An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

[Christian Liberty]

Even if you don't support a war within Rand's proposed framework, Rand's framework is still better than what is bound to happen without it. Rand's bill has the following excellent qualities:
(1) puts politicians on the record
(2) is constitutional, and helps put the constitution back into the public mindset
(3) is limited in scope
(4) expires after a year, which specifically requires Congress to re-authorize and go on the record again if they want the war to continue
(5) ends the previous war

NONE of those 5 things will happen under the status quo. Here is one thing that will happen regardless:
(6) The US engaging in acts of war for no good reason for the next year

So, would you rather have (6), or would you rather have (1)-(6)? Easy choice

Its certain that 1-6 is preferable than just #6. The question is whether this qualifies as a lesser evil, and if that's OK.

I'm not all-or-nothing personally, but I think the discussion of how much we should compromise to support Rand, and how much Rand himself should compromise (assuming he's actually in agreement with us and is just playing political games) is a valid discussion to have. I've mellowed out on this somewhat since I've gotten here, but I still believe its a valid discussion to have.

Here's what I do know:

1. Rand Paul's position is certainly still better than pretty much everyone else's. Those who say (if there are any) that Rand is no different than Obama or the establishment Republicans on foreign policy issues are objectively wrong, IMO. Is there a chance Rand is secretly in bed with the neocons? I guess so. I wouldn't put the odds much higher than the odds that he's secretly an an-cap, but its technically possible. What is factually the case is that Rand is taking positions that (from a non-interventionist standpoint) are better than the positions that most others are taking. That is a fact.

2. Rand Paul's position is still, on principle, a compromise. That is, from a purely non-interventionist POV, a fact. I know there are a few people here who actually agree with Rand on this, but most of us don't. I certainly don't.

3. This point is less objectively true than the others, but quite frankly, I agree with Nicholas Sarwark, regardless of whether he is sincere or not. What Rand is doing, in my opinion, is simply immoral, even if it is utilitarian. Either he actually believes its moral to bomb ISIS, or he is telling lies that involve being complicit in the murder of thousands. Either way, that's a massive moral weight to carry on one's shoulders, even if he will be a big improvement. I still intend to vote for him, and I know some of the hard-core libertarians on here that mostly agree with me on other issues will probably judge me for it (the one an-cap friend I have in real life can't fathom how I could possibly like Rand.) But there's no way I could ever morally justify doing what he's doing. I'm not terribly likely to ever go into politics, but if I do, it will be Ron Paul style as much as I can, all principle and none of this stuff. Frankly, I think its immoral no matter why he's doing it. I wish he wouldn't do it, even if that meant not getting elected.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

This letter is dumb.

So says you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but frankly the letter makes more sense than watering down a consistent and moral position, that Americans were coming around to before media whores drowned them in unending propaganda campaigns.

Besides missing the entire point on political strategy and following the Constitution,

I must have missed it too in all the nonsensical justifications offered by people who hope Rand Paul is simply posturing or doesn't believe what he says. Truth of the matter, in my opinion, is that he very much does. Sure, he is better than anyone else to be running (including probably the LP candidate) but regardless what does that really mean? You can't expect any serious person to believe that Rand Paul's presidency would be veto after veto, the release of all nonviolent drug war related incarcerated prisoners or anything of the sort. The problem is systemic and not indicative of any one person. A top down approach would not only create a precedent for his successor, it simply would not work. We would be better off than if a war criminal authoritarian, or simply an authoritarian won, but really, the Constitution isn't going to save anyone short of people reading and comprehending the Constitution.

Rand's proposal would limit ground troops to protect the US embassy and require reauthorization in one year.

They should close that embassy. Anyone there knows the risk. Withdraw troops, and it never should have been built in the first place. What is the cost of it, do you figure? Not simply KBR's grossly overpriced and taxpayer subsidized meals mind you, but the true cost? What does it take to maintain the unmaintainable? Though conceding the point, I couldn't care less if they could maintain it or not. The entire thing is a slap in the face of morality and humanity, in general.

Another this is that the congress as it now stands will never declare war against anyone or anything.

Yes they would. 'The people' (those that vote, that is) just need a little foreplay.

Rand's proposal is educational in nature,

Educational in the wrong way, I'd argue. Most people, certainly most voters, would agree to the airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (and elsewhere). 'We' were doing so good in the rejection of the toppling of yet another government (to be replaced with a favorable puppet).

supposedly what they liked in Ron Paul.

