Ron Paul's Compelling Manifesto
Paul is well aware of the limited value of the Constitution: it is a far from ideal arrangement. Nevertheless, it remains the fundamental law of the United States and, if interpreted correctly, provides an excellent means to check the depredations of a government that violates its provisions. He shows how and why. Ron Paul's outstanding book is must reading for everyone who values liberty. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (61)
A Markovic
I fail to see how the quote from page 67 shows that Ron Paul isn't worshiping the Constitution.
He admits that it isn't perfect... OK. He then says that few human contrivances are... Sounds like a defense of the Constitution and the concept of "limited government."
For the most severe critics, however, I agree with them. Even if he did advocate for the AoC I wouldn't consider him a libertarian. Libertarian leaning, definitely, but not libertarian. Libertarians must advocate, in spite of any consequence, the rights of individuals. By this definition, libertarian is perfectly synonymous with Anarchist, as it was in the beginning and will be forever more.
Ron Paul isn't an Anarchist; Ron Paul isn't a libertarian.
Ron Paul wants fewer rights violations and leans towards libertarianism, I think that's great! However, great that may be, it is not the mark of a libertarian.
Sorry, just how I feel.
Published: June 12, 2008 8:16 AM
darjen
I don't think it is a pretty good one. If it was, we would still have a small government. It is has some serious, critical errors which no proponent of small government should accept. It is ultimately self-defeating for libertarians to harp on it so much.
I like Ron Paul, and I like his message of small government. But he's essentially trying to put new wine into old bottles.
Published: June 12, 2008 8:42 AM
fundamentalist
I sympathize with Paul’s desire to restore the Constitution to its rightful place, but he’s fighting a battle that was lost over a century ago. American’s worship democracy. They have elevated the concept to the level of divinity. In their minds, the will of the majority is sacred, holy and pure. No one and nothing, least of all a paper document written almost 300 years ago, should restrict it. Presidents, Congress and Supreme Courts have dedicated themselves to serving the wishes of the majority, not the Constitution, in spite of the fact that they take an oath to defend it.
What person can get elected to office with the promise that he will restrict the will of the majority of voters by upholding the Constitution? As Mises wrote frequently, no government, whether authoritarian or democratic, can resist the will of the majority for very long.
A few years ago I read an article about the state of Nevada suing the Feds for violating the Constitutional clause that forbids the Feds from owning any property other than what was necessary for carrying out its duties. The Feds own something like 80% of Nevada in the form of national forests. Nevada wanted the forests turned over to the state. I never heard about the outcome of that case, but it demonstrates the impossibility of enforcing even the clearest articles of the Constitution in today’s environment. The Supreme Court could not care less about the Constitution. It cares about pleasing the majority.
One small quibble with the book: Paul quotes Michael Scheuer: “About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy… To the extent we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems. (p. 18).”
Scheuer can’t be a “renowned expert on al-Qaeda” if he believes that. He is obviously late to the party. Truly renowned scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of Arabs and Islam, such as Bat Ye’or, Bernard Lewis and Richard Pipes, would strongly disagree with him. Historically, Muslim hatred of the US began with the 1973 defeat of Arab armies by Israel. Utterly ashamed that the numerically superior, Soviet-armed and trained Arabs couldn’t defeat the inferior, smaller Israeli army forced Muslims to search for a scapegoat. Traditionally, Arabs would blame everything they didn’t understand on Great Britain. This time they chose the US and invented the fiction that the US had prevented the Arab/Muslim victory. Then they invented the fiction that the US keeps authoritarian rulers in power in the Middle East. Next they blamed their poverty on US capitalism stealing their wealth. In general, Arabs blame all of their problems on the US, just as they used to do with the British.
Bin Laden and most radical Muslims believe that with the US out of the way, they will be able to destroy Israel, overthrow all Muslim governments and re-establish the rule of Islam, and bring back the golden age of Muslim power and prosperity. Bin Laden believed that destroying the World Trade Center would destroy the economy of the US and our military power.
Published: June 12, 2008 8:57 AM
Curt Howland
This book isn't for Libertarians. It's for people who think that without an income tax there would be no roads.
Published: June 12, 2008 8:59 AM
Niccolo
Fundamentalist,
Yes, blame the victims, very original.
The fact is that the Arabs - actually the Arabs and Persians - have every right to despise the US.
As far as terrorism goes, however, the only Arab terrorist organization that has attacked the United States is al-Qaeda. What reasons did they do this? No, it's not a scapegoat, in fact, they are tangible and blatant acts in history.
Osama bin Laden lists them even. I suggest you, and all Americans, read it.
Published: June 12, 2008 9:14 AM
Fephisto
Random comment:
Whenever I hear people talking ill about Ron Paul, or saying he isn't 'capitalistic enough' (to an extent), I always think, "You're looking a gift horse in the mouth."
Who the hell cares? At least it's a step in the right vague direction!
Published: June 12, 2008 10:07 AM
fundamentalist
darjen: "I don't think it is a pretty good one. If it was, we would still have a small government."
No piece of paper can restrain the will of the majority. Mises often wrote that no ruler can ignore the will of the majority for very long. Many of the early supporters of the Constitution recognized its frailty. One, I can't remember who, wrote that religion was absolutely necessary for the Constitution to work; otherwise people would tear through it like it was a spider's web. That's why early Congresses paid for Bibles for public education. They knew that the Constitution would fail if the people didn't support it and didn't exercise self-discipline.
Due to public education, Americans have completely lost the understanding of the link between individual freedom and Protestant Christianity. Political individualism began with religious individualism: “Owing largely to the religious individualism resulting from the Reformation, political individualism at length appeared: at first, partial in the writings of Hobbes and Locke;” (The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Individualism.) Religious individualism spread from the teachings of Erasmus. I believe Locke formed his ideas on liberty during the period he lived in Holland.
