Ron Paul Doctrine

2008-2-3 05:48:00

Good to hear from you again Blayne. Hope you have been doing well. I think we agree in most ways on the principle of freedom and individual rights. That said I will make a few comments on your post. They will have to be limited because books have been written on this dialog and one would have to write a book to cover this subject appropriately.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"One might think that because I am libertarian that I would support Ron Paul who has run as a libertarian in the past. I do not support him because he on only about 50 percent libertarian in his views. How's that? He doesn't believe in fighting for liberty for anyone but himself and his own. I believe in fighting for liberty in any way possible wherever it will make a difference."

Blayne:

"How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Ron Paul has consistently fought for liberty for all people and has the record to prove it. You haven't done your homework on this one my friend."

JJ:

He thinks we shouldn't have made the effort to liberate the people of Iraq and should withdraw immediately. If we did this there is a good chance that the seeds of freedom which have been planted could be destroyed and replaced by tyranny as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein.

He also thought that we should not have fought to free the slaves and mistakenly thinks we could have merely bought their freedom. Lincoln offered a plan to purchase the freedom of the slaves and the slave states rejected it.

Ron Paul does not seem to realize that it is sometimes worth the shedding of blood to bring freedom to people outside our own group such as the Iraqis. I would think a true libertarian would want to do what is necessary to free the oppressed when possible.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"Ron Paul sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this."

Blayne:

"This is a very naive statement. Lincoln did not fight to free the slaves, in his own words he stated:

"'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'"

JJ:

You left off an important part of the quote. He added:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

I did not state the reason Lincoln went to war so you are not arguing against anything I said here. That said, yes Lincoln saw his prime "official duty" to save the union, but he also had an equally strong unofficial personal moral duty to free the slaves. He expressed a strong desire for this in many instances.

When he wrote this letter to Horace Greeley he was discouraged with the war to the extent that if there was some way he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would have done it for he was worried at the time that the war could be lost. As soon as the North began to see daylight he restored his attitude and ditched this momentary notion and added the freeing of the slaves to the agenda. This was a personal agenda of his throughout his life.

Blayne:

"He also rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States."

JJ:

He presented the highest concept of freeing the slaves that he felt the people could accept. Neither he or anyone else at that time thought the masses could accept racial equality. If he presented anything higher than he did then he would have been killed before Boothe got to him.

In actuality Lincoln took no steps to export the blacks after the war and seemed to have no intention of doing this though earlier in life he thought this may be the only acceptable solution.

Here is a good quote giving his views.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."   (Abraham Lincoln -- Source: April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges)

Blayne:

"Lincoln's main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate."

JJ:

And you think this because...?

The facts reveal otherwise. During the war, when South was separate, the Northern industrial power increased -- not decreased. The economy in the North boomed and the South suffered severe depression. If Lincoln merely wanted financial dominance he did not need the South to stay in the Union. The greatest amount of wealth was created for the North during the war than any other time in history to that date. On the other hand, the South suffered numerous internal rebellions because of poverty.

Blayne:

"Lincoln also destroyed the original republic, he suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft and income taxes."

JJ:

Habeas Corpus:

These actions did not destroy the Republic, but possibly saved it. Concerning habeas corpus Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Because of the rebellion the supreme court never found Lincoln's actions unconstitutional.

The Draft:

Yes, Lincoln instituted the draft, but they also had a draft during the Revolutionary War. Were they also destroying the Republic? No they were creating it.

Only 2 percent of union soldiers were the result of a draft. The rest were volunteers.

Income Tax:

Desperate times require desperate measures. He did institute a temporary tax of 3 percent on higher incomes. After the war habeas corpus was restored, the draft cancelled and income tax discontinued. How could they destroy the Republic when they ceased to exist?

Blayne:

"And unlawfully attacked sovereign states who had every right to secede from the Union via the 10th amendment to the constitution since secession was not addressed in the constitution."

JJ:

But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumpter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.

Blayne:

"The congress was not legally in session since the southern representatives had left and on an on it goes."

JJ:

Of course they were legally in session for the South was no longer part of the Union.

How about the Congress of the Southern States? Were they illegal also? Should neither side have any right to govern? That makes no sense for either side.

Confederate sympathizers often blast the North and Lincoln with criticism but neglect to mention that the South instituted a draft, suspended ex post facto law, nationalized industries, also started a income and profit tax, mandated hotels and railroads had to report to government offices who was staying at their hotel and riding the trains, the city of Richmond had a passport system in place for the coming and going of all citizens. See Jeffrey Hummel's "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" for a balanced libertarian perspective.

The fact is these were desperate times and desperate measure are always taken during such times and both sides did it -- the South perhaps more than the North.

Blayne:

"This set a precedent of usurping the constitution that is still with us today and Bush has furthered it by likewise suspending habeas corpus, and adding warrantless searches, secret prisons, 'sneak and peek' spying without our knowledge, and host of other blatant violations of civil liberties with the Patriot act and now the Military Commissions act. They are now attacking the Second Amendment with the Veterans Disarmament Act. It is out of control."

JJ:

You used to support the Patriot Act. What happened?

Fewer than one in ten million citizens are adversely affected by the current war measures whereas close to 100 percent of the populace have horror stories from encounters with traffic cops. Let's put emphasis where the real harm is being done. Violations of privacy from traffic cops would be a good place to start.

Blayne:

"Ron Paul simply said there was no need to fight the civil war and kill 600,000 Americans to end slavery He could have ended it without fighting slavery by buying the slaves and freeing them Instead of going to war and violating the sovereignty of the southern states and our constitution. By so doing caused quite a resentment toward blacks and the north that is still with us today."

