Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik

The Internet Archive ^ | ??/??/2003

[infowars_victory]

Thanks!

[Montresor]

It's really good. Better than any class I've sat through lately.

[traviskicks]

I agree with your assessment of the libertarians. I will watch the Bandarick (sp) one. I have already seen the Friedman one and it is very, very, very good.

[Red Phillips]

I voted Constitution Party but I think the Libertarians are right on on foreign policy. If we would mind our own international business and bring our troops home, we would make less enemies and be safer as a result. In what way is it small government conservative to support interventionism?

[pabianice]

Constitution Class

[bassmaner]

In what way is it small government conservative to support interventionism?

It's called "providing for the common defense", and it's why I (as a card-carrying LP member) voted for GWB instead of Badnarik. Sorry, folks, isolationism and knee-jerk pacifism are simply not valid options in a post-9/11 world if we don't want to deal with a terrorist event that will dwarf 9/11.

Live it, learn it, love it.

[Red Phillips]

Precisely. Providing for the common defense would mean protecting our northern border from Canada and our southern border from Mexico. It is not providing for our common defense to topple dictators we don't like in distant foreign lands. Why do you think the terrorist hate us so much? It is not because we are free. That is ignorant nonsense. It is because we are there. And there meddling at that. No terrorist are attacking Switzerland.

[BlueNgold]

Ah, I see, and is Pat Buchanen, isolationist par-excellance, going Libertarian as well?

To profess isolationism as a means to a safer country is to deny the reality of the international threats we face. Additionally, even a quick look at the way the EU and Asia have treated Microsoft should give a clear picture of the economic hurdles that would be put in place for American companies, further intensifying the trade deficit we already struggle to manage.

I have no problem with Utopian ideology, so long as it recognizes reality and pragmatism. The current band of Libertarians, IMHO, seem to think their dreams can be accomplished with a flip of the swtich. Such naivete is nothing short of dangerous.

[zeugma]

I, too, am normally a strong libertarian. This election though, I just couldn't pull the lever for Badernik. GW got my first republican vote for Prez since Reagan II.

[Red Phillips]

I'm confused. Non-interventionism, isolationism if you prefer, on foreign policy does not necessarily imply protectionism on trade if that is what you are suggesting. Libertarians are anti-intervention and strongly pro free trade.

What international threat do we face that would not be better handled by minding our own international business? How is playing globo-cop making us safer? It is making us more enemies. In the Middle East for example, Muslims view us as biased towards Israel. While I am personally biased towards Israel because of the Jewish link to Christianity, our official governmental policy should be neutrality. We should not be giving any country in the Middle East one dime in foreign aid. We should not be "brokering" peace deals. We should be minding our own business and trying to sell both sides Cokes and Big Macs. One of OBL big grudges against us was that we had troops stationed in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Why were we there? So we could enforce UN sanctioned no fly zones in Iraq. The UN is an illegitimate, socialist organization of America haters. Why are we a part of it, much less enforcing its illegitimate sanctions on a sovereign nation? Nonintervention (isolationism) is the only foreign policy consistent with small government conservatism. It is not good enough to talk in general terms about not burying our heads in the sand or not turning a blind eye or not facing the reality of the world today as if you were reading off the RNC talking points. How, concretely does global adventuring make us safer?

[malakhi]

If we would mind our own international business and bring our troops home, we would make less enemies and be safer as a result.

Why not? Isolationism has served us so well in the past. If we just don't offend everybody, then they'll all like us.

[Red Phillips]

Isolationism was the de facto position of conservatives prior to the Cold War. It was conservatives who wanted us out of WWI and WWII. It was liberals like Wilson who wanted us to make the world safe for democracy. Remember WWI was the "war to end all wars." That worked out well didn't it. The American public was inherently isolationist as well. Why shouldn't they be. They were the ones being sent to fight and die. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both wars. The American elites like Wilson and Roosevelt wanted us in both wars so we could save England's sorry butt. But it is a historical given that WWI and the unjust peace brought about by America's entry (otherwise the War would have ended as much more of a stalemate) lead directly to the rise of National Socialism in Germany and WWII. We and the world would have unequivocally been better off had we not entered into WWI. The conservative America First movement was keeping us out of WWII, so Roosevelt intentionally manipulated the Japanese into attacking us so he could get us into the war and once again come to Churchill and England's aid. And our ally in that war, Joseph Stalin was a real prize winner, wasn't he. The communist refusing to leave after WWII lead directly to the Cold War. Before you denounce isolationism it must actually be tried. That global interventionism has really worked out well. So what part of that sorry record are you proud of.