In Europe, the King had divine authority in the eyes of most people and was above the law. The King held the authority that democracy gives to the majority today. The very first people to challenge that idea were Huguenot Protestants whom the King of France was murdering, or encouraging their murders. Influenced by those Huguenot writers, Prince William of the Netherlands launched his rebellion against Spain for murdering Protestants in his homeland. But William couldn’t completely break with the old idea of the divine right of kings, and so claimed that the rebellion was against the King’s governor in the Netherlands and not the King.
The Dutch Republic was the first nation in Europe to establish political individual liberty and it was based on the Protestant theme that all individuals are equal before God and therefore before the state, and that the state was limited in its authority by the individual’s property.
The creator’s of the US Constitution were very much aware of the religious origins of political liberty and that the power of the Constitution was grounded in those beliefs. They knew that if people abandoned those distinctly Protestant beliefs about liberty, the Constitution would provide no barrier to the will of the people. At the time, they couldn’t conceive of a non-religious argument for liberty. The Austrian tradition offers a good alternative basis for liberty. But I think it’s no coincidence that liberty has suffered in Europe and the US as Christianity has declined.
Published: June 12, 2008 10:11 AM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: “As far as terrorism goes, however, the only Arab terrorist organization that has attacked the United States is al-Qaeda. What reasons did they do this? No, it's not a scapegoat, in fact, they are tangible and blatant acts in history. Osama bin Laden lists them even. I suggest you, and all Americans, read it.”
Actually, the PLO and Iranians murdered many Americans outside the US long before the first Gulf war, which was Bin Laden’s main complaint. Bin Laden didn’t like having unclean, unbelieving US troops on “holy” Saudi ground. While I opposed the first Gulf war, Saudi authorities invited the US military to Saudi Arabia and those rulers have as more authority in Islam than does Bin Laden, who is has no authority recognized by any Muslim organization. Are you saying that all governments should submit to all of the lunatics of the world so as not to irritate them?
Besides, for those not born yesterday, Bin Laden’s reasons for attacking are just rationalizations for current action. Every radical Muslim organization, including Al Qaeda, blames the US for every action that Israel takes against the Palestinians and has done so for over 30 years.
Published: June 12, 2008 10:24 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
i'm not sure whether you mean the number of christians is declining in the west, or whether it's the way the christian ministries are oozing social justice.. i can't recognize anything like the spanish scholastics in today's christianity.
Published: June 12, 2008 10:37 AM
newson
i think bin ladin's real battle is the schism in islam itself, but america was a useful interim enemy.
nothing compares to sibling hatred.
Published: June 12, 2008 10:41 AM
newson
i'm always amused at the blind attachment americans have towards their constitution, as though merely mouthing the words is the key to upholding liberty.
here in australia, perhaps one in ten thousand would have read our constitution. and yet the former penal colony hasn't ended up like rhodesia, why should that be? i think that culture is the answer.
the original convict-settlers were often scots, irish or welsh, the authorities and aristocracy english. the majority of the settlement, in its early days, bore a deep grudge towards the english elite, and this "tall poppy" syndrome is still extremely strong.
distrust of one's betters may well have been the deciding factor in australia's development, ensuring that the constitution was broadly followed. seems likely to me that it's the same prickliness of the early americans towards the powers-that-be from whence the liberty sprung, not the actual document. i fear the people have changed, both in australia and in america.
Published: June 12, 2008 11:18 AM
fundamentalist
newson: "i can't recognize anything like the spanish scholastics in today's christianity."
Man you've got that right! Most Protestants have gone totally socialistic.
Published: June 12, 2008 11:27 AM
Nathan
People are losing site of the goal here: abolishing government force and coercion. Now, it would be a different matter entirely if Ron Paul advocated positions that were anti-freedom. That is, he supported government force and intervention and an expansion of such things overall. The fact is that Paul advocates a retraction of government in almost every conceivable area, except courts, police, and defense. While he isn't a 100% libertarian in the anarchist sense, he is in an elite group that believes government should at least be limited to the three functions I just mentioned. And that is a very small group, indeed.
The problem with market anarchists (I am one too) in general is that they tend to ignore practical means to achieving a desired end. Dr. Paul isn't perfect, but he doesn't support expansion of the state apparatus of coercion: he advocates a reduction of state power. So, as far him affirming the state by being a limited government libertarian, I think that lacks a sense of proportion. While in the technical sense he does support government per se, it isn't the case that he overall supports reinforcing the state. In fact, Paul's views, taken as a whole, greatly reduce the size, scope, and power of government. That is something all market anarchists can agree with.
Published: June 12, 2008 12:24 PM
Niccolo
Fundamentalist,
With all due respect, you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about.
First, the PLO and "Iranians" as you ambiguously designate them are not one in the same, indeed, they aren't even of the same ethnicity.
Second, which "many Americans" were "murdered" by the PLO and "Iranians" defending their people from the American Empire (est. 1787)? If you're honestly going to suggest that the Americans are the victims here... HAH! I can't reply with anything but that.
Third, no, bin Laden's gripe was not just with the first Gulf War. Among some of the atrocities named he lists experiences in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia, and Bosnia.
Fourth, the main gripe is the occupation of Arab and Persian territories by the US empire along with the Imperial backing of global colonies in countries like Egypt as well as constant war and invasion in places like Somalia.
The fact is that it is a crime in Islamic law for the Imperial United States of America to occupy the lands of the two holy places of Islam. It is Muslim law to reject any powers not backed by Allah. The IUSA is not backed by Allah, so its arrest of many scholars of the Muslim faith in and outside of the Middle East is a considerable crime.
