One on One with Ron Paul

Larry Kudlow

After Congressman Ron Paul's strong second-place finish in New Hampshire, he's winning plaudits everywhere. Can the GOP find a home for the principles with the free market Austrian economic message?

Larry Kudlow

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” which airs nightly from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall columns and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate

345 Comments So Far

Kevin690 Wrote: Jan 31, 2012 8:24 AM

When I hear about Ph. D.'s in economics, the first three things that come to mind are:

1. Post-hole Digger;
2. Piled high and Deep;
3. Phony Doctor.

These are the types that occupy the Federal Reserve. They know next to nothing about the way markets work; they only know how governments are SUPPOSED to direct markets. That's why they have a 100-year record that's unblemished with success.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

JohnDK Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 8:09 PM

Media manipulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y4P2O8UjQeU

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

rmccarthy Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 10:37 PM

Thanks. In my opinion, mostly true and mostly fair. However, there is no perfect when dealing with people and government...new dummies born everyday - we had our chance, they will have theirs. Does "1984" "lord of the Flies" "animal Farm" mean anything to anyone anymore?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

RG_From_THP Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:24 PM

“At the “World Without Zionism” conference held in Tehran in October 2005, as the crowd chanted “death to Israel, death to America, death to England,” the Iranian President Ahminajead said...with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt.”

Iran has been aiding, abetting, funding 'Terrorism' and using every known modern weapon, with the exception of nuclear weapons, to attack others and spread terrorism around the World.

'ALL' of this is proof positive to Ron Paul and his supporters that Iran would NOT use Nuclear Weapons on others.

Huh?

What?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

psullivan Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:38 PM

I think the world would be much better off without Zionism. and since we've been the puppet of Zionism since 1945, others tend to lump us together. I can understand their "confusion."

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 10:06 PM

As a libertarian, I say let the Israelis and Palestinians figure it all out themselves. Our meddling does not help.

However, as a dispassionate observer, I have to add that Zionism was, from the outset, a pretty insane idea. "Let's get all us Jewish folks together and go take over some land, and hope the current inhabitants don't mind."

Originally, Herzl and his fellow Zionists looked to establish the New Israel in places like Canada and Uganda. I wonder how our brother Canucks would have reacted to a Jewish ethnocracy set up on their land?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:15 AM

why is that the US's problem? why not keep sending spies over thee to kill their nuclear scientists? its cheaper, less loss of life and has plausible deniability. or let israel hammer iran to dust w/ one of their 300 nukes. if iran wants some, the israelis will be happy to oblige them. either way, iran is really inconsequential. n. korea, india, pakistan, china and russia have nukes. we should kill them FIRST.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

RG_From_THP Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:23 PM

Many Liberal Progressive websites are hoping for a Ron Paul-Dennis Kuchinich GOP ticket against Obama-Biden or Hillary - they are saying either way Liberal Progressives win.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jim103 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:12 PM

Ron Paul's principles include the principle of pacifism, which is the denial of the right of self defense. Thus, like pacifists everywhere, Ron Paul makes a common cause with terrorists and other aggressors.

Thus Ron Paul is unacceptable.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

JohnDK Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:57 PM

There is a moral difference between self-defense and aggression. If you would listen to what Ron Paul says, he adheres to self-defense, not pre-emptive aggression.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:17 AM

more lying and demagoguing. Ron Paul is for DEFENSE, NOT nation building or ridiculous pre-emptive strikes authorized by falsified information(see iraq war).

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Vince194 Wrote: Jan 29, 2012 3:51 PM

Then why is the military one of his biggest supportersjQuery152019444999315775463_1327870168899?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Vince194 Wrote: Jan 29, 2012 3:52 PM

Then why is the military one of his biggest supportersjQuery152019444999315775463_1327870168900?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 2:53 PM

Ron Paul does better with independents that the other GOP candidates. And polls show only Romney and Paul can compete with Obama.

Now, between Romney and Paul, which one will repeal more big government? I think we know the answer to this one.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:45 PM

A common thread on Ron Paul goes something like this: "I like his policy on fiscal restraint and sound money, but I don't like his foreign policy."

The two, however, go hand-in-hand. Nothing destroys fiscal restraint and sound money like a policy of constant warfare across the globe.

This is not to say that we don't need to eliminate the welfare state, too. Ron Paul is also the only candidate to come up with a detailed budget, itemizing one trillion in spending cuts the first year.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum--like Bush before them--will do nothing more than slightly slow the rate of increase in spending. They probably won't even be able to do that, given that they are all calling for war against Iran and Syria.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

cavalier973 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:50 PM

War is the most anti-free market activity in which a nation can involve itself. War is also the most anti-liberty activity; I used to think that the FedGov garnered unConstitutional powers by giving out freebies--welfare checks and corporate subsidies--I have since learned that the primary tool for government to grab power is to get the nation involved in a war. The people who should be naturally suspicious of subsequent gov't grabs for power turn off their brains, believing that the destruction of liberty is 1. necessary for security's sake, and 2. only temporary. Both beliefs are wrong.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jim103 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:14 PM

"War is the most anti-free market activity..."

Thus our nation should never, ever engage in war, that the use of violence should be the sole prerogative of aggressors like terrorists.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:52 PM

Paulus - I think the Middle East saw how the USSR spent themselves into oblivion trying to counteract our SDI programs. So, they're letting us spend ourselves into oblivion (as if we're not there yet) trying to ensure they don't acquire/build nuclear weapons.

No one wants to think about what will happen when Congress can't run a deficit. Sooner or later the creditors of the US will determine that funding the US government is too big a credit risk and they won't approve more borrowing.

