www.dailypaul.com/216460/sen-rand-paul-explain-his-vote-in-favor-of-sanctions-on-iran
The 2012 primary results have shown that a pure non-interventionist candidate cannot get the Republican nomination. If Rand Paul wants to win in 2016, the best he can probably do is a “less interventionist” platform a la Huntsman, and even that might not work given AIPAC’s apparent lock on the Republican apparatus.
Libertarians have two choices: accept Rand’s triangulation as the best obtainable outcome or move away from electoral politics. Personally, I prefer the latter.
Marc,
Nothing's impossible in politics, but I'd agree the odds are against a purely non-interventionist candidate (Ron Paul) getting the Republican presidential nomination this year. However I don't think it follows that we have to either compromise or eschew electoral politics (especially when no viable alternative is offered). There's plenty of electoral politics besides the race for the U.S. presidency, and odds also change over time. Ron Paul's 2008 run helped pave the way for his stronger 2012 run, and this year's run should help pave the way for other pro-freedom efforts in the future.
However I think supporting the Libertarian Party is a better long-term strategy for libertarians than trying to reform the Republican Party. The winner-take-all system used in the U.S. seems to naturally produce a two-party stranglehold; it needs to be replaced with a system of proportional representation that will allow a real multi-party democracy in which strongly ideological parties can capture seats in Congress, and I rather doubt the GOP as a longstanding half of the dominant two-party cartel would champion that cause, even were it to become much more libertarian.
In a multi-party democracy with the vote more splintered along principled lines, the LP and other pro-freedom parties would feel less pressure to water down libertarian ideology in order to win votes, giving us more incentive to focus on communicating what we actually believe. That increased exposure to libertarianism should in turn hasten the day that the philosophy of liberty will eventually prevail in the marketplace of ideas.
It is disappointing to hear Rand Paul voted for broader sanctions against Iran. He should know better. The history of such efforts shows that they mainly hurt ordinary people, not the political leaders they're supposed to pressure. Indeed the only historical examples he cited in his weak defense of that vote were of sanctions having negative unintended consequences.
Indeed, he correctly notes that bombing a country can fuel nationalism and cause people to rally around the country's leaders -- but fails to note that imposing sanctions can have a similar effect.
Bans on travel by leaders and their families and cronies, freezing their bank accounts, bans on dealing with state-run companies, bans on selling weaponry to the regime or its agents, those types of limited efforts targeting the guilty -- fine. But anything that affects the people or commerce of an entire country, bad idea. In a country run by authoritarians, the regime will simply take the resources it needs, and it is the already-suffering people under their control who will suffer more.
Time to brush up on your libertarian economics, Rand! Don't sell us out.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I like what you wrote on The Daily Paul website. I hope Rand Paul reads your message and understands he is losing the support of people who prefer his father's political philosophy.
Though I supported Rand Paul when he campaigned for office, I considered him a watered-down version of his father. Unfortunately, that watered-down version is starting to reveal itself. Then again, maybe I'm wrong; maybe his approach is pragmatic and this is the only thing he can do to stay in office and have a chance to vote libertarian on other issues. I don't like this approach, but overall, with the exception of his father, he's better than his colleagues.
All the best,
Don
John,
I'm not holding him to the standard of Ron Paul. I'm holding him to the
standard of a clear message in support of liberty.
Warm regards, Michael
I don't actually think that Rand is thinking this way, but actually the sanctions may be a good thing for the citizens of Iran and the world, as they may hasten the demise of the dollar hegemony. The sooner the better for all concerned.
Already Iran has arranged to sell India oil for gold, at least there are rumors of such.
Even if the US Navy blockades Iran oil, they can truck it or rail it, or eventually pipe it through Pakistan.
If the Chinese send a tanker to get it, will the Navy face it down?
An oil for gold deal demonstrates to the world that gold is back as a currency.
The Russians and rest of the Briicks are itching to get out from under dollar hegemony.
This may just speed the process.
