Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Leonard Peikoff has briefly commented on Ron Paul (and the Republican Party as a whole) in his December 23rd podcast (somewhere in the middle). Although he professed to be unaware of Ron Paul, he relayed Yaron Brook's assessment of the Republican candidate, which Dr. Peikoff described as very persuasive. Needless to say, Yaron Brook denounced Ron Paul for his former affiliation with the Libertarian party, his dangerous views on foreign policy and his views on abortion. Leonard Peikoff's podcasts are available here.

Also needless to say, I agree with Yaron Brook 100%. :)

Thank you to intellectualammo for bringing this to my attention.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at least he does not want to support, fund and actively protect dangerous regimes like Iran as do Democratic presidential candidates.

Perhaps you can make a point here. Nevertheless, this is another statement that will be entirely disregarded unless if you provide verifiable quotes with their context from leading Democratic presidential candidates. At present, I do not see any substantial difference between most of the leading Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy besides that Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq while the Republicans want to stay. Rudy is an exception at least because he identifies the enemy as Islamic terrorism, not just terrorism.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democratic presidential candidates publicly defend dangerous Islamic regimes like Syria & Iran on radio, television, in print and on the Internet. Hopefully this is only a ploy to garner votes from their far-left anti-war base and if elected president they would smash those terror states. We'll see...

Here are some excerpts from a recent Democratic presidential debate:

CLINTON: So we can argue about what is a nonbinding sense of the Senate, and I think that we are missing the point, which is we’ve got to do everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans from doing something on their own to take offensive military action against Iran.

I am prepared to pass legislation with my colleagues who are here in the Congress to try to get some Republicans to join us, to make it abundantly clear that sanctions and diplomacy are the way to go. We reject and do not believe George Bush has any authority to do anything else.

DODD: I’m in a view here, what you didn’t learn back in ‘02, you should’ve learned by now. And you don’t just have to listen to this resolution. There’s been a series of drumbeats by this administration, by Dick Cheney, by the president, by others, clearly pointing in a direction that would call for military action in Iran.

It is a dangerous view, in my view. And therefore, I thought it was incumbent upon us. It was interesting that people like Dick Lugar, the former Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska—Republicans who also had serious reservations and voted against that resolution the other day on September 26th.

I’m very concerned that we’re going to see those 76 votes come back, being waved in front of us here as a justification when the Bush administration decides to take military action in Iran.

BIDEN: Who benefits from that? All this talk of war, all this talk of declaring people to be terrorists droves up the price of oil.

Secondly, we have emboldened Bush, at a minimum, his talk of world war III—totally irresponsible talk. We’ve emboldened him, Tim, to be able to move, if he chooses to move.

They’re terrorists. The fact that they’re terrorists on one side of the border or the other, we just declare them terrorists. That gives him the color of right to move against them.

Thirdly, this has incredible consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nobody talks about this. The 75 of our colleagues don’t understand. We have no driven, underground, every moderate in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

This literally—literally puts Karzai, as well as Musharraf in jeopardy. The notion is it plays into this whole urban legend that America’s on a crusade against Islam.

This was bad—if nothing else happens; not another single thing this was bad policy. The president had the ability to do everything that that amendment—that resolution called for without us talking to it.

OBAMA: I don’t think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drum beat of war. The president has been talking about World War III.

That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region.

And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

CLINTON: Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy, and I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy. We have used it with other very difficult situations—like Libya, like North Korea. I think that what we’re trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that’s why we’ve got to rein him in, and that’s why we need Republican support in the Congress to help us do so.

I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear: He has no authority and we will not permit him to go take offensive action against Iran. But what we’re trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy. That has been lacking. I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians. ...

Everybody agrees up here that President Bush has made a total mess out of the situation with Iran. What we’re trying to do is to sort our way through to try to put diplomacy, with some carrots and some sticks, into the mix and get the president to begin to do that.

EDWARDS: A lot of us on this stage have learned our lessons the hard way, that you give this president an inch and he will take a mile. And this is about such an important issue, and we have to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney or this administration invade Iran because they have been rattling the saber over and over and over.