I'm not sure what will happen after that, but I'll guess the reserve will react by printing more money, resulting in hyperinflation, ultimately resulting in, what?

Ron Paul wants to stop the spending spree in a controlled fashion. If that doesn't happen,

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:53 PM

the spree will be stopped in an _uncontrollable_ way. No one knows _when_ this will happen, and so many seem to believe it won't happen.

I think we're skrewed, but just don't realize it yet.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 5:11 PM

"the creditors of the US will determine that funding the US government is too big a credit risk and they won't approve more borrowing."

The fed will have to raise the interest rate to compensate for the risk. That's when TSHTF and the sheeple see that they killed the messenger; Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2012!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 2:44 PM

Ron Paul is THE ONLY ONE. Right. Nobody else talks about reducing spending. Nobody else talks about cutting government nobody else talks about following the constitution.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 3:17 PM

Everyone else talks about it. Here're the respective plans:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-guide-to-the-presidential-candidates-proposals-to-cut-spending/#more-41985

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:22 AM

reality? you could use a dose. NONE of the candidates outside of Paul talk about truly cutting spending and we already know by their voting record that they're lying.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Sid14 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:09 PM

To answer your question, not as long as the FED is pulling the GOP's strings.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Andy440 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:55 AM

Ron Paul doesn't even have a majority among the conservatives! How do you think he would fare in the General election? It would be the biggest 'blow out' defeat for the GOP since Goldwater in '64...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

InBlack Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:58 AM

Ron Paul currently beats obama in a head to head survey

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:15 PM

It'd be good to see the stats for Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron, all against Obama. I will vote for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary.

However, I'll be voting for the Republican nominee in November. Even if the guy just slows us down a little, that'll give us a little more time to prepare for the inevitable. I'm not sure if Newt or Mitt can win against Obama, though. Even with my vote...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:57 PM

You need 218 Congressmen and 60 Senators to enact Ron Paul's agenda. How many do you have? Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election, so let's just say Ron Paul isn't going to get his agenda accomplished if he won.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Barbara1247 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 4:20 PM

So I should vote for someone whose agenda will be accomplished - even if I believe that agenda will result in moving our country closer to oblivion?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:25 AM

yr guy has already proven he doesnt want to get anything done. also, some of what Ron Paul can do can be done by executive order, just like the Fraud-in-Chief has done. and many incumbents will be voted out. also, if some congressmen want to hold back Ron Paul, they had better show cause or be voted out.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Uncle Mike Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 4:10 PM

Goldwater ran for president in 1964. He won in 1980. Ron Paul ran for president in 2012. History will repeat at some point. Paul is the only candidate who recognizes that both parties have a spending problem. And for saying that he's pilloried?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:41 AM

I wonder if the Mullahs have decided that since SDI worked so well getting the USSR to spend itself into oblivion, they're doing the same thing with us...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 2:43 PM

The Mullahs will be dancing in the streets again if Ron Paul gets elected.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:27 AM

they're already dancing... to the Military Industrial Complex's tune. just like you, sheep.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Gerald163 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:10 AM

Ron Paul - substance over style. Alas a losing formula in America.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

duggy2 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:22 AM

Anon
Dr paul is the only one who understands that the 15t debt is impoverishing us..the treasury prints iou's aka us bonds instead of dollars - hard concept for most....

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:40 AM

The ONLY ONE. Right.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:27 AM

you lie and attack Dr. Paul alot but have yet to endorse a candidate. who do you support, genius?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Blair31 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 10:00 AM

Fuzzy math, duggy2. Fail. Read the racist newsletters Ron Paul denied putting out in the late '80s and early '90s.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 2:51 PM

Don't believe the hype. A an depth report was done on this issue and they found Ron Paul was not the writer nor the editor much of what you are talking about. He simply authored a couple of them during the first 1-2 years.

Do I believe Ron Paul is the only one that understands the debt? No. Is he the only one that will actually cut the budget rather than just proposed increases on spending. YES.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:28 AM

maybe you should read a true journalists debunking of them. ben swann.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Anonymous9801 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:03 AM

I'm sorry, I simply can't get past his Jane Fonda approach to foreign policy and his desire to expand heroin and cocaine legally in American homes and schools...this sad little man and his pathetic cult of anti-war, anti-American druggies and dopers needs to fade away...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

rk3520 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:40 AM

I might pay if you would google and read about the legalization of drugs in Portugal and how it has decrease the usage, works with them to help get people off of drug, HIV has dropped and many more benefits. I do know one thing for a fact what we are doing now is not working there is more and more drugs than ever before and we spend billion to try to control it.
And on foreign policy another google US intervention and see all of the countries we try and fail to control their government in the mean time spending trillions of dollars that if we need to spend, spend it here in the US - how about another Manhattan Project on curing cancer or any of our other killers. I think we need to take care of our country so we can be a strong nation

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:36 AM

Wait -- where does the CONSTITUTION authorize a war on cancer? It doesn't.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

InBlack Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:03 PM

Genius - we need to get rid of people who will not support continuous war.

We're broke!

Wake the hell up and realize that we are not accomplishing anything by interfering in foreign civil wars.

