Voting

[timetokill]

So, I've officially changed my voter registration from Libertarian to Republican.

Why the change? Because to vote in a Republican primary in California, you must be a Republican.

And I'm voting Ron Paul.

Comments

[timetokill]

I don't think we should necessarily go back to the gold standard, but I do believe that our currency should be backed by something. Also, it's important to note that while Paul might eventually want to go back to the gold standard, he has noted that it's not feasible in the current situation. He's argued that we should allow competing currencies into the current market, which would not only strengthen our currency but prevent foreign nations from having a huge advantage on materials such as gold and silver when we are forced to back our currency again (I think it's inevitable).

I do think we should pull troops out of Europe, Korea, the middle east and more. I could see maintaining a small embassy in foreign nations, but our current involvement is ridiculous. I don't think that we should be solving the problems of other nations through actual or implied military force.

As far as the CIA, I would like to see it and the FBI's influence and power reduced. I don't think it needs to be disbanded but I don't think we should have our government as involved in foreign affairs as they are now.

I don't think a federal ban against abortion is libertarian under my principles, but you and I both know this is a sticking point for libertarians. Obviously the question comes down to whether a fetus is a living person or not. Paul argues that it is (and from a position of some credibility, being a OB-GYN that delivers babies), and that would back his position. I think there are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, in other words.

With all that said, I don't think Paul is 100% libertarian, and I don't think he has to be. I agree with him on 95% of what he stands on, and honestly if the Republican Party stood for those principles like they used to, I would be on board. I'd like more Goldwater Republicans, in other words.

Where the party is today, though... where McCain and Huckabee are the front-runners? What a joke.

[leoni99]

William Odom had a good description of the United States as an "inadvertent empire." I believe that our troops are where they are due primarily to world events outside of our control. I guess you can argue that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII, the Korean War, the Gulf War, etc. But I think unlike empires of the recent past, the United States has not wielded its military might to impose a mercantilist policy (like Britain, France, Spain) or to suck natural resources for purely predatory purposes (like what Russia and Japan did to China in Manchuria).

There is also a strong correlation between US troop levels in particular regions and their high level of economic stability and growth. Europe has experienced an unprecedented period of peace after WWII, and I attribute this to the presence of our troops. I don't attribute it to Europeans' fatigue of war in the aftermath of WWII, because it doesn't explain all those wars that were constantly fought on the continent. Japan is a fully functioning democracy and although its economy has been in a recession the past decade and a half, it's still rich. And South Korea compared to North Korea is obvious. I think if we pulled all of our troops out today, you would see remilitarization in Europe, Japan, and the Korean peninsula, not to mention emboldening Russian/Chinese aggression.

In a way, we are subsidizing for their security, but we also get returns like increased trade, business opportunities, and strengthening our own security. Germany and Japan, our enemies only 60 years ago, are now a couple of our strongest allies.

In general, I believe that countries should solve their own problems, but sometimes we are forced to get involved. I'm not talking about Sudan and all that (and like you, I object to the tons of money we are throwing down the toilet in Africa). But when the dust settles, what do we do? Do we just leave? Install a dictator suitable to our short-term needs who will probably be ousted anyway? Or do we try to build something that will serve as a catalyst for the region?

My only strong objection to Ron Paul is his stance on foreign policy. I also think our intelligence is a failure (failure to see Pearl Harbor, failure to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall, failure to see 9-11, failure to catch bin Laden, WMDs, etc.). The solution may involve scaling back the CIA, but certainly not to get rid of it.

I was also mistaken to suggest that Ron Paul is in favor of a federal ban on abortion, when he's not. Like him, I think we should leave marriage and abortion questions to the state.

The competing currency idea is interesting, and haven't given much thought to it. I like Ron Paul when it comes to economic issues generally, certainly better than McCain who said that he wanted to see zero interest rates! And certainly better than Huckabee who wants us to be completely self-sufficient when it comes to food. At this point, I really don't know who to vote for. I don't want to throw my vote away on an unelectable candidate at the risk of a Hillary or Obama victory. But at the same time, there isn't much of a difference between them and McCain who calls himself a conservative when he's really big government.

[leoni99]

"...I think we should leave marriage and abortion questions to the states." Not the state!

[timetokill]

Somehow I read that the way you intended on first reading :)

[timetokill]

Somehow I read that the way you intended on first reading :)

[timetokill]

I think it's an interesting point you bring up regarding stability in many regions due to our presence. It may be accurate on some levels, and I can see where it might have helped with Europe and some of the Asian nations as well. However, I think it's important to question what kind of a presence is really necessary. Even if we are stationed in other countries, I would like that to be in our self-interest and not in the interests of world bodies like the United Nations or something.

Still, I don't know that this methodology can work everywhere. I agree that it's not a wise decision to prop up dictators and yet we keep doing it and paying the price later. I don't think it's wise to send money and weapons to Israel while also supplying their enemies with the same.

