RoR: Forum

Professor Machan,

I fully agree with your take on Murry Rothbard, and the veneration for him at Mises Institute. But instead of showing a connection between Ron Paul and Rothbard or Anarcho-Capitalism, you ask this question: "...when it comes to Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions it would be helpful to know that they are importantly informed by the positions of the Mises Institute..." And in the context of your article, the positions are those of the anarchists relative to foreign policy.

I don't think that it is appropriate to tar Ron Paul with the anarcho-capitalist brush, or even to assume that he has acquired any foreign policy positions from the Mises Institute. Have you established either of those anywhere?
-----------------------

You quote the head of the institute who wrote, "Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.”

He properly calls the terrorist acts "crimes" rather than moral retaliation - and to say that they were seen by those who committed them as "revenge" doesn't cause me any problem. What they see their acts of terrorism as doesn't make them moral.

That quoted statement, by itself, does not say that we should not be in Saudi Arabia, or making sanctions against Iran, or funding Israel expansionism. By itself, it simply says that there are nuts that will see these as acts that justify, in their twisted minds, criminal acts of revenge. I know that many who associate with the Mises Institute use that as a jumping off point to say we should stay out and that the fact that there will be "blow back" is a reason to change our policy. It is a conversion on their part of a predictable act from terrorists into a moral prescription we should follow. But that is some of the Mises Institute crowd and not, I believe, Ron Paul.
-----------------

I understand Ron Paul's position differently. He has said that we should never have gone into Iraq or Libya - not because it would cause blow-back, but because there was no self-defense justification to do so. And that we did have a justification for Afghanistan - in response to 911 - to go after Al Qaeda - but for about 6 months or so, not a decade.

His view of using the military as self-defense is much more literal and concrete than what we are used to from others.

My understanding of his blow-back statements is that we would not have experienced this degree of blow-back if we had not been intervening to the degree we are, a degree that was not warranted, not constitutional, and not justified as self-defense.

It is more that he is saying, "We should expect that these nutcases will react as they did" and that is very different from saying "we deserved it."

I agree with Paul's position as I've stated it above, as far as it goes, and I don't see any conflict with Objectivism and I don't see it as pacifist or arising from anarcho-capitalist principles.

Maybe I am wrong in how I understand him. But if I'm right then someone should sit him down and explain the importance of making his position clear so as to not leave the wrong impression.
-----------------

He goes on to say that the sees no reason to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and no reason to fear Iran. Here I disagree with him. And I think that there is a serious threat from Islamists succeeding in forming a Caliphate.
-----------------

I really like Ron Paul for all that he has done to move the Republican Party and the national debate in the direction of being more constitutional, towards seeing the dangers and harm from the Fed, and towards seeing the importance of sound money. But I think he is naive in his view of the facts regarding Islamists, Iran and the possibility of a Caliphate returning. He has the principles right, but the facts wrong.

Post 1

Friday, October 21, 2011 - 12:24am

Rand Paul will be a sounder candidate than Ron in four years. The whole Republican field is hopeless at present.

Post 2

Friday, October 21, 2011 - 9:26am

I like Rand Paul and wouldn't be surprised to see him run for President in 2020.

Every one of the current GOP candidates would be a major, major improvement over Obama. Expecting a superman isn't going to help. This election may be the most important in our history, but it isn't going SETTLE the issue of free enterprise versus statism - at best it will just change the direction and roll back some of the recent mistakes.

And no matter who is elected, the Senate may likely lose its Democratic majority and the House will probably get more Tea Party candidates. I won't be surprised to see January 20, or thereabouts, 2013 as the day executive orders start unraveling much of the damage Obama has done and that we will see an economic recovery begin (barring a major inflation that is already baked into the cake - but that is a different issue).

If this is the case, then each succeeding election may move the GOP more in the direction of a libertarian party. And if so, the improvements will likely cascade.

But politics is very unpredictable and maybe it will all go bad - the Republicans could gain complete control and then the massive inflation hits and the economy crashes and it is blamed on capitalism, people revolt and we turn into a socialist nation. It could happen. And it could be a century before things get better. It is always good to fight the good fight but to recognize that there is no guarantee and circumstances can treat life very cheaply.

Post 3

Friday, October 21, 2011 - 11:09am

Top GOP contenders don't offer substantive improvement over Obama. Romney is running as the protector of Social Security and Medicare. Perry is running on religion. Cain's tax troika is revenue neutral. Shrinking government isn't even going to be on the table of the next president.

Rand Paul is the only credible national politician with a credible plan to cut spending. He has called for entitlements to be means tested, which would essentially start turning them into need-based welfare programs, which would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and serve as a crucial step toward getting rid of the whole horrid entitlement concept that has enslaved workers and business owners and put the nation on a path toward financial ruin.

Post 4

Friday, October 21, 2011 - 2:04pm

Brad,

Ron Paul isn't running. Spending your time upset because he can't be the president won't accomplish much.

If you really can't see what a massive improvement any one of the GOP candidates would be over Obama then I don't know what to say - we don't even talk the same language.

Post 5

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 8:24am

Ron Paul isn't running. Spending your time upset because he can't be the president won't accomplish much.

Yes, he is. Didn't you watch the debates between the Republican candidates?!

Post 6

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 9:47am

Bill,

That was an error on my part - I meant to type Rand Paul (replying to Brad's post above mine), but mistakenly typed Ron Paul.