If you were pro-American you would realize that the constitution forbids this kind of entanglement and that being American means we don't tell our neighbor how to live. If they want to smole pot why should I pay for a police state to stop them?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:19 PM

Actually, Ron Paul says the drug legalization issue is a state issue, NOT a Federal issue. Seeing comments like "Ron Paul wants to legaize all drugs" indicates the person posting this either doesn't understand Ron Paul's position, or is deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:58 PM

Saying everyone but Ron Paul wants continuous war is not only wrong, it's a lie.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

upnorthlurkin2 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:18 PM

His foreign policy needs some work but it's better than shoveling $billions everywhere ... and asking next to nothing in return, or taking up wars that we don't intend to win!
But on drugs, Anon..., yeah, you're right. The government always knows what's best for us and our bodies. In fact, why aren't we taxing premiums (just a little bit, more) on those rich people who have their own health policies so we can win the War on Drugs?! We're just a few decades, couple $trillion, and thousands of prison construction jobs away from keeping anyone from smokin a doobie. Which would surely make such an undeniable benefit on this country that the US military should take it up now that we're all done in Iraq! We'll only be a police state for a bit.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:29 PM

I suspect Dr. Paul's foreign policy would be tempered by Congress if he's ever elected President. I know he would not get to implement some (many?) of his ideas - not enough Constitutionalists in Congress for that to happen. If there were, we wouldn't need Ron Paul...

As for the whole legal/illegal drug thing, it should be a state issue, not Federal. For those who don't want to pay for the consequences of legalizing these drugs, we're all already paying for the consequences of their being illegal.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:30 PM

Best thing to do is to let the states decide which ones to make legal, and include a "addiction alleviation cost" in the price of those drugs. That way, the cost of dealing with addicts will be financed by the drug users themselves.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:30 AM

are you just a liar? or do you simply lack the the intelligence to do any real research? the neo-con way of trying to kill everybody ISN'T WORKING and we're bankrupt. and yr stupid lies of giving drugs to schoolchildren sounds like it may have already gotten to you way early.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Ev39 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:02 AM

You want another four years of a communist led government in DC, vote for Ron Paul the spoiler.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

InBlack Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:05 PM

Look at the polls - Ron Paul is leading Obama.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

jkpalmdaleca Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:07 PM

Whats funny is Ron Paul did not endorse John McCain when he lost the Primary he went on to endorse a Communist. He endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Just more proof he is a fraud and a big baby

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

ericynot Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:23 PM

Cynthia McKinney is strongly anti-war (as is Ron Paul). That does not make her a Communist.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:31 PM

Actually he endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitutionalist...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:33 AM

no, just more proof yr a dipshit and a sheep.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

justsomeguy151 Wrote: Jan 25, 2012 9:34 AM

don't lie, you DO like a facist govt, just coming from the right, meaning theres no difference at all.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Bill110 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 8:15 AM

DON’T BE FOOLED! Karl “Marx” Rove and the RINO elites are looking for a “winner”. While Romney was their hand picked first choice, they are willing to dump him and go with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Daniels is another UN Agenda 21 supporter, just like Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:52 AM

Ron Paul is trying to build a movement and he is doing well. The country needs a new constitutinal/libertarian party or alternatively the constitutional/libertarian wing needs to take over the the Republicans party. We can't survive if both major parties are big government, moreover there must be state and local energy to do exactly what the left did. We have to pass right to work laws, school choice at the state level, end tenure at universities. Wm Buckley set the stage for Reagan by mobilizing young conservatives. Paul is no Wm Buckley but it's a start to a long process.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

John1477 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:08 AM

I agree with you johnm, and if we can keep Ron in 3rd place this time around, he should be able to pressure the winner to include some of his ideas in the platform, under threat of a third party run, and move the GOP away from the Progressives. The question is, who will lead the crusade, after Ron. He is 76 years old.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

rk3520 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:42 AM

His son Rand

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

johnm h Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:45 AM

We need a Wm Buckley type, brilliant, articulate and loaded with access, charisma and energy. Rand Paul has a role to play as a politician, as does Jindal, Rubio etc. But we must capture the intellectual high ground the way Buckley did to gradually educate our leaders. For instance, even George Will, one of the smartest conservatives around lets Krugman get away with murder because Will defers to him on economics. Krauthammer, another brain, doesn’t understand economics.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:46 AM

The talking heads always, on all channels accept many Keynesian notions. They also, too often, accept liberal post war narratives, narratives about unions, robber barons, sweat shops, child labor racism etc. Liberals have written post war history and they were in a swoon over Wilson, both Roosevelts, and Kennedy and their history is distorted. Even our media spokesmen like Will are forced to accept these narratives because the alternative view isn’t part of our common cultural understanding and they can’t undo fallacies in the sound bite time they get.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

cavalier973 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:28 PM

Tom Woods is the man you want.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Maryann45 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:13 AM

If it were a perfect world I would be a libertarion but I realize it isn't so I have to remain a "radical right wing conservative.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

jkpalmdaleca Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:08 PM

If he is such a Constitutionalist/Libertarian why did he endorse a Communist for President in 2008? Cynthia McKinney

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Ross83 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:34 AM

It would be nice to have someone who actually understands economics and Austrian economics rather than a bigoted paranoid nutcase.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

dylen Wrote: Jan 30, 2012 6:17 PM

Ron Paul Treasury Secretary !

