REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT

RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

[christine]

now this i would put all my support behind! thanks for the post.

[clamper1797]

You have my vote on this ... when does it come into effect

[spintreebob]

Lurking a while.

Amazing! People think the government should not get involved in every little problem. But these same people think the RLC must take a position on each and every little problem.

Is it OK if we take no position on some issues? Leave it to the candidate. A winning candidate matters, not the platform. My loyalty is first to God, then the Bible, the Constitution, my family. My loyalty to any political party or party caucus, or their platform, is way down the list, somewhere after my loyalty to my used car salesman.

Here in Illinois, the LP candidate for governor is a good man, but not a liberatarian. The SOCONs worked hard and delivered for both a pro-life and a pro-choice LP candidate (Quaintance and Dubiel).

We're individualists. Of course we can't agree on anything. So let's accept it and move on with the coalition. The longer and more detailed a statement becomes, the less people will read it and take it seriously. (Including my verbose emails.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Here in Illinois, the LP candidate for governor is a good man, but not a liberatarian.

Well, the RLC uses a pretty easy-going "standard of judgment".

If you score at least an 80% on the Liberty Index, you are In Like Flynn with the RLC.

For a political action committee, I think that this is a pretty reasonable cut-off. It's rare to find a candidate who agrees with you on everything, but shouldn't we at least expect our representatives to behave Constitutionally four times out of five?

At the least?? As a foundation from which to work??

[NeoCaveman]

Just as we believe free trade with people living under authoritarian rule will, in the long-run, spread human rights,

I liked everything on that page but this silly statment that should put me well above 80 :-)

[Mark Bahner]

"I liked everything on that page but this silly statment..."

To judge whether that statement is "silly," we can watch present and future events. China has been an authoritarian country since circa 1949 (too lazy to look up the actual year of the communist takeover). They've recently (since the late 1970's) been increasingly open in trade.

Cuba has been an authoritarian country since 1959...or about 10 years later than China. The U.S. has had a trade embargo on Cuba since...practically forever. (And the U.S. even discourages trade by other countries with Cuba, by the Helms-Burton Act.)

So...which country do you think is going to have free elections and a free press sooner...China or Cuba? My bet is on China. When people are struggling to even get enough food to eat (as in North Korea, and to a lesser extent, Cuba), they don't worry too much about whether their press and elections are free. They worry about filling their stomachs.

So I don't think that statement is "silly" at all.

[Mark Bahner]

"The RLC is the fulcrum which can make this happen--hell, is making this happen--by attracting disaffected non-voters to a Party which at least nominally stands for small government and individual liberty."

I can agree that RLC members--or at least a majority of them--are for "small government and individual liberty." But I think it's complete fiction to pretend that the GOP has *ever* been a party that "stands for small government and individual liberty."

[NeoCaveman]

So I don't think that statement is "silly" at all.

I bet on Cuba once Castro is done so is his regime. While the Chinese regime enriches and arms itself.

I guess silly is a strong word, I just don't agree.

We used containment with the Soviets and it seems to have worked pretty darn well.

[Mark Bahner]

"Probably better to just write "crap". ;-) It's a pretty minor curse word by any measure."

I just do cr@p for false modesty. I curse like a sailor. (But each year I make a resolution to cut down.) :-)

[riley1992]

Is it OK if we take no position on some issues?

Only if refusing to think is what you call living.

[antisocial]

Jim, wouldn't it be interesting if some enterprising freeper
would send the RLC platform to the RNC along with a petition signed by as many RLC people as possible?

[jjm2111]

Where do I sign up?

[asneditor]

http://www.rlc.org

[Mark Bahner]

"I bet on Cuba once Castro is done so is his regime."

Yes, I completely agree that Castro is a very important single man in Cuba...if he goes, communism may well collapse in Cuba. Whereas, in China, communism is more systemic. So what about North Korea? Do you think North Korea will be a democracy with a free press before China? (China has much freer trade than North Korea.)

"While the Chinese regime enriches and arms itself."

It can't possibly arm itself sufficiently to fight against an overwhelming majority of its people (even if those people aren't armed). It will only take one, or perhaps two, more Tiananmen Squares to collapse the government in China. The military will (soon) refuse to fire on its own people.

"I guess silly is a strong word, I just don't agree."

Good. (On dropping the "silly," which I thought was inappropriate.)

What will convince you that more trade collapses authoritarian regimes faster than less trade? If China's communist government collapses before North Korea's or Cuba's?

"We used containment with the Soviets and it seems to have worked pretty darn well."

The Soviet Union existed for more than 70 years. They forcibly occupied all of Eastern Europe for approximately 45 years. That's not very fast!

In contrast, August Pinochet's authoritarian government in Chile (which allowed free trade) collapsed in 17 years.

Taiwan and mainland China were both authoritarian in 1949, but Taiwan allowed free trade. Taiwan's authoritarian regime ended about a decade ago.

