Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peter Schiff For Senate!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Andrew, has Schiff ever explained his social and national defense positions?

Yes. Socially, he has made it clear he is pro-choice, and in favor of CT's gay marriage position. He is for a strong national defense. When asked on Morning Joe today about his position on the Afghanistan War, he says we cannot afford the "luxury" of our current foreign policy and would advocate for many of our troops to come back to the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When asked on Morning Joe today about his position on the Afghanistan War, he says we cannot afford the "luxury" of our current foreign policy and would advocate for many of our troops to come back to the US.

That's a mixed bag at best. While the current war in Afghanistan isn't serving our national interests, calling our current foreign policy a "luxury" and advocating bringing the troops home sounds more like Ron Paul-style isolationism than a proper policy of self-defense. Here's a better keystone: what does Schiff think our policy should be towards Iran?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a mixed bag at best. While the current war in Afghanistan isn't serving our national interests, calling our current foreign policy a "luxury" and advocating bringing the troops home sounds more like Ron Paul-style isolationism than a proper policy of self-defense. Here's a better keystone: what does Schiff think our policy should be towards Iran?

I don't know what his Iran policy is.

Peter's exact quoted answer to the question posed was:

"We need to have a sound economy before we can afford the luxury of troops around the world."

Considering the deficit we're in, I agree with Peter that now is not the time to have troops in over 100 countries. Realistically, the military shouldn't do ANYTHING unless it's responding to a direct attack on Americans, because we have countless trillions of dollars to repay before we're fiscally sound again.

If you wouldn't support Peter because of this, then say goodbye to the only Objectivist-friendly senatorial candidate of recent memory.

EDIT: By the way, I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is not isolationism - it's termed "non-interventionism." Which is unfortunately similar to the type of foreign policy we'll be forced to endure in America's near-term future. When our economy completely collapses, forcing Americans to live at a much lower standard of living, we won't be able to afford the world's most powerful military.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter's exact quoted answer to the question posed was:

"We need to have a sound economy before we can afford the luxury of troops around the world."

Considering the deficit we're in, I agree with Peter that now is not the time to have troops in over 100 countries. Realistically, the military shouldn't do ANYTHING unless it's responding to a direct attack on Americans, because we have countless trillions of dollars to repay before we're fiscally sound again.

If you wouldn't support Peter because of this, then say goodbye to the only Objectivist-friendly senatorial candidate of recent memory.

My point was simply that on the basis of Schiff's position as stated, we can't tell whether he would be a supporter of military action against nations that do pose a threat to us -- like Iran -- or not. The threat posed by a nuclear Iran isn't going to be any less dangerous because our economy is in a shambles. What would a dirty bomb going off in New York do to the economy?

From what I've heard of Schiff's economic views, they sound good. His lack of religion and pro-choice views are good. But libertarians are often notoriously bad on foreign policy, and so far I can't tell whether Schiff is in that boat or not.

Whether it makes sense to support Schiff depends on his views. That's why I'm trying to clarify what they are in cases where I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what his Iran policy is.

Peter's exact quoted answer to the question posed was:

"We need to have a sound economy before we can afford the luxury of troops around the world."

Considering the deficit we're in, I agree with Peter that now is not the time to have troops in over 100 countries. Realistically, the military shouldn't do ANYTHING unless it's responding to a direct attack on Americans, because we have countless trillions of dollars to repay before we're fiscally sound again.

If you wouldn't support Peter because of this, then say goodbye to the only Objectivist-friendly senatorial candidate of recent memory.

EDIT: By the way, I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is not isolationism - it's termed "non-interventionism." Which is unfortunately similar to the type of foreign policy we'll be forced to endure in America's near-term future. When our economy completely collapses, forcing Americans to live at a much lower standard of living, we won't be able to afford the world's most powerful military.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To utilize a very technical, esoteric philosophical phrase, the personal who correctly stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy can be summed up as non-interventionist............."hit the nail on the head."

He proposed we TRADE with everyone instead of INVADING AND/OR OCCUPYING other nations. A true "liberal" should be FOR a peaceful relationship of voluntary trade with all nations. The only true duties of any government, federal or state, should be:

*maintain a military to defend our shores/boundaries/airspace and shipping lanes;

*a system of courts to settle/litigate civil and criminal matters;

*the cop "on his beat".

That's it.......everything else can be handled effectively, productively and profitably including the post office, Amtrak, fire and police protection, education (Especially education), etc.

