with. Paul is surely right that the federal government has expanded its powers far beyond anything the Framers contemplated, involving itself in things, like public education, that are best left to the states and to private entities. He is also right that the federal government’s massive expansion is both the cause and the symptom of government corruption, with politicians favoring big government as a source of additional patronage and graft, and with efforts by interest groups to pursue their agendas leading to the creation of new, self-perpetuating bureaucracies (like the Department of Education).
And that corruption is one reason why I disagree with Paul’s pooh-poohing of the Congressional earmarks issue, which he calls a distraction. He’s right, of course, that earmarks themselves account for only a small part of federal spending, with the lion’s share going to entitlements. But earmarks – as Paul, a member of Congress himself, surely knows – are the coin with which the Congressional leadership purchases votes for large spending bills that might otherwise be unlikely to pass. Earmarks also figure prominently in most cases of individual corruption on the part of members of Congess. Ending or controlling earmarks won’t stop wasteful spending, but it will make it easier to counter. Opposing earmarks is an incremental approach to reining in big government, but Paul seems to lack patience with incremental approaches.
Paul is, in my opinion, on-target in his criticisms of the Patriot Act (which I opposed) and in his opposition to some sort of government-provided National Health plan.
Those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans’ hospitals. There is your national health care. Those institutions are a national disgrace.l If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?
It may not actually be true, as Paul says, that “just about everyone is unhappy with the health care system we have now,” but it’s certainly true that it’s suboptimal. Free market systems are likely to deliver better care at lower cost than the current bizarre hybrid of employer-paid private insurance, government regulation, and user/payor separation.
I have a few other quibbles – Paul seems to take it for granted that libertarians should oppose abortion,when in fact that’s a highly contested issue among libertarians, and his enthusiasm for the gold standard and hatred of the Federal Reserve verge over toward crank territory – but ,fundamentally, I think it’s a terrific thing that large numbers of Americans are being exposed to these ideas. And, in fact, the areas of disagreement I’ve noted above are just that: disagreements, not fundamental flaws with his approach.
The main shortcoming in Paul’s book, as with his candidacy, is in the follow through, the transition from critique to action. Although he does include a chapter entitled “The Revolution,” about reducing the size of government, it’s a pretty skimpy plan. Were we to see a Ron Paul Administration, with a House and Senate made up of, well, Ron Pauls, it might have a chance of succeeding, though even so he’s a bit timid in places – proposing a freeze on the budgets of cabinet departments instead of their outright abolition, for example, despite noting that only State, Defense, and Justice have clear constitutional mandates. But given the unlikelihood of a Paul Administration, and the even greater unlikelihood of a Paul Congress, his policy prescriptions aren’t likely to bear fruit. But those who want to see liberty progress right here and right now will look in vain for suggestions on what they might do, right here and right now, to make progress.
Rome didn’t fall in a day, and today’s monster government didn’t spring up overnight. It was the result of incremental expansion. Given that we’re not likely to see an opportunity to downsize the federal government overnight, or even in a single Presidential term, those of libertarian inclinations might well look to incremental approaches to reining in Big Government. They will be well advised, however, to look elsewhere than Revolution: A Manifesto. Still, if Fabian Libertarianism is to have a future, it will owe much to the consciousness-raising of the Paul campaign. Socialist candidate Eugene Debs, after all, never got elected President either, but within a few decades much of his platform was adopted by the Democratic Party. May Paul enjoy similar influence on the future of national politics.
Glenn Reynolds is the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, and blogs at InstaPundit.com.
As a non-libertarian, I hope his ideas continue to be the province of the fringe libertarians.
After all, I like being able to buy a medicine and know that it does what it says on the bottle, buy a toy and know that it isn’t coated in toxic paint, buy a some food and know that it really is low fat, go to work and know that any chemicals I receive will be labeled such that we will know what to do in case of a spill, etc. All the result of evil regulation.
“My biggest disagreement, and that of many libertarians with Paul, involves national security.”
Me too. But his foreign policy is anti-american and anti-Israel. That’s too much to overcome. He’s more nutty than Obama there—by far. Bottom line: Paul is dangerous and needs to go away.
Thoughtful review! Nice to see libertarian ideas cover and nice to see them discussed by intelligent people, like Glen! Small typo in the above to be noted, “…his enthusiasm for the gold standard and hatred of the Federal Reserve verge over toward crank TERRIITORY,”
OmegaPaladin: Just about any libertarian, save the most extreme anarchist types, would say that fraud should still be illegal. Medicine that doesn’t do what it says would be fraud, as would food labeled low-fat that isn’t, toys labeled non-toxic that aren’t, etc.
I agree with AJ. If only Paul didn’t have such a history of bigotry and attracting bigots to his side, you could be more sympathetic to him. Your review is well written, but is too kind in a way to omit reference to that egregious newsletter. It’s like discussing Obama with no reference to Jeremiah Wright. Incomplete picture.
Paul’s foreign policy and national security positions are a shame, because he has some great domestic policies.
As for earmarks, he’s sponsored millions of dollars worth.
To echo KR’s comment. Buying and eating food that’s not bad for you, and toys that won’t hurt your kids seems like common-sense. Not selling toys that hurt kids is just morally right. I don’t see how we address immorality with regulation. All regulation seems to do is provide incentive to be more deceitful, more crafty and clever, and better and finding ways around the rules. Someone determined to sell toxic toys to kids is already being unethical; regulation just makes them sneakier.
Common-sense, transparency, and open markets seem to have a better track-record at addressing these things. I say “seem” because I don’t know the answer 100%, but neither do the proponents of regulation. I’m willing to draw conclusions based on evidence. Can they say the same?
Omega, I’m just curious. Where in the Constitution is there authority for a Food and Drug Administration or a Commerce Department or a Department of Agriculture. I believe those things you want are powers reserved to the states, but you wouldn’t care about preserving the rule of law as long as your pet programs continue to exist.
As a Heinlein libertarian (oh, those divisive divisions) I’m in the main agreeing with Glenn. A long time admirer of Dr. Paul, when he began to speak nonsense about Israel my eyebrows went up. When he began to speak disparagingly about the military and defense, I turned aside.
There needs to be a discussion by someone like Glen Reynolds or others, about the actual history and constitutional Law. Not Paul’s version. Also, a national discussion about true APPLIED Liberty and what it looks like. There are two forms that must balance out given real world realities. Individual Liberty of course(the only type paultards think exist) AND the collective liberty of the nation as a whole. You have a right to go out in public without fear of being blown up. National Security is a Civil Liberty. In many ways policies like the Patriot Act or Terrorist Survilleince(given real world realities) secure Liberty…out in the real world.
another point, Thomas Jefferson never got a “Declaration of War” to go to war with the Barbary Pirates. This is a little fact that they like to just brush under the bridge. The founders also passed early on the “ALien and Seditions Act” which is still on the books and makes the “patriot act” look like child’s play.
also, the rank Moral Relevatism of Paul’s should not be overlooked. Equated the US to China and asking us how we’d “FEEL” if China were building military bases here is moral relativism of the absolute worse kind.
Finding a Moral Equivalence between Israel and Hezzbollah is absolutely braindead stupid.
and like most moral relativist, there are a laundry list of area’s removed from Israel and anti-americanism where Paul contradicts himself and takes side. They had many of these votes posted about a month ago on hotair.
I, too, was initially disappointed in the lack of coverage of Paul’s shortcomings until I realized this was a review of the book and not Ron Paul’s life.
