Anti-liberty socialist Ralph Nader attacks Rand

[erowe1]

But that is the ideal, and something we are very far away from. Not even a Ron Paul presidency would have achieved that goal. So from Rand's perspective, we should start by cutting wasteful spending in the military, prior to any reduction in personnel.

But at least we could be reasonably confident that Ron Paul would have seen cuts in military spending as good, not bad.

Personally, if I were to prioritize military spending, I would call the merely wasteful parts of it the most benign.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The best point that can be taken from Nader's article is that eternal vigilance and extreme caution is warranted when dealing with big business. "Deregulation" has almost become synonymous with "big business lobbyists wrote a Bill for us". Just because a proposal is being couched in terms such as "free market", "deregulation" and "pro-business" does not alter the fact that it is almost always something being proposed by powerful corporate interests, for their own advantage, and usually at the expense of tax-payers and smaller competitors.

There was a debate on the radio the other day between an "environmental leftist" and an "energy expert". The energy expert was the former CEO of one of the biggest Oil corporations, and is now the head of a big oil lobby group. The "energy expert" was pushing for opening new areas for drilling and fracking, new pipelines, etc. A very "free market" approach, especially with regard to utilizing what is currently "public land" (and probably some eminent domain behind the scenes for good measure). Plus it will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Sound good? This is the trap. Is this pro-free-market? Is it "libertarian"?

The guests mildly disagreed on the issues of where and how to drill and transport oil. The oil man also argued that more pipelines out of the US are needed, because oil can't get to the international market, thus it is at an artificially low price in the US. "It's not free market (enough)! It's socialism!"

The most interesting part was their areas of agreement. The Oil man completely agreed with following to the letter any and all pollution and environmental regulations and laws (probably written by his buddies). He was very vigorous about it, so much so that he spewed some angry words at "wildcatters" and small Oil operations that supposedly create pollution and ignore regulation. They needed to squashed, shut-down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Nader is correct when it comes to corporate lobbyists. Getting in bed with these lobbyists is not a good idea, and all of their proposals for regulation or supposed "deregulation" should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Or just ignored completely.

 

[mad cow]

My point is that this article and conversation has nothing to do with Nader. He is not the subject of the article.

He is the author of the article so the conversation has much to do with Nader,unless you believe that every article,or book for that matter,on any subject had nothing to do with the author.
Do you think two books on economics,for instance,are interchangeable if one is written by Mises and the other by Keynes?

 

[AuH20]

Pat Buchanan supports organized labor and tariffs. Rand does not.

Do you think Rand would have voted for NAFTA?

 

[Brett85]

I'm pretty sure that all of Rand's budget proposals and positions would have a net decrease in military funding.

The last budget that Rand introduced contained a slight increase in the defense budget.

 

[compromise]

Do you think Rand would have voted for NAFTA?

The Panama, Colombia and Korea free trade agreements were far better than NAFTA from a fiscally conservative perspective. I honestly do not know whether Rand would have voted for NAFTA, nor do I think it is particularly relevant to the issues we face today.

 

[Rocco]

I don't know what's the worst thing about this thread; that people are using a socialists critique of Rand's liberty credentials as a valid argument, that people think a budget that cuts 500 billion from the budget and eliminates 3 departments is bad because it restores the sequester funds, or that people are acting like Rand has not already laid out a foreign policy which is the least interventionist in recent American history.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jeffersons own

There is a difference between having a standing army and having a large, strong military force. As the quote from Jefferson illustrates, optimally we would have a standing Navy to defend the coasts. And in this modern day, having an Air Force at the ready is also prudent - something that could not have been foreseen in Jefferson's days of course.

The additional quote you provide just reinforces the point that support for "a very strong, very large military force" is NOT "Jeffersonian."

Jefferson opposed the existence of a standing Army in times of peace and believed that we should possess a Navy "only as may protect our coasts and harbors" [emphasis added] - and not a Navy "which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." (Of those two kinds of Navy, the latter is clearly the kind we have today.) And I very seriously doubt Jefferson's sentiments would be any different with respect to the Air Force.

I see no reason to think that Jefferson would regard the U.S. military as it exists today (Army, Navy, Air Force and all) as anything but a bloated and dangerous monstrosity.

