Serious question about libertarianism, Ron Paul

[jerryskids 6,719]

It seems to me that a fundamental philosophical tenet of libertarianism is... liberty, or the freedom to do what you want without government interference. I'm trying to resolve that with Ron Paul's strong objection to the war in Iraq, which has and will continue to provide additional freedoms for the Iraqi people. Is the philosophy "liberty is great for the US, but we don't give a crap about anyone else." ? Or perhaps I'm wrong in my premise, and it is really just about the smallest government needed to run the US.

 

I like a lot of what I see in the libertarian message, in fact it probably most closely resembles my ideology. But I'm confused by the above.

 

TIA

[Guest tiki_gods]

Our job as Americans isn't to force freedom down the throats of others. Remember, this war didn't start as a way to give Iraqi freedoms it was to find weapons of mass destruction.

[Me_2006 14]

As someone who isn't old enough to vote yet, but has always been intrigued by the Libertarian argument, I think it's just about the smallest government possible. BLS and others will know more about this than I do, and I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong here, but I think Ron Paul's point is that we don't need to police the entire world. It's not our place. He wants what's best for America and what the Constitution allows. Nothing more, nothing less. I think he feels we're interfering in matters that are no longer directly concerning us.(I dont necessarily agree, just telling you what I believe he thinks.)

[Snoopy1 0]

It seems to me that a fundamental philosophical tenet of libertarianism is... liberty, or the freedom to do what you want without government interference. I'm trying to resolve that with Ron Paul's strong objection to the war in Iraq, which has and will continue to provide additional freedoms for the Iraqi people. Is the philosophy "liberty is great for the US, but we don't give a crap about anyone else." ? Or perhaps I'm wrong in my premise, and it is really just about the smallest government needed to run the US.

 

I like a lot of what I see in the libertarian message, in fact it probably most closely resembles my ideology. But I'm confused by the above.

 

TIA

 

 

Isn't freedom the choice to live in an oppressive dictorial system, if one chooses.

[jerryskids 6,719]

Our job as Americans isn't to force freedom down the throats of others. Remember, this war didn't start as a way to give Iraqi freedoms it was to find weapons of mass destruction.

We could argue the motives for the war (I personally believe that the establishment of a democratic beachhead in the middle east was a non-zero factor), but that is not relevant to this discussion. If the empirical results are increased freedoms for the Iraqi people, why is this a bad thing to libertarians?

[jerryskids 6,719]

Isn't freedom the choice to live in an oppressive dictorial system, if one chooses.

I suppose. They always have the freedom to kill themselves.

[Evil number 0]

I have always thought of libertarians as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. Which is kind of how I think.

 

They are against things like work place discrimination laws, feeling that business owners should be able to run their companies unencumbered. But they are also favor laws allowing gay marriage, feeling that the Government should have no say on marriages.

 

They also believe one of the roles of the government is to protect the people. But there is a split among the libertarians on the war on terror. I think one side of the libertarians have a big problem with the “pre-emptive strike” of the Iraq war and think its just a smoke screen. Others believe it is necessary to protect the people.

[spottedowl 1]

I don't follow the news much anymore since moving from socialist central. But, isn't Ron Paul running on the republican ticket? I wouldn't vote for him because of his nutty foreign policy stance that we should isolate ourselves. I think I am voting for Thompson.

[wiffleball 4,789]

You want to know what the funny (and by "funny" I mean focked up and tragic) thing is?

 

 

I remember choosing to be a Republican because one of THE most central and sacred tenets of the Republican platform was small, inobtrusive government. Inobtrusive in American lives & governments, Inobtrusive in all other lives & governments too.

 

Funny, that's the platform that CANDIDATE Bush ran on the first time too.

 

 

I'm guessing I'm not the only one sitting back wondering: "Where the Fock did my party go?"

[VikesFan 1]

You want to know what the funny (and by "funny" I mean focked up and tragic) thing is?

I remember choosing to be a Republican because one of THE most central and sacred tenets of the Republican platform was small, inobtrusive government. Inobtrusive in American lives & governments, Inobtrusive in all other lives & governments too.

 

Funny, that's the platform that CANDIDATE Bush ran on the first time too.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one sitting back wondering: "Where the Fock did my party go?"

 

Unfortunately, there have always been two wings in the Republican party... I'm with you. My party disappeard. I've become a libertarian b/c of it.

[parrot 789]

If the empirical results are increased freedoms for the Iraqi people, why is this a bad thing to libertarians?