OmegaPaladin: “After all, I like being able to buy a medicine and know that it does what it says on the bottle, buy a toy and know that it isn’t coated in toxic paint, buy a some food and know that it really is low fat, go to work and know that any chemicals I receive will be labeled such that we will know what to do in case of a spill, etc. All the result of evil regulation.”
That’s so true. Because, obviously, there would be no strong market incentive for companies to put those things on their products anyway, right?
And it’s not like American adults should be able to choose whether they want to buy from a company that provides basic safety information versus one that doesn’t (which would likely go bankrupt anyway). Responsibility is so overrated.
I see the land of complicit prison guards ran right over to fill up the comments.
all spending is liberal. the pentagon = department of education = money to israel = money for bridges to nowhere.
all of these are thievery from the taxpayer to washington. people could support any of these of their own volition if they so desire. there are no laws against that.
I was disappointed also with the lack of coverage of “Newsletter-gate”-it seemed like it was the only coverage of the man for two weeks at two different times in his campaign.
The things he said about the military were disparaging, and as our soldiers have become accustomed to that abuse under the Bush administration, they sent him MORE money than any other Republican-he really has them fooled!!
I demand that the government protect me from my own purchases-yesterday I bought cookies with high fructose corn syrup, and since the expanse of that product usage, obesity has skyrocketed in this country, but these were “low fat cookies” so I ate the whole bag.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is SOOOO 20th century. To imply that Operation Ajax caused the cultural whiplash and hostage situation is a stretch, and the subsequent rehash of the Domino Theory application to the Middle East- not happening Dr Paul, everyone knows the Domino Theory didn’t work for the Communists, and our elected officials were not dumb enough to get drawn into another buildup against someone else’s enemy.
To suggest that our military is used as an expeditionary/imperialist force more often than a defense of our own borders-ridiculous. Anyone that a US presence is not always welcomed in the poor unfortunate, underdeveloped, resource rich, country is misguided. Our military spending is mostly corporate income taxes, and to believe that American companies are not always benevolent is paranoid. It sounds like that truther Naomi Klein and her “Shock Doctrine”.
I can’t believe I was seduced into Libertarianism by such reasoning.
I’m sorry, you can’t be a libertarian and also condone the U.S. building over 700 permanent bases in 90% of the world’s sovereign nations.
Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is the true libertarian foreign policy. Anything else is simply empire disguised as “libertarianism.” The claim that what we’re doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is “national defense” is a complete bastardization of the English language if not logic and common sense as well.
For over 10 years we illegally bombed Iraq (no fly zones were not sanctioned by the UN as so many like to suggest) and apparently expected that this would bring no justifiable retaliation.
It is absurd to think that the US System is dedicated to the principles of freedom any longer. One man cries out in the wilderness and people like Glenn Reynolds have the audacity to claim that he is promoting national destruction.
Libertarians who actually agree with US foreign policy are simply advocates of the “might makes right” doctrine which is anti-libertarian. They can call themselves libertarians all day long but they are still just authoritarians at heart.
What is worse than Paul being anti-Israel is that he is also anti-Arab, anti-German, anti-Japanese, anti-Korean, and all those other foriegn places he doesn’t want to give our devalued dollars to.
This anti-World nutjob only cares about solving America’s problems. What an ass.
Just think of how hated we would become if we gave the world the option of buying our products in exchange for their resources instead of just taking them militarily. It boggles the mind to think people belive such foolishness.
We absolutely need to do things in small increments, like the author suggests. We just had 16 years of flaming liberals in the Whitehouse, we need a John McCain who can reach accross the aisle to the Republican party.
Thanks for a great review!
My only confusion is this: You critique Paul as not being “incremental” enough, but then you criticize him for proposing budget freeze as a first step instead of outright departmental abolition. Isn’t that by definition an “incremental” approach?
I agree that Paul should not “poo-pooh” the earmarks issue, even if he is right that spending is happening before the earmark process ever begins.
But I think libertarians and all proponents of limited government should not “poo-pooh” Paul’s focus on fiat money as verging on “crank territory.” Congress would never get away with these massive levels of deficit spending if not for our monetary system. I believe libertarians need to think of the SPENDING as the real tax, and the Federal Reserve System facilitates defecit spending more than anything else.
We all agree nationalized health care (which is a very important industry) and nationalized education (which is a very important industry) are bad ideas. Why should we not apply the same standard to borrowing, lending, and the issuance of currency (which are very important industries).
Thanks again for a GREAT review!!
-Chad
I wonder of “Benson” would be kind enough to give us an example of “earmarks” Ron Paul has sponsored – so we can check.
TO: AJ
“…his foreign policy is anti-american and anti-Israel. That’s too much to overcome. He’s more nutty than Obama there—by far. Bottom line: Paul is dangerous and needs to go away…”
Pre-emptively invading countries is anti-American and way more nuttier than Paul or Obama (see Hitler). I love all these pro-war types who will never have to cash a check their mouths write. I agree with Dr. Paul let the Iraqis, Iranians, Israelis, Germans, Japanese, and the rest of the world defend themselves. We should only go to war when declared by congress, win it and then get out.
My personal view of Israel is, the zionist made their beds, they can lay in it. If you want to create a Jewish state where the majority of indigenous people are Arabs/Muslim, you can expect some “blowback”.
Also, you can be anti-zionist and not be anti-semetic. I see the zionist movement as being against property rights and the right of self-government. I also believe you should be allowed to worship as you wish.
It is unfortunate that many who agree with Paul on domestic matters are too entrenched in some mythical ideal of the US as world’s savior when it comes to international matters – especially with regard to having military bases in most countries in the world, invading countries that did not attack us (Iraq), sending Americans to die in other nation’s civil wars (Vietnam), etc. I think a good part of it is over-inflating the threat from the bugaboos of Republican Christianity – Communism and now radical Islam. Those who bought the bogus domino theory of Communism now buy the world caliphate. And in doing so they advocate incredible welfare plans for Israel, and using force to influence other countries – and then act astounded when someone points out that actions have consequences, and perhaps US foreign policy shoulders some blame.
But yet I can’t be too discouraged. At least the Instapundit crowd is being introduced to libertarianism, watered down as it is. They certainly wouldn’t get it from the mainstream media.
Ron’s book and candidacy is important for another reason: his supporters — many new to political action — are joining GOP clubs and RECs across the country in large numbers. This is certain to color the party and the new book gives the expanded libertarian faction of the GOP a shared program. Hence, it will be a very infuential book.
For those who react so negatively to Paul’s non-interventionist message, I would point out that Paul’s purity is unlikely to translate into policy, something that rarely if ever happens in politics. On the contrary, his purity inspires activists who — at best — can achieve partial victory. That is, the Paul brigades offer in reality not a principled non-interventionism, but a more restrained foreign policy — something that is appealing to a far wider group of people, maybe even most Republicans.
A GOP with a message of individual liberty, lower taxes, less government and a more restrained foreign policy is a winner. This watered down Paulism is sure to transform the party to some extent. Time will tell how much.
“… he favors much more commercial and cultural engagement with foreign countries, something which, if experience is any guide, is as likely to anger Islamic fundamentalists and other varieties of terrorists and tyrants as is the establishment of foreign bases.”
I really can’t agree that free trade and exporting of Americana (books, movies, etc.) to nations with Islamic fundamentalists is going to motivate radicals to suicide attacks as much as occupation of their holy lands.
You really think any country on this Earth would be emboldened to attack the USA if we didn’t have bases in foreign nations? I don’t see it.