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Bill110 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 7:06 AM

Ron Paul has raised a lot of issues that seem more Liberal than Conservative. Could someone give a simple yes or no response to these questions:
1. Does RP believe abortion is a "states' rights" issue?
2. Does RP believe gay marriage is a "states rights" issue?
3. Does RP believe marijuana should be legalized?
4. Does RP believe America provoked the Muslim terrorists into the 9-1-1 attack?
5. Does RP believe the Civil War was fought over states' rights?
6. Does RP believe that America should not defend Israel?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Gerald163 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:09 AM

Isn't murder currently a states' rights issue?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

jkpalmdaleca Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:13 PM

His vote against Parental rights shows he is not for Liberty. Voting against making it a crime for someone to transport ACROSS state lines WITHOUT the parents permission for a MINOR to have an abortion. He said that is a states rights issue. Actually its a PARENTAL Rights Issue and its already a Federal Crime to transport a kidnapping victim cross state lines. Also he sat and watched a baby die after a botched abortion and did nothing.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Chris102 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 6:12 AM

Paul seems to be the only GOPer in the race making sense.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:42 AM

That foreign policy makes sense?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

hiimterry Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:17 AM

Absolutely. Would you care to make a logical case for why it doesn't? A case backed up by facts, not heresay, that doesn't include calling Ron Paul or his supporters juvenille names?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:39 AM

Believing our enemies will be nice if we just walk away from our global obligations is unrealistic. It was tried last century and it didn't work. It's not a new idea, it's one that's failed time and time again. When we show weakness to our enemies, they exploit it.

Obama tried an outreach to Iran. This encouraged Iran. Obama's engagement is a sign of weakness to them. Ron Paul's "non-interventionism" will cause them to accelerate their plans.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:10 PM

Paul has said some things that make him sound naive, such as our presence abroad is responsible for 9/11, and that these groups wouldn't be a threat if we just got out of the middle east, and that Israel doesn't need our defense. While much of his basic ideas on foreign policy are reasonable, it is unlikely our enemies would read him that way. Let's face it ,their knowledge about us is as limited as our knowledge about them. They will very likely interpret a Paul victory as innacurately as many hawks do in this country. This is risky and he would have to prove he isn't an isolationist early in a Paul administration. Moreover to pull back from our forward deployment in Japan would increase costs as the Japanese pay our rent.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 12:14 PM

Other Asian want us foreward deployed because they don't want China to have a free hand and they don't want Japan rearmed. The causes of war are almost always mis communication, mis reading or accurate reading of weakness and will. If we were to attribute 9/11 to anything it would be Clinton who did not respond to terrorist attacks with anything but words.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Chries Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 2:18 AM

There is definitely room for Ron Paul's message in the Republican Party. Ron Paul is just a lousy messenger.

Ron Paul should step aside and let his son, Rand, succeed him as the messenger.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Chris102 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 6:09 AM

How's the current slick talking Teleprompter-in-Chief working out for ya? We need a man who's message is consistent, not some slick pitch man.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:40 AM

You need someone who can sell the ideas. Most people aren't buying Ron Paul's message.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

dylen Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 8:19 AM

Ron Paul Treasury Secretary !

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Lawrence209 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:02 PM

Ho hum . America got tweedil dee instead of tweedil dum.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Conservatives = Right-wing Progressives Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:53 PM

Ron Paul has pulled the mask off of Conservatism...

Conservatives WANT a Right-wing form of Progressivism...and are NOT interested in cutting govt.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:13 PM

Absolutely. The three remaining Republican candidates--Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum--are all cut from the same cloth. They are all big government, "national greatness" progressives.

Obama calls for a gigantic welfare state, plus constant intervention in foreign policy. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum call for exactly the same, with a few window-dressing changes.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually stands for constitutional, limited government.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Curtis108 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 5:58 AM

Really? Have you listened to a single thing the man has said? Do you understand how the Constitution seems to have been st up to work? From his pronouncements, Paul is running for king of the US as much as the others are. None of them seem to understand they are not going to be dictator for 4 years.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Chris102 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 6:11 AM

Uhhh, Ron "I Don't Want To Run Your Life" Paul wants to be KING? And you ask if someone else has listened?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

jkpalmdaleca Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:11 PM

Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.. A Total Fraud

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Allan12 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:37 PM

I think the problem is that we have had "big government" for so long now, that anything contrary sounds anathema to most people, even the idea of freedom (personal, fianancial, markets, association, foreign affairs).

Everyone wants a government that will control everyone to their way of thinking, rather than allow everyone to think for themselves.

I vote for freedom - Ron Paul

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Karolyn Wrote: Jan 23, 2012 7:08 PM

I love these comments; we must talk to people and get them to see that Ron Paul is the only person running that wants to restore America but, as Allan says this has been going on for many years and we seem to have a problem breaking old habits. WE MUST VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:44 AM

Freedom requires a strong national defense.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

cavalier973 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:33 PM

The strongest national defense we could have is an armed populace and a few nuclear submarines. Maybe a missile defense shield. The Wars of Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly not defensive wars. The coming war against Iran is not a defensive war.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Allan12 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:40 PM

It is amazing how many people like the Matrix movies. They were about absolute control of people, even to the extent that the people failed to realize they were being totally controlled and they lived false lives. Yet given a choice, so many people vote for the control!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Chris102 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 6:12 AM

Yes. The vast majority. It's the alegory of the cave all over again.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:26 PM

Much of Ron Paul's domestic agenda should be acceptable to "social conservatives" and is, in fact, acceptable to this member of that genus. A rollback of Federal programs and spending would, for example, include abandonment of policies which currently subsidize family break-ups. Furthermore, the blue states have sufficient political clout to block such favorites of the social conservatives as a pro-life or pro-marriage amendment. A return of such issues to the states would allow social conservatives to try to make some progress in their own states, while they cannot currently hope to make any progress on the national level.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:28 PM

At the same time, some of what R.P. has said and much of what his supporters here have to say cannot but alienate the "socio-cons." The family, along with private property, are the mainstays of our society and, not incidentally, of our political freedom. The progressive weakening of the family has created whole cohorts of voters who find it in their material or ideological interest to support those who seek to undermine both our political freedom and the institution of private property. The libertarian argument that social conservatives need not partake in social trends of which they disapprove and should not seek to use laws to make men virtuous is not without some merit, but also misses some things.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:42 PM

