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 6 of 8)
76. The problem is that people tend not to respond well to the message you are preaching when you do it with the barrel of a gun. Democracies do well when the people of a country desire them, not so in third world countries where power and victory are more important than our concept of "freedom".
Google: Somolia, Afganistan, Kosovo, Iraq for your 'history' lesson.
Germany and Japan were completely different culturally than tribal/religiously controlled third world countries, even after we destroyed them during the war.
Jason at 8:07AM on Jul 11th 2007
77. It would seem that the last time I checked it was Japan and Germany that were the agressors. The USA just copitulated in helping to ending their regimes. We were not FORCING democracy prior to that time. Get your history straight. Ron Paul is a true constitutionalist...period.
Karla at 9:51AM on Jul 11th 2007
78. Post WW2 Germany, Hmm. It worked out OK for the West Germans, but only after Erhard's 'bonfire of controls' set the economy loose, which had to be done on a Sunday to avoid the occupying authorities anulling it. But how was it for the East Germans ? Not OK, for sure.
'A force more powerful' describes how freedom has been achieved without violence in may places at many times. Sending armies in is not the way.
steve roberts at 8:19AM on Jul 11th 2007
79. Karla,
There is more than one way to 'force' someone to bend to your will. Japan had visions of expansion and control of the entire Pacific rim. Unfortunately for Japan, it is a volcanic island and like all volcanic islands, it is devoid of heavy metals. Thus, they needed America to sell her steel in order to keep their war machine going. When the atrocities in China became undeniable (still referred to in Japanese history books as "Japan's effort to liberate China"), we stopped selling them steel. This severance of commerce costs U.S. companies millions for the sake of a moral principal. If these Middle Eastern countries today REALLY think that the U.S. is "the Great Satan", they have other choices than terrorism like maybe not selling us oil! So, where are their moral principals? Why is the U.S. the only ones who can can put our money where our mouth is? They should not call us "the Great Satan" while picking our pockets and plotting to murder us.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:20AM on Jul 11th 2007
80. Our Author writes:
"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."
This is the same old irrational trick used by socialists to argue that if you don't want to tax the rich to feed the poor, then you don't care about the poor. The very obvious answer to the above is that we can and should believe in the freedom of all while using our military to guard only our own freedom. Our government does not have our permission to police the world. This obviously does not mean we believe freedom is "not for anyone else". If D'Souza cared about freedom, he whould be opposed to forcing his neigbors to pay taxes to support such world-policing.
Our author, Nostradamus D'Souza, continues:
"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."
Here he repeats the same lie: if you don't want to drop bombs and station troops (and rob the rich), you don't believe in freedom for all.
This kind of childish logic is at the root of all government: we can do endless wonderful acts of goodness if we can just get our hands on everyone else's money, bodies, children, countries, and climates. Therefore, if you deny us such power, you don't really care about freedom or your children or the world.
With enemies like this, Ron Paul may win.
John Howard at 8:55AM on Jul 11th 2007
81. Ron Paul has it right in that our foreign policies are skewed. I amnot saying that Saadam wasn't an evil bastard, but if we as a nation agreed on pre-emptively striking Iraq...Then we should have done as Ron Paul had requested to the Bush administration and to the congress. He stated, "If you are adamant in going to war with Iraq, then (#1) GO IN QUICKLY ... (#2) WIN ... and (#3) then GET OUT." We actually finished what we set out to do and that was to unseat the dictator. The purpose was not to forever occupy Iraq & build a 2 billion dollar american embassy or..was it?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHD!!!
I believe it is Hegelian politics that make it so easy to execute such tactics such as "create your own enemy" designed to keep the world in constant chaos and conflict, which by the way leads to a destruction of "National Sovereignty " and the dominance of a global "peacekeeping" U.N.regime to "Heroically SAVE THE AMERICAN DAY" for a dummied down, propaganda MSM television watching, no child left behind(or edjukated) America. This is a process that most certainly continues to this day. Everyday our porous borders allows all types of radicals into our country. Seriously, don't you think our military needs to come home to the homefront? Remember the old saying, "when the cats away...