Interesting that many of those that posted comments about Ron Paul’s book, praise him for less government on the domestic side, but fail to see the fact that government is the cause of our troubles with foreign policy as well. Prime example is Pakistan, which has plenty of Nukes and now will be controlled by Anti-American factions. Why? Because we proped up their government by sending billions of dollars to them and backing our puppet as their leader. Blowback anyone?
The problem with a good portion of the GOP is they blindly follow whatever talk radio throws at them.
Instead we have an idiot in McCain who voted for Al Gore in 2000, and we have racist Obama and his racist wife Michelle.
Lets hope for a brokered Republican Convention and Ron Paul comes out of it as the winner – See Abraham Lincoln. If not looks like Bob Barr has my vote.
Nice review. The only reservation I agree with is the one on abortion, and I’m glad Ron stresses that it isn’t a federal issue he would deal with as president.
Ron doesn’t “poo-pooh” earmarks. He poo-poohs the reformist credentials politicians try to buy as they decry the earmarks. If they were real reformers, they would work on the gushing arteries and obstructed airways in our system of government, our economy, our future, and our reputation in the world.
Remember, Jefferson used letters of marque and reprisal (rather than asking for a declaration of war against private individuals — so stupid an idea that it has never been considered until Bush bypassed it by getting unconstitutional “authority” to wage undeclared war on two nations), just as Ron Paul pointed out we should do with terrorists not proven to be working for any government. That’s Ron — always offering the constitutional course of action.
And, as has been mentioned already, it’s hardly “crank territory” to want a commodity-based monetary system (he’s not wedded to gold), that being the only kind immune to inflation and resistant to credit-fed economic bubbles and crashes.
Finally (cutting my reply short), bringing troops home from overseas not only removes them as a local (and often global) irritant, but saves bundles that would be much better spent domestically (or, better, retained by the taxpayers).
Could we have a list of those 700 permanent military bases overseas? My husband is military, and I don’t recall having 700 permanent installations to choose for his next assignment.
Nice review. Pity the author appears not to understand monetary policy and so feels the need to dismiss Paul’s views off-hand rather than admitting ignorance. His jumbling up of Paul’s foreign policy views is also weird; Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are exactly the same as the cato institute and the mises institute. Go read and learn.
“This anti-World nutjob only cares about solving America’s problems. What an ass.”
Actually, you’re the “ass”, for thinking politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to solve the world’s problems when they can’t even solve the one’s in America. Paul has served in the military so it’s quite amusing to hear you mouthing off from the comfort of your computer screen – why don’t you go volunteer in the military and then we can talk?
“As for earmarks, he’s sponsored millions of dollars worth.”
Then why do his constituents complain that they aren’t getting enough of the taxpayer funded loot because Paul keeps voting against earmarks? Why was this a major plank of his opponent’s platform in the recent Republican primary in Paul’s district?
JT Wrote:
“That’s so true. Because, obviously, there would be no strong market incentive for companies to put those things on their products anyway, right?
And it’s not like American adults should be able to choose whether they want to buy from a company that provides basic safety information versus one that doesn’t (which would likely go bankrupt anyway). Responsibility is so overrated.”
Yeah, because American meat and poultry companies were doing such a great job providing basic safety information before government regulation stepped in. So much more protien in that ground beef back when there was no standard pertaining to the number of human fingers per pound.
I don’t like big government either, but I have no illusions about the benevolence of human nature. If everyone could be trusted to do what’s right, we wouldn’t need government at all. But they can’t, so we do.
AJ, only one of the Sedition Acts is still ‘on the books’ , the ‘Alien Enemies Act’ or ‘An Act Respecting Alien Enemies’ which allows for the expulsion of aliens here from countries we are at war with.
Rick, as for how libertarian military bases in foreign lands are, nothing in libertarianism is a ‘suicide pact’ as the saying goes. We can have a defense. Where and how strong it is seems to be a foreign policy debate not a political one.
AJ, I’d also reference the ‘Sedition Act of 1918′ for a really egregious instance.
I read the book in 4 and a half hours. I highly recommend it to anyone here who is bagging on Dr. Paul to read it first. Many of you have deep misconceptions. It’s like you guys are reviewing the work based on cliffnotes or just this guys review.
I am appreciative of his review, however much I disagree w/ the incremental noncence. It is going to simply be a knockdown drag out war of ideas. Perhaps Dr. Paul should have written more on his plans to get all those “Ron Paul Clone” senators and congressman and reps throughout the country elected (which he IS doing)… The reason I think he left alot of that out is just to keep the book short enough to get people through it, and give them some idea of what went on and is going on. If it fires them up then they’ll start loking at options which he group will let them know what is happening… no reason to show all of your cards, right?
I mean the fact that 1 million people have voted for Paul shows that the “Revolution” is without a doubt, making inroads. If people are not so fearful of these ideas, and happen to run into a pleasant, educated & non-forceful “Paultard” vs. one of our problematic Alex Jones/KKK/Paranoid delusional quacks then we maight slowly get some more inroads to these ideas eventually trickling down to the last bit of the people enamored w/ Big Brother shows, US magazine and Brittney Spears.
One might read this Ron Paul book first as I feel it may explain the ideas of Libertarianism in a simpler way… before jumping right in to Dr. Paul’s new book…
Either way, please read a bit before just jumping on this reviewers bandwagon:
http://mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf
DSieve wrote: I really can’t agree that free trade and exporting of Americana (books, movies, etc.) to nations with Islamic fundamentalists is going to motivate radicals to suicide attacks as much as occupation of their holy lands.
When dealing with very different cultures, we err when we judge their actions by our values. Muslims take their religion seriously and are appalled by the culture we export. We in the West are People of the Book, People with Revealed Scripture in old and new Testament, but we don’t present ourselves as aspiring to live up to it. Rather, we profane it.
I lived in Afghanistan in the 1960s and do believe that our cultural export is a significant factor in the venomous anger of Islamists.
oops, I mean JP not AJ
One must really stretch to call Paul’s aggregate 8% support a “Revolution”…
He does really have the “smarter-than-everyone-else-in-the-room” pencil-necked-geek crowd, dopers, and racial supremacists in the bag, though! Good luck with that coalition!
Oh, and I forgot the “Hate America First” crowd of Truthers(part of the terminally institutionalized “educators” making America a “better” place to live for the next generation)…
Madison Paine Wrote, “Remember, Jefferson used letters of marque and reprisal (rather than asking for a declaration of war against private individuals — so stupid an idea that it has never been considered until Bush bypassed it by getting unconstitutional “authority” to wage undeclared war on two nations), just as Ron Paul pointed out we should do with terrorists not proven to be working for any government. That’s Ron — always offering the constitutional course of action.”
A course of action that was, for all intents and purposes, outlawed by the Treaty of Paris in 1856. If you are going to invoke history then be more intellectually honest. Letters of Marque and Reprisal is nothing more than advocating piracy and the use of mercenaries. And, you conveniently omit the use of US Marines and Navy by Jefferson against the Barbary pirates.
Pablo Escobar Wrote; “why don’t you go volunteer in the military and then we can talk?”
7 years USMC, what did you ever do besides ride the coattails of those who did?
Davey, Amazing that it does not take long for the ““smarter-than-everyone-else-in-the-room” pencil-necked-geek crowd, dopers, truthers and racial supremacists” to hijack a discussion and render it worthless. More telling is that they take everything from the mouth of the “saviour” as fact and gospel, never bothering to go beyond the “word of Paul”.
Rick Fisk wrote: “I’m sorry, you can’t be a libertarian and also condone the U.S. building over 700 permanent bases in 90% of the world’s sovereign nations.”
Says who?
There is little worse than someone claiming to know what the truth is. What next, dogma?
