Is Ron Paul as dangerous as Bidinotto claims?

[galtgulch]

<<<"But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

[Selene]

<<<"But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

Without you taking this personally, and before I continue reading your post, could you please share with me your understandings of Mr. Paul's positions on:

a) the separation of church and state, b) abortion, immigration [i would appreciate a definition of what you mean by "immigration" and c) the catch all "...other social issues...".

Thanks.

"...that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues..."

[galtgulch]

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

Without you taking this personally, and before I continue reading your post, could you please share with me your understandings of Mr. Paul's positions on:

a) the separation of church and state, B) abortion, immigration [i would appreciate a definition of what you mean by "immigration" and c) the catch all "...other social issues...".

Thanks.

"...that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues..."

Selene, Although I put it in quotes and entitled it as an excerpt from Bidinotto's blog, you seem to attribute the whole thing, none of which is mine, to me! I infer this because you ask me to share my understanding of Dr. Paul's positions. I may be entirely mistaken but i just wanted to be sure to make it clear it all belongs to Bidinotto.

On to your request:

a) I have not heard Dr Paul on the separation of church and state. I would refer you to the issues section of www.ronpaul2008.com to see if he comments and makes his position plain.

B) I have heard him speak on his position on abortion. He thinks it is not the Federal government's business and leaves it up to the states! He is personally opposed to abortion, believes that "life begins at the moment of conception" which he says is a consequence of his being an obstetrician, that if he had caused any harm to the fetus he might have been sued, that the fetus is legally considered to have rights, and I am sure there is more to his thought on the subject perhaps also to be found at www.ronpaul2008.com.

Regarding "immigration" and other social issues I must also refer you to the website where his positions are made explicit.

Bidinotto fears with certainty that being a man of principle Paul would be capable of irrational steadfastness who would guide the country over a cliff as a matter of principle rather than act responsibly and rationally. Bidinotto does not give an example of such a situation but draws his conclusion from the kind of man Paul is, principled, and because Bidinotto thinks that Paul holds a mistaken concept of "non intervention" which he would apply to foreign affairs to the detriment of the national interest. I suppose Bidinotto would rather have a man such as Mitt Romney who has demonstrated his ability to change his mind and learn. To suggest that Paul is incapable of learning and listening to rational advisers is ABSURD.

The country is well on its way to bankruptcy now and cannot afford to continue on that path for long before bankruptcy manifests itself. God only knows how deeply in debt the country is now and both major parties leaders have grown the national debt as well as the federal budget each year after year as if they were totally unaware of how close they are bringing us all to the brink of the abyss. If this continues under the leadership of such charlatans as Hillary Clinton or Edwards, or Guiliani or Obama despite their saving grace of not being men of Paul's principles, the country is doomed. Talk about going off a cliff!

At least Obama taught Constitutional Law for ten years but I think that meant he is familiar with case law so I still wonder if he has grasped the essence of Article One Sections Eight and Nine?

Paul intends to deviate from Bush's path of reduced growth of government, to which Bush did not adhere, rather to reduce government down to its proper Constitutionally limited size. And he will stop the printing presses and return to a gold standard and get us out of debt.

Anyone want to buy a National Park?

I understand that more than half of all the land west of the Mississippi River is owned by government. In Alaska the percentage is over 85% and is probably over 95%.

what I fear is not Ron Paul being in office but what we will do if we pass up this opportunity to get the rare likes of him into the oval office.

galt

Edited December 24, 2007 by galtgulch

[Selene]

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

Without you taking this personally, and before I continue reading your post, could you please share with me your understandings of Mr. Paul's positions on:

a) the separation of church and state, B) abortion, immigration [i would appreciate a definition of what you mean by "immigration" and c) the catch all "...other social issues...".

Thanks.

"...that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues..."

Selene, Although I put it in quotes and entitled it as an excerpt from Bidinotto's blog, you seem to attribute the whole thing, none of which is mine, to me! I infer this because you ask me to share my understanding of Dr. Paul's positions. I may be entirely mistaken but i just wanted to be sure to make it clear it all belongs to Bidinotto.

On to your request:

a) I have not heard Dr Paul on the separation of church and state. I would refer you to the issues section of www.ronpaul2008.com to see if he comments and makes his position plain.