What evidence do you have that their reasoning is nefarious or that they did not agree with Ron Paul on his policy of non-interventionism but simply used this as a time to down Rand Paul?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Good to hear someone at the LP telling it like it is..they are probably getting tired of being associated with warmongers, 'game players,' etc. Republican richardheads..(esp. Boob Barr...what a disgrace!!)

Hopefully the tiny LP or some other group of people can foster honest, straight talk...not stinking Republican primary double-talk strategy!...YUCK..

 

[Galileo Galilei]

So says you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but frankly the letter makes more sense than watering down a consistent and moral position, that Americans were coming around to before media whores drowned them in unending propaganda campaigns.


I must have missed it too in all the nonsensical justifications offered by people who hope Rand Paul is simply posturing or doesn't believe what he says. Truth of the matter, in my opinion, is that he very much does. Sure, he is better than anyone else to be running (including probably the LP candidate) but regardless what does that really mean? You can't expect any serious person to believe that Rand Paul's presidency would be veto after veto, the release of all nonviolent drug war related incarcerated prisoners or anything of the sort. The problem is systemic and not indicative of any one person. A top down approach would not only create a precedent for his successor, it simply would not work. We would be better off than if a war criminal authoritarian, or simply an authoritarian won, but really, the Constitution isn't going to save anyone short of people reading and comprehending the Constitution.


They should close that embassy. Anyone there knows the risk. Withdraw troops, and it never should have been built in the first place. What is the cost of it, do you figure? Not simply KBR's grossly overpriced and taxpayer subsidized meals mind you, but the true cost? What does it take to maintain the unmaintainable? Though conceding the point, I couldn't care less if they could maintain it or not. The entire thing is a slap in the face of morality and humanity, in general.


Yes they would. 'The people' (those that vote, that is) just need a little foreplay.


Educational in the wrong way, I'd argue. Most people, certainly most voters, would agree to the airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (and elsewhere). 'We' were doing so good in the rejection of the toppling of yet another government (to be replaced with a favorable puppet).


What evidence do you have that their reasoning is nefarious or that they did not agree with Ron Paul on his policy of non-interventionism but simply used this as a time to down Rand Paul?

The US congress will NEVER declare war on ISIS. Ever. You will get your undeclared black box war.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The US congress will NEVER declare war on ISIS. Ever. You will get your undeclared black box war.

The CIA operates under a different Title regardless (outside of the purview of Congress) so short of Rand Paul dissolving that agency (which he isn't going to be able to do and isn't even in favor of doing) the proxy wars would still be occurring. They were targeting, rendering, or assassinating people affiliated (or not, often) with ISIS long before there was even an acronym and long before John and Jane pissed their panties in a propagandized induced fit.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I have to object to this:

3. This point is less objectively true than the others, but quite frankly, I agree with Nicholas Sarwark, regardless of whether he is sincere or not. What Rand is doing, in my opinion, is simply immoral, even if it is utilitarian. Either he actually believes its moral to bomb ISIS, or he is telling lies that involve being complicit in the murder of thousands. Either way, that's a massive moral weight to carry on one's shoulders, even if he will be a big improvement. I still intend to vote for him, and I know some of the hard-core libertarians on here that mostly agree with me on other issues will probably judge me for it (the one an-cap friend I have in real life can't fathom how I could possibly like Rand.) But there's no way I could ever morally justify doing what he's doing. I'm not terribly likely to ever go into politics, but if I do, it will be Ron Paul style as much as I can, all principle and none of this stuff. Frankly, I think its immoral no matter why he's doing it. I wish he wouldn't do it, even if that meant not getting elected.

Rand's actions are not the cause of those bombings, and therefore he is not morally responsible for them.

Because if Rand did nothing at all, the bombings would still occur.

The only effect of Rand's actions (if any) will be to reduce the scope of the bombings.

Hence, he not responsible for the deaths which will occur, but is responsible for preventing the additional deaths which would have occurred had he done nothing.

By way of analogy...

Suppose there's an angry mob which wants to lynch both Bob and Jones, and they come to seek your opinion. You're considering what to do to prevent the lynchings, and you know you have the following options: (1) say nothing, in which case Bob and Jones will both be lynched, (2) argue against both lynchings, in which case Bob and Jones will both be lynched, or (3) argue in favor of lynching Bob, but against lynching Jones, in which case Bob will be lynched but Jones will be spared. Which is the moral choice? Clearly, the moral choice is option #3. If you take that option, you are responsible for saving Jones (because your action is a necessary cause of that effect - the effect would not have occurred otherwise) - but you are not responsible for killing Bob (your action is not a necessary cause of that effect - the effect would have occurred otherwise).

