America Has Two Choices – Ron Paul or War

An article I authored on Libertarian News:

After watching the GOP presidential candidates debate at the Iowa Straw Poll, one thing became abundantly clear to me; if America elects anyone other than Ron Paul to the presidency, America will be embroiled in a new war, most likely with Iran.

There is only ONE candidate running for the presidency that has unequivocally stated he will end the wars, bring the troops home, slash military spending, and not embroil the US in more blood shed. And that candidate is Ron Paul. Every other GOP candidate who has spoken on the issue of militarism has openly declared that they will expand military spending, militarism, and view any attempt by Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as justification for launching a war against them.

On the Democrat side of the house, Obama has shown a willingness to expand the wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, and has even been so bold as to launch military strikes in multiple other countries without the consent of their governments. It should be clear by now to everyone that Obama has no intention of stopping American militarism around the world nor will he bring any significant number of troops home. The Democrats in congress have had plenty of time to slash military spending but have failed to do so. Military spending under the Obama administration is at record breaking levels.

If Democrats vote for Obama instead of Ron Paul (by not registering as Republicans to vote in the GOP primary election for Ron Paul), we can almost be totally assured that more militarism will follow on the heels of the next general election. Both sides of the aisle have been busy pushing war propaganda aimed at demonizing Iran while hyping threats of terrorism. Further, the Keynesian warmongers have been busy hyping war as a cure for America’s economic condition.

Consider this clip of Nobel Prize winning neo-Keynesian economist Paul Krugman making the claim that either a new war or staging a fake alien invasion would cure America’s economic problems within 18 months. This is a classic Broken Window Fallacy argument. Even a grade schooler should be able to see why such claims are ludicrous. When resources are diverted into war or pointless exercises, obviously this means that those resources are not available for productive uses by private enterprise.

For example, consider if the government hired all the computer programmers in the nation to create programs for the military. The government could theoretically get close to accomplishing this since it could print the money necessary to make this happen. By offering a higher salary than any private enterprise could match, government could literally starve the private market of computer programmers.

The consequences of such a move would be disastrous for private industry. With no programmers left available to the private sector, companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft would go out of business; and every other web site and application that needs updating would be left to rot.

Prosperity can only come about when resources are left in the hands of private individuals motivated by profit. In order to make a profit, a business owner must meet consumer needs in a beneficial way or they will be run out of business. Only private businesses in a free market can create new wealth in an efficient manner, since only private businesses face a profit and loss test by the market which tells them if they are creating goods that people are willing to voluntarily pay for.

Government faces no profit and loss test with any of its programs since all of its programs are funded through the use of coercion. This creates a situation called the Economic Calculation Problem which precludes government from being able to rationally allocate resources in an economy.

Setting that brief economics lesson aside, it should disturb everyone that there is only ONE candidate in the entire presidential race that will work to end the wars and stop the spread of militarism. America is no longer the economic powerhouse of yesteryear as government regulations, subsidies, militarism, taxation, bailouts, grants, no bid contracts, and other forms of fascist cronyism have destroyed its once powerful industrial base. America can not afford a new war. America can not even afford its current welfare systems, let alone a new money pit of waste and misery such as a war with Iran.

Stop the spending. Stop the wars. Vote Ron Paul.

Mnemeth, I'm honestly disappointed. I've seen you make some quality posts, and you're listed as a Gold contributor, after all.

In other words, I can expect other people to succumb to the groupthink and jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon; but it saddens me that you have also.

Ron Paul will only become your President if the elites say he can. He already made the statement once, on air, that he didn't like David Rockefeller. When he did that, he destroyed his chances of ever becoming President. It was only after that, that Fox News started trying to censor his debates.

I'm also trying to understand how you can call yourself an anarchist, (specifically an anarcho-capitalist) while encouraging people to vote for a particular individual to become the leader of a state. I tend to self-identify as an anarchist, as well; but in my case, that means I don't vote, and it also means that I try and encourage people not to view themselves as needing the state's permission or involvement to do anything. Governments in my view are crime syndicates; and I don't think of myself as a criminal.

With Bush it was "vote for me to prevent a mushroom cloud and a smoking crater where a city used to be" now we have to be scared into "vote Ron Paul or else more war". I've also read "vote Ron Paul or civil war, economic collapse, etc."
Same tactics, different candidate...I won't be scared into the voting booth by anyone.

reply to post by petrus4


If someone is going to end the wars, slash military spending, and grant me more social/economic liberties, why should I be opposed to that?

If a presidential candidate holds 99% of the same views on government as myself, do you think I should bash him for the 1% I disagree with him on?

I think the answer is obvious. Obama or some other fancy pancy republican candidate will claim to tax the rich, create more jobs and cease all wars - and the sheeple will buy their lies and vote for them. But when one of them gets elected, they'll break their promises as usual and people will blame illegal immigrants, China, Russia, Iran and everything else rather than their own leaders and thieving banks.

reply to post by petrus4

Ron Paul will only become your President if the elites say he can.