B) I have heard him speak on his position on abortion. He thinks it is not the Federal government's business and leaves it up to the states! He is personally opposed to abortion, believes that "life begins at the moment of conception" which he says is a consequence of his being an obstetrician, that if he had caused any harm to the fetus he might have been sued, that the fetus is legally considered to have rights, and I am sure there is more to his thought on the subject perhaps also to be found at www.ronpaul2008.com.

Regarding "immigration" and other social issues I must also refer you to the website where his positions are made explicit.

Bidinotto fears with certainty that being a man of principle Paul would be capable of irrational steadfastness who would guide the country over a cliff as a matter of principle rather than act responsibly and rationally. Bidinotto does not give an example of such a situation but draws his conclusion from the kind of man Paul is, principled, and because Bidinotto thinks that Paul holds a mistaken concept of "non intervention" which he would apply to foreign affairs to the detriment of the national interest. I suppose Bidinotto would rather have a man such as Mitt Romney who has demonstrated his ability to change his mind and learn. To suggest that Paul is incapable of learning and listening to rational advisers is ABSURD.

The country is well on its way to bankruptcy now and cannot afford to continue on that path for long before bankruptcy manifests itself. God only knows how deeply in debt the country is now and both major parties leaders have grown the national debt as well as the federal budget each year after year as if they were totally unaware of how close they are bringing us all to the brink of the abyss. If this continues under the leadership of such charlatans as Hillary Clinton or Edwards, or Guiliani or Obama despite their saving grace of not being men of Paul's principles, the country is doomed. Talk about going off a cliff!

At least Obama taught Constitutional Law for ten years but I think that meant he is familiar with case law so I still wonder if he has grasped the essence of Article One Sections Eight and Nine?

Paul intends to deviate from Bush's path of reduced growth of government, to which Bush did not adhere, rather to reduce government down to its proper Constitutionally limited size. And he will stop the printing presses and return to a gold standard and get us out of debt.

Anyone want to buy a National Park?

I understand that more than half of all the land west of the Mississippi River is owned by government. In Alaska the percentage is over 85% and is probably over 95%.

what I fear is not Ron Paul being in office but what we will do if we pass up this opportunity to get the rare likes of him into the oval office.

galt

Thank you. I think you are correct on a number of levels about the Paul campaign, what fascinates me, being a field operative in campaigns back to 1964, when I couldn't even vote for the folks I worked for, is that he is polling from 2-10% in the descent polls out there in about 20 states.

I have become engaged in understanding the caucus rules in Iowa. The media mouths that the number 2 and 3's of the folks that do not get 15%, can recast their votes. As far as I can determine from my research into Iowa campaign law, the caucus process is completely controled by the committee's of each party.

The Dems definitely have the 2-3 voter "spill" from a candidate that does not garner 15%. However, as far as I have been able to determine, the Reps send caucus delegates to a state convention.

Any help or direction anyone may have from that state would be appreciated.

[galtgulch]

Thank you. I think you are correct on a number of levels about the Paul campaign, what fascinates me, being a field operative in campaigns back to 1964, when I couldn't even vote for the folks I worked for, is that he is polling from 2-10% in the descent polls out there in about 20 states.

I have become engaged in understanding the caucus rules in Iowa. The media mouths that the number 2 and 3's of the folks that do not get 15%, can recast their votes. As far as I can determine from my research into Iowa campaign law, the caucus process is completely controlled by the committee's of each party.

The Dems definitely have the 2-3 voter "spill" from a candidate that does not garner 15%. However, as far as I have been able to determine, the Reps send caucus delegates to a state convention.

Any help or direction anyone may have from that state would be appreciated.

Here is a copy of a PR from the Paul Campaign after the Dec 16 extravaganza:

>>>"December 17, 2007 8:50 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Following its historic fundraising day on December16th, Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder issued the following statement: “There is an unprecedented outpouring of grassroots support for Dr. Paul. The message of freedom is powerful and uniting people across America. And, Dr. Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions to the issues Americans care about, with the record to back it up. “Americans are sick and tired of our broken borders and they know the other candidates are not serious about illegal immigration. Dr. Paul has proposed serious and substantative legislation to fix our immigration problems once and for all.

“Americans know Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a real plan to go after the terrorists and provide a strong national defense, instead of spreading our military too thin across the globe.

