Replies

I'd love to abolish a whole bunch of massive federal programs. I'm from Iowa and I'm against ethanol and, at least, most of the ag subsidies. I say "at least" on the chance someone might provide a better excuse than I've heard for a few of them. And a whole lot more domestic junk. How far back should we roll things, to status quo ante Nixon? LBJ? FDR? TR? You can roll back an awful lot of domestic spending, going back an awful long ways and have fiscal conservative Republicans and Libertarians in good agreement, but at some points along the way there will be differences. Foreign aid? Sure lots of it is waste or worse, subsidies to our enemies. But as the de facto and desired most powerful nation there should be some responsibilities juxtaposed with our power. Some, but not all of which can be done as private charity. I can't accept pure isolationism as either being responsible or prudent policy.

Providing security is an appropriate and necessary job of government, admittedly one that must be balanced against the risk to personal security government provides. The balance may need to be adjusted in different circumstances. When, as Ron Paul put it, 3000 were killed in a day by "19 thugs," and I know there are many more such out there, I want to make like the British and suppress the Thuggees. Or do something to keep them a safe distance from my family. With the modern travel and communications we've invented it is hard to do either without some restrictions on innocent Americans. Once the Thuggees are gone we certainly should reduce security measures to the lowest level that provides adequate safety. As Paul's "thugs" were not members of that specific historical cult our aim should be directed to the current problem cult(s). If he wants to declare war using specifically the words "declare war" first than I'd say, fine. I said it was war when the 2nd plane hit and I wanted a declaration, with those words, at the time. Paul is correct that a formal declaration would enhance public support for the cause. My understanding is that our courts have ruled what Congress did was the equivalent of a declaration of war without using the specific words. Paul might dispute the ruling, but currently all three branches of government stand against him. Some may say - I don't know where Paul stands on this - that you can only have a war against a nation state. I'd disagree. If an identifiable widely dispersed organization wants to attack us and everything we stand for then I refuse to say we can't fight back just because they have the imagination to not act like a conventional nation state. If we can defeat them by acting with and through more conventional nations that they inhabit then fine, but if those nations are unwilling or unable to act in our defense then we must act by any means necessary including "war." Perhaps sadly, most of the world won't honor our hypothetical Letters of Marque so such quasi private methods won't work. War as self defense is constitutional by way of the UN Charter which, for better or worse, is a ratified treaty. It may take creative writing to describe the object of such a declaration of war, but if there is one thing Ron Paul should know after his years in Congress it is that Congressional staffers can write VERY creative bills. I'm confident someone could provide the needed prose.