An excellent op-ed in the Washington Times today authored by Congressman Ron Paul hammers home the Old Right ideas of non-interventionism in foreign policy arguably better than he ever did during his Presidential campaign.
Paul writes:
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.” This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
In this piece Ron Paul seems to be taking some lessons from his son Rand. Paul the elder is framing his non-interventionist foreign policy beliefs in a way that should be less off-putting to die hard neo-conservatives.
Author’s Note: Hello all. The editors of Liberty Maven have graciously agreed to include me as a contributor to this fine site. As they are always on the ball with breaking news, it may be a challenge to keep up with valuable content. So, for my first post, I’d like to start with a rhetorical, philosophical open letter that I wrote directed at all those who think that more government regulation will solve all of our nation’s ills. I hope you enjoy it!
—————————————
I’ve gotten some feedback on the subject of deregulation, and the effect of greed. Many are quick to demonize it, but I think we all need to slow down and take a look at what greed really is, before we admonish the “greedy”.
Interestingly, greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins, so we should strive to not be greedy, right? Well, greed is defined in several different ways, but the most unbiased true definition (not relating to material wealth – I’ll explain why this is important in a moment) of greed is: An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain. Is this not merely an extension of self interest? What is self interest? Self interest is defined as personal interest or advantage. Everyone acts in ways of self interest, some more than others. The reason is because life is a competition, like it or not. You cannot beat the self interest out of anyone, and that is the paradoxical nature of self interest, i.e., greed. To clarify my point, allow me to give several examples.
1. Early in life, we play games. The object of a game is to win. The desire to win is an act of self interest. Yes it is fun to play, but winning and losing is part of the game, and the desire to win is part of human nature. If the true object of the game is only to have fun, why do we keep score? Why do we play at all? Can we not find more fun and productive things to do if the object is “fun”?
2. When we go to school, we get graded on our performance. We strive to get good grades based on our performance, and to gauge how we are faring against our peers. Some learn faster, or in different ways, than others. It is in our self interest to get the best grades possible, so that we not only know we are learning, but to ensure that our future will be bright, by being accepted into higher educational facilities which boast better educational practices than others.
“The Republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it.” – Elmer Davis
by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published on Friday, June 5, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6510.html
On June 6, 1944, a flotilla of transports set out for the coast of Normandy. They would land at five beaches codenamed Sword, Juno, Omaha, Gold, and Utah. Some beachheads were established with minimum resistance. Some beachheads were established in blood and gore, like Omaha’s. (photo)
In operational military code, the day was D-Day and the time was H-Hour. The only difference was that this was THE D-Day. My message, if you care to receive it, is that today is also D-Day, a D-Day of a different flavor.
Our overlords are operating on the economy until it collapses. They are debasing our money supply until it is worthless.
Someone, somewhere is receiving the tax money paid for the broken business of AIG and Government Motors. All we know is that the international central bankers are behind the whole charade. Our Congress still doesn’t even support auditing the central bank, the Federal Reserve, yet.
They are frittering away the very civil liberties that our veterans cherished so much and fought so hard to protect. Many of our soldiers may still believe this today, but they have been misled.
Our enemies are not to be found in the racial and religious groups clashing in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist group. When we hurled our finest 150,000 troops at him, he had no air force, no navy, and pathetic shreds of an army. He had no weapons of mass destruction, although Pakistan, India, Russia, the USA, China, Israel and other obviously do.
The semi-heroic Ron Paul again dresses down his fellow lawmakers and our own attitudes regarding the role of government. This is one damn good 5 minute speech.
It’s Friday and that means it’s time for another article of quick hits, random thoughts, and other items that didn’t materialize into full articles here at Liberty Maven.
Last week was the back to back speech duel between Barack Obama and Dick Cheney discussing foreign policy, torture, and how to keep America safe. I watched the conservatives on Twitter post comment after comment how Cheney whipped poor Obama. Then I hear on CNN that Obama got the better of Cheney. The desire to take sides like it’s some kind of sport saddens me. After being annoyed at the “game” all day long I summed up my thoughts with the following:
Obama vs. Cheney = Tyranny vs. Tyranny… Neither won and We The People lost (again).