And what this resolution did, written literally in the language of the neo-cons, is it enables this president to do exactly what he wants to do. He continues to march forward. He continues to say this is a terrorist organization. He continues to say these are proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

How in the world is that—Democrats—we’re not talking about Republicans now, Chris and Joe—Democrats standing up to this president and saying, “No, we are not going to allow this, we are not going to allow this march to war in Iran”?

KUCINICH: Well, first of all, we need to adamantly reject any kind of a move toward war with Iran.

There’s no basis for it whatsoever. But we have to realize, Tim, that we have a number of enablers who happen to be Democrats who have said over the last year, with respect to Iran, all options are on the table. And when you say all options are on the table, you are licensing President Bush.

And I’m the only one up here on the stage who not only voted against the war in Iraq, voted against funding the war, but also led the effort against Bush’s drive toward war.

The problem is: These policies of preemption license a war. Preemption, by virtue of international law, is illegal. Our president has already violated international law.

The war in Iraq is illegal. Even planning for the war against Iran is illegal. Tim, we’re here in Philadelphia, the birthplace of democracy. I want to know when this democratic Congress is going to stand up for the Constitution and hold the president accountable with Article II, Section 4, an impeachment act.

OBAMA: I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons, and so we could potentially short circuit this.

(LAUGHTER)

But I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is, we have been governed by fear for the last six years. And this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing.

EDWARDS: I don’t. I think that we need to end combat missions; we need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it’s a requirement of leadership, as president. And I will do it in my first year in office: combat missions ended, combat troops out of Iraq, period.

So there’s a very clear choice here between the candidates.

And the second thing that I want to make certain that voters are aware of, when we talk—we’ve had a long discussion about Iran. And Barack just made the connection to Iran, and there is a very clear connection.

Because we need to learn from the past. And what we’ve learned from the past is you cannot trust this president. And what I worry about is, if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to hear: “If only I had known then what I know now?”

Well, we know enough now to know we have to stand up to this president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that particularly bothers me about so many of the presidential candidates is that almost none of them have any experience in the executive branch. They might be able to sit back with their finger in the wind and figure out which laws to vote for and which to vote against. They might be able to coalition-build and do all kinds of legislative politicing, but they have no experience taking an idea or a goal and putting it into effect. Give him the project to defend America. What's he going to do? Who is he going to appoint, what will his diplomatic policy be, when will he issue force? Give him the task of overhauling the national intelligence. What steps will he take? He's never been in a situation where he has to answer these kinds of questions. The most leadership he has had to exercise is as a doctor in the military and as a businessman. Now both are respectable and good work experience, but nowhere near sufficient for President and Commander in Chief of the United States.

Excuse me for being such a newb but what does experience gotta do with anything? Bush doesn't have that much experience.

Edited by shyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for being such a newb but what does experience gotta do with anything? Bush doesn't have that much experience.

Are you saying that you think Bush has done well despite a lack of experience? Or, are you saying that experience does not count for making a better potential candidate? Or, are you saying something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul does not want to intervene in foreign affairs -- a position Ayn Rand might or might not agree with. But at least he does not want to support, fund and actively protect dangerous regimes like Iran as do Democratic presidential candidates.

