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 4 of 8)
46. By the looks of Mr. D'Souza's comments, which appear grossly uninformed - ethically, theoretically, AND historically - I assume Dr. Paul wiped the floor with this guy.
Mike at 12:52PM on Jul 11th 2007
47. Dang, my other comment disappeared. Here's the gist:
Why are you asking Ron Paul questions in this article? Do you think Ron Paul is going to read your blog and comment here?
Did you really get to debate him? Did you pose that question? What happened?
*That is what we care about. We don't care about you; why aren't you writing about what happened at the debate?
My theory: you embarrassed yourself badly at the debate by putting forward incomprehensible arguments like the one in this article...
Somebody find out what happened at this debate, please.
Matt C at 2:29PM on Jul 10th 2007
48. I have heard it all now, free all nations? With what money? Phoney money? Gas 3.00 Milk 4.00 etc? I am sure they will not fight back either for years? Now if your talking a 1 million man invasion and taking all their resources to pay us back, I am in. If your talking spreading freedom with an 18 year old Oklahoman kid with phoney money and never a chance to win then Vote Rudy. What a simpleton article? It sounds good spread freedom, in practice it cannot be done without sacrifice of the freedom spreader, meaning who cares about the economy for awhile and retool the ford plants for Humvees. Blocks of Phoney money in a half hearted effort means it was not worth it to begin with. Do it right or not at all.
Johnnyb at 4:07PM on Jul 10th 2007
49. Dear Dinesh,
First of all, peace is indeed something that can be imposed upon another Nation by force and, in some cases, must be. Do you think Germany would be the peaceful place it is today if it did not lose the war to us? Do you think that the Japanese would've ever relinquished their centuries-long policy of isolationism if peaceful interaction with he rest of the world were not forced upon them?
Secondly, we must look seriously at what some people call 'peace'. Certainly, a "Dictator's peace" (as referred to in the famous "Freedom from Fear" speech)is not really peace at all because it is not a condition which peace-minded people can live with.
Likewise, the conditions that exist in the world are like the hand of our enemies clamping over our mouths and noses. One does not allege that a person deprived of air who then fights like hell to regain it to be a violent person. For us, freedom from fear is like the freedom to breathe. These terrorists--and the Nations that harbor them have created fear from which we must be free--and will be.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 7:28AM on Jul 11th 2007
50. To J.J. Jackson:
I'm trying to ascertain how getting assistance in gaining our independence invalidates the idea of non-intervention. Could you perhaps help me. Thanks.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:58PM on Jul 10th 2007
51. I'm admittedly NOT a libertarian, but an anarchist. And, as probably the sole anarchist voice here (libertarianism is just anarchism that makes compromises), I can say with confidence that I and many of my ilk avoid violence not because it's inherently wrong, but because it's (most of the time) unnecessary. With true anarchism, there would be no America per se (that is, there would not exist a NATION called America), and thus intervention on a national scale would be impossible. Rather, the INDIVIDUAL leads by example, having recourse to violence only when absolutely necessary.
Seth at 3:37PM on Jul 10th 2007
52. Dear Dinesh,
I take issue with your statement that being principled involves imposing freedom and liberty on others and wanting to secure our freedom and liberty at home is somehow unprincipled.
Imposing means just that. Where do you get off imposing anything on anybody? And to use force to do so.....this is the unprincipled act.
You also leave out the point as to who pays, both in money and in lives. Are you as a conservative Catholic ready to jettison all of the church teachings on warfare, just and unjust? How much blood and money is this crusade of yours worth? Are there no limits to the sacrifices you'd place on others?
In short, who put you in charge of the lives and destinies of your fellow men? Where do you come off as taking the high ground? And may I add, where do you, who never served in the armed forces get the moral authority to send others to die when you yourself are safe and secure at home, away from the mayhem you'd happily unleash on others?
I find your position as untenable and as immoral as I find your lack of compassion for others and your own personal lack of courage.
You may sit back and cheerlead the wars you happily envision but until you're willing to risk life and limb, please spare the rest of us your arrogant, self righteousness. How can anyone take seriously a man who isn't willing to fight for what he champions? And remember Dinesh, the dog with no teeth is usually the one who barks the loudest.
Looking forward to any comments you may have the courage to defend yourself and your cowardly statements and positions.
Best regards,
Vinnie Terranova
Vinnie at 3:49PM on Jul 10th 2007
53. I'm an anarchocapitalist, Seth, so you're not the sole anarchist here.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:03PM on Jul 10th 2007
54. Seems like Mr. D'Souza is willing to jump off the 'cliff of reason' to side with Dick and the Decider...
Dick and the Decider... sounds like a good movie title for the retelling of this 'interesting' phase of American history.
Anyway, we can see here that when 'reason' is replaced with just 'having reasons' eventually it all comes unraveled. This style of 'argument' is tailor-made for Christian vs. Atheist debate when the 'sheep' or 'flock' are determined to be 'with you' to the bitter end....
...but when the bitter end is proposing that War means Freedom... well... it's just TOO stupid for anyone to swallow.
pboyfloyd at 4:52PM on Jul 10th 2007
55. Is Dinesh D'Souza A Real Academic?
Your argument MAKES NO SENSE. Comparing a largely peaceful Civil Rights movement that had the laws changed through courts and government legislation is a far cry from the guns, missiles and IEDs that are going off in Iraq.