“Finally, as Americans see the value of their dollar plummet, they know Dr. Paul has devoted his political career to stopping the inflation that makes it impossible for middle-class families to get ahead. Only Dr. Paul has a plan to cut spending, balance budgets and take care of people who have become dependent on government programs. “Americans spoke loud and clear on December 16th. They want Dr. Paul’s solutions.” "<<<

Selene, As I understand it each party will have their own caucuses in Iowa. I don't know whether we get to know how those who do not win the caucus vote in each party end up in rank. It seems that you are suggesting that since Ron Paul only registers a mere 2 to 10% which is well below the 15% cutoff that any caucus member(s) devoted initially to Ron Paul will lose the first round and will then be obliged to cast their second or third round votes to someone else.

There is precious little time until the Iowa primary but I understand that Ron Paul has used some of the money his campaign raised to put some "troops" on the ground there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Probably better showing likely in New Hampshire. Enough money to continue for a while anyway. But the greater likelihood that he will continue to raise more and more money right up to the nominating convention.

I must confess that we sent in a few bucks to Ron Paul's Dec 16th fundraiser as did some 55,000 other souls who took the leap in the hope of living in a freer society.

galt

Edited December 24, 2007 by galtgulch

[Martin Radwin]

<<<"But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

There is, in fact, nothing the least bit platonic or utopian about the idea of noninterventionism. Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

Bidinotto has nothing to worry about. The likelihood that Paul will shift the Republican party toward noninterventionism is just slightly higher than zero. As to the Democrats, they are and always have been just as interventionist as the Republicans. They have started just as many wars and have advocated basically the same policy of global US hegemony and empire. There is no significant number of "cut and run" Democrats. The Democrats, were they so inclined, could stop the Iraq war immediately, just by cutting off all funding for it. Needless to say, they have done no such thing. Since winnning the mid-term elections, they have given the Bush administration pretty much everything it wanted. They have continued funding the Iraq war without any conditions imposed on Bush whatever. They have also made it clear that they are prepared to fully support Bush should he launch military strikes against Iran. Of the Democratic presidential candidates, only Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson have advocated an end to the Iraq war. None of these candidates has any chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The other candidates have all explicitly stated that they expect that US troops will still be in Iraq at the end of their presidential terms. The leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, is every bit as much of a "hawk" on Iran as Bush or Cheney. So much for these horrible "cut and run" Democratic bogeymen we are supposed to fear as such a great threat to our security.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

Don't worry, Mr. Bidinotto, you have nothing to fear from these horribly dangerous noninterventionists! We have already spent about a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, with about 4000 Americans dead and tens of thousands of wounded military casualties. We have killed probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, created millions of Iraqi refugees, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, and turned the country into a worse police state than it was before we invaded the place. The US government is building multiple permanent military bases in Iraq. It doesn't intend for us ever to leave, and this goes for both Republicans and Democrats; they all support and advocate expansion of our existing military-industrial complex. I hope that this wonderful outcome of our intervention in Iraq is fully consistent with Bidinotto's non-utopian objectivist priinciples.

Martin

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Millions of rounds of depleted uranium are littered in every neighborhood in every Iraqi city,

and there is no end in sight to 'asymmetrical war,' perhaps for a decade or more,

until destruction and official conceit become so painful that Nature and Ethics are

re-invited to share power, just like our Vietnam disaster a generation ago."

The Architecture of Liberal Democracy

[Selene]

Thank you. I think you are correct on a number of levels about the Paul campaign, what fascinates me, being a field operative in campaigns back to 1964, when I couldn't even vote for the folks I worked for, is that he is polling from 2-10% in the descent polls out there in about 20 states.

I have become engaged in understanding the caucus rules in Iowa. The media mouths that the number 2 and 3's of the folks that do not get 15%, can recast their votes. As far as I can determine from my research into Iowa campaign law, the caucus process is completely controlled by the committee's of each party.

The Dems definitely have the 2-3 voter "spill" from a candidate that does not garner 15%. However, as far as I have been able to determine, the Reps send caucus delegates to a state convention.

Any help or direction anyone may have from that state would be appreciated.