John,
Even if I wanted to dissolve the Libertarian Party of the United States, I don't see how it could practically be done. The name is out there, and it has too much political value -- its supposed irrelevance notwithstanding -- for someone not to run with it. Even if we somehow got the 7/8th super-majority of delegates to an LP national convention that I believe would be needed to vote to dissolve the party and retire the name, I'm sure someone would quickly start up the New Libertarian Party, or the Libertarian Party 2.0, and we'd be pretty much right back where we are now -- except that it's quite possible the new LP would be controlled by people much less libertarian than those who run it now.
And that, imho, would be a disaster. It's taken our movement a lot of time and effort to bring the public's understanding of what libertarianism is, to where it is today. Much progress remains to be made of course, but we've come a long way. Were the Libertarian Party -- arguably the world's most visible organization associated with that word which means freedom -- to become strongly associated with un-libertarian ideas before this educational project has reached fruition, much of that progress could be undone.
Besides which, although the party itself cannot take much credit for this, the Libertarian Party has effectively gone global:
I've made some attempt to communicate to Libertarian Party (US) leaders the desirability of trying to network with these other (L)ibertarian parties, and I hope this may yet happen. A networked Libertarian International could provide both moral and practical affirmation and support to LPs around the world, and help focus our movement's global resources and efforts on those places where the struggle looks most promising, much as the communists sought to organize internationally via the Internationals and Comintern during the early part of the last century. The communists expected their revolution to succeed first in a country like Britain or Germany or the United States, not in backwards Russia, and libertarians in the United States who assume that ours will happen here if it happens anywhere may well be in for a surprise. I believe that the 21st century can be the libertarian century, but it will take a clear, radical, inspirational message to capture the imagination of the world's youth and bring about a sustainable global mass movement for freedom.
Where does the Republican Party fit into this? Beyond serving as the incubator for the Ron Paul rEVOLution, I can't see that it does. I believe that the loyalty of the crop of young libertarians who are following Ron Paul is to his libertarian ideas, not to the GOP. Sooner or later, depending largely on what direction Dr. Paul himself takes, I think they will abandon the party when they realize they can't reform it the way they want to. If we can't even keep the Libertarian Party solidly libertarian (e.g. the disaster of the 2008 LP presidential ticket), what hope do we have of overcoming the legions of entrenched statist office-holders in the GOP? With the amount of political strength it would take to capture the GOP, we could build our own explicitly libertarian party into a major party, one that would have more appeal to independents and people on the left who will never vote Republican. Even if we could succeed, I think the Republican Party has too much historical baggage to be an effective vehicle for the freedom movement. The Libertarian Party is *our* party in a way the GOP never was, and in the long run we will get further under our own banner.
That all being said, I respect your efforts to work within the GOP, and wish you the best of luck. It's always possible I'm wrong, and even if I'm not wrong, getting more Ron Paul Republicans elected, and maintaining influence in the GOP while building our movement outside it would not be a bad thing. I'll support your efforts to make the Republican Party more libertarian as best I can from outside the party, and ask in turn that you for your part do what you can from outside the LP to keep it strongly libertarian (you can start by filling out this survey and opposing the bad crop of changes being proposed by this year's Platform Committee -- http://www.lp.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php?sid=18 -- to see my commentary on the survey questions, scroll down in this email), as well as what you can from inside the GOP to help bring about proportional representation and eliminate barriers to a level playing field for political parties in the United States and a true multi-party democracy.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I agree that Rand Paul is disappointing.
But I could not disagree more about the relevance of the Libertarian Party!
It's long past time for the LP to fold the tent and for all energies to go
elsewhere. The two party duopoly is NOT going to end by wasting time in an
irrelevant third party. We live in a two party state. By participating in
an ineffectual *token* third party you are contributing to the illusion
perpetrated by the duopoly that there is a wide choice of parties, after
they have all but outlawed them.I became a LP activist in 1980 and got so excited about Ed Clark's campaign.