North and South Korea were both authoritarian when they split. South Korea is now a democracy. G@d only knows when North Korea will be one. (Poor devils.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Personally, I lean towards the "Free Trade" position here, simply because I don't like the Government telling a private citizen with whom he can and cannot do business based upon the Government's desire to effect "regime change" in the potential trading partner. To take an example from a couple of decades ago: I don't much care if Ferdinand Marcos is a Crook who oppresses his own people so that his wife can add a few thousand more exotic shoes to her private collection; it should be the private businessman's own personal decision whether or not to sell his soul to Satan by trading-for-profit with such a tyrant. Whether that "free trade" reinforces Marcos' power base or degrades it (which would partially depend on whether the businessman is trading with the Regime or with the Local Market, imho) should be of little concern to the US Government; the Government does not have the Right to dictate terms to a US businessman as to the "moral caliber" of the trading partners with whom he trades, or to attempt to use his trading operations to effect political goals.

It's an attempt at Foreign Social Engineering by indirect means. Desirable? Quite possibly, but not the Government's job.

Rather, the Government's job is the defense of the Person, property, and rights of the Citizens against aggression by Foreign Powers. As such, Trade Sanctions should (IMHO) not be imposed for any "regime-change" or "protectionistic" or "social engineering" basis -- but simply according to the question, "Does this country intend to attack and kill our citizens?" Ergo, when China threatens Los Angeles with ICBMs, we slap trade sanctions on them as a Hostile Power. If and When they retract the threat (preferably with an apology), we then restore them to Neutral Power trading arrangements -- whether that is a low, single-rate tariff or whatever. 100% Free Trade, of course, we should reserve for our genuine Friends... not because 100% Free Trade is a bad economic idea; No, 100% Free Trade is a great economic idea.

Which is precisely why 100% Free Trade should be reserved for those nations which have a proven record of zero hostile intent towards the US for at least several decades... since Free Trade is enormously profitable to both partners, it doesn;t hurt to be prudently circumspect about the possibility that we might be helping a potential enemy make enormous profits (even if it is to our mutual benefit, which Free Trade is).

[Mark Bahner]

"I don't much care if Ferdinand Marcos is a Crook who oppresses his own people so that his wife can add a few thousand more exotic shoes to her private collection; it should be the private businessman's own personal decision whether or not to sell his soul to Satan by trading-for-profit with such a tyrant."

Yes, the check on the "bad" behavior should be the press that reports lists of all the businesses trading with Satan. (And customers who subsequently stop buying products from those companies.)

I'd go even further, though...even in a totalitarian regime, the commerce can't all go through the government.

For example, the U.S. has a ban on travel to Cuba. Well, it's not a ban on travel, but it's a limit on money spent. Not only is such a restriction offensive to me, from a personal liberty standpoint (how dare the U.S. government tell me where I may or may not travel!)...but it's hard to imagine that all of what I would spend would get to Castro.

I just read Ayn Rand's (1960's?) Playboy interview a few days ago. She said that the way to bring down the Soviet Union would be an economic embargo. But such an embargo really doesn't fit with her (libertarian) philosophy that government's only legitimate purpose is to protect from violence or fraud. In an economic embargo, the State is basically telling its citizens who they can or can not trade with.

I wonder, if Ms. Rand were alive today, whether she wouldn't have changed her mind on that.

Gotta go...

[Mark Bahner]

"...but simply according to the question, "Does this country intend to attack and kill our citizens?""

Oops. I should have read further before responding!

How do you have any idea whether "this country (sic..."countries" don't attack, government's do) intends to attack and kill our citizens"?

The fact that China has ICBMs...even if they are targeted on the U.S., doesn't mean they "intend to attack and kill our citizens."

We and the Soviet Union/Russia had/have ICBMs targeted at each other. They weren't used.

How do you determine intent?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"...but simply according to the question, "Does this country intend to attack and kill our citizens?" Oops. I should have read further before responding! How do you have any idea whether "this country (sic..."countries" don't attack, government's do) intends to attack and kill our citizens"? The fact that China has ICBMs...even if they are targeted on the U.S., doesn't mean they "intend to attack and kill our citizens." We and the Soviet Union/Russia had/have ICBMs targeted at each other. They weren't used. How do you determine intent?

Well, my first rule of thumb would be that any nation which has nukes targeted on us at all is automatically disqualified from the "friendly" list. The UK has a couple of hundred nukes, but they don't seem to feel it necessary to keep several targeted on Boston at all times "just to be sure". Nations which target the USA with nuclear weapons at all should be considered "Neutral Powers" at best.

They get down-graded to "Hostile Powers" if they openly threaten a nuclear First Strike, as the Chinese did a few years ago when they threatened to vaporize Los Angeles if we tried to defend Taiwan. Now, it's true that Taiwan, not being a US State, is not constitutionally-entitled to US Federal defense in the first place; and, in threatening to liquidate Los Angeles, it's entirely possible that the Red Chinese were trying to offer us a "win/win" deal -- they get to take Taiwan, we get to lose LA.

But, it was still a threat of nuclear First Strike against US soil. Bump 'em down to "Hostile" until they Recant the threat. No need to sell them stuff when they are openly threatening to Nuke us.

Just food for thoughts....

[NeoCaveman]

I'm all for free trade, truly free trade not one sided free trade.

I hope you are right about trade with China because that is the position of the last three and all forseeable administrations. I'm still wary about enriching such regimes...I hope to be wrong.

[FreedomSurge]

Chuck Muth the outgoing head of the Liberty Caucus is leaving Las Vegas to go to Washington DC to head up the American Conservative Union.

A party to honor him is being held August 15th - a couple of days before Friva Las Vegas. If anyone wants an invite Freep mail me. Grover Norquist will be there also.