Here's a quote from the man himself about the situation - mainly speaking about his own home, Saudi Arabia.
"Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of million Riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billions of Riyal owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder whether we are the largest oil exporting country?! They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulamah and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation."
Sounds almost Jeffersonian, no?
Seriously, man. I really think you should read bin Laden's Fatwa. Now, I am no Muslim, nor do I believe that bin Laden's methods are moral in the blindest sense, but I understand his anger and that, if nothing else, is certainly justified.
Hey, aren't you a Brit? Maybe that explains the tendency towards blind distate towards Muslims... (oops).
Published: June 12, 2008 12:25 PM
Niccolo
Jesus!
I didn't even get to Israel.
Published: June 12, 2008 12:34 PM
Eric
Fundamentalist wrote : "Historically, Muslim hatred of the US began with the 1973 defeat of Arab armies by Israel."
I would also have to say that the Shah business, with the CIA also was a starting point when the middle east began to hate the American Government. Or perhaps it was the carving up of the middle east and forcing a new government onto the region (the government of Israel).
However, Ron's point is that Bin Laden, who was fighting the Russians still felt we were an ally (or at least he could make use of us as one) until the 90's.
Then when his battle with the Russians was over, he began to look more closely at the US as his next target.
The key to remember is this - with the exception of 9/11, it's the US (and other non-muslim countries) that have been occupying, bombing, and otherwise murdering innocent people OVER THERE. If you go back many centuries, you will find that it is the west who is encroaching, not the other way around. Just look at where the armies are.
Anyway, Bin Laden declared war and gave his reasons. These coincide with what Ron has written. There was one tape where Bin Laden offered a peace solution, but this was simply ignored by the US government.
As Ron says, the biggest problem with the US government, and I'd say with the American people in general, is that they simply don't know how to see through other people's eyes. To anyone in the rest of the world, it is obvious that Americans don't believe that life in foreign countries is equal to American life. We can kill 500,000 children in Iraq and not even bat an eye - or even claim that this was a good sacrifice to push our Agenda. We care more for a single fetus than the whole country of Iraq. It is this arrogance that has become quite obvious in the last few decades, though it was there sometime before that too. But we just weren't as nasty back then, at least we didn't believe in pre-emptive (Hitller-esque) warmongering with kidnapping and torture.
And don't forget, Bin Laden's goal (which he has stated) is to defeat the US by bankrupting it. In this, he is doing a pretty good job, as Ron Paul points out in his chapters on economics.
Published: June 12, 2008 12:38 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
To invoke Lysander Spooner in an article defending (even qualitatively) the Constitution is laughable. Spooner had this to say about this Constitution:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Published: June 12, 2008 1:40 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
Nathan, if you don't mind, I'll pick on you. I don't mean any disrespect by doing so.
You say:
People are losing site of the goal here: abolishing government force and coercion.
Those of us who are critical of Ron Paul could more consistently accuse you of losing sight of that goal. As evinced by Ron Paul's rabid supporters, his movement has its aim at making government holy again. As a market anarchist, how do you feel about that?
The problem with market anarchists (I am one too) in general is that they tend to ignore practical means to achieving a desired end.
Speaking only for myself (I am also a market anarchist) I do not ignore the "practical means" of working within the political system to reduce the power of the state. Rather, I say that it will not work.
Dr. Paul isn't perfect, but he doesn't support expansion of the state apparatus of coercion: he advocates a reduction of state power.
The state apparatus of coercion is first composed of the idea that the vote of some people may compel others to go along with their wishes. No matter what he advocates in word, his endorsement of the political voting system is an endorsement of a primary tool that statists use to apply coercion on society.
Your following statement already is a rebuttal against what I just wrote. I quote you further to demonstrate that I didn't miss it.
So, as far him affirming the state by being a limited government libertarian, I think that lacks a sense of proportion. While in the technical sense he does support government per se, it isn't the case that he overall supports reinforcing the state.
At the root, he supports the legitimacy of the state. Whatever rhetoric he may pronounce doesn't negate that fact.
In fact, Paul's views, taken as a whole, greatly reduce the size, scope, and power of government. That is something all market anarchists can agree with.
Neither Paul's views nor your's or mine do any such thing. The stated aim of his views is to reduce the power of government. Whether they will actually accomplish that aim is what we are debating.
In my opinion, you're falling into the trap laid by all politicians (even relatively sincere ones like Paul). That is to judge them only on the basis of their stated intentions rather than on whether they can achieve what they promise.
In conclusion, I believe that what can reduce the power of government is to have a population that wishes it. To that end, nothing short of education can hope to be effective. It may be true that Ron Paul has highlighted topics regarding empire and money. I won't deny their benefit. But counter to those messages is the grand one that encourages (even if not intentional) the worship of a document that the author of this article agreed began as an effort to replace the Articles of Confederation with a more effective and powerful central government.
Published: June 12, 2008 2:29 PM
Scott D
Spooner wrote "Unconstitutionality of Slavery" in 1845. His "The Constitution of No Authority" appeared in 1869. His anarchist leanings were much more radical by then, and no doubt the Civil War did much to push him toward that position. I don't see David Gordon's article as misrepresenting Spooner, since his attack on slavery as unconstitutional is historical fact. All he is doing is pointing out that the methodology that Spooner used.
Published: June 12, 2008 2:33 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
Scott:
Fair enough. I won't make a claim to be an authority on history. You can go on correcting me on history (and I don't mind). Furthermore, I am mostly familiar with "The Constitution of No Authority". I don't hide the fact that I am fond of it. I have not read "Unconstitutionality of Slavery". I will grant then that Spooner's view at that time was consistent with the way it was presented in the article.