 

[klamath]

The additional quote you provide just reinforces the point that support for "a very strong, very large military force" is NOT "Jeffersonian."

Jefferson opposed the existence of a standing Army in times of peace and believed that we should possess a Navy "only as may protect our coasts and harbors" [emphasis added] - and not a Navy "which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." (Of those two kinds of Navy, the latter is clearly the kind we have today.) And I very seriously doubt Jefferson's sentiments would be any different with respect to the Air Force.

I see no reason to think that Jefferson would regard the U.S. military as it exists today (Army, Navy, Air Force and all) as anything but a bloated and dangerous monstrosity.

Yeaw we know Jefferson was against armies. He made sure HE didn't fight in the rev war. The father of the chicken hawks.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't know what's the worst thing about this thread;
that people are using a socialists critique of Rand's liberty credentials as a valid argument

I know what's worse: completely discrediting a critique because of the source.

that people think a budget that cuts 500 billion from the budget and eliminates 3 departments is bad because it restores the sequester funds

I know what's worse: lying about people saying that a budget is "bad" when nobody has said such a thing. We are saying the aspect of the budget which increases defense spending is bad, not the budget as a whole.

or that people are acting like Rand has not already laid out a foreign policy which is the least interventionist in recent American history.

I know what's worse: lying again about what people are saying (nobody seems to even be talking about foreign policy in this thread). Anyway, it's not the least interventionist foreign policy laid out (Ron's was less interventionist for example), unless you are saying that his foreign policy is less interventionist than that of any of our recent administrations, which nobody would argue against.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yeaw we know Jefferson was against armies. He made sure HE didn't fight in the rev war. The father of the chicken hawks.

And this would have what to do with what, exactly ... ?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The additional quote you provide just reinforces the point that support for "a very strong, very large military force" is NOT "Jeffersonian."

Jefferson opposed the existence of a standing Army in times of peace and believed that we should possess a Navy "only as may protect our coasts and harbors" [emphasis added] - and not a Navy "which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." (Of those two kinds of Navy, the latter is clearly the kind we have today.) And I very seriously doubt Jefferson's sentiments would be any different with respect to the Air Force.

I see no reason to think that Jefferson would regard the U.S. military as it exists today (Army, Navy, Air Force and all) as anything but a bloated and dangerous monstrosity.

I am not saying the military we have today is by any means ideal. And I have stated earlier what I would optimally like to see. However, we are getting way off track because what you or I or Jefferson would want in a perfect world, is not what we are dealing with today. So as far as Rand stands on the issue, he has to deal with the realistic and not the idealistic.

And you really have no idea what Jefferson's sentiments would be regarding an Air Force. I think more realistic is that if Jefferson saw a B-52 flying overhead he would probably run and hide in his cellar thinking that demons had attacked the world.

 

[donnay]

Yeaw we know Jefferson was against armies. He made sure HE didn't fight in the rev war. The father of the chicken hawks.

Chicken Hawk? WTF? The Declaration of Independence put a bull's-eye on his head. You forget had he been caught he would have been executed in the town square. He didn't have a security team watch 24-7 either.

 

[JCDenton0451]

I know what's worse: completely discrediting a critique because of the source.

This. It is so stupid, but most people seem to be incapable separating an idea from the messenger. Nader isn't attacking Rand's budget for gutting programs for the poor. His critique is focused on corporate welfare and military spending.

 

[robert68]

Not at all. We should have a standing Navy & Air Force (as I stated above) and I would add an reserve as well since modern warfare weaponry requires far more training than in colonial days (i.e. not every Ton, Dick or Harry has the knowledge how to operate a tank)

But that is the ideal, and something we are very far away from. Not even a Ron Paul presidency would have achieved that goal. So from Rand's perspective, we should start by cutting wasteful spending in the military, prior to any reduction in personnel.

One of the unilateral powers a President has is troop usage and that includes the power to bring troops abroad back home. It was a clear position of Ron Paul to bring the troops abroad home. And doing so would save a great deal of money.

 

[klamath]

Chicken Hawk? WTF? The Declaration of Independence put a bull's-eye on his head. You forget had he been caught he would have been executed in the town square. He didn't have a security team watch 24-7 either.

