About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not sure why this article singles out HRC as a politician who wants to take away our freedom.  All of the frontrunners are culpable -- we're just talking about the degree and type of coercion they want to inflict.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, HRC is a more direct and complete threat to our freedoms than most others in the running.  This is because of her ideological commitment to collectivism, as made evident in her book It Takes a Village and also from her connection with Michael Lerner of TIKKUN magazine. Lerner is a neo-Marxist and his influence on HRC is established--several blogs are devoted to this. See for more: http://horserace08.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/04/clintons-soft-marxist-guru-by-t-machan/
(Edited by Machan on 2/06, 11:56am)


Post 2

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - why do ye think I always call her Comrade Hillary?

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The one presidential candidate, Republican Ron Paul, who made no secret of his support for mostly libertarian public policies, fared badly on Super Tuesday, despite recent signs that there exists a small cadre of Americans who will provide him with considerable financial support.

 

It would be a mistake to point to Ron Paul’s campaign for evidence about what the American voting public thinks about political freedom.  Few people paid attention to anything he had to say after hearing his heinous views on foreign policy: blaming the 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S. interventionism, suggesting that Al Qaeda was justified in attacking the US, criticizing our unilateral support of Israel and advocating the reliance on international bounty hunters instead of our military to hunt down Bin Laden and his cohorts.

 

Regardless of how much sense he made in his defense of free market economics, as soon as he started spouting off that defense policy nonsense, the American voters wrote him off as a dangerous nut case, and rightly so.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor Machan's main point that candidates who advocate freedom get turned down by most voters is right on target. The most free-market oriented Republican, aside from Ron Paul, may have been Mitt Romney. As a highly successful businessman and self-made multi-millionaire, Romney got the cold shoulder from press and voters alike. One vaguely conservative talk show host referred to him a "a coporate-greed head". Despite the cool reception to Romney's warm feelings for free enterprise, commentators invariably offered irrelevant reasons for Romney's lack of traction: his looks and hair were "too perfect", other candidates "resnted" Romney (but why?), he had been a "flip-flopper" (more than any other candidate?), etc.

As to Ron Paul's foreign policy stance, many "national-pride" Republican voters harbored intense dislike of the idea of "retreat" from an immoral war we should never have advanced into. However, Dr. Paul's opposition to the war attracted significant numbers of independents and even a few democrats, together with disgruntled Republicans. It is interesting that Ron Paul received more financial support from active duty military people than any other candidate. It is also interesting that his highest vote percentages happened in three adjacent northern tier states: Montana (24%), North Dakota (21%), Minnesota (14%). The results from Montana (and possibly the other two, but I'm not sure) were caucus votes by Republican party insiders.


Post 5

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The three states Ron Paul did best in, getting well into double digit territory, were all states Mitt Romney won.  Apparently the Mountain West area and northern plains area are the last bastions of rugged individualism.

Post 6

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Because I often disagree with Dennis, I did want to sanction and agree with his Post #3. He has it exactly right.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do people think Ron Paul got the level of support he received because of his supposed pro-liberty stance or because he advocated surrender in Iraq and anti-immigration laws that garnered a coalition of isolationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, populists and peaceniks?

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 11:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why should Rep. Paul's criticism of U.S. foreign policy during the Republican debate be construed as an attack against every individual american and not solely against those in government responsible for making policy?  Is that not a form of collectivist thinking?  Even after he subsequently clarified his remarks on several occasions after the debate there are still those who can't, or are unwilling to understand the distinction. 

For those who support military intervention and other trappings of empire-building associated with "our" foreign policy, especially when used under the guise of fighting "terrorism" or "islamo-fascism" or "drugs" or whatever it is people are made to feel afraid of, I suggest you give a bit more thought to how "we" should go about preventing Bin Laden from achieving the aim he put forth in his Dec 2004 video message about bankrupting the USA and destroying our economy.  How do you suppose such a small group could manage something so grand all by themselves?  Actually they don't have to do much at all, they've got US as their best allies!


Post 9

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 12:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks for the sanction, Robert.  Anybody got any smelling salts?

 

I don’t want to leave the impression that I support the war in Iraq.  Opposing that particular war is a perfectly legitimate stance for a Presidential candidate, but Ron Paul has gone far beyond that.  Although he apparently voted for the resolution supporting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, he has since suggested that it was really motivated by oil interests, and advocates getting our troops out of there as well. 

 

And he repeatedly argues that our military presence in the region—not merely in Iraq-- is chiefly responsible for radicalizing Muslims to attack us. He turns a deaf ear to talk of using anything other than diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and blames us for inciting their anger.   He would let Al Qaeda training camps flourish unchecked.  Israel might be their first target, but the Great Satan would be next on their list.  Something tells me his legions of rabid supporters have not read Kenneth Timmerman, Brigette Gabriel or Daniel Pipes. 