One must still be left to wonder though whether the writer of this article would be willing to endorse Spooner's later views. As I understand them, I find them wholly inconsistent with any article allowing even qualified praise for the Constitution.
Published: June 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Florida Economist
Fundamentalist: Well Said
Niccolo: The very fact that it is against Muslim law (I'll take your word for it) for the so called empire of the U.S. to occupy certain muslim holy lands, while hundreds of thousands of peacful Muslims live free and often prosper within its borders, speaks directly to the unwillingness and inability of a sizable number of muslims (usually radical in nature) to live side-by-side with those that are different from them. Moreover, the King of Murder's anger is driven by nothing more than a warped sense of morality, accompanied by severe mental illness in which his own family recognized just before they banned him from the kingdom. The bottom line is he wants revenge on the kingdom that abadoned him and as long as the U.S. is in the way, he will hate and obssess about the U.S. and use any religious loophole possible to encourage others to do the same. He is raping Islam right under the noses of millions of Muslims and committing the worst form of usury ever before seen in recent history.
If the Saudis did not have any oil and the U.S. and other western allies did not need them and therefore were not in the picture, the King of Murder would have been focusing solely on the lands he wishes to conquere in the Middle-East.
If it were the case that Russia was weak in oil resources and needed to protect the Kingdom, the King of Murder would undoubtedly include Russia heavily in his propaganda of hatred.
The man is a biomalfunctioning menace to Mulsims and the rest of the world.
Published: June 12, 2008 2:53 PM
Brent
Anytime anyone persuades a million or two to come out and show their support for ending empire, gutting the central bank, and abolishing the draconian federal income tax, I think it is a success for all of us who are remotely serious about wanting more liberty.
I don't think "fair taxes" and (not really) "flat" taxes, fake "privatization" measures, "market-like" programs, etc. are a step in the right direction either, but Dr. Paul doesn't endorse this nonsense either. He did more for advocating the radical big ideas, which we probably all agree on, than any other politician or political party in a long, long time. How can any libertarian claim that Paul has moved the cause of liberty backwards??
We should just acknowledge the successes and move forward from here.
Published: June 12, 2008 3:00 PM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: “First, the PLO and "Iranians" as you ambiguously designate them are not one in the same, indeed, they aren't even of the same ethnicity.”
I never claimed they were.
Niccolo: “which "many Americans" were "murdered" by the PLO and "Iranians" defending their people from the American Empire…”
The PLO murdered many Americans over its carrier. The history is there if you care to learn it. The Iranians, through Hizb-Allah, murdered 300 marines in Lebanon and kidnapped then murdered many more during the 80’s. Iranian agents killed US military personnel in the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia.
Niccolo: “Among some of the atrocities named he lists experiences in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia, and Bosnia.”
The US had nothing to do with any of those areas except for a minor effort to save UN aid workers in Somalia (Blackhawk Down) and an attempt to save Muslims from the Serbs in Bosnia. If Bin Laden blames the US for anything else, he’s dummer than I thought.
Nicollo: “… the main gripe is the occupation of Arab and Persian territories by the US empire along with the Imperial backing of global colonies in countries like Egypt as well as constant war and invasion in places like Somalia.”
What are you talking about? What Arab territories did we occupy before 9/11? Egypt a US colony? That would be news to the Egyptians! And in case you haven’t noticed, the Somalis were in a civil war a decade before the Blackhawk Down affair and will be in a civil war for generations. That’s just the way they are.
Niccolo: “The fact is that it is a crime in Islamic law for the Imperial United States of America to occupy the lands of the two holy places of Islam.”
Islam makes exceptions for everything. Always has. Bin Laden did not have the legal, scholarly, nor religious authority to keep US troops out of Saudi Arabia; the Saudi monarch, protector of the two holy sites, did. Bin Laden is not a legal, religious or Islamic scholar. He’s a lunatic.
Niccolo: “The IUSA is not backed by Allah, so its arrest of many scholars of the Muslim faith in and outside of the Middle East is a considerable crime.”
The US hasn’t arrested any Muslim scholars; just a few raving mad murderers.
Niccolo: “Sounds almost Jeffersonian, no?”
No. Sounds like someone with an messiah complex. If he were ever arrested and put on trial in the US, he would go free simply by claiming insanity. Any jury would buy the fact that he is insane.
Niccolo: “Hey, aren't you a Brit? Maybe that explains the tendency towards blind distate towards Muslims... (oops).”
Typical. I disagree with one Muslim lunatic and you accuse me of hating all Muslims. How much credit do you give the US for rescuing Kuwait from Saddam Hussein or the Bosnian Muslims from the Serbs? No Arab has any reason to hate the US. Iranians have plenty of reason with the US overthrow of their prime minister in the 50’s and its support for the last Shah. But funny thing is the Iranians are the most pro-American people in the Middle East. I read an article recently, on Iran-va-jahan I think, in which some Iranians expressed envy of Afghanistan and hoped that the US would invade Iran and set up a real democracy there.
Eric: “I would also have to say that the Shah business, with the CIA also was a starting point when the middle east began to hate the American Government. Or perhaps it was the carving up of the middle east and forcing a new government onto the region (the government of Israel).
Iranians have reason to hate the US, but as I wrote above, they’re very pro-American. As for carving up the Middle East and establishing the state of Israel, that was all British doing. The British and French had legitimate rights to “carve up” the Middle East after WWI. They had won the territory in war just as the Arabs and Turks had centuries before. The entire Middle East is Christian territory under the occupation of Muslims, first the Arabs, then Iranians, and then the Turks. Muslims pretend that history began only after their brutal conquests. The US had nothing to do with Israel’s formation, and in fact restrained Israel from conquering more Arab territory in 1967. And the US had nothing to do with Israel’s victory in 1973.