After learning about the skewed election laws for a two-party system, and
observing decades of irrelevance of the Libertarian Party (and all other
third parties), I gave up on politics -- favoring non-political education,
starting libertarian forums and supper clubs which I ran for several years,
and devoting thousands of hours to discussing ideas one on one, in blogs,
and recently on Facebook.Then, the Ron Paul campaign of 2008 surprised me by accomplishing more
libertarian awareness than the LP accomplished in all its decades since
1972.I applaud the new young crop of libertarians who are becoming GOP activists
and working within the two-party duopoly to give nightmares to the old GOP
establishment. Many libertarians are joining the Republican Liberty Caucus
and local GOP county central committees. Note the recent resolutions passed
in certain Nevada county GOP committees to hold legislators to their oath to
the Constitution (for those who need the Constitution to justify their
liberty) and to repeal the 16th amendment.I just gathered the necessary signatures to join my own county's GOP central
committee, and so did my wife. We are looking forward to joining some
libertarians already on our county's GOP central committee and hopefully to
making some neocons squirm.DISSOLVE the LP now. Don't waste any more time and effort with third
parties.- John Howard
‹(•¿•)›From: Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer@…]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:02 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Anthony Gregory; Mark Brady; Dr. Michael Edelstein; Walter Block; John
Bassett; JohnDennis; Will Skinner; Josh Weil; Charlie Diest; Casey Given;
Bobby Saxton; Ashok Krishna; .Janice Edelstein; John Howard; Jack Winkle;
Jeff Schwartz; Dr.Michael R. Edelstein; Starchild
Subject: Re: Rand Paul "Explains" Voting For SanctionsMarc,
Nothing's impossible in politics, but I'd agree the odds are against
a purely non-interventionist candidate (Ron Paul) getting the Republican
presidential nomination this year. However I don't think it follows that we
have to either compromise or eschew electoral politics (especially when no
viable alternative is offered). There's plenty of electoral politics besides
the race for the U.S. presidency, and odds also change over time. Ron Paul's
2008 run helped pave the way for his stronger 2012 run, and this year's run
should help pave the way for other pro-freedom efforts in the future.However I think supporting the Libertarian Party is a better
long-term strategy for libertarians than trying to reform the Republican
Party. The winner-take-all system used in the U.S. seems to naturally
produce a two-party stranglehold; it needs to be replaced with a system of
proportional representation that will allow a real multi-party democracy in
which strongly ideological parties can capture seats in Congress, and I
rather doubt the GOP as a longstanding half of the dominant two-party cartel
would champion that cause, even were it to become much more libertarian.In a multi-party democracy with the vote more splintered along
principled lines, the LP and other pro-freedom parties would feel less
pressure to water down libertarian ideology in order to win votes, giving us
more incentive to focus on communicating what we actually believe. That
increased exposure to libertarianism should in turn hasten the day that the
philosophy of liberty will eventually prevail in the marketplace of ideas.Regarding the narrower issue of sanctions, here's what I wrote on
the Daily Paul site:It is disappointing to hear Rand Paul voted for broader sanctions against
Iran. He should know better. The history of such efforts shows that they
mainly hurt ordinary people, not the political leaders they're supposed to
pressure. Indeed the only historical examples he cited in his weak defense
of that vote were of sanctions having negative unintended consequences.Indeed, he correctly notes that bombing a country can fuel nationalism and
cause people to rally around the country's leaders -- but fails to note that
imposing sanctions can have a similar effect.Bans on travel by leaders and their families and cronies, freezing their
bank accounts, bans on dealing with state-run companies, bans on selling
weaponry to the regime or its agents, those types of limited efforts
targeting the guilty -- fine. But anything that affects the people or
commerce of an entire country, bad idea. In a country run by authoritarians,
the regime will simply take the resources it needs, and it is the
already-suffering people under their control who will suffer more.Time to brush up on your libertarian economics, Rand! Don't sell us out.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))The 2012 primary results have shown that a pure non-interventionist
candidate cannot get the Republican nomination. If Rand Paul wants to win
in 2016, the best he can probably do is a “less interventionist” platform a
la Huntsman, and even that might not work given AIPAC’s apparent lock on the
Republican apparatus.Libertarians have two choices: accept Rand’s triangulation as the best
obtainable outcome or move away from electoral politics. Personally, I
prefer the latter.From: Anthony Gregory [mailto:anthony.gregory@…]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:59 AM
To: Mark Brady
Cc: drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...; Walter Block; John Bassett;
JohnDennis; Will Skinner; MarcJoffe; Josh Weil; Charlie Diest; Casey Given;
Bobby Saxton; Ashok Krishna; .Janice Edelstein; John Howard; Jack Winkle;
jeff111@pacbell.net; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com; Dr.Michael R. Edelstein
Subject: Re: Rand Paul "Explains" Voting For SanctionsThis vote is so terrible, and his rationale for it so transparently
disingenuous, that whatever respect Rand Paul has earned from libertarians
should be almost completely gone.Sent from my iPhone
Not surprised. Rand is not Ron!
