What Do Libertarians Think About Rand Paul and ISIL? Let's Ask Them

[Warlord]

Sen. Rand Paul's hawkish turn on ISIL (http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/04/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight-yes-h) surprised and dismayed some non-interventionists libertarians who thought the likely Republican presidential candidate's foreign policy views were closely aligned with their own.

More:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/05/what-do-libertarians-think-about-rand-pa

[CaptUSA]

Well, it looks like he hasn't lost the Reasonites, yet.

I think David Boaz says it best here, "On the whole..." Probably the way we need to look at it.

[Taco John]

Here's the thing - what the more hard core non-interventionists aren't understanding here is that Rand Paul is aiming to give them a seat at the table, rather than the way we've been doing things, where we get completely ignored and they give a blanket authorization.

Politics is a game, and Rand is playing the game as well as we could hope him too. If you're expecting that he's going to advance our interests using the battering ram method of Ron, you're misunderstanding the game of politics and Rands role in it. When the work of the battering ram is done, you send in your swordsman, who have to be cunning to win.

The time to win the debate on whether or not we should intervene in syria is during a congressional debate on the matter. Rand's maneuvering is to make sure that we get to actually HAVE that discussion.

[Brett85]

It's surprising that Raimondo is still defending Rand and still seems to fully support him. He was a big critic of Rand for a while.

[r3volution 3.0]

Here's the thing - what the more hard core non-interventionists aren't understanding here is that Rand Paul is aiming to give them a seat at the table, rather than the way we've been doing things, where we get completely ignored and they give a blanket authorization.

Politics is a game, and Rand is playing the game as well as we could hope him too. If you're expecting that he's going to advance our interests using the battering ram method of Ron, you're misunderstanding the game of politics and Rands role in it. When the work of the battering ram is done, you send in your swordsman, who have to be cunning to win.

The time to win the debate on whether or not we should intervene in syria is during a congressional debate on the matter. Rand's maneuvering is to make sure that we get to actually HAVE that discussion.

Well said

[Christian Liberty]

It's surprising that Raimondo is still defending Rand and still seems to fully support him. He was a big critic of Rand for a while.
Where is Raimondo's comment?

[Christian Liberty]

Just read the article and found Raimondo's comment. Which was somewhat reassuring.

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's the thing - what the more hard core non-interventionists aren't understanding here is that Rand Paul is aiming to give them a seat at the table, rather than the way we've been doing things, where we get completely ignored and they give a blanket authorization.

Politics is a game, and Rand is playing the game as well as we could hope him too. If you're expecting that he's going to advance our interests using the battering ram method of Ron, you're misunderstanding the game of politics and Rands role in it. When the work of the battering ram is done, you send in your swordsman, who have to be cunning to win.

The time to win the debate on whether or not we should intervene in syria is during a congressional debate on the matter. Rand's maneuvering is to make sure that we get to actually HAVE that discussion.

Did Rand tell you this or did you pull it out of thin air?

[extortion17]

. . .
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/05/what-do-libertarians-think-about-rand-pa

... "few noninterventionists say 'no intervention, ever, under any circumstances.'

.

[Brett85]

... "few noninterventionists say 'no intervention, ever, under any circumstances.'

.

Maybe a different term should describe those of us who generally support a non interventionist foreign policy but support exceptions in rare situations. Because the term "non interventionist" taken at face value essentially means that we should never intervene overseas under any circumstances. Maybe something like "minimal interventionists."

[kcchiefs6465]

Well said
To be clear though, Congress would approve it.

And the people would support it.

And I don't want to pay for it or be associated with it.

So Constitutionally going about declaring a war is an improvement over the supposed authority of the War Powers Act but let's be realistic... the people eat whatever they are fed and the Congress follows their steps (some aware of the bullshit and others just looking at constituency opinion *). Many know what is going on, but it doesn't much matter.

The "discussion" is flawed, loaded, biased, and by and large irrelevant.

ETA: * I don't know how I left out the obvious that many follow party lines and Whip pressure in the hopes of attaining a more lucrative Committee position.

The system is corrupted, to say the least about it.

[fr33]

Maybe reason should ask some of us that don't make a living off being a libertarian.

[Czolgosz]

I'm a fan of Ron Paul. Anything less than Ron Paul is *less* than Ron Paul.

Re: ISIS, they're not for freedom, either. They hate America and Americans, which is understandable. Likely another group of assholes who want to control others.