There are -millions- of Americans, and a handfull of Elites. Dorothy's friends cowered at "The great and powerfull Oz" until she yanked the privacy curtain off of him, showing him to be a full of hot air fx balloon guy, and thats all.

Supposing Ron wins the election does not mean we will not go to war. Ron will do his best to keep us from war by our own accords, meaning we will mind our own business, as it should be. However, considering the X factor, if war finds us, then we may not have a choice but to go to war. Considering the current state of affairs and as I see it, trouble coming to find us is certain possibility.

So if Ron Paul stops these wars as he says he will it begs the question of what he considers reason enough to send troops to a foreign land.

Has anyone ever heard him mention what he would consider acceptable?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by petrus4

 

If someone is going to end the wars, slash military spending, and grant me more social/economic liberties, why should I be opposed to that?

From my understanding of your Constitution, a President does not rightfully have the ability to either start or end wars. That power is supposed to belong to the Congress. So if Ron Paul was willing to adhere to the Constitution as you expect him to, that means that he won't have the power to end the wars by himself. That will have to be done by the Congress, and given the Republican Party's apparent desire for war in particular, GOP Congressmen could well decide to vote for the war to continue.

A President alone is not going to have the power to cut your government's military spending, as well. From what I've read, economic appropriations usually have to go through the House of Representatives; the Executive doesn't have the ability to make budget decisions unilaterally.

So if Ron Paul is loyal to your Constitution, he is not going to have the ability, by himself, to do the things that you want him to.

Originally posted by kro32
So if Ron Paul stops these wars as he says he will it begs the question of what he considers reason enough to send troops to a foreign land.

Has anyone ever heard him mention what he would consider acceptable?

There are no reasons unless it is to stop aggressive behavior against US citizens.

Basically he wouldn't commit America to a foreign war unless America was being actively attacked by a foreign nation.

Originally posted by simone50m
There are -millions- of Americans, and a handfull of Elites. Dorothy's friends cowered at "The great and powerfull Oz" until she yanked the privacy curtain off of him, showing him to be a full of hot air fx balloon guy, and thats all.

David Rockefeller is a lot more dangerous than Oz.

Originally posted by petrus4
From my understanding of your Constitution, a President does not rightfully have the ability to either start or end wars. That power is supposed to belong to the Congress. So if Ron Paul was willing to adhere to the Constitution as you expect him to, that means that he won't have the power to end the wars by himself. That will have to be done by the Congress, and given the Republican Party's apparent desire for war in particular, GOP Congressmen could well decide to vote for the war to continue.

A President alone is not going to have the power to cut your government's military spending, as well. From what I've read, economic appropriations usually have to go through the House of Representatives; the Executive doesn't have the ability to make budget decisions unilaterally.

So if Ron Paul is loyal to your Constitution, he is not going to have the ability, by himself, to do the things that you want him to.

Well you are kind of wrong.

Only the Congress has the constitutional authority to declare a war, but the president can end a war whenever he feels like it. The president can also refuse to order troops into battle against the wishes of congress. And the military itself can refuse to follow orders that run contrary to the constitutional foundations of life, liberty, and happiness.

However, since we don't live in a constitutional republic any longer, arguing what the constitution says the president can or can not do is pointless.

For example, the wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan were not authorized by a congressional declaration of war.

reply to post by kro32


It's acceptable to go to war when congress declares war. It's not ok for a president to abuse his powers and command troops to take acts of aggression without a declaration of war. War is acceptable but you should fight it, win it, and come home. Not police the world endlessly. Our country needs to be more conservative in what it considers justification for war. We have lost security because our aggression creates more enemies and those who hate us every time we kill innocent civilians, and because we are going bankrupt due to this foreign policy. And if we were attacked in any military fashion (which hasn't happened since pearl harbor), our troops are all over the world but not here, this is not defense. We can't even police our own border with national guard, or even using all reserves - they are all over the world spread to thin, our own borders aren't safe but we go to these other countries who don't have an air force and can't do us significant harm.

reply to post by mnemeth1


As far as I am concerned, we are not at "war" with anyone. After all, all of the "wars" we are currently fighting was never declared by congress. If my memory serves me correctly, the last time congress declared war was WWII. Everything after that has been nothing more than abuse of the presidential power.

reply to post by mnemeth1

If those really are the only two choices, than most are going to choose war.

The reality remains that few persons even suspect the real reasons for war. No nation divulges what its intelligence organizations know, and so few persons have any real understanding of why military use is considered necessary.

While it is fair to be suspicious of malevolent motives behind any war, it is equally fair to suspect benevolent motives behind any war.