Karla at 11:19AM on Jul 11th 2007
82. Dinesh D’Souza,
I am not a libertarian and maybe people like you are the reason why I am not. Your definitions of “principled” and “unprincipled” are contrary to the proper moral judgement of any man who lives on this earth as a free man.
Since you are the libertarian the question should not be “shouldn’t the United States do what it can to promote liberty worldwide?” instead, the proper question is:
Does the United states have the right to exist if the liberty of other people around the world is being violated?
YES! Yes we do have the right to exist because the suffering of people around the world does not represent a mortgage on me, or the soldiers who have to make the downpayment with thier life. It is our liberty at stake when sacrificing yourself becomes the highest moral virtue, or “princple”. You are both wrong and a very far cry from a libertarian.
DJ at 12:00PM on Jul 11th 2007
83. Every day you lefties surprise me even more...if you don't agree with Dinesh...don't read his posts. I particularly enjoyed #7 who is completely lost...I like how he says that we have a problem when 20 million undocumented workers don't have rights....how about calling it like it is...they don't have rights because they broke the law and entered this country illegally! Maybe we should just move our defense budget into a social wellfare program for Mexico...maybe that would make things better!
Andrew at 12:02PM on Jul 11th 2007
84. First off, the United States is NOT presently spreading "freedom" around the world.
Just that fact alone makes the whole argument null-and-void.
Where does Dinesh D'Souza think this money is coming from anyhow?
Thomas Jefferson
(Source: letter to William Plumer, July 21, 1816):
...."I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
Patrick in Florida at 2:31PM on Jul 11th 2007
85. I hope this blog is a required course, because your thinking has the logic of an average twelve year old behind it, or some college freshman who is still hung over Sunday night and has to hand something in. Time to hit the history books and learn real history not faux history.
David duFresne at 11:05AM on Jul 12th 2007
86. If promoting liberty worldwide at the point of a gun is such a universal principle in your view, than why have you never served in the military?
It is always the ones who love war who never want to actually participate in one.
Keith K at 2:40PM on Jul 11th 2007
87. Ron Paul is the embodiment of the American Revolution. His positions and counsel are perfectly aligned with the vision of the Founders as "a new nation, conceived in liberty". The public servants chosen by the People have an ethical and legal obligation to respect the Constitution, in which their duties and powers are defined and limited. If this system is really allowed to work and not abused, the manifold benefits would be so great and so obvious that the peoples of the world would be clamoring for just such a system in their nations. As long as the government of the United States is an instrument of military intimidation and a tool for forcing other countries to yield up their resources on behalf of international corporations, resentment against us will fester and boil over in terrorist attacks. The way to peace is peace, something almost all politicians seem to have forgotten, except for Dr. Ron Paul.
futhark at 4:15PM on Jul 11th 2007
88. You miss the point. Freedom may be fought for and won at the barrel of a gun or point of a knife, etc., but that does not mean it need be fought for by outsiders seeking to impose freedom on those unwilling to provide it for themselves.
Freedom unearned is freedom not appreciated. If the majority of any people are suppressed enough, and resentment builds to boiling over, no government, no police force, no army -- not even the mighty US military -- can survive angry overwhelming committed human flesh. Something for any government, any dictator, any oligarchy to ponder before the rope snaps their neck.
Fascist Nation at 8:10PM on Jul 11th 2007
89. All I can is wow.
I know it’s not a very insightful response to your commentary.
But I believe it matches the level of wisdom used within your article.
I suppose I do have one other thing I can say. I would not normally dismiss someone’s credibility so quickly – but you should consider never writing about politics gain. It's poor at best.
Eric Johnson at 6:14PM on Jul 12th 2007
90. Freedom, like Christianity is something best spread by example. George Bush and Jerry Falwell have made more enemies than recruits. And Dinesh, you're just making Democrats. Thanks.
Bubba S. at 2:53AM on Jul 12th 2007