Here is a copy of a PR from the Paul Campaign after the Dec 16 extravaganza:

>>>"December 17, 2007 8:50 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Following its historic fundraising day on December16th, Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder issued the following statement: “There is an unprecedented outpouring of grassroots support for Dr. Paul. The message of freedom is powerful and uniting people across America. And, Dr. Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions to the issues Americans care about, with the record to back it up. “Americans are sick and tired of our broken borders and they know the other candidates are not serious about illegal immigration. Dr. Paul has proposed serious and substantative legislation to fix our immigration problems once and for all.

“Americans know Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a real plan to go after the terrorists and provide a strong national defense, instead of spreading our military too thin across the globe.

“Finally, as Americans see the value of their dollar plummet, they know Dr. Paul has devoted his political career to stopping the inflation that makes it impossible for middle-class families to get ahead. Only Dr. Paul has a plan to cut spending, balance budgets and take care of people who have become dependent on government programs. “Americans spoke loud and clear on December 16th. They want Dr. Paul’s solutions.” "<<<

Selene, As I understand it each party will have their own caucuses in Iowa. I don't know whether we get to know how those who do not win the caucus vote in each party end up in rank. It seems that you are suggesting that since Ron Paul only registers a mere 2 to 10% which is well below the 15% cutoff that any caucus member(s) devoted initially to Ron Paul will lose the first round and will then be obliged to cast their second or third round votes to someone else.

There is precious little time until the Iowa primary but I understand that Ron Paul has used some of the money his campaign raised to put some "troops" on the ground there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Probably better showing likely in New Hampshire. Enough money to continue for a while anyway. But the greater likelihood that he will continue to raise more and more money right up to the nominating convention.

I must confess that we sent in a few bucks to Ron Paul's Dec 16th fundraiser as did some 55,000 other souls who took the leap in the hope of living in a freer society.

galt

Money well spent. I am celebrating the happy saturnalia with the most unique political campaign in the last four cycles. In Virginia, there are Paul signs all over the place, quickly moving from home made to lawn signs purchased from the campaign.

The issue in the Iowa caucus that I am trying to confrim is that the 2 @ 3 choices under the 15% only apply in the Dem. caucus. I am originally from NY City where I was elected to a community school board and served for about 8 yrs and they had a unique system of "waited voting" which would "in theory" a well disributed "consensus" of the eligible voters. It was an absurd premise, but it allowed a complete radical like me to slip into the ninth spot out of 9 members.

"The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.[citation needed]" Wikipedia

Democratic Party process:

The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate."

Now this is my kind of political ground game. Remeber Edwards has been basically living in Iowa for the last 3 1/2 years.

Additionally, if the Rep race stays this confused, McCain wins or places in Iowa, then wins in NH and wins in SC, you could very well see a McCain presidency.

Merry saturnalia to us polical operatives.

Adam

[Matus1976]

Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

[Wolf DeVoon]

Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

And that would have hurt the US how exactly?

[Selene]

Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

And that would have hurt the US how exactly?

Now that was funny Wolf!!!

[Mike Renzulli]

While I am critical of Ron Paul, I find Robert Bidinotto and Stephen Green's assessment of Paul disingenuous. Especially when it comes to Paul's non-intervention and gold standard stances since its a fact that in order to have freedom and free trade, government must be restrained from conducting imperialism like the US government is doing now and the ability to conduct an imperialist foreign policy is done by utilizing paper money. An immediate switch to the gold standard would end this and I believe Murray Rothbard pointed out how the US could switch to it.

What leads me to have such a low opinion of Paul is his unwillingness to apply the non-aggression principle or the concept of individual rights consistently.

Someone pointed me in the direction of Ayn Rand's essay on assessing a political candidate. While it was helpful, I am also reminded of her openly expressing frustration at the fact that there was no political party or candidate dedicated to laissez faire capitalism and individual rights.

Well, there is a political party dedicated to much (if not all) of what Ayn Rand espoused. Its the Libertarian Party. While political voting is not the ultimate solution it is one method to get out the message and ideas of freedom.

I realize the deck is staked against the Libertarian Party. However, electoral reforms can be enacted in order for the LP to become viable in terms of electing candidates. Heck, I would dare to argue that the LP already is 'viable' because it still endures to this day.