The libertarians I know desire a government that provides for national defense so that we the citizens can live our lives in freedom. So we have 700 forward bases throughout the world. Sounds like pretty good national defense to me.
The book is great! Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy is what is going to keep America safe. Peace and trade with other nations. Every candidate has a fringe element, so you can’t blame Paul for his. In the end, Paul was the only candidate (perhaps except Gravel and Dennis K) that had the courage to step up and tell the truth! The book is about limiting government and the Revolution is going to help with that!! Most people don’t understand the concept of liberty, I suggest they read up on it before they read Paul’s book!
“Free market systems are likely to deliver better care at lower cost than the current bizarre hybrid of employer-paid private insurance, government regulation, and user/payor separation.”
I love this little bit of magical thinking. A truly free-market isn’t free for very long. Power aggregates and suddenly there’s a greedy oligarchy requiring government intervention to prevent the worst abuses of environment and public welfare. It is simply human nature and something that “libertarians” seem intent on forgetting. A free-market requires non-partisan controls, but then it’s not really a free-market, is it?
@Alice Roddy: I’ve been to the middle east as well (Saudi Arabia and Qatar). I maintain that religious/cultural objections to American culture will not drive people to a jihadist ferver with suicide attacks.
On the abortion issue, Ron Paul has been very clear that it’s not a federal matter. He’d oppose abortion at the state and local level, but he’s not willing to use federal power to override the states on abortion, just as he’s not willing to use federal power to override the states on medical marijuana.
-jcr
“Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy is what is going to keep America safe.”
BULL! Not only is it a direct exercise in suicide for us but, it is also a crime of omission in ignoring the evil and the insane to commit genocide and slavery…wake up and smell what you’re shoveling.
If his foreign policy wasn’t stupid enough he thinks alcohol isn’t enough in that we should have all the addictive substances to lose whatever principles and values we have left.
Thanks but, NO THANKS!!
I remember seeing Paul on some talk show in which he ranted that the slavery would eventually wear itself out and thus the Civil War was unnecessary.
Of course, this follows the “blame Lincoln” meme of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. The fact of the matter is the pro-slavery contingent depended on expansion in order to survive. They favored the Mexican-American War and the purchase of Cuba in order to secure Senate seats. In fact, that was Lincoln’s intent. He wanted to halt the spread of slavery into the Territories and Northern States so that it would die out.
(There is a bit of cause-effect problem, though. Why did the South secede? Because Lincoln was elected President. Therefore, Lincoln “caused” the Civil War. It didn’t matter if he didn’t have the power to actually do anything.)
Note the devout anti-semitism spewing from the left wing Ron Paul types. And the “conservative’ Ron Paul types basically think Islamic Terrorism does not exist. Or they write like this guy:
“all spending is liberal. the pentagon = department of education = money to israel = money for bridges to nowhere.”
Yep, all relative. Giving $ to bad teachers is the same as supporting the only liberal democracy in the middle east.
Frankly, I would not be on the same stage as Ron Paul. I loathe Obama but Paul is worse. In fact, he is downright dangerous. But he and his loser followers lost, and lost badly, so why do we waste time on these anarchists?
Go to a college town to see all the Paul loons. They are mostly ignorant leftists with a few misguided liberatarians splattered in.
Gold standard fetishists are like communists. Wherever the gold standard has failed in the past (Britain 1920′s, Spain, etc.), they claim that truuuue gold standard hasn’t been practiced.
I’ve read the book and disagree completely with the Reynolds views on the foreign policy that Ron Paul supports. The proof is right in front of all of us. The intervtionism policy that has been in place for decades is not working. America is no longer trusted or respected by a majority of the world. I just don’t believe that what we have done makes the world or our country any safer.
Now, when anyone even suggests that we try something different, such as non-interventionism, you get called names and labeled in many derogatory ways. Time to stop being children and have an intelligent debate.
An important thing that Paul said during his campaign is that we need to think what we would do if a foreign country were to occupy our lands. We would be absolutely furious. That’s exactly why the argument for interventionism fails.
The reviewers opinion that Paul believes certain radical elements would leave us alone is a fabrication. Paul realizes that these people exist but that we should put their true numbers into perspective. What I believe Paul has focused on is the removal of a strong motivating factor (occupation) that increases hatred towards us rather than on a few ideological terrorists that are certifiably insane. What’s more important in the bigger picture, having a few people hate us, or entire countries hating us?
More to the point, how anyone expects to have anything like a significant cultural/trade exchange without a military presence to guard the trade routes is beyond me? Has Paul ever heard of the Pax Mongolica? He would have if he’d read a high school world history textbook published in the last ten years.
I’m sorry, you can’t be a libertarian and also condone the U.S. building over 700 permanent bases in 90% of the world’s sovereign nations.
Nonsense. I’m a libertarian and condone etc.
What you mean is “I don’t like that opinion and so want to make you stop calling yourself a libertarian.”
Being a Heinleinian, I respond: “That’s nice. I want a pony. And ice cream.”
OmegaPaladin: “After all, I like being able to buy a medicine and know that it does what it says on the bottle, buy a toy and know that it isn’t coated in toxic paint [...] All the result of evil regulation.”
Hey, OmegaPaladin, how’s those US FDA regulated heparin drugs working for you? There’s also plenty of other examples of bad drugs let into the market (and good drugs kept out) by the fabulous, almighty US Government you worship.
And perhaps, OmegaPaladin, you’ve forgotten that toys “coated in toxic paint” were widely sold in the USA despite the US wonder-government, its volumes of regulations, and its legions of regulation-enforcers.
Eternal vilgilance is the price of liberty. People like OmegaPaladin who’d prefer to be looked-out-for by Mommy Government instead of making an effort to vigilantly look out for themselves really don’t want to live in a community of free people.
Glenn Reynolds briefly mentioned Murray Rothbard. This guy eventually got so goofy that he began to fanatically support Che Guevara and the Black Panthers. The Ron Paul fanatics have one thing in common: they believe that the United States is at fault if it has any enemies. We merely need to leave “other people alone” and they will behave similarly towards us. In other words, the radical libertarians are historical illiterates. Ignorance supposedly is blissful.
“how’s those US FDA regulated heparin drugs working for you? There’s also plenty of other examples of bad drugs let into the market (and good drugs kept out) by the fabulous, almighty US Government you worship.”
Then there’s “organic” food labeling.
Anyone who’s passed Chem 101 knows that almost all food is organic. The only exception I know of is salt. Most of pesticides that “organic food” activists complain about are organic chemicals. There’s nothing inorganic about “inorganic” food.
Yet, the Department of Agriculture has enacted a labeling system devised by people who don’t know what the word “organic” actually means. Why? To promote the commercial interests of Whole Foods and other campaign donors.
“Paul realizes that these people exist but that we should put their true numbers into perspective. What I believe Paul has focused on is the removal of a strong motivating factor (occupation) that increases hatred towards us rather than on a few ideological terrorists that are certifiably insane. What’s more important in the bigger picture, having a few people hate us, or entire countries hating us?”
That’s simple. The answer is “neither.” It’s not the government’s job to make people like you. The government’s job is to *defend* you and your fellow citizens. Even if a few people or entire countries don’t like that. What matters is not how other countries feel about Americans but how they act toward us militarily.
The idea that we should ignore terrorists just because their numbers are small is nuts. Charles Manson and his followers were a small group also. Does that mean we should have allowed them to have free reign to continue killing people because we have to put their numbers into perspective?