 

I don't think libertarians would call increased freedoms for the Iraqis "a bad thing", I think the arguments would be - why is it our role and/or right to provide them, and at what cost?

[lechuza 0]

It seems to me that a fundamental philosophical tenet of libertarianism is... liberty, or the freedom to do what you want without government interference. I'm trying to resolve that with Ron Paul's strong objection to the war in Iraq, which has and will continue to provide additional freedoms for the Iraqi people. Is the philosophy "liberty is great for the US, but we don't give a crap about anyone else." ? Or perhaps I'm wrong in my premise, and it is really just about the smallest government needed to run the US.

 

I like a lot of what I see in the libertarian message, in fact it probably most closely resembles my ideology. But I'm confused by the above.

 

TIA

 

why sacrifice our liberty to declare "liberty" for others? pretty much everything that has happened with Iraq has been unconstitutional. There was no declaration of war, the Federal gov has spent money that they shouldn't have and Bush acts like presidential powers are unlimited

[HalasHall 0]

I think the libertarian view will become more popular with the average voter as time moves forward. Most people I know, whether they classify themselves as Republican, Democratic, conservative or liberal, can get on board with the majority of libertarian policies. The problem will be cutting out the fringes on each end (from religious nuts/uber-corporate lobbyists to those in favor of unrestricted access to welfare).

[VikesFan 1]

I have always thought of libertarians as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. Which is kind of how I think.

 

They are against things like work place discrimination laws, feeling that business owners should be able to run their companies unencumbered. But they are also favor laws allowing gay marriage, feeling that the Government should have no say on marriages.

 

They also believe one of the roles of the government is to protect the people. But there is a split among the libertarians on the war on terror. I think one side of the libertarians have a big problem with the “pre-emptive strike” of the Iraq war and think its just a smoke screen. Others believe it is necessary to protect the people.

 

 

conservative in the sense that everything is better if the government is not involved. Our current Republican party is not conservative in that sense. I'd agree with more liberal on the socal issues. I'm a Christian who definitely doesn't agree with most Christians on the gay marriage issue. I belive it is morally wrong, but I do not see a compelling societal benefit to making it illegal, and I differ with my Christian counterparts in that I really don't care of two men want to marry. I do, however, want one thing very clear... Myself, or anyone else in ministry, has every right to say "No" to two homosexuals wanting to be married with absolutely no chance of recrimination (civil, criminal, loss of tax exmpt status, etc). We do tend to be more liberal on the social side, then again, there are a number of pro-life libertarians (Dr. Paul being one of them, as am I) who feel that the unborn baby has rights too, though both of us would agree completely that this issue belongs solely in the state legislatures, not at the federal level.

 

I'm not sure there is much division on the pre-emptive strike philosophy. I've yet to meet a pro-war libertarian. Most of us would prefer to be far more isolated than what we currently are... not totally isolationist, but the idea of a pre-emptive war, which sounds way too much like 1930s Germany, is not something that most of us would agree on.

[Me_2006 14]

conservative in the sense that everything is better if the government is not involved. Our current Republican party is not conservative in that sense. I'd agree with more liberal on the socal issues. I'm a Christian who definitely doesn't agree with most Christians on the gay marriage issue. I belive it is morally wrong, but I do not see a compelling societal benefit to making it illegal, and I differ with my Christian counterparts in that I really don't care of two men want to marry. I do, however, want one thing very clear... Myself, or anyone else in ministry, has every right to say "No" to two homosexuals wanting to be married with absolutely no chance of recrimination (civil, criminal, loss of tax exmpt status, etc). We do tend to be more liberal on the social side, then again, there are a number of pro-life libertarians (Dr. Paul being one of them, as am I) who feel that the unborn baby has rights too, though both of us would agree completely that this issue belongs solely in the state legislatures, not at the federal level.

 

I'm not sure there is much division on the pre-emptive strike philosophy. I've yet to meet a pro-war libertarian. Most of us would prefer to be far more isolated than what we currently are... not totally isolationist, but the idea of a pre-emptive war, which sounds way too much like 1930s Germany, is not something that most of us would agree on.

We agree 100%. Fellow Christians, conservative on government, fairly liberal on social issues. Nice to see someone thinks like I do.

[VikesFan 1]

If the empirical results are increased freedoms for the Iraqi people, why is this a bad thing to libertarians?

 

 

First, I'm not convinced Iraq is more free than it once was, and I defintely am not convinced that this country is interested in spreading freedom and democracy. Those are nice deals, but they can't be forced on someone, and I'd add that the government we have installed in Iraq is sadly looking more and more like the one we just deposed.