Eric: “Then when his battle with the Russians was over, he began to look more closely at the US as his next target.”
Bin Laden had nothing to do with the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. The CIA did not support him and the Afghans warned people to stay away from him because they thought he was crazy. Bin Laden claimed a role in Afghanistan that he never played. But he was stupid enough to think that the Mujaheddin had defeated the Russians and that defeat caused the break up of the USSR. He was so arrogant that he thought he could do the same against the US.
Eric: “Anyway, Bin Laden declared war and gave his reasons. These coincide with what Ron has written. There was one tape where Bin Laden offered a peace solution, but this was simply ignored by the US government.”
Ron Paul is an extremely smart guy, but believing Bin Laden isn’t once of his smartest moves. As for Bin Laden’s offer of peace, did it not include every American converting to Islam?
Eric: “We can kill 500,000 children in Iraq and not even bat an eye…”
I assume you refer to the sanctions, which was a UN thing as much as a US one. I opposed the sanctions, but under international law the UN had the right to impose them on Iraq. Why don’t you blaim Saddam Hussein, an Arab Muslim, for those deaths? And don’t tell me he wasn’t religious because he was just as religious as most Muslims. After all, he only had to comply with UN mandates to get the sanctions lifted. You sound like a typical socialist: blame the US for everything.
Eric: “We care more for a single fetus than the whole country of Iraq.”
Every nation cares more about its own than it does about those of another nation, especially an enemy. To condemn the US for that is to condemn all nations and all peoples. The only difference is that the US has greater power than other nations.
Eric: “And don't forget, Bin Laden's goal (which he has stated) is to defeat the US by bankrupting it.”
He must be a member of the Federal Reserve.
Published: June 12, 2008 3:08 PM
Eric
Fundamentalist: I assume you refer to the sanctions, which was a UN thing as much as a US one. I opposed the sanctions, but under international law the UN had the right to impose them on Iraq. Why don’t you blaim Saddam Hussein, an Arab Muslim, for those deaths? .... You sound like a typical socialist: blame the US for everything.
Yes, the sanctions. And the UN/US is not (international) law, it is simply "might makes right". If I can impose law on you simply because I can, that doesn't make it right. That's where natural law trumps man's law.
And to end this with an ad hominem , is a bit surprising, as you usually are quite logical. I don't condemn the US, only the politicians, the secret armies (cia etc.) and their unconstitutional activities. Now there's a law I have respect for, as the states agreed voluntarily to be subject to federal constitutional law (well at least it began that way).
But to call me a socialist because I disapprove of the murder of innocent civilians is pretty way out there.
And to blame the dead Iraqis killed by the US government is the true blaming of the victim. If you are mad at me, but kill all my neighbor's children, it doesn't matter why you were going after me, you have no right to kill innocent people. That's what 9/11 was about, the killing of innocent people because Bin Laden couldn't get at Bush (and Clinton etc.) directly. For that, he should be hunted down and put on trial - but without killing innocents.
This is a bit like blaming all Americans for what George Bush has done.
I'm with Dennis K. and would like to see Bush impeached and convicted of mass murder. But the mighty never have to follow any laws. They don't need no stinking laws. Only a higher law will prevail, if anything.
Published: June 12, 2008 3:53 PM
fundamentalist
Eric: "But to call me a socialist because I disapprove of the murder of innocent civilians is pretty way out there."
I didn't call you a socialist. I wrote that you sound like one.
Eric: "And to blame the dead Iraqis killed by the US government is the true blaming of the victim."
I didn't blame the dead Iraqis. I blamed Hussein. And the sanctions weren't just US sanctions, they were UN, which makes every member of the security council as guilty as the US. The UN is a worthless organization, but Iraq joined of its own free will and agreed to abide by its principles and rulings. Again, why don't you blame Hussein for the murders of his own people? He could have ended the sanctions any day. I can't remember what the sanctions were about, but it seems that they were about UN (not US) nuclear inspectors. Apparently he preferred his privacy to the lives of 500,000 children. But in your eyes he is an innocent victim. Only the US can be guilty of anything in this world.
Published: June 12, 2008 4:43 PM
Niccolo
Fundamentalist,
I wrote a really long reply, then decided to scrap it.
It's not worth getting into a debate with someone as historically unknowledgeable as you are.
Published: June 12, 2008 4:44 PM
Eric
"Again, why don't you blame Hussein for the murders of his own people? "
For those Hussein murdered, I blame him - but he's dead so there's not much else to be done about him.
For those that the Bush, Clinton, Bush regimes murdered, I blame them. They're not only not dead, they are worshiped by some and are still getting paid with money stolen from you and me. And the UN with all its "laws" will never do anything about them - unless they lose a big war.
You seem to think that just because I point out why the US is now the most hated nation on earth that I sound like a socialist. And how's that not a personal attack. If I sound like a socialist, are you saying I'm not one? More bad logic. I think perhaps someone hit a nerve with you. I've never heard this from you before.
But I think it was the socialists (Stalin) who would have dismissed 500,000 murdered as only a statistic.
Published: June 12, 2008 5:38 PM
EnEm
Paul counters that the terrorist attacks have been a response to American intervention in the Middle East, not an amorphous assault against America as such. If we were to end our costly meddling in this region, there is every reason to expect that the terrorist danger would abate. In this connection, Paul quotes the renowned expert on al-Qaeda, Michael Scheuer:
"About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy… To the extent we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems. (p. 18)".
Page 18 should be read alongside "The Israel Lobby".