To wit, private vices, as long as they are practiced somewhat discreetly and are a marginal phenomenon, truly have little affect on society and should generaly be left alone. When they become common, rather than marginal, and are practiced militantly, rather than discreetly, they become a menace to the survival of our institutions. While we can "go Galt" to some extent, we are also fellow passengers and crewmen on the proverbial ship of state. To employ a metaphor, a handful of irresponsible drunks on the ship are no problem, except to themselves. A large number, however, endanger the ship and all aboard it. License at the margins is the price paid for liberty, not the triumph of liberty, while widespread license ultimately...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:06 PM

...endangers liberty itself.
Although it is less than clear whether or how legislation can do much or anything at all about the issue, it is clear that many libertarians either see no problem with these trends or are in active sympathy with them, to the point that there is some room for worry about the genuineness of their their professed Constitutionalism and of their declared unwillingness, if they held power at the national level, to force THEIR values on all of us. The itch to "force men to be free" has been, since the French Revolution, an impulse dangerous to liberty and even to life.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:51 PM

The flaw with your argument as I see it, is the assumption that given the opportunity and freedom for one to destroy their own well being, most will do so. This is just another excuse for authoritarianism and a poor one at that.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:08 PM

SM:
Your point is a thoughtful one and deserving of a response. No, most people will not, deliberately and knowingly, destroy their own long-term well-being. On the other hand, pursuing their short-term good (as they see it), they will not infrequently damage their own long-term good. That is, of course, why people commit larceny and go to jail for it or why they do hard drugs and fry their brains or why they marry unsuitable spouses and then get divorced. Absent habits of self-control which we are losing, people really do stupid things. What is to be done about it is another matter. Since I expressed skepticism about the efficacy of legislation to produce a fix, I plead innocent of the charge of authoritarianism.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:21 PM

"On the other hand, pursuing their short-term good (as they see it), they will not infrequently damage their own long-term good. That is, of course, why people commit larceny and go to jail for it or why they do hard drugs and fry their brains or why they marry unsuitable spouses and then get divorced. Absent habits of self-control which we are losing, people really do stupid things."

Ignoring the question of how prevalent this problem is that you assert, the reality is that if individuals cannot determine their own self-direction, how does one propose that government, which is just a collection of individuals, expect to correct this? Freedom doesn't produce utopia, it simply allows us to best decide our means and ends.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:35 PM

n72:
The basic problem is pretty prevalent and is part of the human condition. Ovid, the Roman poet, uninfluenced by Christian notions of original sin, put it as well as St. Paul: "Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor." "I see and approve the better and follow the worse." If I want an example of someone who has done foolish things, I need but look in the mirror, and I daresay that you need look no further, if you are honest with yourself. That said, you are absolutely correct that the problem affects the governors, no less than the governed, hence my reference to "habits of self-control" as the critical factor. If you want a discussion of what legislation I probably would favor (not much), we can go there.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:36 PM

Thank you Trog. Fair enough. I got the impression that you, after analysis, (and yours was very well thought out too in my opinion) concluded that authoritarian measures were necessary. I apologize for my mis-understanding. I thank you for a real discourse and look forward to your posts in the future.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:38 PM

" License at the margins is the price paid for liberty, not the triumph of liberty, while widespread license ultimately endangers liberty itself."

In the context of your post, this is a logical contradiction. No libertarian position endangers liberty. It is those who assert your position- that freedom is to dangerous for individuals to possess- who threaten liberty.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:45 PM

I understand your position, I just reject it as a threat to liberty. Because man has limitless wants and values, the only acts that should merit punitive consequences are those that deprive others of their rights. Behaviours and acts that differ from the preferences and ideals of some are the realities of liberty.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:50 PM

I am not arguing that it is dangerous for individuals to possess liberty. I do maintain that individuals who abuse their liberty will lose it for themselves and, in the context of our discussion, that they may endanger it for all of us. If you use your liberty (i.e., ability) to commit larceny or murder, you may well find your liberty curtailed in jail. (If you did the same in yesterday's Dodge City, you would get shot and Marshall Dillon would call it a fair shooting and your liberty would be extinguished along with your life.) If you use your liberty to produce the violent overthrow of the government of a free people in order to install a dictatorship, so much for everyone's liberty.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:52 PM

Liberty, if abused through stupid and immoral behavior, self-destructs. If we do not agree on that, we are seriously in disagreement. If we do agree, we can discuss what to do about the matter.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:59 PM

I can't agree with your argument, because you conflate acts that infringe upon the rights of others, with liberty. This is NOT the libertarian philosophy, which explicitly elaborates that man's rights only extend to the point where he does not deprive others of their rights.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:09 PM

If you want to define "liberty" as excluding acts that infringe on the rights of others, fair enough. You are, in effect, saying that liberty is limited by moral considerations. In principle, no disagreement there. The question, however, is whether those moral considerations exclude ONLY the use of force or fraud, which are direct infringements of the rights of others, or whether they also exclude other acts whose results more indirectly (but nonetheless really and predictably) infringe the rights of others.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:14 PM

If one can make a persuasive case for such acts depriving others of life, liberty or property, then there is a valid argument. But the most common argument, by both liberals and conservatives, consists of logical contortions connecting personal behaviours with contrived social collapse.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:28 PM

n72:
I wish it were just "logical contortions." Some of our common enemies, however, also saw the connection. I point to the Frankfurt School of neo-Marxists, to Herbet Marcuse, to the likes of Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, and to those who think that the traditional family is a socially regressive institution standing in the way of collectivism. Politics, like nature, abhors vacuums. Because man is a social creature, he will either rely on what Edmund Burke called the "little platoons" (family, church, private associations) or he will rely on government--which will thereby own him. If you want to roll back government, in the long run, you will have to find ways to encourage or promote the restoration of those "little platoons"...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:31 PM

...at the same time as you try to roll back government. Trying to do either one alone is an attempt to create a vacuum and will probably not work.