JJ:

As I said Lincoln tried to purchase the slaves freedom and the South wasn't about to cooperate.

Blayne:

"Every other country-ended slavery without a war can you give any reason why we couldn't have done the same?"

JJ:

Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.

Blayne:

"Where is the flaw in Ron Paul's logic? It seems to me sparing the deaths of 600,000 Americans would have been well worth it and freeing the slave(s) to boot."

JJ:

If we hadn't fought the civil war it would have taken a hundred years to eliminate slavery. There's no evidence that slavery could have been peacefully ended.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"He would withdraw troops from Iraq immediately which could take away the hope of freedom for the Iraqi people as well as eventually the entire Middle East."

Blayne:

"We went in under false pretense. Every reason given for going there has been proven false.We did not go there to free the Iraqi's, there is much more to this then I have time to write here, suffice it to say it's about oil."

JJ:

Wow! We're sure getting a lot of benefit from the oil there, aren't we? We had a mistaken notion of WMD but there was no false pretense. The main reason stressed by Bush numerous times before the invasion was to enforce UN resolutions and to bring freedom to the people. That is a libertarian notion and NOT a false pretense.

Blayne:

"However we have killed more Iraqis by being there with collateral damage then Saddam did when he was in power. The Iraqis want us gone. They are stepping up and taking back their towns and cities."

JJ:

The Germans and Japanese wanted us gone when we occupied them after Word War II, but now they are glad we stayed until democracy was anchored.

Close to 100 percent of the Kurds are happy we have stayed for we have saved them from extinction and they are thriving. Things are turning around in Iraq and if people like Ron Paul do not destroy the work done it will one day be a thriving democracy and the Iraqi people will bless the day we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Many already do.

Blayne:

"We cannot give freedom at the point of a gun."

JJ:

Freedom was given to Germany, Italy and Japan at the point of a gun. Freedom from the Revolutionary war was gained at the point of the gun. A gain in freedom usually requires the shedding of blood. This is a painful truth, but history bears it out. This is why the Second Amendment is so important.

Blayne:

"We have no right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations even if we don't agree with them when there is no direct threat to our national security."

JJ:

They were a threat to our national security and became so when they invaded Kuwait. After the first war we had a cease fire, but not an end to the war. The war remained in place. Saddam Hussein violated the conditions of the cease fire and this gave us the right to enforce it.

Blayne:

"They did not attack us and they were no threat to us. The Middle East does not want our intervention and if they want their freedom they need to step up and win it."

JJ:

Under a tyranny all who are brave enough to step up for freedom are disposed of. When a people are subdued and depressed others have to step in to help. Where are the freedom fighters in North Korea? There are none. The poor souls have the fight taken out of them and such people need the help of others to free them.

The only reason we had the American Revolution is the people were already given reasonable freedom. If we were ruled by a Saddam Hussein it couldn't have happened.

Blayne:

"Every time we try to impose it we end up in an endless no win war such as Vietnam and Iraq and now were considering bombing Iran who has not attacked us and is no threat to us."

JJ:

The talk of bombing Iran is from Democrat talking points and does not come from Bush. You don't impose democracy. The best you can do is clear away the forces that prevent it.

Blayne:

"And they haven't even taken a first nuclear strike off the table according to 'Bush & Company'."

JJ:

This has never been taken off the table by any president or nuclear nation as a deterrent.

Blayne:

"Preemptive war is the Doctrine of Hitler and the like. Millions of people have and are dying because of our interventionist policies and most of the world resents us and hates us because of it."

JJ:

Iraq is not a preemptive war, but a continuation of the original Gulf War for it never legally ended. Hitler was not enforcing a cease fire agreement.

Blayne;

"Probably most of all we need to come home because we cannot afford it. We are borrowing billions a year from China to finance the Iraq war, We are financially bankrupt."

JJ:

But if we are there for oil as you say we should be making a profit. Since it is costing us so much it is obvious we are there for more than oil. Yes, it is costly and it is one tax I am willing to pay because I think that it is of extreme importance that a foothold of democracy be established in that area. I think oil profits should be used to pay some of our debt, but Bush is against it.

Blayne:

"The currency has been debased almost to collapse and the income tax goes to pay the interests on the debt and not for a single service. And yet it still does not cover the interest so they print new money causing inflation stealing the wealth of the middle class. The troops are coming home one way or another either we bring them home and fix our economy and soft land the coming economic crisis or we keep going and it collapses and we have chaos."

JJ:

I agree we do need to get out of there as soon as possible, but not at the expense of Iraqi freedom and the survival of the Kurds.

Blayne:

"We need to be the shinning city on the hill not the world policeman. We should stay out of the affairs of other nations and trade with them and talk with them and promote peace prosperity and freedom through example not at the point of a gun."

JJ:

And that is what we have done except in Afghanistan, which Ron Paul voted for. We were forced to deal with Iraq because it invaded Kuwait.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"I agree with him on many issues of smaller government, taxes and personal freedom but his problem is that he wants to introduce great changes but has no plan to pull it off. Anyone seeking to make great change in government must convince the people and the Congress and if he cannot do that his ideas become a lost vision."

Blayne:

"Again you have not done your homework. First there is a five point plan in his website ronpaul2008.com. Second he has written numerous bills over the years to implement all his proposals so no he is not shooting in the dark as you insinuate."

JJ:

I went to his site as you suggested and couldn't find any five point plan. I see no evidence that he would be able to present a plan that the masses could accept. I think he is too black and white to be effective.

I commend him though on promoting non war libertarian issues as I agree with most of them. I think forces and groups will arise from the people rather than the government that will eventually sway public opinion in the direction of true freedom and common sense.