Dear Sam,
I agree with you its unrealistic to believe Ron Paul's "no foreign aid" stance will be implemented some time soon. However, it's magnificent he's reminding all the dissolute politicians it's the moral, pragmatic, and constitutional (if you care about the Constitution) position.
Ron Paul 2016!
Warm regards, Michael
Dear Sam and Michael.
It might be currently "unrealistic" to suspend all foreign aid, but if Ron Paul and supporters keep harping on the fact that the money now spent on foreign aid would be much more productive if spent here, we might start reaching some new ears. I would much prefer focusing on that positive strategy, as well as intelligently pointing out the shortcomings of foreign aid and intervention.
Sam, I hear you might be dropping in at the monthly business meeting on Saturday. We will be pleased to meet you. If you like, please take a look at the Agenda posted on the LPSF website (lpsf.org), under "Meetings" on the Menu. The business meeting is 3:00 - 5:00 pm; after that we spend time discussing, networking, and generally having a good time.
Regards,
Marcy
Hi Marcy,
In your reply to Sam and Michael, you said, partly:
<< It might be currently "unrealistic" to suspend all foreign aid . . .
I personally think all foreign aid should be, not suspended, but
completely stopped for the simple reason that no where in the
Constitution, at least in my copy of the Constitution, is Congress or
the President given the power to tax We the People and send the money to
foreign governments. I think this view on foreign aid is shared by Ron
Paul, but certainly not by Gary Johnson. Which other LP presidential
share my and RP's view on foreign aid?
Whether it's currently "unrealistic" to suspend all foreign aid, let
along end them, your position could be tested by a newly elected
President who just "forgets" to authorize their funding. We could then
see how much foreign aid is really missed. Who knows, perhaps foreign
aid could disappear through "benign neglect."
<< . . . but if Ron Paul and supporters keep harping on the fact that
the money now spent on foreign aid would be much more productive if
spent here, we might start reaching some new ears. I would much prefer
focusing on that positive strategy, as well as intelligently pointing
out the shortcomings of foreign aid and intervention. >>
I will always remember what Professor Alan Wolf, my Economics 101
instructor when I attended college during the last century ("last
century" must make you think I'm really old), said about foreign aid. He
said it was a federal program that gave money to foreign governments
with the proviso that they spend the money on American goods. It was
money sent out from America and returned, "like a yo-yo." That was good
for a few laughs and long memories. (BTW, I got a "B" in the course.)
I imagine foreign aid still essentially works this way. As such, it's a
subsidy mostly to American farmers and manufacturers. While they
certainly benefit from foreign aid, we know there is no free lunch. As
Henry Hazelitt will remind us
(http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/), we need to
see the whole picture and when we do, we see that the money must first
be taken from others to fund foreign aid. The huge pot of money known as
foreign aid is then shuffled back and forth, a la Three Card Monte,
between several parties, overseas and stateside, each siphoning off a
percentage for itself, until the leftovers are used to pay for American
goods. Nice gig, if you can get it.
I'm glad that you made the connection between foreign aid and an
interventionist foreign policy. Like a "chicken-egg riddle," which do
you suppose came first? Foreign aid or an interventionist foreign
polity?
As for Sam attending your monthly meeting this Saturday, I'm certain you
and your colleagues will show him as much hospitality as you showed me
when I met you last November. And I'm also certain he will enjoy your
company as much as I did.
You might want to know, indeed, you've probably noticed, that Sam is
given to "polemics." May I suggest you steer him away from them by
asking him about chess, his publishing business and IMQQ?
That's all for now.
Thanks for reading.
Alton
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Dear Sam and Michael.
It might be currently "unrealistic" to suspend all foreign aid, but if
Ron Paul and supporters keep harping on the fact that the money now
spent on foreign aid would be much more productive if spent here, we
might start reaching some new ears. I would much prefer focusing on that
positive strategy, as well as intelligently pointing out the
shortcomings of foreign aid and intervention.
Sam, I hear you might be dropping in at the monthly business meeting
on Saturday. We will be pleased to meet you. If you like, please take a
look at the Agenda posted on the LPSF website (lpsf.org), under
"Meetings" on the Menu. The business meeting is 3:00 - 5:00 pm; after
that we spend time discussing, networking, and generally having a good
time.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@
wrote:
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I agree with you its unrealistic to believe Ron Paul's "no foreign
> aid" stance will be implemented some time soon. However, it's
> magnificent he's reminding all the dissolute politicians it's the
> moral, pragmatic, and constitutional (if you care about the
> Constitution) position.
