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 2 of 8)
16. What nonsense. Even if militarily installing "democratic" puppet regimes in other countries resulted in liberty in those countries (which it has not), what use is it if it requires enslavement (confiscatory taxation, economic exclusion, denial of Creator endowed rights) of the American people to achieve it? Americans, in spite of their government school indoctrination, are waking up to the fact that "spreading democracy" (and aren't we supposed to be living in a republic, and didn't the Founders fear "democracy"???) is simply Newspeak for maintaining and spreading an empire that benefits elites at their expense. You are correct, however, about the principled and the unprincipled. Ron Paul is extremely principled, and has the record to prove it. That can't be said about anyone else running for the office which is now pretty much a serial monarchy, no matter what the spinners call it.
ksg at 11:02AM on Jul 10th 2007
17.
"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."
First of all, we decided for ourselves that we wanted liberty and freedom and fought our own war for it, we didn't have some other country come in and tell us what freedom is and isn't. I don't have a problem with the U.S. backing revolutionary movements around the world, but imposing a revolution on the principles of Western freedom? "Freedom" in the Islamic world is a far cry away from "freedom" in the West.
As for the Japanese and the Germans, after you have completely decimated your opposition, -then- it is possible to tell them how they should live. It is not possible unless they are totally defeated. We saw this in Vietnam, where no serious effort was made to crush the North, but rather just to perpetuate the South (and the rather corrupt and undemocratic South at that) leading to an endless conflict. Likewise with Iraq we do not (and will not) have the troop levels necessary to completely crush the insurgency or secure the entire country thanks to extremely bad planning, so we've basically created another conflict where we are trying to prop up a state without making any real effort to fight the people who are trying to destroy that state, and that is an endless conflict because we will never destroy the enemies ability to wage war so long as that is our objective.
Peter at 11:06AM on Jul 10th 2007
18. It's possible to accept a universal ideal of liberty while still minding your own business. The principle of liberty is all about non-intervention. One is free to do as he or she pleases so long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do the same. The liberty of one ends where the liberty of another begins. On an international level, that means America is free to do as she pleases so long as she doesn't impose on other nations. Do ya get it now?
Deanna at 11:11AM on Jul 10th 2007
19. I am appalled by such misery in an answer. The idea of promoting liberty worldwide is imperialism. The question is never: Do we want the world to be free? Of course we do. No one denies that. It is by what means do we seek world freedom. You seek it by force and unlawful imposition. This is IMMORAL!
Apologus at 11:14AM on Jul 10th 2007
20. Um, yeah, personal Liberty is the key to Libertarianism, but we come to the meaning of freedom through different means and at different times. Freedom is freedom from coercion of thought or action (other people can't coerce you and you can't coerce them). You can't force people to accept our version of freedom. We have a revolution in this country for out freedom. The key word there being WE. WE cannot have a revolution for people who consider us a foreign entity. You can only promote Liberty through example - showing people what amazing things are possible for the individual and society when people are free to follow their own course in life. Sending in the troops just gets innocent people on both sides killed and pushes people to the extremes of society, serving as a recruiting tool for crazed fundamentalist groups.
Rachel at 11:21AM on Jul 10th 2007
21. I don't understand how imposing a system of government by force on another country through a war of aggression is 'promoting liberty', let alone in line with libertarianism's non-coercion principle.
rdc at 11:24AM on Jul 10th 2007
22. Dinesh D'Souza's remarks stem from a false premise: American citizens are free. When he asks, "So here is question for Ron Paul: shouldn't the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide?" he should know that the anser is that the United States government doesn't even do what it can to promote liberty domestically. By moving into foreign territories, it exports a severely damaged and increasingly non-libertarian system as the foundation of foreign governments. If Dinesh and other Libertarians want to make the dicey argument that the US has the responsibility to spread democracy across the globe, they have to at least concede that the US first has to transform itself back into a limited, constitutional government.
