Ron Paul & foreign policy
A lot of people like the free-market message of Ron Paul, but worry about his non-interventionist foreign policy. If you are one of these people, then this video is for you…
Advertisement
6 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
P.M.Lawrence on Does Australia need industrial… 
Christopher Polis on Is the medicare rebate middle … 
Shem Bennett on Is the medicare rebate middle … Christopher Polis on Is the medicare rebate middle … 
. on Is the medicare rebate middle … 
Sancho on Is the medicare rebate middle … 
'Nuke' Gray on Is the medicare rebate middle … Sancho on Is the medicare rebate middle … 'Nuke' Gray on Is the medicare rebate middle … Sancho on Is the medicare rebate middle …
Catallaxy Files- Julia Gillard: Prime Minister 24 June 2010 – 29 February 2012 February 22, 2012Prime Minister for 615 days, Julia Gillard (8th shortest serving Prime Minister of Australia) will be defeated by Kevin Rudd at a leadership ballot next Tuesday and will meet the Governor General on 29 February 2012 to submit her resignation. She will then resign from her safe seat of Lalor and be appointed as the new High [...]Samuel J
- Rudd Resigns February 22, 2012Kevin Rudd has resigned as Foreign Minister. Looks like he’ll challenge next week. Update: Centrebet and Sportsbet have shut down the ALP leader market and the election timing market. Update II: Audio of resignation here. (HT: John Bergin on Twitter) Update III: Leadership ballot on Monday morning.Sinclair Davidson
- Megan McArdle goes in hard February 22, 2012You receive an anonymous memo in the mail purporting to be the secret climate strategy of the Heartland Institute. It is not printed on Heartland Institute letterhead, has no information identifying the supposed author or audience, contains weird locutions more typical of Heartland’s opponents than of climate skeptics, and appears to have been written […]Sinclair Davidson
- Julia Gillard: Prime Minister 24 June 2010 – 29 February 2012 February 22, 2012
- inCISe
- The $5 billion dollar question February 21, 2012Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett’s refusal to countenance a $5 billion increase in annual expenditure on schools was the right response to the most unrealistic recommendation in the Gonski report released yesterday. For one thing, the figure of $5 billion seems to have been plucked out of thin air by the review committee. It is supposedly the extra money requ […]Jennifer Buckingham
- Let’s be responsible with the coffers February 20, 2012In our CIS Policy Monograph Future Funds or Future Eaters? Robert Carling and I argue that many of the desirable objectives of a sovereign wealth fund could be achieved through greater use of enforceable fiscal policy rules that would enable politicians to make long-term commitments to responsible fiscal policy outcomes and tie down expectations in relation […]Stephen Kirchner
- Who needs a car industry anyway? February 19, 2012On Monday, The Australian reported that struggling car manufacturer GM Holden had agreed to give its employees a substantial pay rise of up to 22% over the next three years. This was surprising coming from a company that depends on ongoing taxpayer support for its survival. However, after decades of car industry subsidies, the public has almost become used t […]Oliver Marc Hartwich
- The $5 billion dollar question February 21, 2012
- IPA news
- Avowed anti-communist opened China to the world February 17, 2012"Congratulations on a magnificent breakthrough!" Donald Rumsfeld wrote to Richard Nixon after his announcement that he...
- Liberal Labour reform February 15, 2012One of the first acts of an Abbott government should be to repeal the Labor Party's Fair Work Act. Industrial relations...
- Behavioural economics: an excuse to tax and regulate February 14, 2012Few areas of study are as fashionable as behavioural economics - the integration of psychological factors into economic...
- Avowed anti-communist opened China to the world February 17, 2012
I broadly agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy and the sentiments outlined in this video. However what I find notable at the moment is the number of quality campaign messages such as this one that the Ron Paul campaign is able to pump out. They have a well oiled political machine riding into this election contest. I hope it pays off.
I can’t believe what I just heard, it’s like someone is speaking my language for the first time.
Half-truths and misrepresentations. Totally unpersuasive.
It’s one thing to be circumspect about using military force, and sometimes the US should be more circumspect. It’s another to advocate appeasement and lack faith in your own values.
America stands for freedom and democracy. It’s enemies do not and, sooner or later, will have to be defeated.
David, if what we are is what we do, rather than what we say we do, or wish we do, then the truth is America does not stand for freedom or democracy, and hasn’t for some time. We are a police state–as is Australia, the UK, and many other first world countries.
We’re fed up with it though. Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States in 2012. Count on it.
If you believe in freedom and democracy, it’s quite likely those enemies will defeat themselves.
Freedom and democracy produces wealth and production which can not be matched by totalitarian regimes. It attracts the worlds best and brightest.
We believe free markets, not government, best to resolve which businesses best serve the people and which businesses do not.
We do not need the government to stop bad businesses. We need quite the contrary, we need the government to get out of the way, not protect those bad businesses.
The U.S. subsidies totalitarian regimes. It does so both through foreign aid, and it also does through it’s foreign policy which incites hatred towards the U.S, and as a result, hatred towards democracy and freedom.
Financial and military intervention in the Middle East is the authoritarian’s best friend. It both assists dictators maintain power, and both abroad and at home it is used as an excuse to violate the liberties of its citizens.
Whilst I don’t totally agree with Ron Paul’s approach to foreign policy, it’s much closer to what should be happening.
You can not deny that the U.S. needs to change it’s foreign policy. It’s an economic reality. With current annual revenues in the U.S. at $1.7 trillion, and military expenditure at $1 trillion, and a debt of $15 trillion, military and interest repayments would eat the entire budget. There is no chance of the U.S. balancing its budget without a change in foreign policy.
The U.S. should make it clear to the world that it will no longer fight wars of aggression. It should also (and this is where I disagree with Paul) place its troops in democratic, friendly nations and make it clear to the world that it will defend democratic free states. It should make it clear that if people overthrow their leaders and institute democratic states which respect the liberties of their citizens, then they will also gain the protection of the U.S. This protection shall be on the condition of them not themselves launching aggressive wars.
And most importantly, it should stop sending money to dictators. This does nothing to promote freedom, it promotes authoritarianism whilst destroying the economy country who is supposed to lead the free world.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He will try and spin it that he avoid war, pretty much all the time. But under the constitution, its Congress and only Congress that declares war. Then the President fights the war, against a well-defined enemy, with all the resources of the nation. In the case where enemies are ill-defined, and perhaps ultimate enemies are unknown, the constitution gets around this by the capacity to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.
So whereas Ron Paul may argue the case for Israel having to look after herself, if directed by Congress to resupply Israel after an attack, put enemies of hers on a hit list for Marque and Reprisal, or even defeat all of the enemy regimes of Israel in one full-scream action, then he would presumably be compelled to do so. But his position is that this is for Congress to decide. He will take the pacifist approach, until such time as the Congress steps up, makes the spending cuts necessary to fund the war, declares the war, and so forth.
But in the end Israel, Taiwan, and we here in Australia, have to look after ourselves. And while Ron Paul may WISH to repeal legislation regarding the protection of Taiwan, he may WISH to close all 700+ overseas bases, and he may WISH to only defend the borders of the US, its not realistic to suggest that he will be able to take his act that far. If Taiwan is invaded, he will be compelled to shore up Japan.
The thing is, under Ron Paul, there may be the CAPACITY to shore up an ally when another ally has been taken off the chess-board. Under anyone else , the US can lose almost all its abilities to get anything done at any time. Everyone else has to be seen as financially unviable.