To keep saying Ron Paul is an isolationist is to reveal one's shallowness and lack of perspicacity as to real issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what his Iran policy is.

[...]

Realistically, the military shouldn't do ANYTHING unless it's responding to a direct attack on Americans

[...]

I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is not isolationism - it's termed "non-interventionism."

Do you consider Iran's continuous support of terrorist activities against Americans a "direct attack"? Or wait, here is a simple one: Do you think 9/11 was a "direct attack"? Remember, several 9/11 attackers received active training in Iran. Maybe you wouldn't consider anything a "direct attack" until Iran drops a nuke it is openly trying to get.

And could you please explain the difference (if any) between isolationism and "non-interventionism"?

(Perhaps, our latest troll rtaylortitle can answer too if he wants.)

Make it a separate debate thread if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you consider Iran's continuous support of terrorist activities against Americans a "direct attack"? Or wait, here is a simple one: Do you think 9/11 was a "direct attack"? Remember, several 9/11 attackers received active training in Iran. Maybe you wouldn't consider anything a "direct attack" until Iran drops a nuke it is openly trying to get.

And could you please explain the difference (if any) between isolationism and "non-interventionism"?

(Perhaps, our latest troll rtaylortitle can answer too if he wants.)

Make it a separate debate thread if you want.

You misquoted me. I'm speaking within the context of what the military should be doing within the restraints of the fiscal situation of the country. We truly can't afford to perform even basic military operations - as soon as the lenders want their money back, either our country, or our currency, will become worthless. Either way, it means funding even important operations of the government will be more difficult than it used to be.

Keep this thread about Peter, please - if you don't mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You misquoted me. I'm speaking within the context of what the military should be doing within the restraints of the fiscal situation of the country.

Are you saying that Americans should forget the "direct attacks" that happened before the crisis? And that military should respond only to "direct attacks" in the future? How does it matter whether a "direct attack" takes place before or after the crisis?

Keep this thread about Peter, please - if you don't mind.

Then keep your responses with Objectivist point of views only, not about "isolationist" suicide. As I mentioned earlier, you can start a debate thread about this issue if you want.

Edited by Rockefeller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then keep your responses with Objectivist point of views only, not about "isolationist" suicide.

In fairness, I was the one who first used the term "isolationist", not Andrew.

As with him, I'd prefer to avoid debating foreign policy issues in this thread; the topic here is Peter Schiff and his views.

Inside that context, I have to note that you can't dodge the question of what a proper foreign policy would consist of by claiming that the country can't afford an effective military. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if we can't defend ourselves militarily from hostile nations then we literally aren't a country at all. A government is an institution holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force inside a specific geographic region. A government without a functioning military cannot maintain that monopoly and is therefore a 'government' in name only.

I also question the assertion on historical grounds. American participation in World War II was probably the largest sustained military expenditure in the nation's history -- and it occurred during the Great Depression, the worst economic collapse the nation had experienced to that time. Living standards dropped dramatically during the war, but fighting and winning it took priority. Paying for it was painful, but possible, and better than the alternative.

My question for Peter Schiff boils down to what principles he would apply to analyzing questions of foreign policy and war, i.e. what standards he would use to determine whether or not military action is required in a given situation. Obviously, given the dire financial straits in which the economy and government now find themselves, we shouldn't be wasting wealth on non-essentials. But that leaves open the question of what is essential, what isn't, and why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inside that context, I have to note that you can't dodge the question of what a proper foreign policy would consist of by claiming that the country can't afford an effective military.

...

Obviously, given the dire financial straits in which the economy and government now find themselves, we shouldn't be wasting wealth on non-essentials. But that leaves open the question of what is essential, what isn't, and why.

I think he was being more literal than that, as in there is literally no way to fund a military without money. Not as in "we can afford the monetary cost, but not the non-monetary cost". I still would want to know what his foreign policy views are, but it would seem that he's just against doing things like "spend 'cause we have to, even if all the money is borrowed from China".

I couldn't find much information on his social positions, a search on Google only led me to this topic strangely enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he was being more literal than that, as in there is literally no way to fund a military without money. Not as in "we can afford the monetary cost, but not the non-monetary cost". I still would want to know what his foreign policy views are, but it would seem that he's just against doing things like "spend 'cause we have to, even if all the money is borrowed from China".

I couldn't find much information on his social positions, a search on Google only led me to this topic strangely enough.

He's talked about his social positions before. Lots of YouTube clips of this.

He's got the Objectivist social position on pretty much everything, as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...