www.dailypaul.com/216460/sen-rand-paul-explain-his-vote-in-favor-of-sanction
s-on-iran
Greetings,
I wanted to let you know about the survey currently online about changes to the Libertarian Party platform. Unfortunately, the conservative-leaning majority on the LP Platform Committee have a bunch of bad changes proposed which they're trying to push on us this year.
In 2010, there were 24 committee proposals, of which I supported 13 and opposed 11. This year's committee has 18 proposals (they are labeled 1-16 along with two additions, 1b and 2b), of which I consider only two -- proposals #11 and #16 -- to be worth supporting. Of the others, proposal #5 appears to be a relatively unnecessary but harmless style change that would not affect the meaning of the plank it would revise. The rest I consider to be misguided efforts which I encourage you to vote down.
I also wrote an open letter to members of the Libertarian National Committee, included at the bottom of this email, on the problems with how the survey is being conducted. If you would like to contact them, here's a list of their names and email addresses:
Rebecca Sink-Burris <rebecca.sinkburris@...>
Daniel Wiener <wiener@...>
Dan Karlan <dankarlan@...>
Jim Lark <jwlark@...>
Brad Ploeger <Brad.Ploeger@...>
Scott Lieberman <scott73@...>
Mary Ruwart <mary@...>
Randy Eshelman <Randy.Eshelman@...>
Mark Hinkle <mark@...>
Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org>
Andy Wolf <Andrew.Wolf@...>
Mark Rutherford <vicechair@...>
Bill Redpath <wredpath@...>
Kevin Knedler <Kevin.Knedler@...>
Alicia Mattson <agmattson@...>
Marakay Rogers <Marakay.Rogers@...>
Vicki Kirkland <Vicki.Kirkland@...>
Carl Vassar <lib203@...>
Doug Craig <Doug.Craig@...>
Wayne Allyn Root <rootintl@...>
Stewart Flood <sff@ivo.net>
Norman Olsen <Norman.Olsen@...>
Guy McLendon <guy@...>
David Blau <david.blau@...>
Dianna Visek <Dianna.Visek@...>
The Libertarian Party National Committee's email discussion list is <LNC-Discuss@hq.lp.org>.
The survey on the platform, including the committee majority's arguments for its recommended changes and my own responses to each proposal, are copied below from the survey website, so you can read and think about the proposals before going online and clicking through the 17-page document to send in your own responses, if you wish to, at www.lp.org/phpQ/fillsurvey.php .
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Member, Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee (2011-2013)*
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco*
*for identification purposes only -- all views expressed in this letter are my own, although they may be shared by many others.
Platform Committee Report 2012
INTRODUCTION:
The Libertarian Party Platform Committee's job is to recommend changes to the platform, to be voted on by the delegates to our national convention.