Even though the LP has hardly elected anyone to office, the fact that its candidates can bring freedom-oriented ideas to the forefront where one of the 2 major party candidates can adopt its stances.

<<<"But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

Edited December 24, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Matus1976]

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

And that would have hurt the US how exactly?

Sorry I didnt realize you live in this fairy land where the Soviet Union, controlling most of the worlds resources, would have just sat back and let the US live as it pleased. The Soviet Union was the first nation in the history of the planet with the explicit goal of conquering every nation in the world, 'every' included the US as well.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I personally have no problem with the USA having contained Soviet Russia, but it sure screwed up royally doing it.

Part of the resources hired by both the USA and England for this end was a group of high-ranking Nazis in the Islamic world left over from WWII. The USA and England funded spy networks and political efforts for these Nazis in order to combat the Soviets. (At least they changed the name from "Nazi.") We were supposed to hang upper level Nazis, not hire them.

Duh.

My jaw still flies open incredulously when I think about that. Look at the mess this policy has made in the world.

Michael

[Selene]

While I am critical of Ron Paul, I find Robert Bidinotto and Stephen Green's assessment of Paul disingenuous. Especially when it comes to Paul's non-intervention and gold standard stances since its a fact that in order to have freedom and free trade, government must be restrained from conducting imperialism like the US government is doing now and the ability to conduct an imperialist foreign policy is done by utilizing paper money. An immediate switch to the gold standard would end this and I believe Murray Rothbard pointed out how the US could switch to it.

What leads me to have such a low opinion of Paul is his unwillingness to apply the non-aggression principle or the concept of individual rights consistently.

Someone pointed me in the direction of Ayn Rand's essay on assessing a political candidate. While it was helpful, I am also reminded of her openly expressing frustration at the fact that there was no political party or candidate dedicated to laissez faire capitalism and individual rights.

Well, there is a political party dedicated to much (if not all) of what Ayn Rand espoused. Its the Libertarian Party. While political voting is not the ultimate solution it is one method to get out the message and ideas of freedom.

I realize the deck is staked against the Libertarian Party. However, electoral reforms can be enacted in order for the LP to become viable in terms of electing candidates. Heck, I would dare to argue that the LP already is 'viable' because it still endures to this day.

Even though the LP has hardly elected anyone to office, the fact that its candidates can bring freedom-oriented ideas to the forefront where one of the 2 major party candidates can adopt its stances.

<<<"But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty. ">>>

You raise some excellent points about the Libertarian Party. I was an original organizer of the party in NY State in the 60's and 70's. When I left to go on with life, we had a permanent ballot line in the state.

Politics is about electing people. With a backup permanent ballot line you can challange the incumbent in his/her primary and then have the security of still appearing on the ballot and draining the primary support that usually voted for a rep or a dem and voting for you in the general on the lib party line.

This is how you build a party and elect candidates. It is the only feasable way, but the National Libertarian Party appears to me to have no interest in raising money for grass roots organizing campaigns down to the school board level.

You do not build a house by starting with the roof.

[Chris Grieb]

Mike R mentioned the LP.

One of the problems is that the LP has in the past elected state legislators in Alaska and New Hampshire. They have done this in no other state. The last legislator was elected over ten years ago. The Greens have elected many offices in several states.

Alaska which was once the jewel in the crown of the LP is a mediocre state party at best.

I see no serious person being their nominee for President.

Edited December 25, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Wolf DeVoon]

The Soviet Union "controlling most of the worlds resources" ??

What the heck? (trying to be polite). Russia had nothing at the end of WWII except an enormous, starving Red Army in rags and worn out boots. Subtract Lend Lease, the Russian government would have collapsed in 42. Subtract US and British traitors, they had no chance of building nuclear weapons. Subtract Truman and FDR, they would have had no Eastern European loot, no 'empire' as such. Subtract Oxy and Elf, they would have had no oil wells. Subtract the bonehead US-sponsored U.N., they had no access to the world stage. As Rand put it so succinctly, the only truly Russian thing in the world is failure.

This whole line of discussion is boring. I quit.

