Tag Archive for ron_paul at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'ron_paul'

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part IV

Published by Colin July 21, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 5 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The first two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. The third argued that libertarian foreign policy is compatible with biblical mandates. Finally, I would like to summarize some criticism from left, right and Christian.

Despite the fact that the Democrats and Christian libertarians have different reasons for supporting a decreased military presence in Iraq, doesn’t the similar result justify grouping them?

Perhaps we should look at a more absurd scenario to judge this principle. My neighbour has a car I like and I offer him $10,000 for it - which he accepts. But what if I steal it instead? Both result in me getting the car from my neighborur. However, one is moral and one is not.

The democrats have no principled opposition to aggression in foreign policy. They are driven entirely by polls (with a few exceptions). Many libertarian Christians, on the other hand, do not support war out of steadfast philosophical opposition to aggression.

I basically agree with these views, but they are not pragmatic. These are merely “theories” which work on paper but cannot happen in real life.

I think the term “theory” is potentially misapplied here. This is not a “theory” in the positivistic sense- where it needs to be “tested” in order to be proved true or false empirically. But the Christian libertarian foreign policy is an a priori argument based on human action and biblical truth. Neither of these foundations require empirical results in order to be verified.

But the more important concern is with the pragmatism of compromising with something one knows to be wrong to achieve a “right” end. Christianity requires us to give the results to God, and walk in faith and obedience. We are not be bend God’s truth to accommodate our political goals - but rather to trust in his sovereignty and obey his gospel. It may not be pragmatic for a soldier to disobey his commanders asking him to kill civilians - but what is the Christian thing to do? It may not be pragmatic for a tax collector to repent and refuse to steal from others - but it is right.

These are the tough decisions for Christians to make because they require us to put our faith into action, despite what our senses and reason tell us. But this does not exempt us from our duty to obey.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part II

Published by Colin July 15, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 0 Comments

Yesterday, I dealt with a question that presumed libertarian foreign policy is too right-wing (isolationist). Ironically, we get criticized from the other side too.

Is libertarian foreign policy in line with the Democrats or even pacifism? / You libertarians are just like those treasonous anti-war weenie liberals! Go USA!
Just like with isolationism, it is possible to be a libertarian and a pacifist - but it is not required, or even a mainstream view in libertarianism. Most libertarians take the non-aggression principle to mean that it is perfectly legitimate for free people’s to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against aggressions initiated against their person or property. In fact, libertarians have quite a reputation as gun-nuts and vigilantes.

However, most people get libertarians and democrats confused on foreign policy because both groups have been vocally opposed to the current invasion of Iraq. However, their reasons are radically different and stem from a completely different set of principles.

Well, maybe that is a bit misleading - Democrats generally have no principles. They usually just look across the aisle and see what Republicans do and try and support the opposite. In fact, democrats generally support wars and nation building - just look at the last administration.

Libertarians have a few different ways to determine if a war is defensive or not. There needs to be a specific threat or aggression that has taken place. None of this preemptive war - which presumes guilt until proven innocent (after a bunch of people are killed of course - sorry about that). There needs to be a defined enemy (the one who did the specific aggression) and also conditions for victory.

A libertarian war would also not require forced taxation or conscription to wage it - the threat would be so obvious that people would voluntarily defend themselves. Consider a brief analogy:

My neighbour John claims that my other neighbour Jack ransacked my house and stole my TV. He showed me his video surveillance and it is clear that Jack did this. Moreover, he heard Jack talking about how he was going to begin stealing other TV’s in the neighbourhood. I am going to go and get my TV back, by george.

But what if my TV is not stolen, and John just tells me he has a” gut feeling” that Jack is going to steal it. John tells me that Jack looks like a shady character, and that we should TP his house and key his car to make sure he doesn’t mess with us. John also makes some of the neighbour kids stand around Jack’s house to prevent him from going to the grocery store.

Democrats and republicans basically have very few rules about what justifies a war. Both parties are making threats to Iran simply because they might, possibly, in the future, in theory, maybe one day, thought about, for a few seconds enriching uranium that could be used for weapons, which also someday might be used against Israel. We’re literally going to blockade Iran, preparing to starve their people and commit an act of war against them when they have done nothing to us.