If it weren’t for his frankly suicidal foreign policy, I’d probably vote for Ron Paul over anyone else at this point. I know he isn’t perfect (his populist campaign style in particular kind of worries me), but that aside he’s more palatable even than McCain, and certainly Obama or Hillary.
man, what a bunch of brainwashed people on this forum! don’t believe everything you hear on mainstream media and especially NPR! our government should not be able to spend more than it has. if there was a balanced budget people would feel exactly how much the current foreign policy is helping our country. and money should not be printed for which there is no backing. the fed is doing what they can to hide the economic conditions of our country but we’ll feel it eventually if we stay the course. anyone who claims we are behaving in our current manner for national security… come on do you honestly think our country is more secure because of what we’ve done in iraq? i guess soldiers lives must not count to you?
i’m voting Ron Paul in 08 even if it’s a write it! rEVOLution!!!!!
Stated by David Thomson above: “The Ron Paul fanatics have one thing in common: they believe that the United States is at fault if it has any enemies. We merely need to leave “other people alone” and they will behave similarly towards us.”
Simply is not true. This is an overgeneralization by interventionist fanatics like David here. Please read my comments a few posts back. Most people when left alone will be peaceful. It’s true that there are terrorists who have an ideology that they believe justifies them attacking America. Paul realizes this, but also realizes that their numbers and activity need to be put into perspective. Not all muslim people are like this but we are making them so by occupying their lands.
People, guys like David are playing on your fears. What you don’t know and understand, you tend to fear more. You’ve got to get educated and break your fears before you can think clearly about a path to improvement. Ron Paul is one of those people who is thinking clearly.
Please turn off FOX and CNN and open your mind.
To Rick Fisk – thanks for speaking up.
Glen, it’s great to see some coverage, but that’s about as high a compliment as I can pay you for it.
Consider rereading your von Mises, that might help clear up some of the issues you and some of your readers don’t quite have a solid grasp on right now. Ron Paul is good man doing something positive and I don’t see the reason to repay that with negativity.
Stated by Mr X above: “The idea that we should ignore terrorists just because their numbers are small is nuts. Charles Manson and his followers were a small group also. Does that mean we should have allowed them to have free reign to continue killing people because we have to put their numbers into perspective?”
I never said to ignore them. You’re reaching on that. I agree that it would be nuts to ignore them. Ron Paul is not saying to ignore them. The politicians in our government making the decisions right now are the ones that are ignoring them. They are focused on nation-building in countries instead of bringing these horrible criminals to justice. We haven’t taken out Osama bin Laden to my knowledge…which was the original mission in Afghanistan. We invaded Iraq when there was NO imminent attack on our nation and in which there were few if any terrorists present. Now we have a terrorist problem there and yet we are still nation-building there too. The focus is on the wrong things and it is bankrupting our country. We won’t have the money to fight anything if we keep up the way we are going now. You can’t just think about what is happening now, need to see the bigger picture and plan for the future.
If we are going to be occupiers, let’s occupy places that would be nice to visit. Iraq sucks.
As an Australian, it’s quite amusing the extent to which Americans have been brainwashed.
You guys ACTUALLY think the US needs 700 bases in 130 nations.
Cold War is over guys. Not only that, no other country in the word has politicians that go around threatening other countries (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea) as part of their election campaign. We do diplomacy and trade instead.
In the rest of the world, it’s considered unusual to be in a constant state of war by having troops stationed all over the world. No wonder America is the Western country that has been attacked by terrorists the most.
It’s very safe in Australia and Switzerland, because we are countries that MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS.
No Fly zones were not sponsored by the UN. Rather they were part of the cease fire agreement.
Not all authority derives from the UN. In fact, the corrupt UN is one of the worst reasons to justify anything.
“7 years USMC, what did you ever do besides ride the coattails of those who did?”
Great, I hope you’re ready for everyone you care about to be drafted.
John “100 years in Iraq” McCain is ready to bring on WWIII.
So is Hilary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton.
And Barack “I will bomb Pakistan” Obama.
I don’t really care either way, I live in Australia where we engage in peaceful diplomacy and trade, so we take more reasonable approach to the so-called “war on terror”.
Incidentally, US foreign policy in recent years has been great for the terrorists – their numbers are up because of all the great free propaganda material (Abu Ghraib prison scandal, torture at Guantanamo Bay, etc.). Yup, real smart people those neo-cons.
Now, when anyone even suggests that we try something different, such as non-interventionism, you get called names and labeled in many derogatory ways.
Non-interventionism was tried in the 1930′s and failed miserably on December 7th, 1941. Ridicule is deserved.
As a Ron Paul supporter (well, I guess you can say former considering where things stand now electorally), I must say that was the best critique I’ve ever read. I’ll disagree with one or two disagreements of yours, but you expressed your disagreements so well that I can’t help but to respect you.
Actually, there’s a disagreement you’ve made that I agree with. Abortion. While I am for overturning Roe v Wade, my view of why I want to is not the same as Ron’s. All the same, I am aware that libertarians vary on that issue. Badnarik was the one who first made me aware to that. You are now the latest. As if I needed a reminder.
Thank you for a fair and honest review of the book.
Libertarian is like communism they both sound great but when put into practice it never seems to work.
There are two forms that must balance out given real world realities. Individual Liberty of course(the only type paultards think exist) AND the collective liberty of the nation as a whole.
This concept of “national” liberty, apart from individual liberty is a pernicious notion that finds its origins with the Left on the Continent. There, the subversion of the latter principle in favor of the former — better known at that time as the principle of “national self-determination” — is what set the Continent on the road to all the varieties of socialism we known and love.
As such, it is the ideological wedge that the Left used to co-opt and eventually invert American liberalism into its own opposite.
So jp, I’d suggest you check your premises. There is no need to import Leftist ideological trojan horses in order to justify a strong national defense.
Despite having little in common Paulina “Republican”(In Name Only)Libertarians, I did enjoy their hijacking of the Nebraska Republican state convention, and essentially shutting it down with no nominee. Too bad that real Republicans couldn’t show that kind of determination and initiative…That is the only kind of stubbornness that will face down the socialist commie-lib Dems, and socialist RINO crowd.
I love this little bit of magical thinking. A truly free-market isn’t free for very long. Power aggregates and suddenly there’s a greedy oligarchy requiring government intervention to prevent the worst abuses of environment and public welfare. It is simply human nature and something that “libertarians” seem intent on forgetting.
What do you think “truly free” means? IF you think it means anarchy, BZZZT! Thanks for playing.
In a truly free market, power would effectively be abolished by means of chaining the government within a sharply and narrowly defined purpose — the securing of individual rights. So your claim is meaningless… assuming you are not conflating economic and political power.
As for “human nature”, I’ll tell you what I told Stephen Bainbridge and will tell everyone invoking that contemptuous disdain for humankind, Leftist or conservative: Speak for yourself, buster.
Yeah, the criticism of libertarianism as something that “sounds good in theory” but could never work because people are inherently evil doesn’t stand. Libertarianism isn’t completely anti-government. It’s anti-federal government. If you see it fit to raise taxes or create new taxes, ban immigration, take guns away from law-abiding citizens and/or, generally, turn the U.S. into a continental European social democracy then do so on the state level. Or, even better, on an even more local level. Look at New York city, for instance. They’ll lock you up for any minor infraction. Philadelphia is considering the Stop-and-Frisk nonsense in the bad neighborhoods. D.C. took all the guns away (which, to my knowledge, hasn’t done anything to gun crime stats). If that’s what you want to do, then that’s what you want to do and the voters have every right to turn their cities into places no sensible person would ever want to live in. All the libertarians beg of you is to leave us Vegas. Please, leave us California, leave us somewhere where the smart, fun, responsible and creative conservatives can go.