Is there really anything else that one needs to understand?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm a fan of Ron Paul. Anything less than Ron Paul is *less* than Ron Paul.

Re: ISIS, they're not for freedom, either. They hate America and Americans, which is understandable. Likely another group of assholes who want to control others.

Is there really anything else that one needs to understand?
Well, convincing the many that ISIS is no existential threat would be miraculous.

[extortion17]

... "few noninterventionists say 'no intervention, ever, under any circumstances.'

.


Maybe a different term should describe those of us who generally support a non interventionist foreign policy but support exceptions in rare situations.
Because the term "non interventionist" taken at face value essentially means that we should never intervene overseas under any circumstances.
Maybe something like "minimal interventionists."

as good as any term I have heard . . . great suggestion

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/fpfronpaul.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/fpfronpaul.jpg.html)


Generally, RP would never want to go to war - if he had Congressional authorization, he damn well would though !
Our current commander-in-chief Mr. Obama does not seek a Senate vote - all that is needed -
but instead we get the legislative branch effectively kept out of it - President acts unilateraly - blowback occurs -same cycle

President BO does not seek Congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIL why ?
The citizens of this great ole' USA would want them to vote - if they don't vote,
then come November do not vote for any (more or less) incumbents . . .
of course WW III will probably already be on by then.

House Republicans Won't Vote on an ISIL Resolution Unless Obama Asks For It

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/09/house-republicans-wont-vote-on-isil-resolution-unless-obama-asks-for-it/379701/

"In the Democratic-led Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) generally consults closely with the Obama administratiom
on high-priority matters, and he would be unlikely to call such a critical vote without the White House's support."

.

[Woods]

Did Rand tell you this or did you pull it out of thin air?If it weren't for pulling things out of the air, what would they have to write?

[Feeding the Abscess]

as good as any term I have heard . . . great suggestion

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/fpfronpaul.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/fpfronpaul.jpg.html)


Generally, RP would never want to go to war - if he had Congressional authorization, he damn well would though !
Our current commander-in-chief Mr. Obama does not seek a Senate vote - all that is needed -
but instead we get the legislative branch effectively kept out of it - President acts unilateraly - blowback occurs -same cycle

President BO does not seek Congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIL why ?
The citizens of this great ole' USA would want them to vote - if they don't vote,
then come November do not vote for any (more or less) incumbents . . .
of course WW III will probably already be on by then.

House Republicans Won't Vote on an ISIL Resolution Unless Obama Asks For It

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/09/house-republicans-wont-vote-on-isil-resolution-unless-obama-asks-for-it/379701/

"In the Democratic-led Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) generally consults closely with the Obama administratiom
on high-priority matters, and he would be unlikely to call such a critical vote without the White House's support."

.

Are you really arguing that if Ron Paul were president, and the Congress, knowing RP would not be willing to start wars overseas, decided to pass a war declaration, that Ron would follow through with it? That's insane.

[acptulsa]

So Constitutionally going about declaring a war is an improvement over the supposed authority of the War Powers Act but let's be realistic... the people eat whatever they are fed and the Congress follows their steps (some aware of the bullshit and others just looking at constituency opinion *). Many know what is going on, but it doesn't much matter.

The "discussion" is flawed, loaded, biased, and by and large irrelevant.

Perhaps. But the Constitution is not irrelevant. In theory, the Constitution gives us the ability to eradicate this corruption. In theory a vote on war would give us the ability to point at the rubber stamps and say, see, your Congressman is one of the rubber stamps. Are you sick of war yet, are you sick of us being in poverty so we can kill more brown people and call ourselves 'christian' for it yet?

Yeah, we still have to figure out how to turn theory into practice. But we need the Constitution to do it. So, no, the Constitution is not irrelevant.


Are you really arguing that if Ron Paul were president, and the Congress, knowing RP would not be willing to start wars overseas, decided to pass a war declaration, that Ron would follow through with it? That's insane.

I believe President Ron Paul would have followed the Constitution through the very gates of Hell, if that was the only place he could go without violating his inaugural oath.

[jbauer]

Are you really arguing that if Ron Paul were president, and the Congress, knowing RP would not be willing to start wars overseas, decided to pass a war declaration, that Ron would follow through with it? That's insane.

If Ron Paul were president and the Congress passed a declaration of war I would expect that Ron would go to war even though I would hope it would be a get in, get out ASAP.

