Anti-liberty socialist Ralph Nader attacks Rand

[Christian Liberty]

Why are you getting so upset? I would never vote for Ralph Nader, but that doesn't mean he's wrong if he says "water is wet"...also, as I say in my sig line, I fully intend to vote for Rand in spite of his less-than-libertarian leanings.

Now, calm down

Exactly. Those who are agreeing with Nader here agree with him on the issue, not the messanger.

Ralph Nader is not a libertarian, or even close, I get that, but Rand Paul trying to give more money to the US Military is a SERIOUS issue, and honestly makes me afraid that we could be losing him too.

There's a lot of time between now and 2016. I remember him saying he wanted to audit the Pentagon not too long ago. Now he wants to give them more? What the heck?

 

[KEEF]

I wish I could +rep you again CC.

Got it covered

 

[Occam's Banana]

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 that is NOT "Jeffersonian." Jefferson did not advocate having or maintaining the largest or most powerful military in the world (let alone "in the history of man"). He advocated that the standing U.S. military should be wholly adequate to the task of preserving and defending America's territorial integrity - and no more. (Hell, the man didn't even think that there should be a standing Army in times of peace!) Given his clearly stated positon on this issue - and the particular reasons he cited for taking that position - 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 (as I said earlier). In other words, Jefferson did NOT desire that we should possess the ability to obliterate other countries - he desired only that we should possess the ability to adequately protect & defend this one. THAT is "Jeffersonian" ...

Perhaps Jefferson is wrong about this. But if so, then that would not make a (possibly truthful) contradiction of it "Jeffersonian" ...

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.

He advocated for a Navy that was fully adequate to the task of defending (in his words) "only ... our coasts and harbors" (not a globe-spanning fleet intended for the purpose of projecting imperium - which is what we have today). As I said in a previous post, there is no reason to think that he would feel any differently about an Air Force. (You seem to have erroneously imagined that I think Jefferson would be opposed to the existence of a standing Air Force. I do not believe that he would have been, for precisely the reasons you mention.) But - just as for the Navy - he would restrict the standing Air Force to the preservation and defense American territorial integrity ("only ... our borders and airspace," as it were).

 

[Rocco]

The problem is that he doesn't "critique", he makes statements and doesn't back them up. Kathy, I'll take you up on that challenge, list ALL of Rand's non libertarian positions and votes.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Occam's Banana, perhaps you do not understand what is meant when someone refers to Jeffersonian FP. It is not an approach that says "What would Jefferson do (or think)" but instead is one of the four major schools of thought of FP, and it is named (by Russell Meade in his work on the subject) for the president that he felt best represented the FP school of thought (the others being Wilsonian, Jacksonian and Hamiltonian).

So really, arguing what exactly Jefferson might have thought about this, that or the other thing is pointless. Because it really does not change the fact that non-interventionists of all shapes and colors are generally referred to as Jeffersonian. I will concede though that is one of the problems we have with labels, because apparently your idea of what is Jeffersonian differs from others, but I am using the generally accepted term as defined by Meade.

So take the Jeffersonian label out of it and I will repeat what I stand for, and have stood for for 40+ years. We should not intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations unless there is a direct threat against our country's interests, we should not have troops scattered throughout the world, we should not be involved in nation building, only Congress should declare war, and finally we should have the largest, most powerful military in the world so that if we are called to war we will win it decisively with minimal casualties on our end.

I frankly, don't give a shit if Jefferson would have agreed with me or not on all these points or not. It is what I stand for, and I feel my views line up pretty closely with where Rand is on these issues as well, which is one of the reasons I financially supported him and will support him when he runs in 2016.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Occam's Banana, perhaps you do not understand what is meant when someone refers to Jeffersonian FP. It is not an approach that says "What would Jefferson do (or think)" but instead is one of the four major schools of thought of FP, and it is named (by Russell Meade in his work on the subject) for the president that he felt best represented the FP school of thought (the others being Wilsonian, Jacksonian and Hamiltonian).

So really, arguing what exactly Jefferson might have thought about this, that or the other thing is pointless. Because it really does not change the fact that non-interventionists of all shapes and colors are generally referred to as Jeffersonian. I will concede though that is one of the problems we have with labels, because apparently your idea of what is Jeffersonian differs from others, but I am using the generally accepted term as defined by Meade.