DeVoon

Edited December 25, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Martin Radwin]

Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

As has been pointed out many times, the GNP of Western Europe greatly exceeded that of the Warsaw Pact nations. As such, Western Europe was quite capable of defending itself against any Soviet invasion. But the nations of Western Europe preferred to have their defense subsidized by the United States, which did subsidize their defense to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, quite unnecessarily. The US also subsidized the defense of wealthy Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, which had booming economies and were also more than capable of defending themselves but chose to have their defense unnecessarily subsidized by the United States. The Soviet Union was an economic basket case, a third world nation with nuclear weapons. The idea that all of these wealthy nations could not defend themselves against the Soviet Union is ludicrous.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, where is the "peace dividend" we were all expecting? Why are US military expenditures at record levels? Why isn't the US abanding its overseas military bases, now that the bogeyman of the old Soviet Union no longer exists? Could it be that no bureaucracy will ever stand for being shrunk, including the huge bureaucracy that is the US military-industrial complex? Or do we really need to spend all of those hundreds of billions of dollars defending ourselves against "Islamo-fascist" nations that are even worse economic basket cases than the old Soviet Union?

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

I personally have no problem with the USA having contained Soviet Russia, but it sure screwed up royally doing it.

Part of the resources hired by both the USA and England for this end was a group of high-ranking Nazis in the Islamic world left over from WWII. The USA and England funded spy networks and political efforts for these Nazis in order to combat the Soviets. (At least they changed the name from "Nazi.") We were supposed to hang upper level Nazis, not hire them.

Duh.

My jaw still flies open incredulously when I think about that. Look at the mess this policy has made in the world.

Michael

Some day, the organized objectivist movement (ARI and TOC) may even acknowledge this fact. They may even come to see that the US government, which is grossly corrupt and incompetent at managing, health, eduction, welfare, education, environmental policy, monetary policy, and pretty much everything else that it does, for reasons that were long ago explained by Rand, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Spencer, and many other distinguished thinkers, should not be expected to be any more fair or competent in its execution of foreign policy. If the US government can't even run the post office competently, by what infernal reasoning should it be expected that it can successfully nation build in Iraq?

Martin

Edited December 25, 2007 by Martin Radwin

[Selene]

Most nations in the world today basically follow this policy, if for no other reason than that they do not possess the economic or military capability to engage in military intervention in other nations. By contrast, the US has hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. Yet with all this vast wealth spent on our military, we are supposed to tremble in fear about our supposed vulnerability to our enemies should we even think about stopping our endless wars with nations that have not attacked us and do not threaten us. It is Bidinotto who engages in the platonic, utopian notion that US government military intervention is necessary for our defense, despite massive historical, economic, and philosophical evidence to the contrary.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

As has been pointed out many times, the GNP of Western Europe greatly exceeded that of the Warsaw Pact nations. As such, Western Europe was quite capable of defending itself against any Soviet invasion. But the nations of Western Europe preferred to have their defense subsidized by the United States, which did subsidize their defense to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, quite unnecessarily. The US also subsidized the defense of wealthy Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, which had booming economies and were also more than capable of defending themselves but chose to have their defense unnecessarily subsidized by the United States. The Soviet Union was an economic basket case, a third world nation with nuclear weapons. The idea that all of these wealthy nations could not defend themselves against the Soviet Union is ludicrous.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, where is the "peace dividend" we were all expecting? Why are US military expenditures at record levels? Why isn't the US abanding its overseas military bases, now that the bogeyman of the old Soviet Union no longer exists? Could it be that no bureaucracy will ever stand for being shrunk, including the huge bureaucracy that is the US military-industrial complex? Or do we really need to spend all of those hundreds of billions of dollars defending ourselves against "Islamo-fascist" nations that are even worse economic basket cases than the old Soviet Union?

Martin

You shout some very good questions.

Can we agree on some facts:

1) "...the GNP of Western Europe greatly exceeded that of the Warsaw Pact nations..."

2) "As such, Western Europe was quite capable of defending itself against any Soviet invasion." This does not follow, unless you have some data from 1945 - 1950 that I am not aware of. My understanding is that circa 1945 we were the pre-eminent military power in the world and were the only country on the face of the earth to posess nuclear weapons. I hate to remind folks, but the US won the only actual nuclear war ever fought. The balance of power changed after the paid agents of the Soviets, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were tried and convicted of treason in 1951. It was not until 1993[?] when the KGB dump of documents occured did the confirmation of the fact that the Rosenbergs were on the payroll of the soviets, if I remember the dates from the analysis, 1938-forward.

