This past weekend I debated Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on the war in Iraq. The event was FreedomFest, the annual libertarian gathering in Las Vegas, with C-Span and about a thousand people in attendance. It was billed as a Libertarian v. Conservative debate: Larry Abraham and Dinesh D'Souza for the conservative side, and Doug Casey and Ron Paul for the libertarian side.
So here is question for Ron Paul: shouldn't the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide? I posed this question and Paul answered that America should be an example of liberty and not try to impose freedom by force. Alas, where freedom has come to countries it has usually come by force. How did we get freedom in this country? We had a revolution. How did African Americans win freedom? It took the invasion of a Northern army to secure for the slaves a freedom they were not in a position to secure for themselves. And let's remember that America imposed freedom at the point of a bayonet on Japan and Germany after World War II, and the results have been excellent.
It seems that today's libertarians are divided into two camps: the principled and the unprincpled. The former believe in liberty as a universal aspiration. The latter believe in freedom for us but not for anyone else. Ron Paul isn't going to become president, but as America's leading libertarian he would do the group a service by upholding freedom as a universal principle, as the founders did.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 8)
1. m9Hello. I found Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
mhtvbetrmw at 10:31AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. Hahahahahahahaha!
I can't believe you wrote this in all seriousness. War is peace and invasion is freedom, right?
You forgot that other principle that libertarians believe; No initiation of violence to achieve political gains.
Scott at 10:21AM on Jul 10th 2007
3. You can't force liberty on people. It has to come from within. Freeing a "people" is only the beginning of liberty. Keeping liberty is the tough part. America could show the world through its actions what liberty, and hence prosperity, is all about. But it starts at home. Acting like a country that promotes liberty would serve as a beacon to those people in other countries who wish to strive for the same. Losing American lives to force the principles of liberty on others won't work. Other countries need a revolution of their own making, a desire for liberty. I'm not willing to sacrifice my son for someone elses war or dreams of liberty. Nor should I be forced to. thanks, Hank
Hank Madison at 10:29AM on Jul 10th 2007
4. Infact, I would say the core issue of libertarians is to refrain from the initiation of force. Love of liberty yes, shooting at someone for any reason other than self defense NO!
Jay at 10:29AM on Jul 10th 2007
5. I'm not sure what i believe on this issue.
for the argument, though:
if a people want freedom, maybe we can help.
but if Iraqi's, themselves, don't want democracy how do we force them to take it with guns.
maybe they like dictators and just want their group to be the ones in charge.
(like the liberals, neo-conservatives, and theo-conservatives of this country)
maybe i am a HUMBLE conservative. one who says, liberty is what i want, it is what i will fight for, but i'm not going to make others have my same principles.
maybe i am more principled about human dignity to make life decisions than you are if you want to force an uninterested people into democracy.
please respond, like i said i'm not really sure what i believe on this issue.
StephenM.
Stephen Marotta at 11:42AM on Jul 10th 2007
6. Dinesh firmly believes that we have always been at war with Eastasia, Scott. His Minitrue boss told him so.
He also conflates self-defense with initiation of force. Just another way that Big Brother pulls out the duckspeak from Dinesh.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:35AM on Jul 10th 2007
7. What a silly statement Dinesh.
Ron Paul is correct, freedom is something you spread by example. If countries of the world see how free we are they will fight for it on their own. If they ask us for help we should give it to them, but not force it on them.
We resorted to violence for freedom on our own soil. We helped those who needed it in ww2.
Today we force freedom on countries because of oil.
Rob Werden at 10:38AM on Jul 10th 2007
8. Please re-read the Declaration of Independence. Here is an excerpt to help you. Notice whose responsibility it is to act and use force.
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...
Now the revolution and the Civil War are not comparable and the latter would require an in-depth discussion. Of course, in WWII we were attacked. Comparing the revolution and WWII to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and suggesting that the Iraq war is a manifestation of the principles expounded in the Declaration of Independence is bizarre and indefensible.
Tim at 10:39AM on Jul 10th 2007
9. You said, "Alas, where freedom has come to countries it has usually come by force. How did we get freedom in this country? We had a revolution. How did African Americans win freedom? It took the invasion of a Northern army to secure for the slaves a freedom they were not in a position to secure for themselves. And let's remember that America imposed freedom at the point of a bayonet on Japan and Germany after World War II, and the results have been excellent."
Germany declared war on us and Japan attacked us so wouldn't it be inaccurate to use those as examples of the United States spreading liberty at gunpoint? We were defending ourselves. When did Iraq attack us?
Also, the Civil War was not just about ending slavery. If I'm not mistaken, it had more to do with consolidating power for the centralized government. Slavery could've been ended by simply rounding up the bigots who were blatantly violating the civil rights of the slaves. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that said the slaves didn't have the same rights as white folk. There was the 3/5's clause, but that was about reducing the voting power of the slave-owning states because tortured folks aren't likely to give an accurate vote.