The wife is calling, so I have to go, even at the price of seeming to insist on having the last word! We will, I am sure, have the opportunity to pick this up again. We will have to, actually, since libertarians and "socio-cons" are going to be stuck with each other for a good long time and will need to find common ground: hang together or hang separately.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:35 PM

SM:
And thank you, also, for the interchange and for your courteous contribution to it. Regarding the necessity and propriety of such a discussion, I have said enough just above. Best wishes!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:35 PM

This argument makes no sense. You argue for government to prevent government. Family, churches and private associations aren't going anywhere and surely the last organization would only be strengthened by less government. The Marxist theorists proposed all manner of illogical assertions, none of which manifest under voluntary conditions, which is why they condone the use of force to implement their ideas.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:48 PM

"or whether they also exclude other acts whose results more indirectly (but nonetheless really and predictably) infringe the rights of others. "

I have to admit I'm confused about this "grey" area. An example would be helpful to me. I've always considered liberty to be, as you stated in the beginning of that sentence, acts or behavior that does not infringe on the rights of others. Some argue that, for example living an unhealthy life is infringing on others rights because that person will require medical attention/health care etc. but I dismiss those arguments because liberty does not give anyone the right to another's labor. But I assume that's not the argument you're making. Many seem to think that liberty and libertarianism

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:49 PM

If family, churches, and private associations (and, may I add, state and local governments as foci of political loyalties independent of those given to the Feds) are truly going nowhere, as you say, and cannot be made to go anywhere even through free choices, then liberty is doomed and all the libertarian zeal in the world will not save it. Period. Enjoy your freedom from the constraints of the "little platoons" as we have known them and take it as a consolation prize for slavery to central government.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:55 PM

means no rule of law, which we know is a fallacy. I think one purpose of gov./rule of law is to be the referee in civil cases and perhaps this is the best way to handle grey areas where the infringement is not so clear and apparent. At least I thought that was basically the purpose of civil cases; to handle situations where one is damaged by another but no laws were broken. I think you two have more education and intellect in these matters than I so help me out here. Thanks again to both of you for good thought provoking posts.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:58 PM

SM:
I will give two examples. A cop I once talked to at length (who won my approbation with the comment that "I am not here to enforce Federal law") suggested that pot should be legalized, because potheads are like "quiet drunks" who only hurt themselves, but that the harder stuff should not be legalized, because the addicts inevitably wind up hurting others to support their habits. One hit of meth of crack is not causally correlated to one robbery to support the habit, but the habit of using such drugs does, he suggested, correlate to a habit of larceny. While his recommendation may be good or bad on its merits, it does illustrate how to think about the "gray area."

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:09 PM

The second example involves the "little platoons," to which I made reference somewhere here. In "America's Ruling Class," Angelo Codevilla makes the point that anything that renders our human relationships more finite and transitory necessarily makes our relationship with the central government more fundamental. One divorce here or there won't do it (nor even Newt's two!), nor will an occasional illegitimate birth, but a 50% divorce rate and the illegitimacy rate in the black community (and increasingly among lower-class whites) is a social and ultimately political catastrophe. Would it be legitimate to use legislation to discourage these trends, if we are reasonably certain that we have smoked out the unintended consequences? Probably.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:10 PM

This is the type of arguments that divides conservatives and libertarians. Laws to address acts of theft and violence exist to deal with the situations you propose. What we won't agree on is the use of government to dispense penalties to behaviours that are not inherently infringments of liberty, but can be rationalized to be precursors. Why accept this assertion yet reject the same logic used by liberals concerning crime and gun ownership?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:13 PM

"If family, churches, and private associations (and, may I add, state and local governments as foci of political loyalties independent of those given to the Feds) are truly going nowhere, as you say, and cannot be made to go anywhere even through free choices, then liberty is doomed and all the libertarian zeal in the world will not save it. Period. Enjoy your freedom from the constraints of the "little platoons" as we have known them and take it as a consolation prize for slavery to central government"

I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue in this post, but it reads as a string of confusion.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:26 PM

"Would it be legitimate to use legislation to discourage these trends, if we are reasonably certain that we have smoked out the unintended consequences? Probably."

But history, as well as reasoning, argues against this argument. Besides the flimsy argument for "reasonably certain", which is generally anything but, the family plays a greater role in times when there is less government intervention. The current state of families that conservatives rail against can be argued to be derived from government intervention. The constant government band-aid to cover the problem from the last government act is poor reasoning.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:29 PM

Firearms may be a precursor to something bad (crime), but may be--and far more frequently are--precursors to things which are neutral (hunting or sports shooting) or beneficial (self-defense against crime and possibly against government). On the other hand, I am not sure that meth and crack have ever been or will be precursors to anything that is really good for anyone. Yes, judgment is required and a free people who exercise bad judgment will lose their freedom. That is, however, equally true if they start from a conservative and traditional baseline of liberty or from a libertarian baseline.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:34 PM

"Firearms may be a precursor to something bad (crime), but may be--and far more frequently are--precursors to things which are neutral (hunting or sports shooting) or beneficial (self-defense against crime and possibly against government). On the other hand, I am not sure that meth and crack have ever been or will be precursors to anything that is really good for anyone. "