3. However, that does not address whether the Western Europeans were "quite capable" of defending themselves against any soviet invasion. That I would like to hear more about.

4. The nations of the world signed onto the post world war II American credit card.

5. "...a third world nation with nuclear weapons...", yes and that was the selling point to an explosion of defense spending and consumer spending which exploded through the 1950's. I hope people remember that it was Dwight David Eisenhower who coined the phrase, "Beware of the military industrial complex." As he explained in his farewell speech in 1961:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. "

Does this ring true today? Ethanol. Mandatory pre kindergarten - I cannot think of a more terrifying prospect.

and this is the remarkable part of the speech, remember that this is the President that the then monopoly media painted as a basic buffoon who happened to stumble into the Presidency so that he could play golf!

"IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. [global warming/NASA ring a bell?]

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

What is the line from National Treasure, "people just don't talk like that anymore." And the people have lost a great fount of wisdom.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... the US government, which is grossly corrupt and incompetent at managing, health, eduction, welfare, education, environmental policy, monetary policy, and pretty much everything else that it does, for reasons that were long ago explained by Rand, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Spencer, and many other distinguished thinkers...

Martin,

I don't hate the USA government, although I despise some of its policies. I believe that this is the same attitude as all the thinkers you mentioned (maybe excepting Rothbard).

If you want to see "grossly corrupt and incompetent" for real, go live in Brazil for 30 years. I did. It is getting a lot better now, but what is happening with the USA government, even with the attempted empire building, pales by comparison of a right-wing military depleting a country the size of Brazil, then handing it back to the civilians when the cost came due from abroad (it fleeced foreign banks, too, and anyone else foolish enough to go along). Every one of those high-ranking military people (and their cronies) have fat Swiss bank accounts. I don't even want to think about Fernando Collor's account and he was the transition from the military. Brazilians say that Brazil is great simply because it is still standing after so much corruption and incompetence.

This life experience, which gives me a great context for comparison, is what makes me look at the good the US government does in addition to the bad. We live in a hell of a great country, warts and all.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Selene -

That's a pretty impressive extended quote from DDE. Of course he had speechwriters, but still - as you indicate, if DDE could speak in such a fashion, that speaks volumes about the level of public discourse at the time. No president would deliberately speak in a fashion so that he/she had little or no hope of being understood. Obviously, the level of sophistication of public discourse has dropped alarmingly!

Recall the amazing rise of NBI - out of nowhere, offering "lectures" on intellectual subjects. People paid to come, and couldn't wait until the next lecture in the series. Similar interesting mark of the intellectual level of the culture.

Alfonso

[Selene]

Selene -

That's a pretty impressive extended quote from DDE. Of course he had speechwriters, but still - as you indicate, if DDE could speak in such a fashion, that speaks volumes about the level of public discourse at the time. No president would deliberately speak in a fashion so that he/she had little or no hope of being understood. Obviously, the level of sophistication of public discourse has dropped alarmingly!

Recall the amazing rise of NBI - out of nowhere, offering "lectures" on intellectual subjects. People paid to come, and couldn't wait until the next lecture in the series. Similar interesting mark of the intellectual level of the culture.

Alfonso

Exactly. There is no political public discourse anymore. To insult our intelligence by referring to these long tedious press conferences as debates establishes the decision by the "media" that we are willing to accept "new speak" which relys on our ability to delude ourselves.

One mind, one neck requires only one shackle. Elsworth Touhy.

[Martin Radwin]

... the US government, which is grossly corrupt and incompetent at managing, health, eduction, welfare, education, environmental policy, monetary policy, and pretty much everything else that it does, for reasons that were long ago explained by Rand, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Spencer, and many other distinguished thinkers...

Martin,

I don't hate the USA government, although I despise some of its policies. I believe that this is the same attitude as all the thinkers you mentioned (maybe excepting Rothbard).

If you want to see "grossly corrupt and incompetent" for real, go live in Brazil for 30 years. I did. It is getting a lot better now, but what is happening with the USA government, even with the attempted empire building, pales by comparison of a right-wing military depleting a country the size of Brazil, then handing it back to the civilians when the cost came due from abroad (it fleeced foreign banks, too, and anyone else foolish enough to go along). Every one of those high-ranking military people (and their cronies) have fat Swiss bank accounts. I don't even want to think about Fernando Collor's account and he was the transition from the military. Brazilians say that Brazil is great simply because it is still standing after so much corruption and incompetence.