Four years ago, based on survey feedback by thousands of you, the 2008 Platform Committee learned what type of platform you wanted. This critically important feedback helped us construct proposals to successfully rebuild our party platform in a new style – short, bold and outwardly focused, yet still in keeping with our core values.
Thanks to your input, the 2008 convention delegates were able to accomplish an amazing feat, getting the 2/3rds agreement necessary to rebuild a complete platform in a single convention day.
Then in 2010 the Platform Committee focused on editorial cleanup, as the 2008 platform was rebuilt with cut-and-paste passages from past platforms, which left some subject matter holes and some readability shortcomings.
With the 2012 convention just around the corner, our convention delegates will soon be voting on improvements to the platform. Again, this year's Platform Committee focused on polishing existing language and filling in subject matter holes to address current issues not previously covered.
The 2012 Platform Committee met in December and adopted a series of 16 recommendations. Each is presented here with a note from the committee chair describing the purpose. By completing this survey you will be able to share with us your thoughts on our recommendations, many of which were inspired by written comments received on the 2008 and 2010 surveys.
Your responses will be very helpful. If you identify important factors we overlooked, or if you can think of improvements for the proposals, the Committee will have an opportunity to modify our report when we meet again in Las Vegas just before the convention in May.
Thank you for taking a few minutes to participate in the process by completing this survey which allows you to show support/opposition for each recommendation as well as an opportunity to provide comments on each.
Alicia Mattson
Platform Committee Chair
Hi Phil,
In your reply, you said partly:
<< . . . but actually the sanctions may be a good thing for the
citizens of Iran and the world . . . >>
As I understand, the sanctions against Iran have been going on for
years. The theory behind the sanctions, or sanctions in general, is
that they will make life so miserable for the populace that they will
stand up to and possibly revolt against their central government. This
theory is similar to the theory behind "Strategic Bombing," which was
first used extensively during WWII.
With Strategic Bombing, it was believed that dropping huge numbers of
explosives on cities and civilians will not only destroy homes,
livelihoods and a few civilians, it will also demoralize the populace
and make them question their leaders' handling of the war to such an
extant, the populace will force their leaders to either surrender or
withdraw. While the bombs did destroy homes, livelihoods and thousands
of lives, Strategic Bombing only galvanized the populace's resolve to
support the war effort and their leaders. This was true for populaces in
cities bombed by both the allies and axis powers.
Sanctions on Iran also "went against theory," as they galvanized the
Iranian people to support their government and inflamed their hatred
against the West. And we must remember that President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his "clan" never went without food or gasoline as a
result of any Western imposed sanctions. Also, I've read that if the
sanctions were lifted and Iran left to its own devices, the populace
would no longer have Western infidels to blame for their problems, and
instead focus on the "root causes" of their problems, namely, their
central government.
<< . . . , as they may hasten the demise of the dollar hegemony. The
sooner the better for all concerned. >>
Perhaps the sanctions might inflame the Iranian's hatred of all things
Western, which includes the dollar and thus "hasten the demise of the
dollar hegemony." I'm uncertain of that, but I do agree the the sooner
the dollar loses its hegemony as the "world's currency," the "better for
all concerned." This can be also said of the Euro, the next contender
for "world's currency."
<< Even if the US Navy blockades Iran oil, [the Iranians] can truck it
or rail it, or eventually pipe it through Pakistan. >>
Good point. And we must remember that there is a world market in oil.
This means that even if the U.S. government "insists" that Americans
boycott Iranian oil, what's to stop, say, Canada or even Japan from
buying "excess" supplies of Iranian oil and selling it to Americans?
<< If the Chinese send a tanker to get it, will the Navy face it down?
Probably not. But what lawful right would the Navy have to stop any
tanker from getting the oil? I don't want to hear about the "legitimacy"
of a UN backed sanction. Besides, for the Navy to stop a Chinese tanker,
board it, and confiscate any Iranian oil it may contain, is tantamount
to an act of war.