Every single soldier had a bullseye on their forehead. Jefferson made sure his never got near musket fire but he sure could talk eloquently about watering the tree of liberty. I called all the Republican chicken hawks chicken hawk and Jefferson was no exception. He was good with other people fighting his wars.

 

[kathy88]

YES! Can't rep you again now, will someone please cover this?

Gotcha back sista.

 

[anaconda]

I love Ralph but he seems to have a very poor understanding of economics. Yet, in Ralph's defense, it seems inevitable to me that Rand will have to make many deals to become President. I just hope we have a very significant net gain out of the deals. And that the deals are minimized as much as possible.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I am not saying the military we have today is by any means ideal. And I have stated earlier what I would optimally like to see. However, we are getting way off track because what you or I or Jefferson would want in a perfect world, is not what we are dealing with today. So as far as Rand stands on the issue, he has to deal with the realistic and not the idealistic.

I haven't expressed any "shoulds" or "oughts" on the matter, one way or the other.
Nor have I made reference to a "perfect world" or "idealism" of any kind ...

I merely remarked upon the (obvious) strangeness of explicitly characterizing the maintenance of "a very strong, very large military force" as "Jeffersonian" - nothing more, nothing less. My original question to you ("Did you mean 'Despite being' rather than 'As'?") was not rhetorical but was born of genuine curiosity - as I honestly did not understand how such a statement could be reconciled with itself. (I still do not.) Your reply (and the Jefferson quote you supplied) did not resolve the contradiction, but only seemed to deepen it.

And you really have no idea what Jefferson's sentiments would be regarding an Air Force. I think more realistic is that if Jefferson saw a B-52 flying overhead he would probably run and hide in his cellar thinking that demons had attacked the world.

Oh, come on - what an absurdly clumsy dodge! There is nothing about the military application of aviation technology that would serve to significantly alter the normative substance of the "Jeffersonian" position on issues of national defense and the proper size & scope of the military. That is the point - and you know it. Invoking speculation as to what Thomas Jefferson's physical & emotional reaction might be to encountering modern technology is just asininely grotesque and utterly, cartoonishly irrelevant.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I have not expressed any "shoulds" or "oughts" on the matter, one way or the other.
Nor have I made reference to a "perfect world" or any kind of "idealism" ...

I merely remarked upon the (obvious) strangeness of characterizing the maintenance of "a very strong, very large military force" as "Jeffersonian" - nothing more, nothing less. My original question to you ("Did you mean 'Despite being' rather than 'As'?") was not rhetorical but was born of genuine curiosity - as I honestly did not understand how such a statement could be reconciled with itself. (I still do not.) Your reply did not resolve the contradiction, but only seemed to deepen it.



Oh, come on - what an absurdly clumsy dodge! There is nothing about the military application of aviation technology that would serve to significantly alter the normative substance of Jefferson's position on the issues of national defense and the proper size & scope of the military. That is the point - and you know it. Invoking speculation as to what Jefferson's physical & emotional reaction might be to encountering modern technology is just asininely grotesque and utterly irrelevant.

I meant, "as". And like myself, there have been others who hold to a Jeffersonian view of FP that want a strong military (Rand, Ron, Amash, et al). Jeffersonian FP does not mean that we need to be weakened in our national defense. Quite the contrary, as if we stopped over extending ourselves and withdrew from many of the conflicts in the world, we would be even stronger with our defense by having our troops here at home.

I am a Jeffersonian and have been all my adult life. I believe that we need to make securing our borders the top national security priority, that only Congress should declare war, that we should only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home and that we should never be involved in any nation building. And I also believe that we should have the strongest, most efficient, best trained, and most state of the art military in the history of man, so that if we do need to go to war, we will kick ass and destroy our enemies with minimal loss of our men, and so that no country or organization in their right mind would ever dream of fucking with us.

And regarding air technology, Jefferson advocated for a standing Navy because other countries could use ships to come to our coasts and attack us, therefore we needed a Navy to protect our country. Today, other countries could use planes to invade us, therefore we should have a standing Air Force. Now, if that Air Force is part of the Navy or not is debatable but there is nothing in the Jeffersonian view that suggests that we should not have the ability to defend our country in the air.