Even considering the quotes you have provided, I would still make that case that Ron Paul is significantly more dangerous on foreign policy than any of the Democratic candidates. With the exception of maybe Dennis Kucinich, the Democrats (along with most of the Republicans) will still cave into pressure groups and public opinion when it comes to executing policy. All major politicians today are essentially Pragmatists, which means that they have little or no principles. Despite the rhetoric during the Democratic primary, I still perceive if in the oval office, any of these non-Kucinich Democrats will take stronger action against Islamic terror if the nation demands it.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a man of principles. When he advances the Libertarian view on foreign policy, which in practice seems to amount to claiming that "interventionism" is largely, if not entirely, the reason the United States is the target of Islamic terror, he will stick to it, regardless of what all of the different political pressure groups tell him. Ron Paul would not wage a war against Islamic Fundamentalism on principle. With the Democrats, there is still the hope that their positions are always open to political persuasion. With Ron Paul, there is no hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even considering the quotes you have provided, I would still make that case that Ron Paul is significantly more dangerous on foreign policy than any of the Democratic candidates. With the exception of maybe Dennis Kucinich, the Democrats (along with most of the Republicans) will still cave into pressure groups and public opinion when it comes to executing policy. All major politicians today are essentially Pragmatists, which means that they have little or no principles. Despite the rhetoric during the Democratic primary, I still perceive if in the oval office, any of these non-Kucinich Democrats will take stronger action against Islamic terror if the nation demands it.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a man of principles. When he advances the Libertarian view on foreign policy, which in practice seems to amount to claiming that "interventionism" is largely, if not entirely, the reason the United States is the target of Islamic terror, he will stick to it, regardless of what all of the different political pressure groups tell him. Ron Paul would not wage a war against Islamic Fundamentalism on principle. With the Democrats, there is still the hope that their positions are always open to political persuasion. With Ron Paul, there is no hope.

You make a good point.

I guess my point reduces to 3 positions on foreign policy regarding the current crop of presidential candidates:

1) Positive intervention: taxing American producers and giving that loot to Islamic terror regimes like Palestine, Syria and Iran on the premise that terrorists murder because they are poor and their situation is bleak. This is what liberal Democrats such as Obama espouse.

2) Negative intervention: taxing American producers and using that loot to bomb and combat Islamic terror regimes like Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that terrorists only understand brute force. This is what modern Republicans such as Guiliani espouse.

3) Non-intervention: do not tax American producers and do not offer positive or negative intervention on the premise that this is what worked for America's Founding Fathers and worked until the 20th century. This is what old-school conservatives such as Paul espouse.

I prefer position #2, but if that's not an option, I prefer #3 over #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Negative intervention: taxing American producers and using that loot to bomb and combat Islamic terror regimes like Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that terrorists only understand brute force. This is what modern Republicans such as Guiliani espouse.

I doubt they understand brute force. Of course they see the force, but they (those who support their government / terrorist organization) don't understand it as being justified. On the contrary, 'brute force' can play into the terrorists hand, too. They are not interested in the welfare of their people and for every killed peasant they get one follower. The source of their power is not the economy but misery.

To my understanding the whole strategy of terrorism is based on the reaction of the attacked. This was used by the Communists on a national level as it is used on an international level now. Communist agents staged terror attacks in order to provoke the government to reduce privacy rights and increase overall police measures. When the measures became more drastic the terrorists were able to get support from frustrated citizens rallying against the 'fascist' state, eventually toppling the government.

I don't say that using force is out of the question, but that one has to keep this in mind. I also think that 'victory' can only be achieved on the philosophical level by educating the uneducated who would support terrorists and on the judiciary level by targeting specific responsible people and not 'innocent' people. Yes, they are not really 'innocent' because they support the terrorists, but in order to convince them to stop the support, to make them 'understand', force is the wrong answer.

The only premise can therefore be the use of force for self-defense and as a deterrent but not 'making them understand that they are wrong'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, Ron Paul is the best Republican primary candidate.

I will continue to support him and his effort to secure the nomination.

Guliani is 2nd. Should either Ron Paul or Guliani win the nomination I will vote for one of them.

The most important issues for me are the Economy and Education. Period.

Edited by CmdrBretz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Positive intervention: taxing American producers and giving that loot to Islamic terror regimes like Palestine, Syria and Iran on the premise that terrorists murder because they are poor and their situation is bleak. This is what liberal Democrats such as Obama espouse.

2) Negative intervention: taxing American producers and using that loot to bomb and combat Islamic terror regimes like Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that terrorists only understand brute force. This is what modern Republicans such as Guiliani espouse.

I do not think these are accurate characterizations of the essential ideas behind Democratic and Republican foreign policy.

On the Democrats:

With regards to the Democrats, I would like to limit the discussion to the three front-runners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Nobody else has a chance for the Democratic nomination.