As with Obama, the political rhetoric of a candidate before having received national security briefings is often based upon the candidate's assumptions and not actual facts. And even when a candidate knows that there is more than meets the eye, it is sometimes considered by the campaign to be useful to pretend otherwise so as to garner support from the electorate who do not suspect that there is a legitimate but secret motive for military use.

The real world is hostile, it is dangerous, and it is full of national leaders with wicked motives for personal gain and vengeance. The United States, with its guarantee of changing executive leadership ever eight years, is more immune than most nations to such abuses. If the US is engaged militarily, suspect something is other than it appears-- suspect it is other than simple and other than personal-- suspect it is complex and strategically necessary... because it most likely is.

Obama did not want any war before his national security briefing, and then rhetoric stopped, followed by a brief escalation of military use. This is a known and repeating event with new Presidents who seem to flip-flop on major issues soon after taking office. It is about the secrets that they must learn to serve in the position.

So, If Ron Paul gets elected, expect to see him flip-flop on his campaign rhetoric-- they all do. Why the general public does not even suspect that there is a reason for this pattern, baffles me. Why candidates pretend not to suspect that we are at war for good reason scares me.

Our spies are good, Our allies' spies are good. Part of their remaining effective is not to tell the world what we know and why we do what we do. Is it too much to expect the voting public to pay attention enough to suspect such a reality? Is it too much to expect of a presidential candidate?

So, Ron Paul shouts with passion, "Bring our troops home!" and never considers the consequences. I do. Many voters do consider the consequences-- but we can only speculate-- and should. It is called responsibility.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
However, since we don't live in a constitutional republic any longer, arguing what the constitution says the president can or can not do is pointless.

I agree, but I've still heard Ron Paul talk about the Constitution a lot. He at least makes it sound as though it is something he cares about, so it is logical to expect that, assuming he means that, he would want to try and restore the Constitution if he got into office. If he was to do that though, it would mean that he would potentially lose a large amount of his current power.

For example, the wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan were not authorized by a congressional declaration of war.

That's true, but part of the other reason for that, is that George W. Bush wanted the ability to violate the Geneva Conventions, and he couldn't legally do that if he referred to Afghanistan and Iraq as "wars."

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So, If Ron Paul gets elected, expect to see him flip-flop on his campaign rhetoric-- they all do.

Ron Paul has never flip-flopped on an issue during his entire 18 terms in congress.

Ever.

Not once.

On that point, you are most certainly wrong.

Ron Paul is an ideological purist motivated by Austrian economics and the non-aggression principle. He is literally incorruptible.

Originally posted by petrus4
Mnemeth, I'm honestly disappointed. I've seen you make some quality posts, and you're listed as a Gold contributor, after all.

In other words, I can expect other people to succumb to the groupthink and jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon; but it saddens me that you have also.

Ron Paul will only become your President if the elites say he can. He already made the statement once, on air, that he didn't like David Rockefeller. When he did that, he destroyed his chances of ever becoming President. It was only after that, that Fox News started trying to censor his debates.

I'm also trying to understand how you can call yourself an anarchist, (specifically an anarcho-capitalist) while encouraging people to vote for a particular individual to become the leader of a state. I tend to self-identify as an anarchist, as well; but in my case, that means I don't vote, and it also means that I try and encourage people not to view themselves as needing the state's permission or involvement to do anything. Governments in my view are crime syndicates; and I don't think of myself as a criminal.

edit on 16-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

I apologize if this is a bit rough but the above is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen to date on this subject. The post my Mnemeth is quality as per usual and it is 100% spot-on. There is only one action that reduces the odds of war short of bloody revolution and that is to vote for Ron Paul (PERIOD). The idea that being an anarchist means you purposefully avoid helping to shape the world and bring about the true change that you want to see is what I find so offensive.

Your philosophy and interpretation seems to be this - and I won't award any stars for it.

"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing."

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by kro32
So if Ron Paul stops these wars as he says he will it begs the question of what he considers reason enough to send troops to a foreign land.

Has anyone ever heard him mention what he would consider acceptable?

There are no reasons unless it is to stop aggressive behavior against US citizens.

Basically he wouldn't commit America to a foreign war unless America was being actively attacked by a foreign nation.

Kinda makes you wonder why he voted for the use of force in Afghanistan after 9/11 then.

That was sending troops to a foreign shore and today they are still fighting under that authority.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So, If Ron Paul gets elected, expect to see him flip-flop on his campaign rhetoric-- they all do.

Ron Paul has never flip-flopped on an issue during his entire 18 terms in congress.

Ever.

Not once.

On that point, you are most certainly wrong.

Ron Paul is an ideological purist motivated by Austrian economics and the non-aggression principle. He is literally incorruptible.

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

He flip-flopped on don't ask don't tell. He used to support it than he voted to repeal it.

Kinda playing both sides there depending on the political wind.