 

Our government is more interested in leaders who will play by our rules, and they don't give a rats u-know-what about the type of government in controll, as long as they play by our rules. History is repleate with examples of this (such as Osama and the Taliban or Saddam back in the 1980s). If they cared about democracy, they'd have recognized a legitimately elected Hamas and would be dialoguing with Hugo Chavez. They certainly wouldnt' take such a cavlier attitude towards electronic voting here, as the current process is easily hackable cannot provide any sort of legitimacy to our own democratic process.

[jerryskids 6,719]

conservative in the sense that everything is better if the government is not involved. Our current Republican party is not conservative in that sense. I'd agree with more liberal on the socal issues. I'm a Christian who definitely doesn't agree with most Christians on the gay marriage issue. I belive it is morally wrong, but I do not see a compelling societal benefit to making it illegal, and I differ with my Christian counterparts in that I really don't care of two men want to marry. I do, however, want one thing very clear... Myself, or anyone else in ministry, has every right to say "No" to two homosexuals wanting to be married with absolutely no chance of recrimination (civil, criminal, loss of tax exmpt status, etc). We do tend to be more liberal on the social side, then again, there are a number of pro-life libertarians (Dr. Paul being one of them, as am I) who feel that the unborn baby has rights too, though both of us would agree completely that this issue belongs solely in the state legislatures, not at the federal level.

 

I'm not sure there is much division on the pre-emptive strike philosophy. I've yet to meet a pro-war libertarian. Most of us would prefer to be far more isolated than what we currently are... not totally isolationist, but the idea of a pre-emptive war, which sounds way too much like 1930s Germany, is not something that most of us would agree on.

Great post. In fact, I appreciate all of the comments in this thread so far.

 

I'm trying to isolate the "should we have invaded" vs. the "should we still be there" issues. We could argue the former until the cows come home; it is a sunk cost at this point. I'm more interested in the latter. Personally, I think that sowing the seed of democracy and liberty in the middle east is potentially the most profound and important activity of our generation and those to come. Technology is advancing at an alarming pace, and I expect to see the ability for a nutjob to build and detonate a country-killing weapon from info on the internet in my lifetime.

 

Now, the counter argument is that if we just ignore the rest of the world, we won't be a target. Maybe... maybe not. Did I mention nutjob?

 

Like I said, this is a multi-generational thing. People, especially American people, don't want to hear this. Our culture wants a quick fix for everything. But there is no quick fix for a fundamentally anti-democracy mindset.

 

Tying back to the thread, I would think that the establishment of liberty for ALL people would be a long term goal of the libertarian ideology. Perhaps I am wrong.

[hoytdwow 202]

I think part of Paul's beef is that he believes any war should be declared by Congress. He's all about doing things exactly as the Constitution says.

 

Isolationism is also a huge pillar of libertarianism.

[Strike 5,412]

Jerry,

 

I would agree with you if I thought there was the POSSIBILITY of seeding the middle east with democracy. Iraq has convinced me that it isn't possible. Therefore, there is no purpose to continuing to lose American lives for a lost cause.

[jerryskids 6,719]

Jerry,

 

I would agree with you if I thought there was the POSSIBILITY of seeding the middle east with democracy. Iraq has convinced me that it isn't possible. Therefore, there is no purpose to continuing to lose American lives for a lost cause.

Like I said, it is not a short process. You don't overcome 1000+ years of cultural establishment with a knock on the door and a smile on your face. The people there today have it built into their fiber that we and what we stand for are evil; they are for the most part lost. I'm talking about their children, and their children's children.

[MDC 7,284]

Isolationism is a big tenet of libertarianism: no involvement in foreign conflicts unless it's in our vital interests. I'm guessing Paul does not see the war in Iraq as in our vital interests, since they did not have WMDs, posed no immediate threat to the U.S., and actually acted as a counterweight to regimes like Iraq and Syria. I'm sure he also opposed the President launching a war in Iraq without a formal declaration of war from Congress, in addition to all the other executive overreach. You might disagree with Ron Paul but it's not all that complicated.

[VikesFan 1]

Isolationism is a big tenet of libertarianism: no involvement in foreign conflicts unless it's in our vital interests. I'm guessing Paul does not see the war in Iraq as in our vital interests, since they did not have WMDs, posed no immediate threat to the U.S., and actually acted as a counterweight to regimes like Iraq and Syria. I'm sure he also opposed the President launching a war in Iraq without a formal declaration of war from Congress, in addition to all the other executive overreach. You might disagree with Ron Paul but it's not all that complicated.