The libertarian response to Iran’s existence, would be the same as any neighbour. We’d trade with them culturally and economically if it benefits us. And otherwise leave them alone and expect them to leave us alone. Libertarians reject the idea that we must presume guilt on others just because it is easier or more convenient.

I suspect if this country ever were credibly threatened or attacked, the libertarians with their guns and hyperactive love of freedom, would be the first ones to fire shots back.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part I

Published by Colin July 14, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 57 Comments

Is libertarian foreign policy isolationist? / You libertarians are a bunch of head-in-the-sand isolationists!
Libertarians are broadly defined as people that hold to the non-aggression principle, which is basically paraphrased:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (’aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory (Murray Rothbard).

How does this kind of worldview translate to foreign policy? It definitely doesn’t automatically mean isolationism - but it could. So some libertarians can be isolationists (at least partly), but most hold to a defence-oriented foreign policy. That is, we do not attack any country unless it presents an imminent, specific and definable threat. Thus, World War II is justifiable to many libertarians, as may be the invasion of Afghanistan - however, preemptive wars such as Vietnam, Iraq or the Spanish-American War are typically frowned upon.

Wars to support alliances would also be unacceptable to libertarians. We broadly support alliances via trade and commerce, but not political alliances which tie us to the internal and external conflicts of others. World War I is an excellent example of the disasters of such alliances.

But more important to this distinction, is actually looking at what defines isolationism. There are two general points required for isolationism:

non-aggressive, or non-interventionist foreign policy
protectionism of the economy, culture, language, etc…

Libertarians abhor the second point. We would like to see trade with as many people as possible. We want our cultures to mingle and share with one another. We are generally more internationalist - supporting all kinds of diplomacy and cooperation with other nations.

The economic restrictions of isolationism (and currently favored by both the left and right), are an anathema to libertarians who support free-markets and the rights of individuals (regardless of their nationality) to voluntarily trade with one another. For example, many libertarians are for opening borders and loosening immigration controls - while many isolationist-oriented republicans want immigrant-hiring employers regulated, a border-fence and deportation of illegal immigrants.

So it is possible that isolationism and libertarianism can coincide briefly, but for the most part, these two ideas - especially when examined logically - are mutually exclusive.

The Death of Left and Right

Published by Colin July 2, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 6 Comments

It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.

It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:

Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.

Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.

In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.

Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:

I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.

The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.

Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:

[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.

I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.

With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.

Why Ron Paul Won in 2008

Published by Colin June 5, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 40 Comments

With a headline like this, it must be first mentioned that this is not a paranoid conspiratorial piece on how delegates were STOLEN (all caps), votes weren’t counted or the major media somehow sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign. Rather, it is important to take a realistic look at the goals that Ron Paul’s campaign set out to accomplish, and examine how he fared.

First of all, did Ron Paul actually enter this election to win? Before we start getting our competitive juices flowing, just think about what Ron Paul stands for and what a realistic assessment of this kind of “victory” would have meant. He would have gone to the Oval Office with a congress that absolutely hated and loathed him, departments that feared him and would fight him as though their jobs were at stake (which they would be) and a public (after fickle popular support had waned) which was bewildered with the kind of radical policies and actions that were coming from the president. A Ron Paul presidency may have destroyed the best fruits of his candidacy.

Ron Paul’s campaign has always been a bottom-up phenomenon. Secondly, it is a more purely philosophical and ideological agenda - rather than a pragmatic political one. While many have criticized that this is a bad thing - is it not more beneficial in the long-term to sacrifice an election in order to generate hundreds of thousands of individual awakenings to liberty?

Rather than being humble, Paul was being very honest when he said countless times that the campaign wasn’t about him, but about the people who supported him. Paul’s campaign jarred the intellectually lazy and cynical over a few months (which may have been all they needed), and made them take a moment to consider what freedom, consitutionalism and liberty really mean. He showed us what a free society should look like.

This is key, because rather than end up in a politically neutered position of central power, Ron Paul has lit the spark of changed hearts and minds. And for those that have not changed, especially many conservatives, they have had to reconsider what kind of GOP they now support. Paul’s campaign was in the spotlight for enough time to act as a mirror against the new GOP - and show conservatives just how long it’s been since they took a good look at themselves - many of them no longer recognizing their own faces.