Published: June 12, 2008 6:27 PM
EnEm
This one's for "dasdas" or as he more appropriately calls himself "aasdas"..........GET OFF THIS BLOG!!
Published: June 12, 2008 6:31 PM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: "It's not worth getting into a debate with someone as historically unknowledgeable as you are."
How will I ever become enlightened?
Published: June 12, 2008 6:54 PM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: "It's not worth getting into a debate with someone as historically unknowledgeable as you are."
How will I ever become enlightened?
Published: June 12, 2008 6:55 PM
EnEm
Eric: Stalin murdered 20 Million.
Published: June 12, 2008 7:04 PM
Steve
A Markovic, being an anarchist and libertarian are definitely not synonomous. In fact, they are quite different. No, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. However, he most definitely adheres to basic principles of lasseize-faire economics and fiscal responsibility. On top of that, he is a huge advocate of Austrian economics, of which Mises was a pioneer. He is not for no governement, but rather, very limited government bound completely by the U.S. Constitution, and I think any libertarian would agree with that. Look at the libertarian party's candidate, Barr. Ron Paul is so much more an advocate of freedom than the libertarian candidate. I admit, however, that libertarian beliefs definitely are separate than just a political party.
Published: June 12, 2008 7:41 PM
TLPalmer
Well,
Libertarians found Ron Paul either too much or not enough Libertarian.
Christians found him not Christian enough, and against their crusade.
I lost track of what other groups problems were.
The only candidate in years who might have made a difference and those who could and should have didn't support him, while the election will go to the R or D party, as usual.
If those outside of the R or D party never learn to work together they will never achieve anything. Or maybe that is what they really want: 4 more years of complaining.
Yes, I support Ron Paul, and Yes, I am a Christian (and do not accuse me of supporting the war, etc).
Published: June 12, 2008 7:47 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Fundamentalist wrote : "Historically, Muslim hatred of the US began with the 1973 defeat of Arab armies by Israel". Actually, it was a draw. Israel couldn't get the Arab forces out of a lot of their positions, though they managed to stop further advances with a sort of Battle of the Bulge that they won and could have exploited further - just not in a way that would have removed the Arab forces that had managed to secure their advance.
Newson, Rhodesia's main difference(s) from Australia wasn't culture (in the late 19th/early 20th century it was mostly lower middle class Briitish in both cases), but rather the facts on the ground of being landlocked and having a large previously existing population with yet other culture(s).
Published: June 12, 2008 9:12 PM
Niccolo
Fundamentalist,
Anyone that doesn't know that Egypt is the second biggest receiver of military backing by the United States - second only to Israel - or that the US has since the beginning of the 20th century controlled the Middle East with an iron fist (in partner with the Brats) deserving everything it has received and more is not worth my time.
Enjoy your time on the side of the Zionists and the Crusaders!
Published: June 13, 2008 6:42 AM
Hondo
Ron Paul talks as if he's a fiscal conservative but he is one of the biggest users of earmarks. He doesn't even take faxed petitions from his constituents.
Published: June 13, 2008 8:26 AM
A Markovic
Hondo is correct.
Look at all of these earmarks.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
Also, for the person that said Anarchism and Libertarianism are not the exact same thing, I have to disagree. History and the logical conclusions would disagree with your assessment that Ron Paul or any politician/minarchist could ever be a libertarian. Do you know that to call oneself an Anarchist was once illegal? Do you know that because of this the world libertarian was coined?
Also, I agree with Niccolo on the issue of Islam, but particularly to Florida, the difference between the fact that extremists in Islam cannot, nor wish to, co-exist in the same jurisdiction as people in the United States isn't the point. The point is that the US went out stomping through the Middle East. This seems tantamount to me stomping around in your house, taking the gas from your car, and raping your wife in front of your children.
Are you telling me you wouldn't retaliate violently?
Published: June 13, 2008 9:16 AM
fundamentalist
A Markovic: "Are you telling me you wouldn't retaliate violently?"
That's a common line of reasoning, but based on it, shouldn't the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese have far greater reasons to attack the US? Yet they don't. Why would that be?
Published: June 13, 2008 9:25 AM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: "Anyone that doesn't know that Egypt is the second biggest receiver of military backing by the United States..."
I know that. So then your argument is that if we give someone foreign aid then they're automatically a colony?
Published: June 13, 2008 9:27 AM
newson
to pm lawrence:
yes, you're right. rhodesia was an erroneous choice. but the point i was making remains. australia has been an enormous success for reasons that must go beyond a constitution that few lay people have ever read.
Published: June 13, 2008 10:43 AM
Niccolo
Fundamentalist, if you honestly think what the US is doing in regards to Egypt and is "aid" in the same way sending a third world country boxes of antibiotics is aid, you're not just unknowledgeable, you're dumb.
Nice try though.
How do you think the US actually supplied the Iraqis in the early 80's with weapons? There were huge covert transfers of weaponry from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan to Iraq to build Hussein's war machine.
Here, why don't you read up a little bit about the truth of the US empire.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan09042004.html
I swear, all Anglos are exactly the same.
Published: June 13, 2008 11:04 AM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: "Here, why don't you read up a little bit about the truth of the US empire."
I'll read the article, but I wonder what makes you think the author is telling the truth? After all, the web site proclaims this about itself:
"Muckraking leftist newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair."
Maybe you should find someone a little less like a moonbat to get you "facts" from.
Published: June 13, 2008 11:17 AM
fundamentalist
Niccolo, OK I read the article in your link. You claim it has facts, but I didn't see any. All I read was the typical leftwing foaming-at-the-mouth insanity that I have read for years. The writer had nothing to say that Marxists haven't been saying for years. The left can't supply any real facts; their cause would die immiediately. They have to depend on half truths, innuendo and handfulls of logical fallacies. History is not their friend, either.