Have any of these three candidates actually indicated that poverty is the cause of terror and that the U.S. should combat it by ameliorating poverty in the Middle East? Maybe they have, and I am just unaware. I would believe that this could be John Edwards' plan. But even then, I do not know of any examples off of the top of my head. Anyway, I am always open to new facts, so I encourage you to post evidence supporting this claim.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote a post briefly commenting on the foreign policy of both Hillary and Obama:

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to acknowledge Iran as a threat (unlike Ron Paul). Hillary has suggested that we urge U.N. sanctions (e.g., here), she suggests that a military confrontation should be considered here and has defended her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization here.

On the other side, Barack Obama has expressed that he would be open to military strikes against Iran and Pakistan back in 2004 when he was running for the Senate, see here*. Moreover, Obama has reiterated similar sentiments during a 2007 Presidential debate, see here.

In particular with Obama, I think it is important to note that his statement was made before he even contemplated running for President. Thus, it may very well reflect his true sentiments.

Anyway, I am not trying to argue that Hillary and Obama are good on foreign policy. Instead, my claim is that it is wrong to characterize them as wanting to neutralize Islamic terrorism with aid. Furthermore, if any major candidate takes this position, it may very well be Mike Huckabee. Consider the following quote from this article, where the emphasis is mine:

As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win. But it is also self-defeating to do nothing. We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States' strategic interests as the world's most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing.

Moreover, with regards to giving aid, historically the Republicans have the recent record of giving billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan. On the other hand, Barack Obama is calling for the U.S. to cut aid to Pakistan, see here.

Differences between Democrats and Republicans:

First of all, none of the major candidates seem to embrace too many differentiating principles when it comes to foreign policy. Instead, they largely operate on pragmatic problem solving to each individual circumstance. Even the Republican candidates seem to have abandoned the idea that allowing a country to undergo self-determination through democratic elections will somehow make it a safer place.

That being said, my current perception as to the essential difference between the Democratic candidates (i.e., Hillary, Obama, Edwards) and the Republicans (i.e., Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee) is:

  • The Republicans want to stay in Iraq while the Democrats want to leave Iraq.

  • The Republicans seem more open to using force against Iran, if necessary.

  • The Democrats are more likely to get all of Congress to cooperate with a war effort. (Although Edwards probably would not want to.)

I would also note that Rudy Giuliani makes a point to identify the enemy as Islamic Terrorism, not just terrorism, which I think philosophically is a huge plus.

Even the first point seems to be an advantage for the Democrats. Republicans such as Rudy and McCain might also give less credibility to the United Nations, but it is unclear to me if Huckabee or Romney will be any different from a Democrat on this issue.

* The link to the original Chicago Tribune article seems to be broken. Nevertheless, the existence of the article and its statement is still widely acknowledged on the internet.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences between Democrats and Republicans:

First of all, none of the major candidates seem to embrace too many differentiating principles when it comes to foreign policy. Instead, they largely operate on pragmatic problem solving to each individual circumstance. Even the Republican candidates seem to have abandoned the idea that allowing a country to undergo self-determination through democratic elections will somehow make it a safer place.

That being said, my current perception as to the essential difference between the Democratic candidates (i.e., Hillary, Obama, Edwards) and the Republicans (i.e., Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee) is:

  • The Republicans want to stay in Iraq while the Democrats want to leave Iraq.

  • The Republicans seem more open to using force against Iran, if necessary.

  • The Democrats are more likely to get all of Congress to cooperate with a war effort. (Although Edwards probably would not want to.)

I would also note that Rudy Giuliani makes a point to identify the enemy as Islamic Terrorism, not just terrorism, which I think philosophically is a huge plus.

Even the first point seems to be an advantage for the Democrats. Republicans such as Rudy and McCain might also give less credibility to the United Nations, but it is unclear to me if Huckabee or Romney will be any different from a Democrat on this issue.

Philosophically, the difference between democrats and republicans is that the democrats are more nihilistic, while the republicans are more religious. There is cross over, of course, but I think that sets out the broader differences between the two parties. This is why I hope Giuliani wins, because he could deal a huge blow to the religious right.