And what you fail to mention is that all the groups you mentioned who took their "freedom by force", the keyword is THEY took it. Americans fought for their own freedom with the assistance of the French. The French didn't win American freedom for us. African Americans fought for their freedom with the assistance of compassionate Whites, compassionate Whites didn't didn't win it for them.
So how is the United States going to win an Iraqi Civil War? The outcome of the American Revolution isn't regarded as a Fench Victory. It's regarded as a American victory with French support. In Iraq, we're not there in support, we are the opposition. The question is "Who are we really opposing?"
I wish Conservatives would stop trying to invoke World War II to justify the Iraq War. #1, you look stupid by going back 60 years and overlooking another war in which we tried to win a nation's freedom only a little over 30 years ago, Vietnam. If you completely ignore and dismiss our failure in Vietnam by solely invoking World War II, your argument starts off with a net loss of credibility. #2, you dismiss the fact that Germany and Japan were already stable nations with a peaceful society prior to World War II. Both countries were hijacked by rogue and incompetent leaders that led them into World War II. Naturally they would be accepting of American assistance in returning to more peaceful times. Iraq on the other hand was NEVER a stable nation. The conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites goes back over a thousand years. In fact, it's not even a natural nation. It was drawn together to encompass three different groups by a British General in 1932.
Bush used that ignorant "good vs. evil" argument trying to make Saddam out to be Hitler, and Iraq to be another Germany. The reality is that, whether you loved it or hated it, Saddam was the cap that kept the angry killer bees in the bottle. We took the cap off and now we have chaos.
Please, stop invoking World War II to justify a failed policy and a losing effort. You can't want freedom and stability for another nation, especially if that nation never truly existed. As recent history has shown, even if you do want it for another nation, it is up to the nation to fight and die for it. Bleeding the lives of your own people, and the funds of your own treasure, for the freedom of another people is not self-sustainable if they can't/won't do the same for themselves.
The absolute irony in this entire situation is that the United States, Iran, and Al-Qaeda were all sworn enemies of Saddam Hussein. Now these same three groups, along with the Sunnis, are engaging one another in a war that has cost the United States over a half-Trillion dollars, over 3,600 lives, and over five years so far. If the Iraqis were so desperate for freedom, why couldn't they use their sheer will and low-tech weapons to forcily removew him without any direct action from the United States? I always thought that the biggest unanswered question (outside of "Would a stable, Shiite dominated Iraq actually be friendly to the U.S.?") is, "Why didn't these three groups (Al-Qaeda, Shiites, Iran) use all of this "sheer will" and low-tech weaponary to dispose of Saddam Hussein and his supporters as they have demonstrated against the United States?
Those are questions you really need to be asking Mr. D'Souza. The Iraq War isn't a continued battle from World War II. The Iraq War isn't some exercise between Good vs. Evil. The Iraq War isn't a exercise between Pro-Freedom vs. Anti-Freedom. The War in Iraq is a VERY complex issue with each new answer uncovering a even harder question. If the ultimate question is, "Do you believe the Iraq War was worth it?" My answer is a resounding "HELL NO!!!"
Mister Anderson at 5:50PM on Jul 10th 2007
56. Mr. D'Souza:
Your comments are typical Neocon. No foreign entity deposed colonial rule in the colonies. The revolution was indigenous, although it was supported by foreign allies. The Civil War was fought primarily to preserve a Union already extant, but provided the ripe opportunity to emancipate slaves. Has the Confederacy prevailed, slavery would still have been eventually eradicated because of all the pressure against it. Nothing in our history, or in our Constitution for that matter, supports your platform of spreading democracy beyond our borders by raw, unprovoked, immoral aggression. Finally, democracy in historically unworthy of being spread. The United States is a representative republic. Neocons and Democrats are mortally wounding our Republic by crowding it towards democracy. Ron Paul is a welcome, rational, and refreshing voice of true patriotism.
Randall Matheny at 3:33PM on Jul 11th 2007
57.
Ron Paul is right and it is a shame that Ron Paul will never be president because he is the only man running from either of the major parites that belives in the bill of rights and personal freedom. Dinesh is a fucking idiot. Long live the first and second amendments. Paul is right on immigtation, build the wall and keep the invaders out.
The Hornet at 5:43PM on Jul 10th 2007
58. Sounds like nothing but the giant contradiction that is neolibertarianism. Liberty through the barrel of a gun.
It's easy to have the neolibertarian mindset, just pretend that negative liberty doesn't exist.
Chris S at 6:13PM on Jul 10th 2007
59. Wow! So the Declarers of Independence were planning for an armed revolution in other countries for them to fight after they were done here????
Even if they were it would have been just as much a mistake then as it has proved to be for generations.
Well, at least you laid yourself bare for all to see. (What did you think was going to happen?)
Ernest Hancock at 6:05PM on Jul 10th 2007
60. India is not really free. Let's kill lots of Indians to make them more free. As a precursor, let's kill Indians in the US (wouldn't want them poisoning any masalas in sympathy with their home country, now would we).
Long live freedom! Kill, kill, kill!
Richard at 6:04PM on Jul 10th 2007