I think there are cultural issues we need to address, and recognize that "democracy" may not be able to take hold everywhere immediately. I think as far as Iraq goes, it would have been wise to really consider their position with Iran and also the things that Hussein was able to do right - like prevent any sort of meaningful Al Qaeda presence. Sure, the question is "at what price" to those citizens who were under his brutal command, but at any rate I don't think it's a price we should be paying. I feel that significant revolutions have to come within to be legitimate, and that our actions now are doing nothing to create allies in the region, but instead creating plenty of incentive for our enemies, and recruiting tools for terrorist organizations who argue we have too much influence outside of our own country.

I will definitely consider your argument for keeping troops in certain areas (South Korea is a big one for me), but I do think that we need to reevaluate foreign policy. There is obvious hypocrisy in going after Iraq and not, say, Saudi Arabia when it comes to terrorism. I think that with my natural distrust of the government, having wars against concepts is ridiculous, and I don't want them to have a blank check. First it was Bin Laden, then WMDs, then nation building, etc.

The worst part of it, really, is that in order to do all of this the government keeps taxing citizens invisibly. Instead of taking the money outright, they just print more and devalue our currency. It's like stealing our wealth at a whim.

And yeah, as far as the economy goes, McCain is a joke -- He's admitted he knows little about economics, though now he's "forgotten" saying that. Not sure if you saw the debates a while back where Paul asked McCain about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. McCain's reaction is hilarious and scary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CDuirJaVzS8

[leoni99]

I think reevaluating our presence in other countries is important, and I have no doubt that the military does that on a daily basis. So the question is whether or not they are doing it right. It's not as if our level of troops is constantly fixed or that we never leave (troop reductions and relocations in Japan, troop reductions in South Korea, removal of base in Philippines, are examples of reevaluation). I also don't think the United States has an incentive to really keep troops in places where it's not needed (this is more of a general point, and not to argue particularly whether in country X we should have Y number troops as opposed to Z), especially when our military is being stretched thin by the conflict of the Middle East. I think our national self-interest is the thing that matters most (if not the only thing), and when we are supporting the UN, we are really trying to delegate responsibility to others or to build some kind of international consensus to do what we want to do. As soon as the UN goes against our interests or wastes our money, I have no problem ditching it. I think the UN has been very harmful in many ways in that it legitimizes otherwise illegitimate nations. But I think it could be used as a useful instrument for our own ends.

I agree with your point about propping up dictators. And I do think that nation-building and democracy-building might be disastrously idealistic. Odom (the guy whom I relied on in making my previous post) thinks Arabs are not ready for democracy, and so was totally against the Iraq War. But then you have to ask the question: was Japan ready for democracy? was South Korea ready for democracy? As to your point about about significant revolutions, would you argue that the political revolutions in Japan and South Korea were illegitimate b/c the US was a part of it? What if the only factor obstructing some kind of democratic revolution was an oligarchy or dictator with a monopoly on power? Does the switch between legitimate and illegitimate revolution simply depend on whether an outside source played a role removing the monopolist? What about the PRC's communist revolution? Did the fact that the former Soviets (and US) exercised heavy-handed intervention render its revolution illegitimate? Did the fact that France supported us in our Revolution against the British render ours illegitimate? My only point is that the "within-without" dichotomy is not always clear (especially when elections are held by the Iraqi people in our case, however imperfect that process may be). There will always be some degree of outside source of revolution, and some natives will welcome it and others reject it. I also think that it's really too early to say whether the Iraqi project has succeeded or not, and it's too early to say whether Iraqis are 'fit' for liberal-style government. I think impatience is America's virtue and vice; it's only been 5 years, and the costs aren't nearly as great as the previous wars we've fought (approximately 4,000 dead compared to 58,000 dead in Vietnam, 410,000+ in WWII, and just as a side-note: 44,000 traffic-related deaths a year but this fact hasn't stopped us from driving). I bring this up only to put things in perspective.

(to be continued)

[leoni99]

I have to disagree when you say that our actions are creating plenty of incentives for our enemies. Certainly, many Arabs will think that this Christian nation is out to destroy their way of life and take up arms to kill as many people as possible. But I also think we are converting people over to our side or at least deterring would-be terrorists from becoming jihadists, if they see their "side" as losing, or if they see their side as causing more war than preventing it. (you should really read this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece). I think Saudi Arabia's behavior has changed, and so has Pakistan's, despite its instability. Saudi Arabia has to find ways to reign in the radical Sunnis and cut off funding to Al Qaeda. It needs to get on America's side on this one, and the incentives are clear: 100,000+ US troops on your border, and the threat of Iranian domination. I don't think it would have been wise for us to invade Saudi Arabia back in 2003; it certainly would have been consistent as you say. But we can work with the Saudi government b/c it isn't rabidly anti-American, and they have oil. I think we would have seen a more violent Wahabbi backlash had we invaded Saudi Arabia. We could weaken Al Qaeda and effect long-term change in the region by invading Iraq--a much easier and less costly target--and by helping to establish a viable government.

Yeah, McCain's response is scary, and I heard he has quite the temperament. The Republican Party is in horrible shape when we had Bush as our nominee and now McCain...moving further and further to the left until one day it no longer becomes recognizable from the Democratic Party.