Saturday, December 10, 2011

President Paul's Foreign Policy

In his words it "requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages," but "simply tolerance of others’ cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources" — Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

Blogger Mark in Spokane said...

Too simple, too peaceful and hence too radical. On foreign policy, Paul is heads and shoulders above the other candidates, if for no other reason that he understands that the Empire is unsustainable economically and socially. While his libertarianism is not viable, it is precisely in foreign policy that his views are most grounded in the realities of the situation.

December 11, 2011 at 12:58 AM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

I'm a foreign policy libertarian, and also a libertarian at the federal level, but I think local bodies should be free to be as tyrannical as their people want.

December 11, 2011 at 1:21 AM  
Blogger Mark in Spokane said...

I think that there is a strong constitutional argument for such an approach -- a limited federal government of enumerated powers with states allowed broad leeway to craft their own way (with some limitations, like the republican government clause in the Constitution) thanks to their plenary powers. That isn't a libertarian vision, though it does provide some common ground between conservatives & constitutionalists and libertarians.

December 11, 2011 at 2:17 AM  
Blogger Pints in NYC said...

Brubeck, Armstrong & American Liberty home and abroad!

The Real Ambassadors . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUgohNKyxak&feature=related

December 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home