[Rond]

Maybe reason should ask some of us that don't make a living off being a libertarian.


Seems strange that something like that could be possible.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thread: What Do Libertarians Think About Rand Paul and ISIL? Let's Ask Them (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459272-What-Do-Libertarians-Think-About-Rand-Paul-and-ISIL-Let-s-Ask-Them&p=5640832#post5640832)
You have to have more than thin air in your head to see that clearly.


Thanks for the -rep, acp...but I'd prefer it if you used logic and coherence in the message next time. :) Thnx. ~hugs~ ttyl

[kcchiefs6465]

Perhaps. But the Constitution is not irrelevant. In theory, the Constitution gives us the ability to eradicate this corruption. In theory a vote on war would give us the ability to point at the rubber stamps and say, see, your Congressman is one of the rubber stamps. Are you sick of war yet, are you sick of us being in poverty so we can kill more brown people and call ourselves 'christian' for it yet?

Yeah, we still have to figure out how to turn theory into practice. But we need the Constitution to do it. So, no, the Constitution is not irrelevant.

The so called discussion that will [possibly] be had is irrelevant. Your opinion does not matter. People can harp all they want that they do not want to go to Iraq. Well guess what? They do not care. There is enough of the population who are utterly clueless of everything that simply follow the group think media narrative.

But since you brought up the Constitution and its relevancy, I'd simply point out that it has not stopped these conflicts before. What, 90 countries? A couple of declared wars? Not too good of a track record. The majority of Americans have not read the Constitution and of those that have, the majority do not understand it. It was being pissed upon practically the day after ratification.

Two hundred and twenty years later, only the few actually care about it. Most who claim to care about it only do so as a means to subjugate their neighbors with social contract theory bullshit.

[kcchiefs6465]

There are many here who want to bomb ISIS. (not themselves, of course)

I would venture to say that 80% of the population either does not care or wants to bomb ISIS.

So, they will bomb Iraq and Syria.

You see, the people woke up to the Syria nonsense and said no. It only took a year of propaganda to change their minds. Even here.

People think that ISIS is going to plant a flag on the White House for God's sake. I mean seriously, what the fuck? People think that bombing ISIS is going to somehow save the otherwise crashing dollar. I just don't have words for this ridiculousness anymore. And it does not matter. It doesn't take Harvard studies for me to recognize that the people have relatively little say in what the government does. So, I'll drink my beer. And smoke my cigarettes. And eat marvelously. And what happens can happen. Fuck them. They deserve what they get. This planet is full of fools. That is all.

And the Constitution has no authority. While debating me on the matter you'd be in for a hard time, I just am not up to it anymore. So if you're interested or up to the challenge, read No Treason by Lysander Spooner followed by his Letter to Grover Cleveland and attempt to rebut, point by point, his concrete analysis.

[fisharmor]

Hm. Read through the article, and I gotta tell you, I had no idea Mollie Hemingway was in any way trying to represent libertarianism, despite having sat next to her in church for two years.

And after reading her response, I still don't get the impression she's trying to represent libertarianism.

[Christian Liberty]

There are many here who want to bomb ISIS. (not themselves, of course)

I would venture to say that 80% of the population either does not care or wants to bomb ISIS.

So, they will bomb Iraq and Syria.

You see, the people woke up to the Syria nonsense and said no. It only took a year of propaganda to change their minds. Even here.

People think that ISIS is going to plant a flag on the White House for God's sake. I mean seriously, what the fuck? People think that bombing ISIS is going to somehow save the otherwise crashing dollar. I just don't have words for this ridiculousness anymore. And it does not matter. It doesn't take Harvard studies for me to recognize that the people have relatively little say in what the government does. So, I'll drink my beer. And smoke my cigarettes. And eat marvelously. And what happens can happen. Fuck them. They deserve what they get. This planet is full of fools. That is all.

And the Constitution has no authority. While debating me on the matter you'd be in for a hard time, I just am not up to it anymore. So if you're interested or up to the challenge, read No Treason by Lysander Spooner followed by his Letter to Grover Cleveland and attempt to rebut, point by point, his concrete analysis.

I more or less agree. I support the constitution as an incremental step toward a truly free society (While I think an immediate transition to ancap MAY be possible, I definitely do not think it to be ideal) but ultimately I'm a voluntarist because its the only logically consistent, and indeed, Biblical position.