Good can be subjective. So long as I don't deprive others of liberty, the promotion of one's happiness can be acheived in a multitude of manners. It's telling that you allow "neutral" as a choice for something you condone, but for drug use it can only be good or bad.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:40 PM

n72:
"The current state of families that conservatives rail against can be argued to be derived from government intervention." Way at the beginning, I suggested that removal of such intervention is something that we can agree upon. In practice, as I tend to see it, there is a feedback cycle here that produces a downward spiral: the more the government intervenes in bad ways, the worse the state of families gets, and the more stridently we hear calls for more government intervention. I am arguing that, whatever the proper limits of government action, both sides of the issue need to be dealt with simultaneously. If they cannot be, your calls for less government will be dismissed by those who depend on it, because they have nothing else.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:44 PM

SM:
You wrote, "I think one purpose of gov./rule of law is to be the referee in civil cases and perhaps this is the best way to handle grey areas where the infringement is not so clear and apparent." I believe that you are on to something very important here, not least in connection with one of my hobby-horses (i.e., no-fault divorce). I can think of no example of government tyranny and partiality more common that the dissolution of marriage contracts at the behest of one of the parties, frequently the defaulting one--and the one who thereby hits a jackpot. In previous discussions, perhaps not so oddly, a couple of our more militantly atheist libertarians have actually agreed with me on this. This should be one area of real reform...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:48 PM

...that we can agree upon.

Alright, folks, now I am really out of here, since we have to be up before 6 a.m. Thanks for the discussion and apologies if I got testy.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SMyles Wrote: Jan 23, 2012 12:38 AM

I've read and reread the above and it's taking some time to register. My brain is siding with nawlin because i don't agree with outlawing precursors if you will. The reason(s) for one infringing on the rights of another are almost infinite. I say there's no justification for outlawing potential to harm, only the harm itself. Hope you don't mind my blue collar lingo. Thanks again you two. I'm gonna read these a few more times.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Robert128 Wrote: Jan 23, 2012 7:09 AM

That's where we stand today - our liberties taken a way under threat of violence from the government. I wonder if anyone has done an analysis off the average number of decisions per day are currently affected by the government versus 100 years ago. It would start with waking up and having a glass of un-pasteurized milk, which is much more healthy except the govt says you can't do that now and if you traffic unpastuerized milk across state lines they will physically throw you in jail. Then maybe your kids gets up and mouths off to you and you would spank them but you can't nowadays because if they go to school and tell the counselor, the Department of Social Services will take them away from you. How many daily decisions are affected?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:33 PM

All of your points in both posts are sound and solid. South Korea cannot defend itself from those mad men, we provide deterrence. Who will defend Viet Nam, Philippines, Thai claims on oil potential in the conflicted off shore claims? Do we really want Japan to have to rearm and become nuclear to fill a vacuum? The Japanese pay our rent and it is no doubt cheaper to be forward deployed there than to steam around the Pacific. All Asia wants it, even the Chinese, at least for now; because they do not want the Japanese to significantly rearm.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

johnm h Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:34 PM

As to domestic policy; Paul understands Austrian school economics. The Austrian school has more insight into how economies work, a deeper skepticism about our ability to manage any economy, and a complete and, in my view, devastating critique of the flaws in Keynesian economics. These do not conflict with any social views other than perhaps the moralism that blinds us to the devastating cost of our anti drug laws, but even here legalization is not necessarily the only answer. Libertarians who pay attention should understand that the foundation of all of their views about freedom rest on the premise that it matters, that each human has value. Without that why freedom instead of non freedom?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 6:45 PM

In other words: There will never be a time when the United States can withdraw its troops around the world because then we can't control the world?

For every war we enter, we will need another base to be sure the chaos we leave behind remains unstable eternally.

We need bases primarily for those wars we never finish.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:01 PM

F2:
Forgive me, please, if I ask, with a trace of exasperation, whether you are replying to what I wrote or just trotting out talking points. No, for the forseeable future, we cannot withdraw all of our troops from around the world, for reasons which I already gave and which I will not repeat. And, no, the point is not "controlling the world," but maintaining the balance of power where we need to do so. Inasmuch as Russia, China, and Iran are not going away--unless perchance YOU suggest that we go to war with them in order to wrap up unfinished business--that is not a task which is likely to be completed any time soon. (It is not, however, a task which should require much shooting, either.) History is not ending and is not going to.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:30 PM

F2's point was not a talking point but the logical extension of the argument that you present. Whether you phrase it as "balance of power" or "control" it is undoubtedly designed to intervene into the affairs of foreign countries; something that has uncontrollable outcomes.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:41 PM

n72:
I am not generally in favor of intervening into the INTERNAL affairs of foreign countries, nor is such intervention typically a tool of the kind of "balance of power" politics that I see as necessary. Uncontrollable outcomes? Unfortunately, almost everything choice that we (individuals or governments) make, whether to do something or NOT to do something, has unpredictable outcomes. That makes a case for caution and prudence, not for paralysis.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 7:53 PM

Whether you are in favor of it or not, it IS the history and policy of America. Our officials have been and are actively engaged in interfering with foreign nations, all hidden from the public view. Then when retaliations occur for our actions, these same officials are not held liable for the consequences and the secrecy promotes the belief of the public that we were unjustly targeted by "evil" countries.