The 700 bases number is utter bullshit.
You would have to count consulates and embassies to even approach it.
Stop believing made-up numbers and learn to think for yourselves.
Actually, food for thought: Las Vegas as Galt’s Gulch.
(Thoughts, opinions, stories you could never tell your wife?)
“Libertarian is like communism they both sound great but when put into practice it never seems to work.”
That’s not quite accurate. Communism never works. Absolutist libertarianism also never works. However, a modified 90% pure libertarianism works very well!
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. Randian libertarian is a contradiction in terms. See the links for the extensive proof:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
Pablo Escobar:
“7 years USMC, what did you ever do besides ride the coattails of those who did?”
Great, I hope you’re ready for everyone you care about to be drafted.
The only people in America who are interested in a draft are all Democrat Senators, who hope to lessen the effectiveness of the U.S. Military.
John “100 years in Iraq” McCain is ready to bring on WWIII.
Thanks for being either unwilling or incapable of reading. Or do you think World War II is still in progress?
So is Hilary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton.
And Barack “I will bomb Pakistan” Obama.
I don’t really care either way, I live in Australia where we engage in peaceful diplomacy and trade, so we take more reasonable approach to the so-called “war on terror”.
Which must have been quite a shock to the many Australians killed in the Bali nightclub bombings. Oh, wait, Australia has around 1000 troops serving in Iraq now. Didn’t realize you had so many neocons in Australia. Of course, Australia is America’s oldest and most reliable ally, and the source of some of the best fighting troops in the world. Probably because they’re not ignorant wankers like you.
That’s not quite accurate. Communism never works. Absolutist libertarianism also never works. However, a modified 90% pure libertarianism works very well!
Where is that?
This much is true:
You have been lied to, robbed and used by your own government–the people you elected into office and the people you should be able to trust…
In a nation thirsty for change, The Revolution is Ron Paul’s call to arms. Moving from topic to topic at a quick pace, whittling everything down to its bare essentials, Paul tackles everything facing us today: the false choices in American politics, foreign policy as it was laid out by the founding fathers, how we can achieve economic freedom, how we should view abortion, civil liberties and personal responsibility, and what role the government is supposed to play in our lives. As Barry Goldwater defined conservatism in the 60’s, Ron Paul redefines it for the 21st century with The Revolution.
Dr. Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation’s capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
“The Thomas Jefferson of our day.” – Judge Andrew Napolitano
After serving the United States as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a medical practice, delivering over 4,000 babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of 51 years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.
The New York Post once wrote, Ron Paul is a politician who “cannot be bought by special interests.” There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles,” added a congressional colleague. “Ron Paul is one of those few.”
“We don’t need another revolution, we just need to restore the constitution” – Anonymous, could be Dr. Paul
I quit reading after you decided you needed to label everything so you could then beat down on the labels.
“National Greatness” conservatism as promugulated by the likes of John McPain is a bad joke.
Arguments extolling the virtues of invading every nation that looks cross-eyed at the (late) great Amerika may, in fact, be the most persuasive ever penned.
They fail for one reason: we’re broke, period. The bill is coming due and will lead to bankruptcy.
Ron Paul has not been the only one to warn you, but he is the most recently ignored. Prepare to reap the whirlwind.
“Libertarian is like communism they both sound great but when put into practice it never seems to work.”
When was libertarianism put into practice? If you mean clasical liberalism it worked very well, it is the reason the West is so much more advanceded than the rest of the world and used even more advanced.
Re foreign policy, I have been a libertarian by whole adult life, that does not mean I agree with the Rothbard position on the US and foreign policy. He is not the only or even dominant part of libertarian thinking. Also some of the Paul suporters need to read some history in re the barbary war if you thing Jefferson did not send the US armed forces then you have to explain the meaning of “from the halls of Montazuma to the shores of Tripoli” in the marine hymn.
Re gold or commodity money I agree with Paul and think that silver money is constitutionaly mandated.
There will be wars. Why is it considered preferable that they be fought within or at OUR borders?
Why do so many Lefties and Ron Paul supporters blame America for keeping YOU safe? Are you people that jaded and ignorant?
For the record, the love of Paul begins and ends with leftists and our enemies, no matter how “libertarian” he thinks he is:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_caleb_fr_071225_ron_paul_3a_a_means_to.htm
Curious, what is the problem with cutting ties with Israel? Really, what have they provided in return for what we have given them? They look more than capable of defending themselves against the “fear” mongering that has plundered American minds. This can be directed to any country we deal with. I just enjoy seeing how much money we funnel to other countries. Exactly, who are our enemies? Is Spain planning to invade us? Are the Mexicans planning on taking back what we took from them? Are the French wanting Louisiana back? I really don’t feel threatened by Canada nor Mexico. And can we please get over this “Cuba” is evil BS. Please enlighten me…oh its those dirty Iranians who want to bomb us to oblivion.
I think a majority of Paul’s critics misread his national security stance. Please tell me why we need pre-positioned forces around the globe. What is it that we are protecting? For those who argue that the 700 base number is incorrect, are you sure? How do you define a base? If there are American assets assigned to an area, well that sounds like a base to me. We only need to look back at the rendition flights that were flying under our noses. This is my own opinion, our military is far too large and needs to be scaled back, drastically. And can we please stop all this “hero” crap, its old and worn out. Its a no brainer that the members of the military are doing a phenomenal job around the globe.
Can you honestly justify $3 billion for one naval vessel (Zumwalt class destroyer)? Or $6 billion for another carrier that we really don’t need? What about the massive cost overruns of the LCS class ships ($400 million a ship). And they want 55 of these things. The Navy is already struggling to keep the current fleet afloat.
I haven’t read Paul’s book, nor do I know every one of his positions. But in all honesty could he be any worse than what we have had or will have?
“I’m more of a Heinleinian libertarian and we, like the Randian libertarians, tend to view national defense as more important than the Rothbardians do.”
Ummm… “Rothbardians” don’t believe there is any such thing as a “nation” in reality, thus rendering the entire topic moot. There is no more such a thing as national defense, as there is Boy Scout defense. Both are mere abstract groupings of individuals.
True security is never the product of any coercive institution of any collective, nor can its actions ever be considered as providing security to individuals, the only rational source of measurement of security.
The idea of “national security” is the idea of protecting a group called government from ideas that endanger their power over the lives of others. It serves you only by ensuring the current criminal structure is sustainable. How this can be considered security? Slavery may be secure, but it is not in the best interest of any free person.
How and why this crime can trump the idea of real, individual security is what creates all the danger to begin with. Why? Because abdication of your own personal responsibility, creates the very grounds for the tyranny that enslaves you. Insisting upon living in a police-state is not a libertarian idea of any sort. Yet you make this claim sbout needing to be protected, while attributing apathy to Rothbard? That’s absolutely laughable.
I’m not familiar with the Heinleinian philosophy on liberty, but I’m willing to bet it is the same poison distilled by Madam Rand, sacrifice of the individual for the collective, all to better the individual.
Yet Rothbard is the incoherent one???
The review mentions that we were battling the Barbary Pirates during Jefferson’s administration. His administration was also a cautionary tale against reducing the already small armed forces, especially the Navy. Jefferson reduced the size of the Navy, pirates or no pirates, and — as a result — was unable to protect American shipping from depredations by warring European navies (Britain and France in particular). The only “weapon” at Jefferson’s disposal was an embargo of Continental and British goods, which resulted in an economic depression in America.