 

This Pollyanna lunacy would embolden the Islamic jihadists to paroxysms of murderous bloodshed we can barely conceive.  And whatever their failings, the American voters deserve credit for not buying it.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 4:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have offered my criticism of Ron Paul's stance on 9/11, on blowback, etc. -- check out some of the columns on him at www.Tibormachan.com -- so I will not repeat my points except to say that I agree that some of his support comes from conspiracy theorists, America haters, etc., but some of it also comes from people who are opposed to what they take to be the pre-emptive war policies of the Bush Administration. As with most politicians, sadly Ron Paul also spoke mainly in sound bites and it is difficult to know whether he has a well worked out theory of US foreign/military policy, although there are hints that he embraces the late Murray Rothbard's position as articulated today by the people at the Mises Institute. One of my points in this piece is, however, that the support Paul gave to the free society didn't appear to garner him much popularity in the presidential nomination race and that is some evidence for my main point that most Americans do not care about the general principle of individual liberty but think mostly in the mode of special interest/entitlement politics. 

Post 11

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hardin uttered:

Regardless of how much sense he made in his defense of free market economics, as soon as he started spouting off that defense policy nonsense, the American voters wrote him off as a dangerous nut case, and rightly so.

I reply thus:

Arrrggggghhhh. Smarrrrrt as paint ye be!

We don't need a libertarian president as much as we need a Butcher in Chief so we can win the war that we are currently engaged in. The war: the Kulturkampf between the West and Islam, which as been going on since 700 C.E.

Delenda Islama est! We need to make a Desolation and call it Peace. The Romans would not have put up with this shit.

Bob Kolker



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do people think Ron Paul got the level of support he received because of his supposed pro-liberty stance or because he advocated surrender in Iraq and anti-immigration laws that garnered a coalition of isolationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, populists and peaceniks? (John Armaos)


Yeah...that sounds about right, John. Sorry to say.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As to who supports Ron Paul and why, sometime this may come to light, if the research is worth doing.  Otherwise it won't be easy to know.  But I doubt that too many folks support him because he promises to bring home the bacon for them.  Moreover, there are plenty of cooks supporting the other candidates--hey, some of the other candidates are themselves cooks! (Huckabee wants America to become a theocracy! Clinton aims to make it into a socialist heaven!)
(Edited by Machan on 2/07, 10:04am)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a quote from Ron's Paul's lengthy position paper of 2000 http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm:
Our attitudes toward foreign policy have dramatically changed since the beginning of the century. From George Washington through Grover Cleveland, the accepted policy was to avoid entangling alliances. Although we spread our wings westward and southward as part of our manifest destiny, in the 19th Century we accepted the Monroe Doctrine notion that Europeans and Asians should stay out of our affairs in this hemisphere and we theirs. McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Spanish American War changed all of that. Our intellectual and political leaders at the turn of the last century brought into vogue the interventionist doctrine setting the stage for the past 100 years of global military activism.
>From a country that once minded its own business, we now find ourselves with military personnel in more than 130 different countries, protecting our modern-day American empire. Not only do we have troops spread to the four corners of the earth, we find Coast Guard Cutters in the Mediterranean and around the world, our FBI in any country we choose, and the CIA in places the Congress doesn't even know about.
It is a truism that the state grows and freedom is diminished in times of war. Almost perpetual war in the 20th Century has significantly contributed to steadily undermining our liberties while glorifying the state. In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic "wars" on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness, privacy, and many others.
We have, in the last 100 years, gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign nation to one of a globalist, New World Order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the US is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits, while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering-which was the excuse for bombing Serbia-is a farce.
As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state.
                                                ********************************
Probably the paragraphs above reflect Murray Rothbard's foreign policy ideas. But I find almost nothing with which to disagree here: no moral relativism and no twisting of facts. (My only reservation concerns Serbia: I don't know what motivated our military involvement, but I doubt that altruistic or humanitarian concerns were entirely unrelated.) The entrenched American ethos of the nanny-state--with its high taxes, punitive regulations, and anti-capitalist mentality--virtually guarantees that our government will respond to threats from abroad in ways that worsen our prospects. 
 
To provide just one example, freeing energy entrepreneuers to create an outpouring of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy--all of which would soon bankrupt Middle Eastern kleptocrats and their terrorist soul-mates--is out of the question. So US policy makers decide American military power is essential to "running things" in Oil Territory, to ensure future oil deliveries to our shores. What their policies ensure is official American support for foreign dictatorships; endless warfare, bloodshed and carnage; rising resentment and deadly hatred for Americans, motivated mostly by US military actions, which reinforce the worst aspects of the bad culture that dominates the Middle East. Meanwhile, our anti-capitalist domestic policies increase our dependence on foreign thugs; which, together with the enormous costs of US attempts to run things in the Middle East and around the world, threatens to impoverish Americans. 
 
Our strongest defense against any foreign threat is a decentralized free market economy.
       


Post 15

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is what irks a lot of people about Paul, the reference to "our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes." N one in America believes this, so if it is true it requires serious proof. a demonstration that the bombings in question were to in defense of some innocent folks abroad, etc. Where is the beef? 