Defense of our nation is not paralysis.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:15 PM

n72:
"It is the history and policy of America." Well, yes, but is that my personal fault? I said below that I do agree with much that R.P. has to say about foreign policy and then devoted more attention to areas of disagreement--in the interests of exactly the discussion that we are having, since there is no point in our discussing how vehemently we agree about what we agree about! Defense, rightly understood, is indeed not paralysis. On the other hand, a withdrawal from the world to the extent that many libertarians seem to favor would leave us sitting on the sidelines while events move in unfavorable directions. Really, the question is the extent to which our interests extend beyond mere defense of our borders.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:27 PM

The problem with much of this debate is the lack of clarity regarding oft used phrases such as "withdrawal from the world" or "national interests". Such phrases are generally designed to be so broad as to allow any act one can rationalize. No one argues for 'withdrawal", except in regards to military presence and covert operations. Libertarians want as much American trade with foreign countries as possible.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:45 PM

I am back. We have come full circle. You ARE arguing, I think, for the abandonment of any foreign military presence. I argued, way back when (below, actually) that this is not in our REAL interest. So far, I do not believe that you have actually addressed the points that I made, except perhaps to suggest or imply that we eschew any foreign military presence and all covert operations, under all circumstances, because we have overused them in some (even many) cases. Somewhat as you suggested that I may fear liberty because it may be abused, you seem to fear the traditional instruments of statecraft because they have been abused and may be abused again.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

nawlins72 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:40 PM

"Somewhat as you suggested that I may fear liberty because it may be abused, you seem to fear the traditional instruments of statecraft because they have been abused and may be abused again."

We are in agreement here.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 9:45 AM

Curiously, the "social conservative" aren't buying it at all. You must be thinking of libertarians.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:16 PM

While I agree with much that R.P. has said about foreign policy, I cannot accept the wisdom of what would amount to a retreat to our borders and to the creation of power vacuums that would enable the expansion Russian, Chinese, and Iranian power. Such development would not be in our national interest. Furthermore, the reduction of our military to no more than is needed to defend our borders against non-existent threats of invasion (by Canada and Mexico, our only immediate neighbours) would not give us the capability to intervene abroad, if or when necessary, in defense of our interests.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:16 PM

The suggestion that some of those whom we defend should do more for their own defense is certainly correct, but not entirely to the point. Small and politically disunited fourth-rate powers simply will not be able to coalesce to offer effective resistance against powers that outclass them. If they are to be defended--not because they deserve it, but because it is in our interest that they not be absorbed into unfriendly spheres of influence, the U.S. will have to take the lead and maintain the necessary military force to do so. This is not the eighteenth century anymore, and under current conditions the U.S. cannot let overseas balances of power take care of themselves or be taken care of by others.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Pura Vida Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 9:58 PM

You make some good points but if the United States is economically bankrupt, we have to pull back somewhat out of necessity, if not because we are overextended anyway.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 10:33 PM

PV:
Very true. A reasonable defense policy would probably stress nuclear deterrence and defense against missile attack (because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic) and would probably be mostly "navalist" in the realm of conventional forces. Sane procurement practices in DoD could also save a lot--but that is another subject. Our European military presence could probably be reduced to a token force without much problem, though I would not zero it out altogether. Above all, avoid unnecessary "wars of choice" and "nation-building."

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Reality, Again Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 11:43 AM

How long will our liberties last if we don't have strong national security? How will we have free trade if China controls the western Pacific and stops shipping of non-Chinese good through the water? How will you be affected if Iran cuts off 1/6 of the world's oil supply by closing the Straits of Hormuz?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

cavalier973 Wrote: Jan 24, 2012 1:37 PM

How do we have a "strong national security" when we are bankrupt?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

gungy Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 5:11 PM

If by some catastrophic miracle Ron Paul were to be elected, buy as much aluminum and tinfoil as you can. They'll need them to make the hats.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Robert128 Wrote: Jan 22, 2012 8:22 PM

Gungy all the stuff Ron Paul was talking about in 2008 that you said was "tin foil hat" material then is now a major part of every GOP candidate's platform. Ron Paul has always been 4-8 years ahead of the rest of the field, and continues to be ahead of the crowd in 2012.
Maybe some day another GOP candidate will take the role of setting the agenda, but until that happens we should nominate Ron Paul, who has foreseen all of our financial and foreign-policy issues years before they happened.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

New comments on this article - click to refresh

TownhallFinance.com makes available to the viewer a variety of independent sources that offer trading and investment advice and related services and products. TownhallFinance.com does not itself offer, verify, sponsor, or promote, directly or indirectly, any investment or trading advice, or information or any product or service offered by these independent sources. Every investor or trader should consider all advice and all offerings of products and services on their own merits and for suitability to the individual's personal needs and circumstances. Before using this site, please read our complete Terms of Service by clicking here. Make TownhallFinance.com your premier source for stock market and financial market information. Individual investors enjoy our worldwide investor seminars and trading seminars. Our investment advisor seminars keep financial advisors up to data with CEUs, and this site provides investors, traders, and advisors with the latest stock market analysis tips, information and research tools. Be sure to be a part of our options day trading tips and picks from professional day traders and various trading, investing and advisor Webcasts and financial podcasts.

Ed Morrissey	Team O shifts direction as more Dems balk at Bain attacks
Ed Morrissey	Shocker: Obama WH leaked sensitive info for The Obama Is Totally Awesome blockbuster movie
Ed Morrissey	Support for abortion drops to record low
Ed Morrissey	Free speech moment: Standing with Stacy McCain, Patterico, Liberty Chick, and Aaron Walker
Ed Morrissey	Obama loses 40% of the vote in two Democratic primaries
Ed Morrissey	Quinnipiac FL poll puts Romney up by 6, 47/41

One on One with Ron Paul

Larry Kudlow

Most Recent Articles

Sign-Up to receive Updates from TH

Video