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The US congress will NEVER declare war on ISIS. Ever. You will get your undeclared black box war.

And what do you mean MY undeclared black box war?

That's a little uncalled for. I've been speaking against this empire for quite a while now.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

^This. I've never heard of a declaration of war that ends two wars first. Rand did a boss move and the LP didn't figure it out. Or at least this so called "leader" of it.

Or else, the LP doesn't fall in knee-jerk alignment with believing it will work, or that Rand's crafty positioning or compromise will make any difference at all in getting him the Republican nomination. Winning over some of the rank and file does NOT change the fact that the duopoly and MSM will be all out pushing Jeb and Hillary on us, and rigging coverage or primaries to make that happen. The LP rep is just serving notice they won't drop principles on a dime to pander to Rand's finesse strategies, with their if come/when come possibility of success. Lack of pandering goes both ways.

When the LP (in its own 'pragmatic' overture, in a divided convention vote) nominated Barr and Johnson, it was based on the credibility consideration of running people who had won major office (Congress, Governor) prior to running for President, and on the good-faith premise that both were moving towards a more principled liberty position. That is NOT the same thing as the party uniformly and deliberately dumping its platform simply to benefit a candidate who has rhetorically rejected a libertarian approach, is apparently not intent on running for the LP nomination, and has an iffy chance in the Republican primaries.

As it stands, Rand's best chance still lies in a fusion candidacy, where he repairs bridges with the LP and openly seeks their nomination, in addition to that of the GOP. This is the most sure-fire way of giving him the leverage to defeat the elite and MSM in the crucial early primaries, a leverage he does not have now. Until he does, he will most likely be unable to overcome the 'electability' meme the entire establishment will be singing at that time ('Jeb or Christie have it, Paul doesn't') to keep the rank and file voting for the establishment guy, just as they did in '08 and '12. Unless Rand gets out of GOP-only mode, he has a low probability of winning its nomination.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I have to object to this:



Rand's actions are not the cause of those bombings, and therefore he is not morally responsible for them.

Because if Rand did nothing at all, the bombings would still occur.

The only effect of Rand's actions (if any) will be to reduce the scope of the bombings.

Hence, he not responsible for the deaths which will occur, but is responsible for preventing the additional deaths which would have occurred had he done nothing.

By way of analogy...

Suppose there's an angry mob which wants to lynch both Bob and Jones, and they come to seek your opinion. You're considering what to do to prevent the lynchings, and you know you have the following options: (1) say nothing, in which case Bob and Jones will both be lynched, (2) argue against both lynchings, in which case Bob and Jones will both be lynched, or (3) argue in favor of lynching Bob, but against lynching Jones, in which case Bob will be lynched but Jones will be spared. Which is the moral choice? Clearly, the moral choice is option #3. If you take that option, you are responsible for saving Jones (because your action is a necessary cause of that effect - the effect would not have occurred otherwise) - but you are not responsible for killing Bob (your action is not a necessary cause of that effect - the effect would have occurred otherwise).

Assuming both are innocent, I would say the only moral option is to vote against lynching either one.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The CIA operates under a different Title regardless (outside of the purview of Congress) so short of Rand Paul dissolving that agency (which he isn't going to be able to do and isn't even in favor of doing) the proxy wars would still be occurring. They were targeting, rendering, or assassinating people affiliated (or not, often) with ISIS long before there was even an acronym and long before John and Jane pissed their panties in a propagandized induced fit.

If this were all true, it would be a lot easier to get a declaration of war out of congress.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If this were all true, it would be a lot easier to get a declaration of war out of congress.

The CIA operates under Title 50 providing them permission from the government to "prepare the battlefield." What that means is that they operate outside of normal Congressional oversight (that the military jokingly is said to have [they can't even be audited their books are so cooked]). The "battlefield" has been redefined as the entire world and indeed, they are active in near a hundred countries.

The military operates under Title 10. There are rules and norms that are supposed to be checked by Congress (as much of a joke as that is).