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

From Ron Paul’s policy statement:

 

As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state.

 

From Mark Humphrey’s comments:

 

(My only reservation concerns Serbia: I don't know what motivated our military involvement, but I doubt that altruistic or humanitarian concerns were entirely unrelated.)

 

How interesting that your one reservation—about our openly altruistic involvement in Serbia—is the one comment in Paul’s statement that is accurate. The rest of it is pure antediluvian fantasy.  The energy “entrepreneurs” chose to build the oil wells in the Middle East for a reason—that’s where the oil is.  And when the local barbarians decided to steal the private property of the oil companies, we had every right to send our military in there to stop it.  We should have taken back that property instead of simply establishing a “military presence” to keep dictators in line.  The taxpayers are smart enough to know that, as it stands now, oil remains our economy’s lifeblood, and we certainly have every right to be there to help maintain stability and protect our national self-interest.

 

It is true that removing government shackles—such as the laws prohibiting drilling in ANWR and arbitrary restrictions on nuclear energy—would help to solve our energy dependence problems. Whether or not it would liberate us from dependence on the oil rich Middle East is an open question.  It would not, however, stop the Islamic Jihadists from conducting their global campaign for world domination—nation by nation, with Israel high on their list of targets for destruction.

 

The system that the taxpayers are subsidizing is the same one that bankrupted the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.  The buildup in our defenses is just as necessary now as it was then-- because enemies in foreign lands have sworn their intentions to destroy us.

 

No, the good Christian Mr. Paul’s comments do not suggest moral relativism.  They are a putrid, foolhardy and repugnant moral indictment of the United States.

 

 

 


Post 17

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Here is what irks a lot of people about Paul, the reference to "our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes." N one in America believes this, so if it is true it requires serious proof. a demonstration that the bombings in question were to in defense of some innocent folks abroad, etc. Where is the beef? " Prof. Machan

Dr. Machan,

I found your statement confusing. Could you re-state it?

Are you saying that Paul is mistaken in his statement, that most people believe he is mistaken, and therefore... What? I don't get the reference to "where's the beef?" (Yes, I know the meaning of the popular phrase, derived from the TV commercial. I don't get it here.)





Post 18

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I could not make clear sense of Tibor's post, but I gather he wants factual evidence that American foreign military policy bombs countries that do not submit to "our wishes". I can't understand the reference to "innocent people abroad". Does it mean that Ron Paul supporters should prove that US military engagements are not conducted for the purpose of protecting innocent people abroad?

Evidence that recent US military adventures in the Middle East are aimed at enforcing American hegemony (military power exercised for the purpose of controlling the balance of power and major events in that region) include the US alliance with the oppressive tribal rulers in Saudi Arabia--hardly an example of democratic rule or of a kingdom free of anti-American terrorist activities; the installation of the Shaw of Iran through a coup; aiding Saddam Hessein in his blood-soaked war with uncooperative Iranians, after they got rid of the oppressive Shaw; supporting the autocrat who ascended to power in Pakistan by military coup, despite plenty of evidence that Pakistani intelligence is involved in promoting or permitting terrorist activity; our war to remove Saddam Hussein, despite good evidence prior to the invasion that he had no WMD's and who, under virtually any circumstances imaginable, posed no military threat to the US, but who posed a threat to "US interests" because he had potential to become a regional power; our war to "get bin Laden" by invading Afghanistan, after the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to the U.S. if we could provide evidence that he orchestrated or was involved in preparing the attack on the WTC and Pentagon; the coupling of US military policy with plans for an international oil pipeline, which could not cross Afghanistan prior to the invasion, but which proceeded apace following our invasion; our initial invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War, for a variety of shifting public objectives--from defending the 'democracy" of Kuwait to defeating "Hitler"--none of which ackowleged US concern with controlling the flow of oil, and with preventing Hussein from controlling more than he already did. 

Still another huge example of the corruption of US military adventuring today is massive evidence supporting the theme that Bush was complicit in permitting the mass murders of 911, for the purpose of dragging Americans back to war in the Middle East. Read David Ray Griffin's books. But, of course, this is the sort of subject that must never be raised in polite company.

I could write an article that documents every claim contained in the paragraphs above. But it would not get published on this site.  

(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 2/07, 2:59pm)


Post 19

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Correct or not, most voters do not believe the American government goes around bombing people without just cause.  Maybe it does but when a candidate who wishes to be taken serious claims such a thing, he or she better provide at least some clear hints of when and where this has happened. Most Americans, I bet, think that the bombing done by the American military only accidentally, by mistake, ever harms innocent people.  Most of the time those being bombed, I would suppose most Americans think, are thugs.  I don't believe this justifies the bombings but why that is so isn't self-evident. Nor does reference to George Washington's farewell letter and such old documents suffice to make the case against such bombings, wars, etc.  What I call the "defensivist" military stance needs to be argued for, not just asserted, to prospective voters, even if in but a few sentences.
(Edited by Machan on 2/07, 5:22pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.