In many re-branding efforts a new mission statement is derived. My choice for a re-branded GOP: The Free Country Project. The mission could also be worded in this way, “Do the polar opposite of whatever Lindsey Graham suggests.”
I apologize to the wonderful Free State Project for bastardizing their efforts with such a suggestion, but I am quite serious. Instead of putting energy into calling the Obama administration socialists why not abandon the petty, kindergarten-style, partisan bickering and look within? Come up with a new 1994-style “Contract With America” but this time don’t renege on the contract. It should not be called anything similar to “Contract With America” though. Yes, that bad taste is still lingering.
Dubbing it “The Free Country Project” and making more than a half-assed effort to bring libertarianism back into the GOP could be a winning formula. Of course, many will have to tuck their neo-con tails between their legs and embrace Ron Paul and his libertarian friends. I’m not talking about a macho homophobic half-hearted embrace here. I’m talking about a full-on bear hug that will make gawkers worry about dropping the soap in the GOP country club shower.
Rand Paul has put up a new video at RandPaul2010.com dispelling all the myths regarding his first name. He also discusses being a fan of Ayn Rand and a few of his favorite books.
I think it’s a great idea for Rand to release videos like these. In doing so he becomes more than just Ron Paul’s son. We get to know him as an individual rather than through his father. Hopefully these “get to know me” style videos continue.
Rand Paul is scheduled to be on the Brian and The Judge show on Fox News Radio during the 9am (Eastern) hour. He is also scheduled to be on with the Judge on Freedom Watch this afternoon at 2pm with several other freedom loving guests.
Ron Paul appeared on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC this evening. He discussed his own role in the GOP’s future. Pointedly, Maddow asks Paul his thoughts on Newt Gingrich.
“I don’t think either party right now offers a whole lot to the American people who want to see some really serious changes.”
I hate to admit it but when I first became interested in politics, I was a liberal. I was naively taken in by the feel-good positions and promises of politicians such as Paul Tsongas, Mario Cuomo, and Bill Clinton. I felt that, of course, the government should help people, take care of people. It was those evil Republicans who were mean-spirited and nasty all the time.
So I voted for Clinton. Twice. But near the middle of his second term I started to become jaded by politics in general, and I focused the majority of my daily attention elsewhere in life.
At some point later, I started listening to Rush Limbaugh “just to see how the other side thinks” and ended up becoming pursuaded by many of his arguments against those blasted liberals, so I thought I might really be a Republican.
But that didn’t last long, because I found the Libertarian Party. I realized I was most attracted to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, most notably Jefferson and Madison. I began to realize that there isn’t much difference at all betweens the Democrats and Republicans, that both support statist, authoritarian ideals.
Since the election of 2000, I’ve voted for the Libertarian Party candidate. (Well, this past election I changed my affiliation temporarily to Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the Primary, but then I changed back to Libertarian after the election). Today, while I typically agree mostly with the Libertarian-Party candidates, I don’t find myself wed to the Libertarian Party itself; I tend to be more of an anarcho-capitalist, believing mostly in the free market and ahbor some of the powers that even the Constitution gives the Federal government.
Then, in the past year or so, with the economy tanking, I became interested in economics for the first time in my life. I immediately realized that the Austrian school of economics are very in line with my way of thinking — and it seems so fitting, since Austrians tend to be small-government, libertarian thinkers. Therefore, it seemed natural to me that Democrats, liberals, and progressives, if they gave more than a modicum of thought to the subject of economics, would be attracted to Keynesian theory, which pushes deficit spending to artificially “stimulate” the economy.
But why were so many conservative politicians voting (and even campaigning) for stimulus packages? The idea of a “conservative Keynesian” seems to be to be a paradox in terms. Read More »
Liberty Maven
On 
I hate to admit it but when I first became interested in politics, I was a liberal. I was naively taken in by the feel-good positions and promises of politicians such as Paul Tsongas, Mario Cuomo, and Bill Clinton. I felt that, of course, the government should help people, take care of people. It was those evil Republicans who were mean-spirited and nasty all the time.
Loading ...