The point he has made repeatedly is that the constitution was setup the way it was so as to prevent the wars that became of the unchecked monarchies of the past. The executive was never supposed to have the power to wage war as it does in today's society, and given the fact that we know that our executive hand picked the evidence he need to wage a war that has cost thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, I think it we need to put someone in that tones down the power of the government. It is way too powerful.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Freedom is not something that you force on people of other countries. Freedom is something that is demanded by people in their own country. Some countries are ready for it and others need to get ready for it.

[edjr 6,580]

Freedom is not something that you force on people of other countries. Freedom is something that is demanded by people in their own country. Some countries are ready for it and others need to get ready for it.

 

 

[jerryskids 6,719]

Freedom is not something that you force on people of other countries. Freedom is something that is demanded by people in their own country. Some countries are ready for it and others need to get ready for it.

How do they "get ready for it" if they've never experienced it, or don't know what it is?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How do they "get ready for it" if they've never experienced it, or don't know what it is?

How did it occur in the US? People are not stupid. They rise up against oppression.

 

How did it occur in the Communist block? They saw it elsewhere and said, "Hey, I want that".

 

You also are assuming that freedom = our style of government. That type of arrogant thinking gets us in trouble in the eyes of the world. You cannot impose your version of freedom on others and think that they will see it as freedom. They may see it as invasion. Sound familiar?

[paradoxical 1]

How do they "get ready for it" if they've never experienced it, or don't know what it is?

Well if you look at the US, we didn't get it until we could come together and put aside our differences or country origin (as long as you were from Europe) and religon (as long as it was christian) to fight the revolutionary war. We were united to win the war so that afterwards it was easier to work together and form a legitimate republic.

 

If we hand it to them without them uniting like we did it seems like we get civil war. I think if another country freed us we would have also have fighting and probably end up with several smaller countries instead of United States.

[BLS 314]

I would like to note that Ron Paul is not a TRUE Libertarian.

Libertarians strictly consider themselves as pro CHOICE, which RP disagrees with.

But even to that point, RP doesn't believe it's the FEDERAL governments jobs to dictate 'blanket' laws across the country.

He believes, and I believe he would repeal Roe vs. Wade, BUT, still give the States (as declared by the Constitution) the rights to choose.

 

The real beauty of the Consititution is that when States are allowed their rights to represent their consitituents wishes, one can move from State to State in order to find an area he/she feels agrees with their personal philosophy.

 

ALL that being said, RP is a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist. Not so much a Libertarian, although he freely admits his roots are there.

 

Regarding your initial question:

 

Using OUR government to 'free' another country in the name of Libertarianism does hit a bit of irony in it's essence doesn't it??

 

The point is, RP's stance is simple. He follows the Constitution. Period.

He firmly believes, and makes some VERY strong arguments, that if we, as a society were ALLOWED to follow it more closely, many of our current issues would be resolved.

 

It is NOT in our nation's interest to spread Freedom through force of arms. (see my sig....makes sense)

 

The US itself FOUGHT for it's own freedom from England. All civil wars are based on this basic prinicple.

Ultimately, the will of the people will always endure, regardless of dictatorships, oppressive regimes and foreign intervention.

 

It is NOT our duty to sacrifice US soliders in order to liberate another country. REGARDLESS of the reason.

Tyranny has been a plight many generations, throughout history, have fought, and in many cases, conquered because it IS the will of the people.

If someone isn't free, it's because of 2 simple reasons.

 

You haven't taken it yet;

Or you don't believe in it yet.

 

We can achieve much more through peace, and by setting a good example, then we could ever achieve in war. - Ron Paul

 

People have to WANT to emulate us. They have to BELIEVE that our way of life is better.

We can't march in, slap them in the face, and say "hey, this way is better, and if you don't like it, we'll kill you".

 

Doesn't make much sense when you simplify it. And I truly believe it's that simple.

 

We should mind our own business. UNLESS there is a threat to our Consititutional rights.

Ron Paul is STILL..to this day, very much involved in trying to find a way to get Osama Bin Ladin.

THAT is the person we should be worried about.

 

Once he's eliminated, we should take the advice of the founders of this country.

 

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - Thomas Jefferson

 

That is NOT isolationism.

 

China doesn't inflict it's will on it's neighbors or around the world, and their economy is BOOMING.

Similar to where ours was in the early 20th Century.

 

Isolationsim is closing down your country to all outside influence.

Free Trade, without restriction, makes ALOT of sense.