Chris at 11:35AM on Jul 10th 2007
10. My real concern about Paul is his stance on immigration control. (I agree with his position on Iraq). But building fences on the US-Mexican border? How does that promote "non-initiation of force"? It is a ridiculous waste of money (it won't work), and, I suspect, rascist. When we should be trying to integrate our immigrants into our society, and helping them become self-sustaining and productive citizens, we instead try to force employers to enforce unjust laws against employing people. We are creating a permanent underclass (twenty million undocumented aliens with no rights?), and this is seriously dangerous to our country - a far worse threat than uncontrolled borders. Give folks the freedom to work and earn their way instead of creating obstructions to them becoming citizens. I am very disappointed in Dr. Paul, and will not be supporting him.
Gene Hawkridge at 10:40AM on Jul 10th 2007
11. The problem with whole "non-interventionism" argument for people that fancy themselves as libertarians is that not even our founding fathers had such a belief. If you think they did I have just one word for you - "France".
They ran to France to "intervene" in our war with England when they needed their help in case you forget your history. Only after the war was won was anything resembling "non-interventionism" instituted and it was done only to try and deter other nations from attacking a still militarily weak America. Kind of a "we won't pick on you if you won't pick on us, oh GOD please don't pick on us!" strategy. And even the Holy Grail of the "non-interventionist" mentality (the Monroe Doctrine) CLEARLY stated that it only applied to Europe and nowhere else.
But mention any of this to so-called libertarians and they turn into sniveling little school girls whining and hurling any name they can think of.
J.J. Jackson at 1:34PM on Jul 10th 2007
12. You say, "So here is question for Ron Paul: shouldn't the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide? "
By "the United States" you mean the federal government, right? But, there are limits on what the federal government was created to do. Those limits are called the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution granting the federal government of the US the power to "promote liberty worldwide."
Conservatives used to know this stuff. It's pretty simple.
As an individual, you are free to promote liberty worldwide all you want. Go fo it.
Tex MacRae at 10:53AM on Jul 10th 2007
13. "shouldn't the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide?"
-I'm trying to find that in the Constitution, but I'm having trouble. Where does it say that Congress doesn't have to declare war? Where does it give the Executive Branch the authority to march our children into a sovereign nation and "free" people(and kill people)? Where does the Constitution allow for the appropriation of tax money to build permanent military bases and embassies in other people's countries? That's right, it's not there.
"How did we get freedom in this country? We had a revolution."
-That's right, WE had a revolution, and it was a minority of "We" that even wanted freedom. I guess you would probably call that minority a bunch of kooks or fringe people today.
"he would do the group a service by upholding freedom as a universal principle, as the founders did."
-Hello! Have you followed his career? Have you watched his speeches on the House floor? He embodies the principle of freedom. By the way, he's not running as the World's Presidential Candidate. He has a document(The Constitution) that he MUST abide by, and he has always done so. If you want to "free" nations all over the world, please, save your money and go to that country and fight, but don't FORCE me to support you if I choose not to. Thanks!
Jonathan Bennett at 11:18AM on Jul 10th 2007
14. //So here is question for Ron Paul: shouldn't the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide?//
Dr. Paul's answer was correct: we promote liberty best by our good example, and through free trade with less-free nations. Liberty can certainly be secured through force of arms, but at what cost? Loss of liberty at home, and a police-state abroad? Our Revolution is a poor example, since we initiated the revolution ourselves. We were fighting for our own liberty. That is not comparable to what's going on in Iraq.
Also, at what cost do we export liberty? Assuming that the Iraq war is simultaneously a fight against terrorism AND a humanitarian mission to spread liberty (an assertion I do not believe to be true), in order to do so we are infringing on the liberties of our citizens, both through taxation, harassment, and attempts to institute a national ID card. America is the last bastion of free market economics and individual liberty--if it costs us our liberty to spread it abroad, it is not worth it.
Finally, only a statist would call the government being set up in Iraq an example of "liberty". They are nationalizing the oil industry, recruiting thousands and thousands of police, and instituting a powerful centralized government. It may be better than Saddam, but it is a far cry from "liberty".
rho at 11:00AM on Jul 10th 2007
15. Has this guy actually read what the American founders said on foreign policy?
Just a few reminders:
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."- George Washington
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."- Thomas Jefferson
And although it was his father that was a founding father, John Quincy Adams described the traditional American foreign policy well:
'But she (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... '
Today's neocons have far more in common with European conservative imperialists of the 19th century than the American founders. Only libertarians and some old fashioned paleoconservatives still believe in the foreign policy of the American republic.
Martin at 11:02AM on Jul 10th 2007