>
> Ron Paul 2016!
>
> Warm regards, Michael
> www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
>
> From: "Sam Sloan" samhsloan@
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com; libertarian@yahoogroups.com;
> manhattanlibertarians@yahoogroups.com; "lpny_manhattan"
> lpny_manhattan@yahoogroups.com; "LPQC" lpqc@yahoogroups.com;
> "lpkc" lpny_kings@yahoogroups.com; Brooklyn_LP@yahoogroups.com;
> lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:04 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Gary Johnson offers no "Smoking Gun" on
Israel
>
>
> > Three of the four leading Republican Party presidential candidates
> > have made statements implying (but never clearly stating) that
they
> > would support a military attack by Israel on Iran. The only
> > exception
> > is Ron Paul who unrealistically states that he would end ALL
foreign
> > aid of any kind if elected.
> >
> > Gary Johnson was a Republican Party candidate for US President. In
> > spite of being first to declare and in spite of campaigning hard,
he
> > never got much support so he has switched from being a Republican
> > Party Candidate to being a Libertarian Party Candidate.
> >
> > One big difference between Libertarians and Republicans is that
> > Libertarians are opposed to US involvement in foreign wars,
whereas
> > in
> > recent years the Republican Party has been the "War Party". Every
> > recent Republican President has attacked other countries.
> >
> > So, I have been searching to find out whether Gary Johnson is any
> > different from the others. Is he a virgin or is he no different
from
> > the other girls?
> >
> > The Prime Minister of Israel is right now seeking US approval in
> > advance for an attack by Israel on Iran. I can think of no time in
> > US
> > history where any country has sought our advance approval for
waging
> > war on another country. Thus, the request by the Prime Minister of
> > Israel for US permission to attack Iran is unprecedented.
> >
> > So far, I have not found any statement by Gary Johnson that shows
> > clearly that if elected he would either give permission or not
give
> > permission for Israel to attack Iran. In short, I have found no
> > "smoking gun". I have found one quote by Gary Johnson. This quote
> > can
> > be read either way. He seems to be straddling the fence. Here is
the
> > quote. I will leave it to you to decide whether this quote shows
> > that
> > Gary Johnson either is for or against this proposed war.
> >
> > "JOHNSON: Well, that would be one of our differences. I also
happen
> > to
> > think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation
of
> > Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been
a
> > strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a
> > military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be
> > vigilant
> > to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going
to
> > act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass
> > destruction showing themselves.
> >
> > "SIEGEL: And you would say the U.S. should support an Israeli
action
What strikes me most about Gary Johnson's interview comments below is that he's speaking from a nationalist perspective (i.e. "we"/"us"/"our" = the U.S. government, its employees, the U.S. as an abstract entity, the people who happen to reside in the territory associated with that abstract entity, etc.) rather than a libertarian perspective ("we" = human beings, or the libertarian movement).
Given that nationalism and libertarianism are fundamentally at odds, it's deeply regrettable that an LP presidential candidate would use word choices that reinforce the nationalist mindset. However it would be unfair to single Gary Johnson out for unduly harsh criticism on the point, since even among Libertarian candidates the habit of speaking from a nationalist perspective in many contexts still seems to be the rule more often than the exception.
I do find *libertarian* criticism of Johnson for being too pro-Israel, rather than for being too pro-U.S., somewhat ironic. In a more logical world, one would expect his implicit suggestion that it's better for Israeli government employees to be placed at risk of death or injury than for U.S. government employees to be put in similar jeopardy ("to have them do that is a better situation than U.S. men and servicewomen engaged in the same") to be deeply offensive not only to Israelis, but to anyone who accepts the fundamental libertarian value that all human beings have equal rights to life and liberty regardless of nationality, place of origin, creed, etc.
Only the degree to which nationalism is an accepted and unquestioned part of the political landscape prevents such comments from being seen for what they actually are.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Alton,
I can see I did not express myself clearly on my personal position on foreign aid; as you, I belive foreign aid is unconstitutional and counter productive. Therefore, I should have made more clear that what I find "unrealistic" is the expectation of those who believe as we do that foreign aid can simply disappear in the near future. As is the case with all boondoggles, the entrenched beneficiaries will not let go. Thus my suggestion that if we keep up our own rhetoric, we might eventually wear our opposition down.
Regarding guests at our monthly meetings (or visiting our City), we are a welcoming bunch here at LPSF. And yes, we do try to steer folks away from any negative "polemic.". Not good for the soul to focus on rough language or rough deeds!
Regards,
Marcy