Published: June 13, 2008 11:24 AM
Niccolo
:rolls eyes:
Published: June 13, 2008 12:11 PM
fundamentalist
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the Counterpunch article is so good?
Published: June 13, 2008 1:07 PM
Brainpolice
Ah, I see. Everything that doesn't jibe with fundamentalist's arch-conservative views must be "marxist". "The left" is always wrong about everything. All hail the paleo right!
Published: June 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Niccolo
It's not that the counterpunch article is fantastic - it's a good article, but not award winning - it's just that you're so wrong, yet you don't realize it.
First, you blow it off as "left-wing," "Marxist," and "moonbaty," but present no actual evidence of the claim - just some implied "OMGZ QUIT VICTIMISING JOHN GALT!!!" Randian crap.
Second, you really don't get it. It is well known that Hosni Mubarak is in good relations with the Imperial US, despite his regime being widely unpopular to the Egyptian people and considered an oppressive force. The Imperial US provides regimes like the ones of Mubarak and the Abdullahs in Saudi Arabia with military funding, political support, economic favoritism, and a myriad of other subsidies to their oppressive regimes in return for complete obedience and allegiance to the Imperial US. As far as the Arabian governments are concerned, they are only sitting in for an absentee owner.
Published: June 13, 2008 1:44 PM
Niccolo
But BP, what about John Gulch?!?
Published: June 13, 2008 1:47 PM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: “First, you blow it off as "left-wing," "Marxist," and "moonbaty," but present no actual evidence of the claim…”
There is nothing to debate in the article. It’s nothing but opinion. If the author provided some evidence for the opinions, there would be something to debate. As it stands, it’s just the author’s opinion against mine.
Niccolo: “The Imperial US provides regimes like the ones of Mubarak and the Abdullahs in Saudi Arabia with military funding, political support, economic favoritism, and a myriad of other subsidies to their oppressive regimes in return for complete obedience and allegiance to the Imperial US.”
You got one problem with that claim: Iran overthrew the US’s most favored and subsidized ruler in modern times and we couldn’t stop them. When Saddam Hussein fell out of favor, we could not replace him at will, but had to invade Iraq. If those two countries could slip through the death tight grip that the US keeps, then why not Egypt or Saudi Arabia? As Mises has written many times, no dictator can ignore the will of the majority for very long. Why is it that among all of the many revolutions that have taken place in the world, only the Arabs are powerless to have their own? In fact, Egypt had one in the 1950’s when Nasser overthrew a US supported government in Egypt. Have the Egyptians become so weak and cowardly since 1950 that they can no longer resist?
The obvious answer is that those governments are unpopular only with the “intellectuals.” That’s why you know about their discontent. The intellectuals in Arab countries are a small but vocal part of society. But the majority must support the current regimes.
You make a huge leap in logic assuming that because we give financial support to Egypt that we control the government. We couldn’t get Egypt to join us in the latest invasion of Iraq. What kind of control is that? And how to we control the Saudi’s? We can’t even get them to increase their oil production to help us out a little.
Published: June 13, 2008 3:07 PM
fundamentalist
Brainpolice: “"The left" is always wrong about everything.”
Exactly! I have a much, much higher threshhold for accepting anything from the left than from the right. My personal experience is that the left will climb a tree to tell a lie when they could stand on the ground and tell the truth. Marx was one of the greatest liars of all time and his followers immitate him. Over the years, I have caught the left telling hundreds of lies, while I only occasionally catch the right in them.
Published: June 13, 2008 3:12 PM
Hyrum
People what are you're definitions of left and right? Nobody has ever been eble to explain it in a way that makes sense. My view is that left should represent any system that has less individual liberty of any kind and right should be pro individual liberty of any kind. I know my view doesn't fit in with what is tought in schools but it makes more sense than any thing I've been tought.
Published: June 13, 2008 6:53 PM
A Markovic
Fundamentalist:
Promoting the exception to the rule, as the rule.
At least when it fits his rightist rhetoric.
Published: June 13, 2008 7:15 PM
Niccolo
Sigh... Wow...
I don't know where to start, though this will be my last reply, I'm sorry for actually going this far.
First, again with the collectivist speak - such an indicator of conservative.
Second, Iran overthrew the Shah, yes. And in 9 AD a Germanic tribe revolted and regained independence against the Roman Empire. So what? The US didn't invade Iran because it knew that would have been suicide, that doesn't mean they haven't been trying to find a way to get it back ever since though. So, you're saying that all empires must retain all colonies all the time? Jesus! (And the Kar Kokhba!)
Saddam Hussen did not fall out of favor with his people so much as he fell out of favor with the Americans. So, what did the Americans do? Slap his hands the first time (1990s) and then invade him the second time. They're trying to set up a new regime, but in the age of the Kalashnikov, controlling the empire is difficult.
Why did Iran "slip out of the grip" of the IUSA? Why not Egypt and the rest? I don't know. Why do any exceptions occur? It's a single phenomena. If you mean why didn't the IUSA try to re-establish their favor in Iran subsequently, they have, but have not been lucky so far. Iranian people are proud people and would fight tooth and nail against the IUSA with even better results than the Iraqis.
Egypt is currently a beneficiary of the IUSA. They don't overthrow the regime now because the regime is far more powerful. And no, the Egyptians did support the IUSA - like good bitches - they just wanted them to settle Israel first. The Egyptians have been controlled by the US since Anwar al Sadat forfeited his place with the Soviet empire jumping ship for the Americans. All the revolution squandered for the purpose of Sadat's opportunism.