So take the Jeffersonian label out of it and I will repeat what I stand for, and have stood for for 40+ years. We should not intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations unless there is a direct threat against our country's interests, we should not have troops scattered throughout the world, we should not be involved in nation building, only Congress should declare war, and finally we should have the largest, most powerful military in the world so that if we are called to war we will win it decisively with minimal casualties on our end.

I frankly, don't give a shit if Jefferson would have agreed with me or not on all these points or not. It is what I stand for, and I feel my views line up pretty closely with where Rand is on these issues as well, which is one of the reasons I financially supported him and will support him when he runs in 2016.

How would you explain each type/philosophy?

I don't know if this is about Nader or Rand. Whichever it is, I agree.

LOL!

The OP is certainly about Nader, for better or worse. I wouldn't call Rand an "Anti-liberty socialist" though. Technically he's a statist since he's not an anarchist, but I wouldn't call him anti-liberty or socialist, just not quite pro-liberty or capitalist enough.

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

Which aggravates me to no end. This isn't "Defense."

Why? The government doesn't spend anything on defense, but it does spend money on the military.

True.

The more I think about this thread, the more I don't like the title.

Nader may well be anti-liberty in some things. But in the content of the OP, he's being very pro-liberty, and he's legitimately criticizing Rand for being anti-liberty.

A better thread title would be, "Nader criticizing Rand for being even more of an anti-liberty socialist than himself."

LOL!

Rand is still light years more libertarian than any other major candidate. There is no chance of him "joining the establishment" as Nader seems to think has happened.

There's always a chance.

I agree he is light years more libertarian than others right now, but I continue to stress caution about further pandering to the establishmentarians...lest they see an opportunity to co-opt Rand, and he will be in too deep to refuse.

True that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Occam's Banana, perhaps you do not understand what is meant when someone refers to Jeffersonian FP. It is not an approach that says "What would Jefferson do (or think)" but instead is one of the four major schools of thought of FP, and it is named (by Russell Meade in his work on the subject) for the president that he felt best represented the FP school of thought (the others being Wilsonian, Jacksonian and Hamiltonian).

So really, arguing what exactly Jefferson might have thought about this, that or the other thing is pointless. Because it really does not change the fact that non-interventionists of all shapes and colors are generally referred to as Jeffersonian. I will concede though that is one of the problems we have with labels, because apparently your idea of what is Jeffersonian differs from others, but I am using the generally accepted term as defined by Meade.

Fair enough. This, at least, substantively addresses and resolves my confusion over your use of the term "Jeffersonian." (Speaking for myself, though, I'd much rather that "Smith"ian should be used to denote the actual thoughts, beliefs & doctrines of "Smith" - as that is the naturally intuited meaning of the word. Meade really should have used other, more accurately descriptive terms for such broad categories - if for no other reason than to avoid misunderstandings such as this.)

 

[Brett85]

Unlike some people who post here, I'm in favor of having a strong military and a strong national defense as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us. I'm not in favor of making huge cuts to our military and our defense infrastructure. But having said that, I certainly don't see any reason to actually spend more money on the military when we already have the largest military in the world, and it's insane to actually advocate increasing defense spending when we spend almost as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. We could have a strong military, a strong defense infrastructure, and still spend considerably less on national defense than we're currently spending. So I can't say that I really disagree with Nader's criticism if Rand said what Nader claimed he said. My guess is that Rand just feels he has to say certain things in order to appeal to Republican voters and have a better chance to win the GOP primary in 2016.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Unlike some people who post here, I'm in favor of having a strong military and a strong national defense as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us. I'm not in favor of making huge cuts to our military and our defense infrastructure. But having said that, I certainly don't see any reason to actually spend more money on the military when we already have the largest military in the world, and it's insane to actually advocate increasing defense spending when we spend almost as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. We could have a strong military, a strong defense infrastructure, and still spend considerably less on national defense than we're currently spending. So I can't say that I really disagree with Nader's criticism if Rand said what Nader claimed he said. My guess is that Rand just feels he has to say certain things in order to appeal to Republican voters and have a better chance to win the GOP primary in 2016.

For curiosity, have you ever read what James Madison had to say about Standing Armies, and did you simply reject it? Or are you unfamiliar with it? I wasn't familiar with why Madison opposed standing armies until recently, and my mind was opened.

I support a strong navy, air force, and militia, for DEFENSE. I'm opposed to a standing army, and I'm certainly opposed to "Defense" as it is currently defined.