Ron Paul is supporting the wrong tax plan…the Fair Tax just won’t gain the necessary traction. If he supported a three part proposal (flat tax + asset tax on the very wealthy + balanced budget…all supported by constitutional amendment), it could be implemented. Successful implementation of a tax policy correction would set the stage for the control of government by the voters…not what we have now. Read all about it at http://www.hedgehogeparty.com
He favors FREE TRADE, meaning that the government shouldn’t prohibit anyone so inclined to engage in commerce with other nations, and diplomacy. This reviewer is the first I’ve heard of a libertarian who disagrees with free trade and for the reason that it will piss off terrorists.
Why is it so hard for so many people to get their head around this idea? Why is the word “crank” used so often in relation to this position? Even Milton Friedman said our currency should be backed at least in part by a valuable commodity.
@Scott Crumpler, The reviewer favors Free Trade as well as a national defense force which protects the arteries of commerce. This is where the reviewer differes from Paul in that he believes that in order to have a Free Market one has to be able to protect that market with force.
@nobody special, The reviewer is Heinleinian and so uses the pedantry of his position. I don’t know much about the nuances of Libertarianism but I do know that those who are trying to argue the merits of their points will have to use the language which makes their point clear. He must use the word “nation” as he believes in nationality and probably views the absence of this concept in any governmental structure to be one of those structures flaws. It appears that “Rothbardians” think the opposite.
“The idea of “national security” is the idea of protecting a group called government from ideas that endanger their power over the lives of others. It serves you only by ensuring the current criminal structure is sustainable. How this can be considered security? Slavery may be secure, but it is not in the best interest of any free person.”
— I’m curious then, why does the Constitution entrust the defense of the nation to the President? I think “defense of the nation” is an elongated expression of “national defense”. This defense is not against ideas so much as defense against actions which harm the physical wellbeing of the nation, its people, or which alter any Constitutional form by means outside those ratified forms.
— You may find any form of coercion to be criminal and that is your right. The fact is that this government was formed with the expressed understanding that individual liberty, individual responsibility and collective will will have to figure out how to express themselves without talking over one another. It sounds to me that any collective, as far as you are concerned, is a figment of our imagination. It is equally valid to argue that the individual is a figment of the imagination. Personally, I think each exists only through the existence of the other.
Let’s face it, there are a lot of jackasses who call themselves libertarians. If you get some of them talking long enough they might eventually say something like “it’s ok to stockpile nuclear weapons in your basement – everybody has a right to defend themselves”, “It’s ok to use crank just as long as you don’t hurt anybody”.
Even if you left everything up to individuals and the private sector you will end up with entities that look no different from our current federal gov’t and lots of corporate america. If some bad ass guy with lots of weapons enters our anarchic utopia and starts stealing, raping, murdering, etc, eventually the others will coerce and defend themselves. These individuals might decide to keep the coercion intact and have some form of Gov’t.
Thank you Mr. Reynolds for your review. On the contrary, I would encourage those curious about a different way to deal with our government (and deal with the world) to check out Mr. Paul’s short primer on his view of Liberty.
With respect to foreign policy, there seems to be a lot of confusion, which is understandable. Reynolds: “he [Paul] favors much more commercial and cultural engagement with foreign countries, something which, if experience is any guide, is as likely to anger Islamic fundamentalists and other varieties of terrorists and tyrants as is the establishment of foreign bases.”
What experience do you refer to? I used to think the same thing, but I was wrong. The Iranian hostage crisis (for instance) can be directly traced to our overthrow of their democratically elected leader in the 50′s. This resulted in the brutal and much despised Shah (our guy). But since so few Americans were aware of that history, we just grew up assuming those crazy Muslims must just “hate us for our freedoms.” Of course, we are fed that line by our government, so as to cover their collective asses, and redirect our anger away from their foreign policy mistakes.
Building on this, the Ayatollah Khomeini tried to generate a jihad against the US primarily because of the export of our decrepit culture (a description that many on the Christian Right would agree with). It was a failure. We saw lots of flag burning in the streets of Tehran on the nightly news, but little else.
It was not until bin Laden, with his appeal against us for political (not merely cultural) grievances, that a widespread movement would be created to attack the US. Of course our handiwork in Iraq will ensure that bin Laden (and his clones) will continue to call for Jihad against us…because of our foreign policy, NOT because of the Playboy Channel or because women have the right to vote.
Peace be with you.
I am a conservative, and I’m largely sympathetic to the deregulation arguments. That said, I work in an industry that uses a lot of chemicals, and I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that my company doesn’t avoid chemical releases out of concern for the environment or “common sense.” It avoids them because it doesn’t want the fines. I’m not saying it wouldn’t make ANY effort to avoid spills, but just in the last 13 years that I’ve worked here there has been a dramatic reduction in chemical releases. That reduction was brought about by tighter environmental regulations. Don’t let your commitment to a political philosophy blind you to human nature. That’s the mistake the communists made/make. Communism looks great on paper, but it doesn’t work because of human nature. Complete deregulation looks great on paper, but it doesn’t work because of human nature.
The US foreign policy and associated liberal use of military intervention for the past 50 years is the very cause of blow back such as Lebanon Barracks destruction and 911.
Americans need to do a real self analysis and ask why we only accept one viable point of perspective regarding foreign intervention?
We can make change happen only by recognizing that what we are doing is not working, not cost effective and counter productive.
Unfortunately, the current decade old GOP leadership has been primarily responsible for this myopic policy which was started by the Democratic party in the 1960′s.
Ron Paul represents a growing political movement. This movement is not content to sit and be told the same old platitudes. Observational monitoring make rational support of a party that has changed nothing in 20 years impossible.
It is the politics of Fear not rational thought that rules the GOP party. Ron Paul has brought in Millions to hear a GOP message and party asked them to leave. This is madness. The GOP lost three old party seats in 60 days!!!
The terrorists have no Navy -Army – Air Force or Missiles. We stood down the USSR with Twenty Thousand Nukes. The GOP Strategist reject the argument of the BlowBack of the Politics of Fear outright!
America is in very deep trouble economically and hard choices are coming. Your medicine costs money the government is spending on smart bombs (500K apiece) to kill Hajjies with a 25 dollar AK-47.
This war is costing 1.5 trillion a year. We no longer have the money and as a direct result you have will see 5.00 gas very soon and a loaf of bread will cost more than the gallon of gas.
The GOP is not a conservative party any more. So where do we conservatives go now?
I’m not sure how one would go about reducing the size of government. Incrementalism may work, but it seems to me that while focusing on incremental reductions in some areas, gargantuan increases are occurring in others. It’s like playing whack-a-mole. Maybe some frontal assaults on entire agencies if the more fruitful path.
How can you be less government on domestic policies and not less government on foreign policies? It seems contradictory.
Classical Liberalism (small “L” libertarianism) is the primary set of philosophical principles upon which these United States were founded. The U.S. (along with Australia…and perhaps England & Canada) is MANKIND’s LAST BEST HOPE for peace, prosperity and happiness in the world. It is our manifest destiny to go hither to the philosophical infidels (collectivists, socialists and dirty filthy Islamofascists) here and there and smash them in their environs before they attempt to smash us here. “Non-interventionism” is a crock; Ayn Rand was correct on that score. Blowback may be a bitch, but annihilation as retaliation is sublime. Hey Iran, the bombs drop in 10 minutes!
Who cares if they love us. As long as they fear us we’ll be just fine thankyouverymuch.
I wish Ron Paul and all the other Libertarians would stop spouting off about Ayn Rand. “Randian Libertarian” is really a misnomer when you consider the fact that Rand was opposed to libertarianism.