Third, you apparently know nothing about the Saudis. No, the Saudis wouldn't pump more because they can't pump more, they bent over to the US so much the first time that they can't do it again with any feasibility. The IUSA knows this, the request was largely a show. In any case, empires often find trouble with some of their magistrates, its part of a bueracracy. I like how you think that I make leaps in logic, when your logic doesn't even tie up though.
P.S. Mises isn't a great political philosopher - he's an economist and that's all.
I'm done debating with a conservative pig enslaved to his precious empire.
I hope you bathe in the coals of hell for defending the zionists and crusaders.
Published: June 13, 2008 7:49 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Fundamentalist wrote "...in the 1950’s when Nasser overthrew a US supported government in Egypt".
No, it wasn't. At that early stage there was British hegemony in the area, and the USA was still one of the ring-barkers/white-anters.
Published: June 13, 2008 8:57 PM
Peter
Exactly! I have a much, much higher threshhold for accepting anything from the left than from the right.
I remember a great quote from Michael Barnett's blog, which is absolutely true:
Published: June 13, 2008 11:24 PM
Niccolo
Michael Barnett sounds like an idiot.
I, and most libertarians I know personally, came from a Syndicalist paradigm (what he's calling leftist).
None of us have ever been "patriots," we've always been anti-American, we've never liked governments, but only rhetoric made us unlibertarian.
Even then, however, it seams easier to convey to the Syndicalist Libertarians the contradiction of a "Libertarian" Party than it is for conservative, reformist piss-ants like you.
Published: June 14, 2008 12:08 AM
newson
what's there not to like about ron paul's returning the us monetary system to a sound, gold-based one?
surely this must be the first priority. drain the swamp to cull the alligators. all other peripheral arguments later, please.
Published: June 14, 2008 12:30 AM
fundamentalist
Niccolo: "Why did Iran "slip out of the grip" of the IUSA? Why not Egypt and the rest? I don't know. Why do any exceptions occur? "
How many "exceptions" to your rule does it take to prove the rule wrong? The clearest mark of an unthinking ideolog is someone who ignores all exceptions and blinding follows his ideology. You have given no proof, or even evidence, that the US controls any Middle Eastern country. You assume that financial aid and diplomatic relations with a country proof that the US controls those countries with an iron fist. Would you be interested in buying bridge in Brooklyn?
Niccolo: "I'm done debating with a conservative pig enslaved to his precious empire. I hope you bathe in the coals of hell for defending the zionists and crusaders."
Did you borrow those insults from a Marxist web site? They're as lame as they are old and stale.
Peter, That's an interesting quote from Barnett. The reason the left can't tell the truth about anything is that Marxists subscribe to polylogism. For them, objective truth that everyone arrive at through reason doesn't exist. Different truths exist for each class. Truth is nothing but what serves your class. If lieing about the US's involvement serves the Marxist cause, then by definition it is true.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending US foreign policy in the Middle East. It has been short sighted and stupid since WWII, but the US has not been the evil genius that the left claims. There isn't anyone in Washington smart enough to pull off what the left accuses them of.
Since the Arab oil embargo in 1973 (?) our policy has focused on keeping the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf, as if Arabs and Iranians are too stupid to sell their oil. The first Gulf war was largely about that, less about rescuing Kuwait. Even though the US gets less than 10% of its oil from the Middle East, Washington thinks it's the US's job, and no one else's, to keep the oil flowing.
Everyone remembers 1973 and intents to never see a repeat. But this is not 1973. Back then the Arabs and Iranians got more dollars for their oil than they could spend. For the past 20 years, all of those countries need to sell their oil to feed their people. We're not dependent on oil; they are. No matter who controls the oil, they can't eat it; they must sell it. But until someone in Washington learns some basic economics, we're condemned to repeat the same mistakes.
Published: June 14, 2008 7:39 AM
fundamentalist
Hyrum: "My view is that left should represent any system that has less individual liberty of any kind and right should be pro individual liberty of any kind."
I think that is a good definition. As Mises has written, the difference between socialism and capitalism boils down to the question of who will make the decisions--individual consumers, or bureaucrats?
Published: June 14, 2008 7:45 AM
fundamentalist
If anything, I think the Arab countries control US policy far more than we influence theirs. Anyone who knows the US State Department knows that most of its bureaucrats have "gone native." In other words, they have fallen in love with the country they are supposed to represent the US in, and as a result they reverse roles. Instead of pressing the Arab country with US demands, they spend most of their time and effort trying to change US policy to meet Arab demands. I have personally witnessed that shift in attitude with Americans in the Middle East. For those who have "gone native" everything about the native culture is wonderful and everything about life at home in the US becomes abhorent.
I have had a one-man campaign for years to persuade congressmen to kill the Camp David accord in which Jimmy Carter promised that the American tax payers would give Israel $3 billion and Egypt $2 billion annually from 1978 until eternity. But I usually get the response back that they depend upon the opinion of the state department on the matter and the state dept insists that Egypt is our greatest ally in the region. This is in spite of the fact that I have given them evidence that the Egyptian government has always, and is still, poisoning the minds of Egyptians toward the US with anti-American propaganda in the state-owned media daily. For example, the largest Egytian newspaper, the state-owned Al-Ahram, accused the US of dropping poisoned food into minefields in order to kill as many Afghans as possible. It accuses US soldier in Iraq of using children for target practice and giving children poisoned candy. It accuses US soldiers of regularly raping Iraqi women and claims that the night vision goggles enable soldiers to see through women's clothing. Those are just of few examples of what you will read every week on the al-ahram English web site.
In short, the state department carries water for the Egyptian government. The US has no control over its own state department, let alone over Egypt. In fact, that "gone native" attitude is the reason Bush kept the state dept out of the planning for the Iraqi invasion.
Published: June 14, 2008 8:05 AM