Yes, I've watched each of the debates and late last night, on CSPAN2, I watched Ron Paul give a lengthy speech before a college group - He is clearly the only candidate who understands all of the issues at the level of principles. The speech was very wide ranging but had two themes: Liberty is self-ownership (you own your body, your mind which gives you intellectual and spiritual freedom, and the product of your effort); and Liberty is the answer in all of the areas related to government (he tied every area together - foreign policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, regulations, spending, etc.)

Not for one instant did it seem like a politician speaking. He isn't an electric speaker but he never looked at notes or made use of a teleprompter.

Post 7

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 10:44am

Steve, Is this the video you are talking about? It is a very good speech.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 10/24, 10:46am)

Post 8

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 1:10pm

Thank you, Dean. That was truly a wonderful speech.

Sam

Post 9

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 2:32pm

Dean,

Yes, that is the one. He isn't a powerful speaker - not much electricity, and he doesn't have the sense of presidentiality of a Romney or Perry, with their commanding presence. He is dry, speaks in this constant run-on fashion, and has an often pessimisstic message. If you aren't a person attuned to intellectual approaches to politics and economics and open to Libertarian perspectives, as we are, he isn't likely to grab you.

But the other candidates are children next to him intellectually and in in their pitiful grasp of economic and political principles.

Not once did I have the feeling that I was listening to a politician. It was always clear that I was hearing what he believed and there a respect for the listeners and an understanding that they were intelligent and would make up their own minds (rather than being 'sold' or manipulated or cheer-led) - a respect that you rarely get with used car salesmen and politicians. His integrity has earned him the title "statesman" while the others are still politicians.

Post 10

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 2:53pm

When you say, "My understanding of his blow-back statements is that we would not have experienced this degree of blow-back if we had not been intervening to the degree we are, a degree that was not warranted, not constitutional, and not justified as self-defense," I don't quite follow, probably because you understand "blow-back" in a circular way, using the very term in you characterization that you wish to clear up. In any case, your counter-factual supposition is difficult to establish as true. I am doubtful that radical Muslims needed American and Western intervention to provoke them (as distinct from giving them an excuse for drastic overreaction). After all, these are folks who often sound off approving of Hitler and similar monsters. They routinely perpetrate atrocities against female Muslims who are accused to having committed adultery, or against totally innocent homosexuals, etc., and who condone honor killings and commit them with impunity.
Of course Western governments are anything but innocent along these lines, although I doubt that they routinely deliberately target innocent children and make violent use of them as they carry out their expansionist policies. And there is little doubt that when they send in drones to kill Muslims, they are responsible for the frequent deaths of nearby innocents. (I do not do sufficient research in these areas so I am not going to pretend to have conclusive understanding but just as I have sided with Israel in its conflicts with its neighbors without considering Israelis innocent, so I side with the West in these face-offs with radical Muslims. Consider the way some of them responded to the Danish cartoons; was that anything remotely civilized?)

Post 11

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 4:15pm

Professor Machan,

I understand Ron Paul to be saying that we are more of a target of the Islamists because of our active interventions in the middle east. That, I think is unarguable, and the only questions left are these: How much more of a target... maybe it is only a minor increase over what would have happened if we had never intervened? And, were some of the interventions appropriate? We shouldn't make our decisions based upon the irrational reactions of others, but we should be aware of the costs we will pay when we do intervene.

We are in complete agreement that radical Muslims constitute a barbaric culture worthy of no respect. They are tyrannts who make atrocities a part of their every day law.

I don't give any weight to the cries of outrage from them. I don't see them as having a leg to stand on in any moral argument.

I stand beside Israel in all of their conflicts.

But none of that changes that fact that Ron Paul was dismissed for his statements. He takes the position that we don't go to war without a declaration of war, and we don't issue a declaration of war unless we need to defend the nation. I agree with that. I don't believe we should have entered Iraq. I believe we should have entered Afghanistan but only for Al Qaeda targets and spent no more than 6 months. I don't think we should have gone into Libya. What the best answer for terrorism is... given how much harder it is to combat... I don't know.

I disagree with Ron Paul on Iran. I see it as the lynch-pin of the political problems in the middle-east. I see it as the greatest danger (far more than any of the other countries). I see them having the bomb as a major shift in power over there and a real danger for us. I would use the military to take out their ability to continue their nuclear production if nothing else worked - and so far it hasn't. If we don't stop this process, it will only be time till a major metropolitan area goes up in a mushroom cloud. And the psychology of the middle-east is such that unappossed aggressiveness on the part of Iran will move them closer to creating a Caliphate centered around Iran (which is overdue, historically speaking).
------------

You wrote, "I am doubtful that radical Muslims needed American and Western intervention to provoke them..."

I doubt that they would have been nearly as strongly anti-American if we hadn't intervened. There are those of the religious right that speak and act as if they want a crusade. But now, Iran has an agenda and I believe it needs to be dealt with.

Post 12

Friday, November 11, 2011 - 2:19am

The IAEA is now fairly certain that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons and israel warns that their missiles are capable of hitting any european city.
What are the options presently? Economic embargoes to starve them into submission?
Wait till they let their missiles fly before anyone can declare an act of war. .. or does the US government wake up and realise that irans government is bent on our destruction and declare an act of war regardless of what the world thinks and pound them into unconditional surrender and then install a government that recognises individual rights.
Iran with nuclear weapons isn't something that the world will be too happy with because they are indeed going to use them when they get them.
Or wait and let israel deal with them I guess would be another option.

Anyone have any theories as to how this is going to play out?

Post 13

Friday, November 11, 2011 - 10:44am