Regarding Rand's comments, I don't expect him to agree with the Founders on Standing Army, but how the heck does he intend to maintain the support of the Ron Paul Movement when he says crap like that? Right now, I'm voting for him but its definitely a "Lesser of evils" type of vote. I'm genuinely afraid that Rand could support more crappy foreign policy than I believe that he does.

 

[PatriotOne]

The issue is Rand's less-than-libertarian leanings.

Cajun the Libertarian police...lol. You do realize this isn't an exclusive forum for "Libertarians" right and we don't care if he follows your libertarian playbook?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Cajun the Libertarian police...lol. You do realize this isn't an exclusive forum for "Libertarians" right and we don't care if he follows your libertarian playbook?

Aaaawwww....good think I don't care if "we" care.

 

[Brett85]

For curiosity, have you ever read what James Madison had to say about Standing Armies, and did you simply reject it? Or are you unfamiliar with it? I wasn't familiar with why Madison opposed standing armies until recently, and my mind was opened.

I support a strong navy, air force, and militia, for DEFENSE. I'm opposed to a standing army, and I'm certainly opposed to "Defense" as it is currently defined.

I know that most of our founders were opposed to having a standing army. I don't necessarily believe that the circumstances that we live in today are the same as when our country was founded. If our country were attacked today and we had no standing army, it wouldn't work to wait 6 months to a year to train an army in order to respond to the attack on our soil. I think we need to have an army prepared and ready to respond to an attack immediately after it happens. Of course, I'm saying that we should have our troops on military bases here at home, rather than having them spread out overseas.

 

[osan]

OK, a hit piece from a corrupt, third-rate hack who refuses to do the morally decent thing and die.

Does this surprise anyone?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I know that most of our founders were opposed to having a standing army. I don't necessarily believe that the circumstances that we live in today are the same as when our country was founded. If our country were attacked today and we had no standing army, it wouldn't work to wait 6 months to a year to train an army in order to respond to the attack on our soil. I think we need to have an army prepared and ready to respond to an attack immediately after it happens. Of course, I'm saying that we should have our troops on military bases here at home, rather than having them spread out overseas.

I would maintain that the prospect for using a standing army for tyranny remains a reality.

The navy, air force, and militia would still be able to respond.

OK, a hit piece from a corrupt, third-rate hack who refuses to do the morally decent thing and die.

Does this surprise anyone?

I'm no fan of Nader, but seriously? That's extreme.

Rand is wrong on at least some of the issues he mentioned. That Nader is an idiot doesn't change anything.

To paraphrase Cajuncocoa- An idiot is nonetheless correct when he says water is wet.

 

[Brett85]

I would maintain that the prospect for using a standing army for tyranny remains a reality.

If our government decided to start killing Americans and enact absolute tyranny on the American people, they wouldn't need a standing army to do it. They have enough nuclear weapons to keep the American people in check and enact tyranny on them if they chose to.

 

[TaftFan]

Cajun the Libertarian police...lol. You do realize this isn't an exclusive forum for "Libertarians" right and we don't care if he follows your libertarian playbook?

Can I use this?

 

[klamath]

I know that most of our founders were opposed to having a standing army. I don't necessarily believe that the circumstances that we live in today are the same as when our country was founded. If our country were attacked today and we had no standing army, it wouldn't work to wait 6 months to a year to train an army in order to respond to the attack on our soil. I think we need to have an army prepared and ready to respond to an attack immediately after it happens. Of course, I'm saying that we should have our troops on military bases here at home, rather than having them spread out overseas.

I agree and we had this thread years ago on here and quite the number of trained military people that have since left explained it as well. The founding fathers may have been against standing armies but they sure ran screaming to the French to try and train our pathetic militias. I don't really much feel like arguing with 18 year olds that believe they have graduated from every war college in the world and therefore know everything in the world about tactics, training and strategy. Kind of like arguing with a liberal about needing a weapon to defend you home before it is invaded. I can buy one and defend myself AFTER I have been invaded......

 

[erowe1]

If our government decided to start killing Americans and enact absolute tyranny on the American people, they wouldn't need a standing army to do it. They have enough nuclear weapons to keep the American people in check and enact tyranny on them if they chose to.

That wouldn't work. They would need boots on the ground. The dairy farmer needs his cows to keep producing milk.

 

[PatriotOne]

Can I use this?

As often as you want...lol.

Edit to say: Just try not to offend libertarians in general. Just the ones who flog everyone who doesn't follow their version of the Libertarian playbook. I like most Libertarians.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Can I use this?