Just in case any of you were staying up late at night wondering what my take on various Libertarian policy positions as articulated by Ron Paul in Liberty Defined is, here's exactly that:
http://tinyurl.com/5v6a89c <-- Google Docs link, too long to post here
Sample "content" to whet your interest or dissuade you from clicking on the link, as it were:
http://tinyurl.com/5v6a89c <-- Google Docs link, too long to post here
Sample "content" to whet your interest or dissuade you from clicking on the link, as it were:
For balance, one in which I agree with the Libertarian position espoused by Ron Paul:Global Warming: "The truth is there are just as many and even more qualified scientists refuting the sketchy and questionable evidence regarding global warming." Uh, no. Just no. That he invokes the use of fear by the environmentalists when it sure seems to me that the anti-AGCC camp has been much more adept in its usage is curious as well.
"Polluting one's neighbor's property, air, or water is contrary to market ethics and law." Oh god, did I just read that? Market ethics? He has completely gone off the deep end with this one. The tragedy of the commons isn't just some fictional construct...
Next he backhandedly invokes the religious right's argument that this earth and all upon it were created for man to plunder, saying "by using energy placed on the earth for a purpose..." and then moves on to Art Robinson. Let me set the record straight: Art Robinson is NOT a climatologist. Oh, and his institute is a fraud in that the "petition" that it has circulated has been disavowed by many who purportedly signed it.http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=130&&n=237
Here's a gem that shows a huge flaw in his thinking: "Whether or not we have reached 'peak oil' would be of little relevance if the market were allowed to solve the problem of providing the cheapest and cleanest energy needed." Wait a second: Did he say "cleanest?" Doesn't that imply that the externalities associated with oil are internalized into the cost borne by the consumer? Well, guess what: THEY'RE NOT. And until they are such statements are completely and utterly nonsensical.
This chapter is a huge failure, in my opinion.
Empire: "There are lots of people who hate us for invading their countries, supporting dictatorships, starving people through sanction, and maintaining an unprecedented military empire of global reach." True, and, as I've noted above, I agree with this and think our defense spending is an entire order of magnitude too high. Later, he clarifies his position, with which I also agree: "Demagoguing, lying, or denying that no unintentional consequences or blowback result from our invasion, occupation, and bombing of other nations, especially Arab and Muslim countries, presents the greatest danger to our security, freedom, and prosperity."
This chapter is where he asks one of his more worthwhile questions as of yet: "Have we crossed our Rubicon?" In other words, has our military grown so vast and self-sufficient that it may bite the head of our democratic government off were some future regime with a spine to try to dismantle it? I don't know the answer to this vital question, but his analogy of the opium of cheap, financed consumer goods and the Romans' bread and circuses seems apt enough.
He does point out a bit of Tea Party hypocrisy, much to my delight: "Those who consider themselves to be opponents of big government and yet have an uncritical attitude towards militarism and war are either fooling themselves or haven't thought enough about the problem."
Overall, I think this is the chapter where my views align with his the closest as of yet. I really think the militarism of our country, the unthinking knee-jerk reaction that everything and anything is justified to either "support our troops" or "fight the war on terror", is dragging us down. It's not only dragging us down fiscally but also morally. We become more isolated from the world and reliant on our blind faith in the republic, in an institution that becomes less real with every day we spend expanding and defending our overseas empire