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 3 of 8)
31. #13 Deanna's comment, "The principle of liberty is all about non-intervention," is possibly the most succinct explanation of liberty I've seen.
This is kinda funny, actually. Imagine barging into your down-the-street neighbor's house, fully armed. "Is anyone interfering with you?" you demand. "I just wanna make sure that your liberty is being promoted!"
Dinesh, can you honestly not see the contradiction here?
If it is causeless and illegal for me to do that to my neighbor, how is it right for the federal government to do it?
Closer to home, how is it right, or remotely libertarian, that in order to pay for purported "liberty promotion", the federal government must take a huge portion of my income from me to kill Iraqis with dubious ties to our real enemies, an activity I vehemently do not support? Or borrow money from Asia under terms that will impact my children's standard of living decades to come? How is *any* of that liberty for *anyone*?
Bill at 11:53AM on Jul 10th 2007
32. Most of your premises are fundamentally flawed. Sure Jefferson might have said that "all men are created equal", but he urged us to avoid "entangling foreign alliances" and told us to steer clear of foreign wars.
The abolition of slavery DID NOT REQUIRE the force of arms. In the rest of the civilized world, it took place peacefully and without bloodshed. The Lincoln administration had motives other than abolition for staging a military invasion and occupation of the South. It's also noting that his Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in those territories NOT under federal control, while those slave-holding areas under federal control were exempt; thus, it was more a propaganda weapon than an actual statement of principle.
Oh, yeah, one other of your assertions is patently untrue: That you and Larry Abraham are "conservative". There's nothing "conservative" about trotskyite notions of 'exporting eternal revolution'.
Spirit of '76 at 11:57AM on Jul 10th 2007
33. I saw Dinesh speak at Tulane University once (maybe it was in 1991, but I don't remember what the specific topic was), and I was impressed with him.
That was then. I haven't really read anything of his since, but I must say, he has lost the impression he once gave. What a real lack of reasoning he shows in writing this article.
The American people got freedom in this country through revolution, yes, but not by invading and imposing. It was done rather by rejecting invading forces, who we will all admit were not trying to impose freedom.
Freedom may have been imposed, as Dinesh suggests, in our Civil War, a time when our idea of the extent of our Nation was in debate, but it was not an external force (in a more general sense) that came to invade America to impose freedom.
What freedom did America impose on Germany or Japan after World War II? Freedom to operate within the confines of American policy, I'd say. At what cost?
When America left Vietnam, we left without imposing anything on that country, and look at where Vietnam is now.
Let us ask Dinesh how the freedom of India was gained? That was arguably the largest mass liberation in history.
Was it Britain that imposed this freedom on India, Dinesh?
I would have to say Britain only imposed this freedom to the extent that they riled up the Indian people so much as to push the invaders out!
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that because force seems to have worked in the past, there is nothing else at play.
The craving for freedom resides in the hearts of people. Craving for imposition of freedom most likely resides in pocketbooks and deranged pep talks.
John at 2:55PM on Jul 10th 2007
34. Dinesh, this is bad.
Brian at 12:06PM on Jul 10th 2007
35. First of all, I thank you for the debate and the non-hateful rhetoric. While people may not agree, constructive debate seems to have gone the way of the T-REX and everyone is frothing at the mouth over issues. Thank you for keeping moraility off the pendulim.
I think that it is arrogant for Western society to assume that our form of government is what EVERY single society should use. Ron Paul has always said that we should promote liberty, just not down the barrel of a gun. Also, we are the ONLY western country that had a war over slavery and NONE of the European countries had to come to war to abolish slavery. Also, black people in America were more liberated by the peaceful protests by Dr. King and other like-minded people taking the moral high ground then through bloodshed (Not that blood wasn't shed by sacrifice of others). Also, Ghandi in India won independance without bloodshed. In both cases, the people being oppressed stood up for themselves. While I have little or no sympathy for the likes of Sadam Hussien (sp?) I don't feel it is our place to force regime change in other countries and it is the their duty to dissent from tyranical regimes, not the duty of our young men and women to die for them.
John Smith at 6:16PM on Jul 10th 2007
36. Dinesh, Ron Paul is not a libertarian. The only reason he is labeled as such is because the Republican Party left him behind. In the 1960s, he would be a mainstream Republican, with very similar politics to those of the great Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul's message of small government and individual liberty was forgotten by the GOP, so he ran as a Libertarian because that party did embrace those ideals.