A related question you might ask is will the Navy face down a Chinese
naval battle group should it launch missiles against Taiwan, as the
start of a full scale invasion? Should the Navy even bother to face down
such a battle group?
<< Already Iran has arranged to sell India oil for gold, at least there
are rumors of such. >>
I hope those are just rumors. It was also "rumored" that Gaddafi
intended to accept only gold for Libyan oil and that this was the real
reason why the Western allies, led by the U.S. attacked Gaddafi with
such virulence. That Gaddafi's intention died with his dethroning and
untimely death, should give pause to any Iranian plan to sell oil for
gold.
<< An oil for gold deal demonstrates to the world that gold is back as
a currency. >>
Apart from my "caution" to Iran about selling its oil for gold, the
claim that all the world's currency should be backed by gold is a "no
brainer" for us informed libertarians. Indeed, "informed libertarians"
in China, as in the "People's Republic of China," aka, "Red China," are
rumored to be embarking on a buying spree to buy as much of the World's
gold as possible, using fronts, of course. The Chinese government has
also greatly ramped up production of gold in the several State owned
gold mines within China.
Once a threshold quantity of gold is placed in Chinese versions of Ft.
Knoxes, the Chinese government, as the rumors continue, will present to
the world its official currency, the Renminbi, as the only currency
that's fully backed by gold. Guess what will happen to the Dollar and
the Euro.
I recently opened a fortune cookie, whose paper fortune said, "Your
future shall be a fateful one. Buy gold now." As with all paper fortunes
I read, shall I take this one with a grain of salt?
Anyhow, Phil, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Alton
I don't actually think that Rand is thinking this way, but actually
the sanctions may be a good thing for the citizens of Iran and the
world, as they may hasten the demise of the dollar hegemony. The sooner
the better for all concerned.
Already Iran has arranged to sell India oil for gold, at least there
are rumors of such.
Even if the US Navy blockades Iran oil, they can truck it or rail it,
or eventually pipe it through Pakistan.
If the Chinese send a tanker to get it, will the Navy face it down?
An oil for gold deal demonstrates to the world that gold is back as a
currency.
The Russians and rest of the Briicks are itching to get out from under
dollar hegemony.
This may just speed the process.
Sent from my iPad
>
>
> John,
>
> I'm not holding him to the standard of Ron Paul. I'm holding him to
the standard of a clear message in support of liberty.
>
> Warm regards, Michael
>
> From: johnny strike
> To: drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@... ; Walter Block ; John Dennis
; Will Skinner ; Mark Brady ; Marc Joffe ; Josh Weil ; Charlie Diest ;
Casey Given ; Bobby Saxton ; Ashok Krishna ; Anthony Gregory ; .Janice
Edelstein ; John Howard ; Jack Winkle ; jeff111@... ;
lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Dr. Michael R. Edelstein
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Rand Paul "Explains" Voting For Sanctions
>
> Unfortunately if we're going
> Submitted by hurricanepaul on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 11:22.
> Unfortunately if we're going to hold everyone to the standard of Ron
Paul we're going to be continually disappointed.
>
>
> From: "drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@..."
drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...
> To: Walter Block wblock@...; John Bassett JohnnyStrike@...; John
Dennis john@...; Will Skinner wskinner@...; Mark Brady
johnmarkbrady@...; Marc Joffe joffemd@...; Josh Weil joshweil@...;
Charlie Diest chdeist@...; Casey Given caseygiven@...; Bobby Saxton
b_saxton90@...; Ashok Krishna ashok.r.krishna@...; Anthony Gregory
anthony.gregory@...; .Janice Edelstein Janice@...; John Howard jhs@...;
Jack Winkle jack@...; jeff111@...; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Dr. Michael R. Edelstein DrEdelstein@...
> Sent: Tue, March 13, 2012 8:17:45 AM
> Subject: Rand Paul "Explains" Voting For Sanctions
>
>
www.dailypaul.com/216460/sen-rand-paul-explain-his-vote-in-favor-of-sanc\
tions-on-iran