KJ at 11:29AM on Jul 10th 2007
23. Dinesh D'Souza,
Nice article but what you don't seem to mention are the key differences in the Revolutionary, Civil, and World War II as opposed to the Iraq conflict. The people that lived in the country (U.S.) were fighting for there own freedom. France and England fought over our country ultimately to lose to the U.S. World War II we were also attacked on our soil. Germany may not have been the attacker but they were allies of Japan.
In Iraq, Sadam did not attack us, we were not fighting for freedom in the U.S. or for freedom of anyone living in the U.S. He just doesn't like us or the United Nations. It took the destruction of almost the entire pacific naval fleet to even get involved in WWII.
Brian at 1:33PM on Jul 10th 2007
24. Think about it for a minute. If I take my pistol and walk up to you, unholster it and point it at your face and exclaim: "Be free or I'll shoot" - are you more free or less free?
Rick Fisk at 11:41AM on Jul 10th 2007
25. I am a bit stunned to read this. How completely embarrassing for Mr. D'Souza. Sometimes one must murder thousands upon thousands of innocents in order to give liberty to those that survive (never mind that this liberty often ends up eluding the survivors anyway, see Vietnam). This is the "principled libertarianism" D'Souza praises.
jlwaddell at 12:11PM on Jul 10th 2007
26. I thought it was pretty funny when he said we "imposed freedom" on Japan and Germany. First of all, by its very nature, freedom cannot be "imposed" any more than peace or happiness can. Second of all, as en ex-pat living in Japan, I've seen the corruption "imposed" by the American government on the Japanese people that continues to this day through their nonsense political system.
Terrorific at 11:33AM on Jul 10th 2007
27. I was really hoping to see this exchange- but I could not find it in any format for download on their site.
Dinesh,
How could you have found yourself on the "conservative side?" It is not conservative to be pro-war. Go back and read Goldwater and Taft.
To say that Liberty came to society through force - you forget- the people who Defended Liberty against Tyranny were not the Aggressors. They were fighting within their country against Tyranny. That is not the same as us going over to Iraq to start a war to "give them liberty". You fail to understand Libertarians and Libertarianism, from the first edict: First Do No Harm. And you fail to understand conservatives. So why were you in the debate at all?
Mark Watson
Aurora IL Ron Paul 2008 Meetup
markrwatson07@gmail.com
Mark Watson at 11:37AM on Jul 10th 2007
28. Although Dinesh is correct that, thanks to American action in Iraq, multitudes of people will never have to worry about being arrested by his government, having equal rights, or being secure in their right to vote...
...because they're all dead. Now THAT's the ultimate freedom, apparently.
Terrorific at 11:58AM on Jul 10th 2007
29. Wow. He suggests it might be a good idea to spread liberty by military force worldwide. Well then, why don't we start with a small oppressive regime a mere 90 miles off our shore: Cuba. It could be argued that Cubans have the least amount of freedom in the entire world. And then Zimbabwe, where Mugabe is literally destroying the country from the ground up by driving white farmers off their land and imposing strict price controls on merchants in a vain attempt to save his country's currency. And then we could move in on China where it is a crime for couples to have more than one child and media/internet censorship is the standard policy. I'm starting to like this idea of spreading liberty by gunpoint. North Korea, that axis of evil member, needs a dose of liberty as well. Let's invade it too! We could call it "Operation Korean Freedom!" What a ring that has to it. Sounds so noble and high-minded. Surely American soldiers are willing to die for Korean and Cuban freedom just as they are now willing to do so for Iraqi freedom. Our military force will one day enable all the people of the world to sing with America: "land of the free, and the home of the brave." You, Sir, are definitely on to something.
Neil Davis at 11:39AM on Jul 10th 2007
30. Well, apart from the fact that the US intervention in WWI went terribly bad (communism revolution in Russia and fascism in Italy and Germany) and that in WWII half of Germany and East Europe went to Stalin...
cnovaisg at 7:30AM on Jul 11th 2007