He isn't some philosophical libertarian as you portray him to be. He is a small-government conservative who wants to return rights to the people. He isn't trying to spread some worldwide libertarian revolution. He just wants the spirit of liberty revived in America.
Did Thomas Jefferson want to travel the world to fight for a revolution of democracy? No.
You cannot force political change from the outside. Imagine if people from China came to America with ideas of overthrowing our government. Almost every single American would stand behind our government and unite against the Chinese. This is what happens in the Middle East - they all unite against America because we are the outsiders coming in. It's a basic concept of psychology and the Social Identity Theory: you more closely and more loyally associate yourself with groups you are part of that are threatened by outsiders.
Ron Paul for President 2008
Daniel at 7:22PM on Aug 26th 2007
37. Mr. D'Souza I suggest you read, "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. Many of our interventions abroad have not been to promote liberty, but to instead install a dictator or monarch who we feel would serve our interest.
Examples include, but are far from limited to: the Shah in Iran, Lon Nol in Cambodia and the Taliban in Afganistan. All of these examples hardly promoted liberty and all came back to haunt our country through blowback -- the CIA term for unintended negative consequences of our actions abroad.
Tom at 12:18PM on Jul 10th 2007
38. But in the Iraq war we are more like England then the colonies. Liberty is not something that you force on other people at the point of a gun. It is something I would fight for at a point of a gun. We can't force people to want to be free. If they want to subject themselves to an oppressive government that is there choice but we will always be a shining light to them.
jeff at 1:55PM on Jul 10th 2007
39. Huh? The core of libertarianism is not to threaten to or initiate violence against other peoples property or commit fraud. Going to war for political reasons violates this. Going to war in a defencive capacity would not violate this.
You are trying to steal, for want of a better word, the word libertarian, like liberals "stole" the word liberal. (Now real liberals are classical liberals.)
Though, using your logic, then there should be a violent war against the Federal Reserve, the IRS and other such organisations.
There have been peaceful revolutions before, surely those would be better examples to emulate.
Simon at 12:31PM on Jul 10th 2007
40. FOREIGN INTERVENTION IS WELFARE
Dinesh D'Souza,
I've seen Paul, in an interview, explain that if the U.S. government goes around trying to spread freedom that it amounts to welfare for other countries. U.S. taxpayers are paying for this. It's unjust to tax someone to pay for services for someone other than the person who is being taxed. It's very libertarian to be opposed to welfare, whether it's within the country or aid to other countries, be it through subsidies or military aid. The only justified taxpayer-funded intervention are to rectify situations that are a clear and threat to our freedom.
Dale Black at 12:45PM on Jul 10th 2007
41. To say that we imposed freedom upon Germany in World War II and then somehow try and use that to justify our presence in Iraq sounds like a very desperate and poorly thought out scumentary on your part. Lets wake up and think logically Mr. D' Souza, why don't you try and use your intuition for once. You can see the goodness in his face, you can hear the goodness in his voice and you can feel that goodness in your heart. Ron Paul is the candidate of the American people, and we are gaining our momentum once again. I hope Ron Paul makes history and wins. I hope he restores this Republic along with our once enduring reputation as a peaceful, giving nation. I hope you are wrong, I hope you are wrong!
Justin at 1:30PM on Jul 10th 2007
42. This has probably already been said, but I can't understand how contradictory D'Souza is. "How did we get freedom in this country? We had a revolution." Yeah, no one delivered it to us; how are we supposed to deliver it to the rest of the world? It has been the Stalins and Che Guevaras of the world that have wanted to give people "liberation". Yes, I believe in liberty for myself, and surely for others, but I believe that setting an example is the only true way of helping others want liberty for themselves.
Roxanne at 1:38PM on Jul 10th 2007
43. Well, Dinesh, that's 15 who disagree with you and zero who agree. Admit it: you're just another neocon imperialist who uses false rhetoric to cover up the fact that you believe in the initiation of force.
For you, freedom's just another word for the state to do what it damn well pleases.
Glaucus at 1:44PM on Jul 10th 2007
44. I see Dinesh that your a prophet just like George Spephanopolous...How do you "know" that Ron Isn't going to win?.....make sure you know because when he does, you will have to explain your ridiculous assumptions.
Freedom is for those whom want it...it is not our job or duty to impose our beliefs on anyone...it is our duty to uphold our beliefs...but only to ourselves and for ourselves.
Matt at 2:11PM on Jul 10th 2007
45. Dinesh, did you change your blog? What happened to your quote from Thomas Jefferson?
Danny at 2:12PM on Jul 10th 2007