If Iraq or Iran, or Saudi Arabia can't give us the fuel we need to run our economy and nation, then Free Markets will dictate that some other source of fuel is necessary, and we will begin to run our vehicles on corn, or salt water, or catfish poop. Whatever...but someone somewhere will discover a new way.

 

Our current methodology is to PROTECT those resources we need (oil, for example), even if it requires wars.

A true Libertarian or Constitutionalist would say that we can't rely solely on ourselves for all resources we need, but a Free Market society will provide us options in all sectors.

[hoytdwow 202]

He believes, and I believe he would repeal Roe vs. Wade,

 

itsatip that the president can't "repeal" supreme court decisions. HTH Ron Paul would be ashamed of you.

[BLS 314]

itsatip that the president can't "repeal" supreme court decisions. HTH Ron Paul would be ashamed of you.

 

 

No sh!t Sherlock.

[Toro 1]

It is not in the constitution that the responsibility of the federal gov't to spread democracy to other countries.

[hoytdwow 202]

No sh!t Sherlock.

 

Then why did you say he would repeal Roe v Wade?

 

[Angry White Male 0]

How do they "get ready for it" if they've never experienced it, or don't know what it is?

[Uh-huh 0]

Tying back to the thread, I would think that the establishment of liberty for ALL people would be a long term goal of the libertarian ideology. Perhaps I am wrong.

How do they "get ready for it" if they've never experienced it, or don't know what it is?

 

I believe you are extrapolating your personal beliefs onto the Libertarian Party platform.

 

Given libertarians believe in the smallest amount of government interference possible, how in the world does invading another country to impose an ideology and a system of government represent that ideal?

[jerryskids 6,719]

I believe you are extrapolating your personal beliefs onto the Libertarian Party platform.

 

Given libertarians believe in the smallest amount of government interference possible, how in the world does invading another country to impose an ideology and a system of government represent that ideal?

If you had read my initial post, I don't think you would have posted this. My question, framed around admitted ignorance to the platform, was if it was just about small gubment or if there was a higher ideology around the concept of liberty.

 

Thanks to all who have posted and continue to post, this has been a very well-behaved and informative thread. You all get a gold internet star on your foreheads.

[pingpong 0]

You want to know what the funny (and by "funny" I mean focked up and tragic) thing is?

I remember choosing to be a Republican because one of THE most central and sacred tenets of the Republican platform was small, inobtrusive government. Inobtrusive in American lives & governments, Inobtrusive in all other lives & governments too.

 

Funny, that's the platform that CANDIDATE Bush ran on the first time too.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one sitting back wondering: "Where the Fock did my party go?"

Good point. As a life long Dem. who voted for W twice, I think the same thing about the D's. There is such a need for a central candidate. Once that does not cave to the idea that they need to suck the balls fo their 'base', which is far too extreme anymore.

[davebg 0]

China doesn't inflict it's will on it's neighbors or around the world, and their economy is BOOMING.

No, they're too busy inflicting their will on their own people.

 

Also, I think people in places like Tibet and Taiwan would disagree w/you.

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how China can be used as a comparison or even role model when freedom, rights and small government are the topics of discussion.

[davebg 0]

Good point. As a life long Dem. who voted for W twice, I think the same thing about the D's. There is such a need for a central candidate. Once that does not cave to the idea that they need to suck the balls fo their 'base', which is far too extreme anymore.

Agreed. The best thing that could EVAH happen to US politics would be if the far left libs or the far right evangelicals took their ball and started their own party. Whichever party had the fringe group leave would become the true party of the people. IMO many DEMs who are fed up w/the far left would begin to shift to the REP party if the religious nut jobs left and took their agenda w/them. Similarly, I think that many REPs who are fed up w/said religious freaks would begin to shift to the DEM party if the social justice looneys formed their own party.

[VikesFan 1]

The best thing that could ever happen to US politics would be the removal of both the dems and republicans.

[jets24 6]

You want to know what the funny (and by "funny" I mean focked up and tragic) thing is?

I remember choosing to be a Republican because one of THE most central and sacred tenets of the Republican platform was small, inobtrusive government. Inobtrusive in American lives & governments, Inobtrusive in all other lives & governments too.

 

Funny, that's the platform that CANDIDATE Bush ran on the first time too.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one sitting back wondering: "Where the Fock did my party go?"

 

 

Many people felt the same way, including me. Then, the greatest tragedy on American soil happened and government needed to make some serious changes to the way they did things. We still haven't been attacked on our soil yet and that is a direct result on the changes President Bush has made.