[BlueNgold]

Gee I don't know.
- Perhaps we should have just turned the other cheek and let the Taliban continue in power.
- And perhaps we should have continued to watch and wait as Saddam starved his own people, funded Palestinian terrorists, trained scores upon scores of other Islamic terrorists, and continued at the very least an active R&D program for WMD. He hadn't invaded anyone in a while, and he hadn't gassed anyone in years, maybe he'd learned his lesson.
- Perhaps we should have sat idly by while the Soviets and Chinese exanded their influence into areas of the world from which they could ravage the natural resources. God knows that would have bankrupt them just as fast as our silly anti-communist interventionist policies.
- Heck now that I see the light - why did we even get into the war in Europe at all back in '41?
- And after Midway we should have just called it even and let the Japanese go on about their business on the Asian continent.

What was I thinking all these years??
Gosh - you convinced me.
Thanks for educating me on the evil of my ways...

[malakhi]

Remember WWI was the "war to end all wars." That worked out well didn't it.

Only because of the punitive measures the French insisted be inserted into the Treaty of Versailles.

Before you denounce isolationism it must actually be tried.

Just like communism, I suppose.

[Abcdefg]

To get back to the subject of this thread, I watched the first video and think he made a couple of good points about property being the basis of rights. The part about not needing a driver's license or needing to register a car if you actually own it, is inconsistent with his example of the home. I don't own the roadway on which I drive the car, the state does.

[Red Phillips]

As Murray Rothbard used to point out and he was correct in hind sight, Communism was bound to collapse under its own economic dead weight. As it did. The fear of Communism was based upon alleged free marketeers who didn't really trust their own professed belief in capitalism. And no America was not responsible for protecting the world from communism, only America. Keeping the Russians out of Cuba was justified because of proximity and the missle threat but that was for our own protection, not because of some humanitarian interests in Cuba.

Saddam was a bad guy but bad things are happening in the Sudan. You ready to go there? Why not attack China to free Tibet? Or attack China to free Tiawan? Or attack our ally Turkey to free the Kurds. There will be more terrorist as a result of our going to war than we will have prevented. And our interest in overthrowing the Taliban had to do with them harboring OBL, not because it is our duty to overthrow bad regimes. If that were the case we should over throw our allies in Saudi Arabia.

Do you disagree with the known historical record that Roosevelt purposefully manipulated the Japanese into attacking us? Do you disagree that the America First movement was conservative in nature?

Because of Hitler's evil, people often overlook the evil of Stalin, our ally in that war. What precisely would have been wrong with letting the Russians and Germans fight it out?

This is not off subject for this thread because the thread started off with the Libertarians are good on everything but foreign policy. I say they are right on on FP. They are wrong on that whole dead baby issue.

[Cultural Jihad]

Communism was bound to collapse under its own economic dead weight. As it did.

Your liberal-based statement ignores the fact that a whole generation of Americans, and American blood and treasure, went to seeing Communism defeated in Eastern Europe.

[Red Phillips]

CJ, I am a lot of things but I am not now nor have I ever been a liberal. If you doubt that please see the Constitution Party thread where I argue at length that the GOP is not sufficiently conservative. In what way is faith in the free market and conviction that Communism, because of its reliance on central planning, would ultimately collapse with or without our help, liberal? My belief in nonintervention is more in line with historic conservatism (pre Cold War) than is interventionism which borrows extensively from Wilson and Roosevelt. And many neo-cons are very quick to acknowledge their debt to both.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well, you are free to call yourself whatsoever you want to. I was just pointing out that your statement that 'Communism would have collapsed without our having opposed it' is parroting 'conservative luminaries' in the DNC.