The fact that some of you may agree with some of her ideas, in an out of context way, does make you Randian. As an example, consider the idea that freedom is a value. Because context (i.e. more fundamental premises) condition the meaning of less fundamental ideas, what you mean by “freedom” and what Objectivists mean by “freedom”, are two completely different things. You mean being able to do whatever you want (including owning a nuclear weapon or having “consensual” sex with a minor), while Objectivists mean being able to do whatever you want, as long as you are not infringing the rights of others. Such differences may seem subtle and not very important, but practically they lead to completely different conclusions. And in terms of more fundamntal ideas, Objectivists and Libertarians couldn’t be more disperate.
If anyone is interested in learning more about Ayn Rand’s ideas, please see: http://www.aynrand.org
Yes or No: Would you let your neighbors station armed guards in your house to provide a safer way for your neighbors to walk to and fro from the market?
While you armchair revolutionaries are fighting your wars using hypothesis, others are engaged in peaceful revolution for the love of their country, not for the hate of their federal government.
I am running for County Central Committee in my district, I suggest you gentlemen do the same, if you really seek change.
·.¸\`’·.¸\`’·.¸ ¸.·’´/ ¸.·’´/¸.·’´
¸.·’´/¸.·’´/¸.·’´.¸\ `’·.¸\`’·.¸\
Publius writes:
“My personal view of Israel is, the zionist made their beds, they can lay in it. If you want to create a Jewish state where the majority of indigenous people are Arabs/Muslim, you can expect some “blowback”.
The Jews did no such thing, which you might understand if you bothered to step out of your Noam Chomsky/Ron Paul echo chamber. The Jewish presence stretches across the centuries; the land was acquired lawfully; the state was sanctioned internationally; the so-called displacement was reasonable in repelling a war of aggression.
And the “blowback” you mention includes using bombs wrapped in nails dipped in rat poison on children. So much for libertarian “ethics.” You deserve your place at the bottom of the political food chain.
“First, even during the minimal-government era of Thomas Jefferson we wound up at war with the Barbary Pirates (in many ways, the spiritual antecedents of today’s Islamic terrorists).”
Oh yes, those damn Barbary Pirates. How did we solve that horrible problem? We used Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which worked really well. Now, if it worked for their antecedents, why would we not want to use it on the current terrorist, as Ron Paul advocates. Oh, yes I forget, just arresting “evil dooers” is not as much fun as dropping bombs and physically rounding them up in the streets.
Toward the second point on why Ron Paul is weak on defense, Islamic objections to our culture have nothing to do with defense. Under a Paul administration, we would be friends with them, which would implicitly mean that we recognize them as relevant, legitimate, and important, which is something that they are very interested in. Second, nothing would require them to take in our culture, the Imams could still censor their people all day long, and we would say nothing about it. Lastly, friendship and openness is two way, and those in the Middle East are very interested in the fate of Muslims in America and on having their ideas heard in the US forum, which would be open to them only if we are friends.
Besides, people in the Middle East are, like everyone, interested in improving their standard of living. If the US had friendship with all the countries in the Middle East with no tariffs, we would provide a huge market for their goods, while allowing them cheaper access to the better aspects of our culture and economy. If your neighbor is making you richer and better off, why attack them?
As Ron has pointed out, if they hate the West just for not being Muslim and for our depraved culture, why are they then not attacking places like Switzerland, which holds all the world’s banking, money, and has arguably a more depraved culture, since they are not as prudish on nudity as we are. Easy, Switzerland stays neutral, has great chocolate, and provides them the same great banking services as the rest of the world. We would be wise to follow Switzerland’s example.
@Mary: nope, those ideas go great with Red Cool-Aid!
George P. Burdell
You should have read more of this thread. Jefferson did use the Navy and Marines against the pirates as mentioned before the “…shores of Tripoli..” you know the Marine Corp hymn the thing you and Ron Paul would do away with.
After reading your view on foreign policy I’m pretty sure Hitler would be ruling most of the world and most of Jews would be dead because who are we to stop someone from killing people?
wow most of these people bashing paul are pretty smart…but not smart enough. First off, the United States actually Declared War agianst hitler. That was the most responsible thing to do so you can have the american poeple backing the war, and everything becomes transparent so everyone understands what needs to be done and the accomplishments are set. Not at all what happened in iraq and afganistan thats why weve ended up with the mess were in today.
Second…about the comment that jefferson went to war with the pirates is absolutly not true. he declared the Letters of Marque and Reprisal which is meant to go after a group with no nation i.e. PIRATES OR TERRORIST.
WHY is Ron Paul getting so much attack on his foriegn policies?
OH yea you guys drank the COOLAID
After reading several of these comments, I think there is an even deeper philosophical issue at stake and that is What is the State? Radicals like myself who wish to abolish the State appear to be unrealistic cranks who do not understand human nature. I would argue that the reason we wish to abolish the State is exactly because we understand human nature. I believe that government is a criminal gang and I agree with this definition of government by Ludvig von Mises:
“[G]overnment interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”
Government is violence, pure unadulaterated violence. So given the sinfulness of human nature why would any one want to give one group of humans a monopoly on violence? Do you really think that they will use it for the good of the community rather than to accomplish their own objectives? Do you really think the State can protect us? Months before 9-11, the FAA banned pilots from carrying handguns. Perhaps if the pilots were armed, there would have been 19 dead hijackers instead of 3,000+ civillians.
Thomas Paine once wrote “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” Yes, without government there would still be suffering. But I would much rather deal with sinful humans in the free market than to give sinful humans a monopoly on arms and hope they will not abuse their power.
Radicals such as I hate the State with all of our hearts, all of our minds, and all of our strength. It is the most brutual institution ever created which cares only about its own power; it will use any emergency or even create emergencies to increase its power at the expense of society. It’s goal is simple: complete slavery of its citizens.
I realize that today most Americans have become so inured to government such viewpoints are met with derision and ridicule, but there was a time in this country when this viewpoint was mainstream. The desire for freedom burned in the hearts of the revolutionaries and they were willing to sacrifice their lives to free themselves from King George. Given that the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence is a trip to Disneyworld compared to the abuses of power that we suffer now, this viewpoint is more necessary now than it was then.
yeah, i can’t believe anyone would support ron paul. Seriously? i mean, clearly the existence of the Israeli state is more important than american lives, or American taxpayer dollars. I think it’s important to continue the notion that israel cannot take care of itself. So long as we continue this meme, we’ll be able to wage wars against islamic countries in the name of national security. you can’t be against the subsidization of exporting defense to Israel and be pro-america at the same time anyways. And besides, if israel isn’t secure, then neither is america by logic. As a conservative, it is important that we become the world crossing guard. No country should be able to do anything without our approval. ANybody who even has a bad thought about Israel should be branded anti-semitic. Because it’s clearly true. IF you question teh American government, you are anti-american. and by logic, if you question Israel, you’re anti-semitic.
john i disagree because you can love the land that you live in and hate the people in charge that does not make you anti-american and the US constitution gives us a right to question our government as for israel judaism is a religion not a race or a nationality so saying to not continue our support of israel is not anti-semitic i agree with Ron Paul on his views of foreign policy. as a liberal i think thats saying a lot
The solutions in regards to government red tape and bureaucracy are:
1) a real campaign-finance reform
2) strong restrictions on lobbying
Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics and nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful bankers and corporate elite. It might be time for Congress to consider retaking the Federal Reserve into the Federal Government as the Constitution originally specified, and make the entire process easier for all.