Try explaining it to me... I’m always interested in learning.
I don’t agree with Paul that we should bail on Iraq. I do agree with a domestic policy of smaller government and more individual freedom.
The war is a very devisive issue. I supported it and continue to suppport it. I have also come to realize that we simply can’t afford any more of these wars whether we like them or not.
I would like the United States to meddle less in the affairs of others. It is very expensive and it can often backfire. I am very conflicted on all of the issues.
This war could cost close to a trillion by the time we are done. I think we are around half that already with no fiscal end in sight. If I would have known that going in I might have supported looking at different and more cost effective options of taking out Sadaam.
But part of me not only wants to finish the job in Iraq (we have a duty to give it our best effort), but to also take care of Iran while we have the chance. We have them surrounded. A naval blockade in the gulf could destroy their economy. We could bomb critical sites of infrastructure. I don’t want to invade, just cripple them (hopefully enough for regime change) and then get the hell out.
So I am a war monger that supports Ron Paul. I guess that means I need a therapist.
I don’t think Paul’s policies for Iraq are a good solution for where we are right now. But going forward after this war, I would prefer to see something like a Paul foriegn policy in the future. I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid. I would like to get out of every little pissing match. We have enough problems at home.
The distinction between negative and positive rights is the reason that libertarians are in no way liberal (in the modern sense of the word). It explains the difference between classical and modern liberalism.
A negative rights political framework is one in which government powers are limited and enumerated. The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The rights described in the Bill of Rights are all stated in terms of limitations on government power: “Congress shall make no law...” So, under a negative rights framework, individuals are free by default. The limited powers of the government are applied to maintain social order. This is the classical liberal position, the libertarian position, and to a large extent, the conservative one.
A positive rights framework is one in which individuals have a “right” to social goods, such as a “right” to vote or a “right” to receive health care. The problem is that rights are per se absolute, so any roadblock to delivering these “rights” is a violation of (positive) human rights! Also, positive rights imply a positive duty on the part of everyone else to deliver on these rights. As a result, positive rights are inimical to the concept of limited government; in fact, they necessarily lead to a government involved in every nook and cranny of our lives. This is the modern liberal (social democratic) and socialist position.
Regardless of what you think of Paul or other libertarians, his views are consistent with negative rights at the federal level. And his concept of the federal government’s role could not be more different from that of modern liberals.