I don't know what your response is addressing with regards to my point (my point being, these 'dirty wars' would be occurring regardless of who the president was short of the CIA being abolished... as well as their like agencies). The president taking it upon himself to use the War Powers Resolution in conducting his own dirty war, and the Congress abdicating their responsibility means nothing of what John or Jane Doe believes or would support. As someone has pointed out, it is but one event away (manufactured or legitimate) for the people to come out in droves and show support for not simply the bombardment, but the stripping of people from their families to fight the propagandized cowards' perceived boogeymen (though certainly there are bad characters there). Rand Paul doesn't do any favors by further promoting war ready, nationalistic rhetoric (not to mention that he actually believes what he says). It is quite predictable what will occur. One, he quite possibly won't be elected so any favors he thought he'd be doing himself would be out the door (while the people still would not have heard an alternative option to bombing them or ground troops) and two, the wars are always preceded by this nationalistic, chest thumping and fear propaganda. I'll say it straight up. The videos looked fake as shit. Most Americans wouldn't care to watch them but regardless, they are suspect as all hell. Before this nationalistic, rights stripping nonsense is put into play, and the attempt to send me somewhere that I do not belong, how about those who are ready to promote another war (in any sense of the word) pick up a rifle and one way themselves there?

They don't declare war not because of a lack of support, though that is sometimes why... they don't declare a war because they have no respect for anything relating to the rule of law. Not that they could ever declare a war on my 'behalf.' They don't think they need to. The people are by and large drones. The Constitution is a living document the literate might offer. Most would just say "meh." And most voters would support that bullshit.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The CIA operates under Title 50 providing them permission from the government to "prepare the battlefield." What that means is that they operate outside of normal Congressional oversight (that the military jokingly is said to have [they can't even be audited their books are so cooked]). The "battlefield" has been redefined as the entire world and indeed, they are active in near a hundred countries.

The military operates under Title 10. There are rules and norms that are supposed to be checked by Congress (as much of a joke as that is).

I don't know what your response is addressing with regards to my point (my point being, these 'dirty wars' would be occurring regardless of who the president was short of the CIA being abolished... as well as their like agencies). The president taking it upon himself to use the War Powers Resolution in conducting his own dirty war, and the Congress abdicating their responsibility means nothing of what John or Jane Doe believes or would support. As someone has pointed out, it is but one event away (manufactured or legitimate) for the people to come out in droves and show support for not simply the bombardment, but the stripping of people from their families to fight the propagandized cowards' perceived boogeymen (though certainly there are bad characters there). Rand Paul doesn't do any favors by further promoting war ready, nationalistic rhetoric (not to mention that he actually believes what he says). It is quite predictable what will occur. One, he quite possibly won't be elected so any favors he thought he'd be doing himself would be out the door (while the people still would not have heard an alternative option to bombing them or ground troops) and two, the wars are always preceded by this nationalistic, chest thumping and fear propaganda. I'll say it straight up. The videos looked fake as shit. Most Americans wouldn't care to watch them but regardless, they are suspect as all hell. Before this nationalistic, rights stripping nonsense is put into play, and the attempt to send me somewhere that I do not belong, how about those who are ready to promote another war (in any sense of the word) pick up a rifle and one way themselves there?

They don't declare war not because of a lack of support, though that is sometimes why... they don't declare a war because they have no respect for anything relating to the rule of law. Not that they could ever declare a war on my 'behalf.' They don't think they need to. The people are by and large drones. The Constitution is a living document the literate might offer. Most would just say "meh." And most voters would support that bullshit.

The neocons and war hawks all oppose Rand Paul. The CIA needs a declaration of war just as much as the president does if they want to wage war.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The neocons and war hawks all oppose Rand Paul. The CIA needs a declaration of war just as much as the president does if they want to wage war.

To wordsmiths and lawyers, what you just said means little.

They don't wage war, they prepare the battlefield. The battlefield isn't a country war has been declared against, it's the entirety of the planet.

Same as imminent doesn't mean imminent, these bastards operate as they will. Short of dissolving quite a few of these agencies, this nonsense will continue.

(I apologize it took me so long to respond. I was looking for another thread and re-stumbled upon this one.)

 

[Galileo Galilei]

To wordsmiths and lawyers, what you just said means little.

They don't wage war, they prepare the battlefield. The battlefield isn't a country war has been declared against, it's the entirety of the planet.

Same as imminent doesn't mean imminent, these bastards operate as they will. Short of dissolving quite a few of these agencies, this nonsense will continue.

(I apologize it took me so long to respond. I was looking for another thread and re-stumbled upon this one.)

Rand Paul just voted against the war declaration in the senate committee.