This life experience, which gives me a great context for comparison, is what makes me look at the good the US government does in addition to the bad. We live in a hell of a great country, warts and all.

Michael

Michael,

Even though I have been frequently posting about what I consider to be criminal actions committed by the US government, this certainly does not mean that I consider the US government to be bad compared to most other governments. Far from it. In fact, with regard to its domestic policy, I consider the US government to be among the best governments in the world today. This is mostly attributable to the incredibly libertarian foundation established by America's founders, at least some of which still lives on to this day, although it is being continuously eroded. If you don't believe this, read any of the recent books by James Bovard, who has meticulously documented the continuing destruction of liberty in the US that has been happening over the last several decades. But despite this, I am still an American. I still live here, in the USA, in the heart of Silicon Valley, California. I'm not planning on leaving, not unless things here get really, really bad, at which time it may not be possible to leave.

I know that most governments in the world today are far worse than ours. I believe every word you said about the hideous corruption in Brazil. This kind of corruption is endemic throughout most of the world. There's only a small handful of places I would consider living if I ever did feel that it was time to leave the US.

Why do I write about what I consider to be the criminal foreign policy that has long been pursued by the US government, on an objectivist site such as this? Precisely because the mainstream objectivist organizations, ARI and TOC, along with most self-identified objectivists, refuse to even consider it. If either ARI or TOC has ever written even a single article even suggesting that our government is guilty of slaughtering thousands of innocent people abroad in pursuit of its foreign policy objectives, I am not aware of it. The worst they will ever say is that our foreign policy is "altruistic", in that it doesn't serve the best interests of the American people. Insofar as acknowledgement is made of the innocent people abroad killed by the US government, blame is shifted to the dictators that these people are unfortunate enough to live under. Ayn Rand herself used this line of argumentation, in her article "The Wreckage of the Concensus" (I think that was the name of the article, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). In that article, she argued that American entry into the Vietnam War was evil by objectivist standards because it was altruistic, serving absolutely no legitimate national security interest. While this was certainly true, she neglected to mention that it was also evil because it involved our government bombing and murdering huge numbers of Vietnamese civilians in a war that was not even plausibly fought in self-defense. Objectivists have been using a similar line of argumentation ever since.

So, once again, the fact that I talk about these things in no way means that I don't appreciate how lucky I am to live in the US, or that I don't think that life is infinitely worse in most other parts of the world, or that most governments other than ours are not sewers of corruption, compared to ours.

You certainly seem to have lived an interesting life. 30 years in Brazil living as an American expatriate is not at all typical of the life of the average American. I don't know if you've ever done it or considered doing it, but, it you haven't already, you might want to consider writing an autobiographical post about your obviously very fascinating life and posting it here on OL. I'm sure that there would be lots of people here who would be interested in reading about your life story.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

Thank you for your thoughts. Although many of your posts have come off has being from an America-hater, I strongly suspected otherwise. I am pleased to see that I was right. Your perspective is part of the checks and balances system of free speech here in the USA and that is a very good thing. I personally sympathize with wanting to keep the American government honest about its overseas monkeyshines. I have seen too much up close to want otherwise.

Thank you for your interest in my past life. Actually I am writing a a book about this. The idea came from a suggestion by Barbara Branden shortly after my article on addiction came out. I will be covering my spiritual journey through Objectivism, through addiction, through adapting to another culture, through slowly acquiring self-mastery (shedding both dogma and pain) arriving at what I can only call an awakened (or developed) self-awareness that I did not have before.

My target audience is not simply the Objectivist/libertarian world, but the public at large.

I have been taking time because it is painful to go into some of that. Also, there is a technical reason. I did an enormous amount of writing when I was a professional translator (about 35,000 pages in a little over 10 years), but a lot of that was translating horrible original writing. In fact, I often heard that my translations were vastly better than the original text. Inevitably, some bad habits rubbed off. I have been trying to get rid of them. Last, but not least, I have a few projects I need to finish before I sit down in earnest to write the thing. I make notes once in a while, though.

Michael