Ron Paul’s expectations have been wildly exceeded by his campaign. For the first time in decades, there is an active block of people who are learning about the evils of central banking, empire-building and welfarism. These aren’t the crazies and kooks who were in the cracks of society, burying guns in Idaho - these are regular folks, who work regular jobs and have become evangelical about the message of freedom.

This movement, which has been scattered and divided across the spectrum: libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists and even some former socialists have been united under Paul’s big tent platform. And while it may be easy to ridicule the conspiracy theorists, it is a testimony to the movement that they now join with college professors, intellectuals and businessmen. Or the atheists, homosexual activists and objectivists now aligning with radical Christians and New Agers. These people now realize that they have more in common than they once thought - and while disagreements remain, there is now more than a undefined dissatisfaction with what has happened in America, but a visible way out.

John McCain or Barack Obama will go to the White House in 2008. But their policies, which favour a continuation of America’s slow decline into the also-rans of history, will prove Ron Paul right again. People like BJ Lawson, Murray Sabrin and Carl Bunce are setting themselves up as future advocates. Many of these would have never thought to seek political office, but have been inspired by the optimism and hope that Ron Paul exampled.

Ron Paul won in 2008, by taking the exact opposite approach of most politicians. Instead of coalition building, compromising, pandering and standing for nothing and everything at the same time, Paul explicitly denounced the problems we have created and boldly proclaimed the solutions found in freedom and liberty. Ron Paul has mobilized many in the coming generation to build a better future. This long-term investment may not have resulted in an immediate gratification, but over time, compounded with interest, this movement may very well pay off.

Ron Paul Republican Destroys Neo-Con Rival

Published by Colin May 7, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 29 Comments

Yesterday we talked a little about B.J. Lawson, a 33-year old with no political experience, running for congress in North Carolina. Last night, Lawson destroyed his opponent with over 70% of the vote. The key is, that Lawson did it primarily on his own merits, without the help of many Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul pulled down a little over 7% with 37,392 votes statewide. Lawson received 70% of the vote with a total of 24,410 in just his district. Take Durham County, for example, where Ron Paul received 690 votes but Lawson pulled in 4,501. That means a lot of John McCain, Mike Huckabee or “None of the Above” supporters went with Lawson over the toe-the-line Republican challenger Augustus Cho.

This results in an interesting analysis: while republicans do not like Ron Paul, they do like his message. Obviously, Lawson (as we mentioned yesterday) has a slightly less-aggressive tone than Paul, but his philosophical arguments remain almost identical. Cho (who is also a presbyterian minister) was a bastion of neo-con, neo-fascist philosophy - he sounded exactly like a mix between Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson (debate: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) - two of the candidates beloved by more traditional republicans.

The next big test of course, is what a more conservative, constitutional and philosophically consistent republican will do against a democrat - especially an incumbent like David Price. Cho declared of his opponent:

It’s going to take a true republican to beat David Price. Not a libertarian closet-republican… whose essentially going to divide up our party. If you support Ron Paul, then you know what? You need to support my young primary opponent because he’s a Ron Paul libertarian: 100%. If you go to his webpage, everything he stands for is right there. I call him Ron Paul Jr., because that’s what he is.

He’s not going to beat David Price. When David price looks at this guy, he’s going to look at him and spit him out.

While it is clear that Lawson has an uphill battle, it is just as clear that Ron Paul’s message can win within the republican party. In fact, Ron Paul’s message may be the only thing that can save the GOP in congress - which is looking like it’s going to get obliterated this November.

Ron Paul’s Republicans

Published by Colin May 6, 2008 in Current Events. 25 Comments

Ron Paul has a key primary today in North Carolina, and it is not the presidential primary. Paul has been spending the last four months or so of his campaign to support “pro-liberty” candidates for federal, state and local offices. One of them, B.J. Lawson, is going to see if he can get out of the republican primary.