Btw, I really think Huckabee in the race helps confirm Peikoff's concern over the religious right. He is very religious, anti-capitalist, and pro-environmentalist, and lots of republicans want him in, to the dismay of people like Rush Limbaugh who believed conservatism was about free markets. If Huckabee gets the nomination, then I would say Peikoff was entirely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important issues for me are the Economy and Education. Period.

I am compelled to respond to this simply because I cannot tell, from this comment, what value a candidate's stance on foreign policy is to you. For example, does this comment mean that foreign policy is of no value to you? Does this mean that it is of value to you but you perceive there to be no serious threat to the citizens of the United States and thus dwarfed by views on the economy and education? There are other interpretations but the point is I cannot tell what you meant.

That being said, so long as you value your life, you should value what actions a Presidential candidate will take, if any, to protect you from foreign enemies who will imperil your well-being.

That being said, if you are going to support Ron Paul, it should be because you honestly perceive either that:

1.) the threats of Islamic Totalitarianism to the citizens of the United States are not serious enough to make a candidate's view on foreign policy an important issue relative to other issues.

or

2.) Ron Paul will take sufficient action to reduce those threats.

Anything else, in my honest opinion, is an evasion.

Needless to say, I think that the threat of radical Islam is very serious and (as previously stated) I think that Ron Paul as Commander in Chief will only embolden our enemies. However, the purpose of my response is not to persuade you to these points. Instead, I want to persuade you, if you do not already believe it to be true, that a candidate's views on foreign policy, as such, should be an important issue when choosing whom to support for the United States Presidency.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@West

Really?

Can i get a source for that?

Edit: I apologize, I was given erroneous information. According to my further research, he is being excluded, as evidenced by the NH GOP pulling their sponsorship from the Fox GOP debate.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** Moved Ron Paul related posts

from another topic - sN ***

You can still be opposed to his foreign policy, but don't go on doing it under the false belief that Paul actually sanctions or has empathy for anything Islamic militants do.

But he's garnered the support of a lot of people who do have empathy for Islamic militants, take this video for example...

Why is it so hard to say anything good about any of the the Democrats? Do you guys actually realize that with the exception or Roosevelt and Carter, no Democrat has lead us clearly in the direction of socialism? Bill Clinton actually reformed welfare and made it harder to get on, where Bush expanded it. Republicans have been elected over and over again and where does it get us? We still aren't moving in the direction we want to go.

They say one thing and do another. Ron Paul is right about that much.

You probably can, but for completeness can you please supply sources of where Ron Paul indicates that such attacks against the U.S. are irrational and illegitimate?

I sort of did in the link I provided above, see for yourself.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added 'moved posts' annotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@intellectualammo:

Instead of appealing to an authority, can you give me a brief summation of how you came to these conclusions and why they are your position?

Beside full agreement with Dr. Peikoff and professor Hsieh, I have also stated in various posts throughout the forum my own take on the GOP, which is more centered upon the separation of government and religion. Basically, when a party is affiliated with religion, such as the Republican party, there is no clear separation between those two, because religious views are put into policy, laws, and so forth. The government is to hold no such views, and to have a political party, like that of the GOP having such an affiliation, is an abomination. That's my main concern, removing religion from the realm of politics altogether, or barring it from entering it period. My most important position, is that of not joining any of the policial parties of today, but be registered to vote. These parties exist, because of their party members, voters, volunteers, and so forth. I have called before here on this forum, for a mass exiting of the political parties of today. Leaving them, if you are registered to any one particular party, may cause possible reformations to take place inside the parties themselves, or total collapse. So, right now, I'm register to vote, as an "unaffiliated" voter, and I intend to keep religious views out of the government, which I think is worse than higher taxes. Banning certain forms or stages in abortion, or euthanasia, is worse than a few more percent out of my pay, or further taxation. Those aren't the best examples, but I am working a very long shift today so I'm not really able to give better ones, for I have to get back soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick post before bed:

Would it be better to vote for a candidate that supports views that directly affect me (taxes, socialized medicine) or a candidate that supports views that I don't really care about because they don't directly affect me [abortion (you can just go to another state to have it done!)]?

I think dealing with potential problems is less important than dealing with actual problems.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...