Lawson seems to hold positions similar to Paul - which is much of the GOP platform (albeit more strictly adhered to and interpreted) as well as an opposition to the current interventionism of the Bush Administration. From his website:

National security is critical, and we need a strong national defense. We also need to stand in support of our troops who answer their country’s call to duty, both when they are deployed and when they return as veterans.

As your Congressman, I will insist that we use deadly force in self-defense, and that we only go to war with a Congressional Declaration of War as specified in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I will resist any attempts to declare preemptive war . As any sheriff knows, “If you start a fight, you lose your rights [to self defense]”.

I will work to keep our nation secure with an economic offense and strong military defense, instead of an economic defense and military offense…

With respect to the Middle East, we can, and must, be a force for stability in the region. We cannot rely on unilateral, preemptive military force to bring “democracy” to unstable countries. Furthermore, democracy shouldn’t even be the goal. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. Instead, countries need to be encouraged to build representative governments that protect individuals with the rule of law.

This is a key difference in that Lawson supports the conservative “constitutional war” view rather than the libertarian “anti-war” view. I would suggest that Ron Paul is more the latter, while many of the Ron Paul republicans are somewhere between.

Lawson also takes a more moderate position than Paul on the Federal Reserve:

Constitutional money is gold and silver, not a debt-backed paper currency. There’s no need to disrupt the current system, however, and we don’t need to “fix” our existing paper dollars to some amount of gold or silver. We just need to give those paper dollars some honest competition by again allowing gold and silver currency in addition to Federal Reserve Notes.

Paul has advocated this policy in debates but he has also been publicly supportive of Austrian economics and the abolition of the Fed. Lawson espouses a more careful tone.

Candidates like BJ Lawson and the other Ron Paul republicans, indicate that Paul’s candidacy has awakened a long dormant section of the republican party - a segment that wants to advocate conservatism by conservative means - rather than the current method of conservatism by statist means.

The Ron Paul Revolution

Published by Colin April 28, 2008 in Current Events. 36 Comments

Perhaps it is now safe to write another Ron Paul article without the fear of the Ron-bots CTRL-C-ing the latest and greatest reason to vote for their man. Perhaps, also, we will not be bombarded by that tremendous minority of supporters who use Ron Paul as a platform for proclaiming the ridiculous conspiracies regarding 9/11, NWO, freemasonry and space aliens.

This is important because there is a real conspiracy going on against Ron Paul. It shames our country, our system, the republican party and the fickle and imperfect nature of man in general.

The Republican Party (whose very name infers an adherence to representative election and law) has chosen to break it’s own election rules in several conventions so as to prevent Ron Paul’s delegates from going to the national convention.

Unlike how the media portrays elections - relying on popular polls - the actual election of the GOP representatives is by delegates who are elected by party members at conventions. Delegates should reflect the polls, but are under no obligation to do so. So while McCain might poll at 70% on election day in a given state, McCain is actually granted delegates (depending on the state) by some form of convention with official delegates voting.

Nueces County Texas GOP Plug Ears, Shakes Head - “I’m not listening”
For example, let’s look at Nueces County in Texas. On April 20th, the Ron Paul delegates had been elected under the rules of the party and were about be read and confirmed. Instead, the local chairperson of the party decided on her own to appoint different delegates. She read them out loud and the Ron Paul delegates present, on not hearing their names, began to call for a “point of order” as is the correct procedure under the rules. The chairperson ignored them, and “hearing no statutes or amendments” confirmed the unelected delegates.

Audio and explanation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-fARjv3tFk

Nevada Shutdown
Or what about in Nevada. Ron Paul himself personally appeared at the state delegation. Aside from his tremendous number of supporters there, many were won over by his speech. Almost all 31 delegates for Nevada to the national convention ended up being Ron Paul supporters.

Nevada’s 31 delegates are a drop in the ocean, but for some reason, Mitt Romney felt the need to show up to the convention and call for unification behind McCain. Romney’s speech however, didn’t make a difference. The party leadership saw this along with the fact that Ron Paul’s delegates were going to get elected. They panicked, and shut down the convention.

Why This is Happening
We have heard barely a whisper of Ron Paul in the news since McCain was presumed the winner. And if his name was mentioned, it was a story asking why this crazy old man hadn’t quit yet. I think now we are seeing why.

Ron Paul, and more importantly, Ron Paul’s supporters are the kind of people (regardless if some of them are crazy) who want to show the rest of the country that we are living in a society that breaks it’s own laws. Our government, at all levels, is a corrupt influence on its own citizens - and is setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring ethics and law in order to pursue expediency and short-term benefits.

Weekly Links: No Comment

Published by Colin March 7, 2008 in Current Events. 24 Comments

Fun Stuff
Top 10 Amazing Chemistry Videos

Hermeneutics Quiz

Parents, Kids and Family
Court deems homeschooling a criminal offense.

Planned Parenthood accepting donations to specifically help abort minority pregnancies?

The solution to societies problems is getting married? A book review on the recent book Get Married by Candice Watters founder of boundless.org

Noticing the over-use of the word “man” in today’s language.

Paris exhibits a children’s guide to sex, aimed at getting parents and children as young as 8 or 9 talking about sex.

Can today’s women have it all? Apparently not. Revisiting The Compleat Woman and standards for success.

Just Plain Silly
Say what? South Pasadena, Calif., declares itself a cuss-free zone

Norway will be enforcing a law that 40% of company directors must be female.

Imagine you’re one of the 13 men on this all-male board of a large company and are told five of you must go to be replaced by women. Unlikely? Not in Norway, where they’re enforcing a law that 40% of directors must be female.

Founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud.

Misc.
Problems in the publishing world… is there now a “post truth” era?

Harvard bans men from gym to allow Muslim women to exercise in private.

Ron Paul easily won his congressional seat.

New letters reveal Lincoln had a plan to buy slaves. This would have cost the equivalent of a couple of months of the Civil War.

Weekly Links: Romney Gone, Ebay Changes, M-Words

Published by Colin February 8, 2008 in General. 103 Comments

Mitt Romney has officially suspended his campaign. But at this website, we really don’t care about Mitt Romney, so the more important question is: what does this mean for Ron Paul?

The Death Blow Scenario - With Mitt Romney out, that leaves Huckabee, McCain and Paul going for the nomination. Romney’s supporters will likely back Huckabee over McCain, but some will pick McCain. With Romney’s votes, McCain gets the required delegates to make it to the convention unopposed. Ron Paul drifts quietly into the night.

The Brokered Convention Scenario - If Huckabee drops out soon, then Christians, pro-lifers and immigration advocates only have one rational choice - Ron Paul. Pro-war republicans will have to swallow their dislike of Paul, and vote for him because McCain holds positions closer to Hillary Clinton than Ronald Reagan.

What the media doesn’t get in all of this (but McCain and Huckabee are very aware of this) is that Ron Paul has significantly more delegates than his poll numbers would indicate. His campaign reported 42 after Super Tuesday. He won’t have enough to win, but he may have enough to be the kingmaker in a brokered convention.

eBay Changes Feedback Structure
eBay stops the tit-for-tat feedback cycle that has been happening lately. The problem is that sellers are conserably more likely to leave retaliatory feedback. The new rules are designed to fix this by basically removing sellers from the feedback equation.

As both a buyer and seller on eBay, I can definitely confirm that the seller has way to much advantage in the current feedback system. However, the problem could be fixed if this issue were looked at more fundamentally. The sellers are claiming that they have rights to leave the last word on feedback because “buyer satisfaction” is part of their requirements. In other words, unless the buyer leaves positive feedback, then they haven’t “completed” their part of the transaction. I think this is garbage - a petty excuse to preserve an etiquette system that allows them to retaliate. I propose that the seller should be required to leave feedback once they have shipped the item (this is when the item is legally the buyer’s responsibility) or the buyer has confirmed they have received the item. Are you listening eBay? I propose!

Money
Wesley Snipes was acquitted of tax fraud, conspiracy.
Euros are starting to become accepted in New York city.

Maniacism
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping

Medicine
Assisted suicide, sans doctor, in Oregon. Husband arrested for murder of wife with Lou Gehrig’s Disease.
Finnish patient gets new jaw from own stem cells

Ministry
5 Reasons Why The Emergining Church Is Fading
Cigarette Silence: When will the Church comment on the evils of Big Tobacco?

Zeal For Truth