Schiff on Iran

[Barney]

A lot of people on this forum have trouble distinguishing between preemptive warfare and non-interventionism. Any non-interventionist can support preemptive tactics without sacrificing their non-interventionist ideals.

I disagree. If you assert to right to kill someone on the premise that someday they might kill you, then you are not a "non-interventionist". Because by virtue of that initial unjust act, you will have altered the public and political direction, and usually in a bad way. In fact, a preemptive bombing will do more to "intervene" than sanctions imposed by those you would label "interventionists".

 

[Barney]

They all want to end the fed? Count it.

Point taken.

 

[Barney]

Foreign policy is the only difference between neo-cons and libertarians? News to me considering many domestic issues supported by Hannity and Co that I find reprehensible.

IMHO there is no watershed issue - look at the Nolan chart - your position on it is derived from a combination of issues. That is the standard we should hold for candidates: with all things considered, where does the candidate fall? Schiff falls firmly in the libertarian quadrant of the chart, so IMHO he's a good candidate.

Libertarians believe in the rights of EVERY individual to their Life, Liberty and Property. Schiff believes Americans are entitled to those rights, but the Life, Liberty and Property of Iraqi's, Iranians and whatever the boogieman du jour the military industrial complex concocts are his to decide. Is that a big "L", little "L" or some twisted "L" libertarian?

Believe me, I was very excited about Schiff's candidacy. Even more so than Rand's. That's all changed for me, but hey, to each his own.

 

[G-Wohl]

Libertarians believe in the rights of EVERY individual to their Life, Liberty and Property. Schiff believes Americans are entitled to those rights, but the Life, Liberty and Property of Iraqi's, Iranians and whatever the boogieman du jour the military industrial complex concocts are his to decide. Is that a big "L", little "L" or some twisted "L" libertarian?

Believe me, I was very excited about Schiff's candidacy. Even more so than Rand's. That's all changed for me, but hey, to each his own.

If libertarians believe in LLP for ALL individuals, then how do libertarians enforce it? They would have to do it by means of force. They would need to, by necessity, establish Constitutional Republics in every country on the planet. That's a complete contradiction of non-interventionism.

The problem is that you cannot examine one's rights by axiomatically believing in "liberty." The government, not the individual, is responsible for protecting citizens from domestic and foreign forces. That means that the individual's government is responsible for their protection, and that individual must sanction that government's existence. If a government isn't protecting individual rights, then it is the citizens' duty to remove that government from power, or go elsewhere.

If a government attacks us, it is our responsibility to end that threat swiftly, efficiently, and with as few lives and treasures lost as possible.

If you guarantee all peoples individual rights, then you have taken on the responsibility to enforce them. A free country can only guarantee its own citizens protection of individual rights. Otherwise, that country is engaging in interventionism.

All people are entitled to individual rights, but it is up to the individual to obtain them.

 

[erowe1]

If libertarians believe in LLP for ALL individuals, then how do libertarians enforce it? They would have to do it by means of force. They would need to, by necessity, establish Constitutional Republics in every country on the planet. That's a complete contradiction of non-interventionism.

I think you're mixing positive and negative rights. A libertarian might say that all people have these rights to life, liberty, and property, but that their having these rights only affects you inasmuch as it prohibits you from infringing on them. It does not mean that you are obligated to intervene (at the expense of your own rights to life, liberty, and property) when someone else tresspasses that person's rights. Of course you, as an individual, may feel that you are obligated to intervene at your own expense to help someone overseas, and even perhaps to use force against some enemy who is trampling their rights, and you may even be able to work with a great many other people who feel the same way about the justness of their intervening to help there. But, from a libertarian perspective, you can't impose that obligation on your neighbors, by using lethal force to make them pay the bill, or by conscripting them into service. Intervention, when done by a state, always involves those kinds of things.

 

[G-Wohl]

I think you're mixing positive and negative rights. A libertarian might say that all people have these rights to life, liberty, and property, but that their having these rights only affects you inasmuch as it prohibits you from infringing on them. It does not mean that you are obligated to intervene (at the expense of your own rights to life, liberty, and property) when someone else tresspasses that person's rights. Of course you, as an individual, may feel that you are obligated to intervene at your own expense to help someone overseas, and even perhaps to use force against some enemy who is trampling their rights, and you may even be able to work with a great many other people who feel the same way about the justness of their intervening to help there. But, from a libertarian perspective, you can't impose that obligation on your neighbors, by using lethal force to make them pay the bill, or by conscripting them into service. Intervention, when done by a state, always involves those kinds of things.

Governments forfeit their rights to LLP when they bring about force against a free country. Because individuals sanction the actions of governments, that also means that the individuals have forfeited their rights as well.

 

[erowe1]

Governments forfeit their rights to LLP when they bring about force against a free country. Because individuals sanction the actions of governments [huh?], that also means that the individuals have forfeited their rights as well.

I don't understand. It looks like you're saying that, because Bush invaded Iraq, I have forfeited my rights to my property, and Bush can then freely take whatever he wants from me to fund the intervention that I don't sanction. I don't claim to be a great representative of libertarianism, but I can't fathom how that idea could be called libertarian.

 

[G-Wohl]

I don't understand. It looks like you're saying that, because Bush invaded Iraq, I have forfeited my rights to my property, and Bush can then freely take whatever he wants from me to fund the intervention that I don't sanction. I don't claim to be a great representative of libertarianism, but I can't fathom how that idea could be called libertarian.

No. I am saying that if a country attacks the US, that country has forfeited its right to LLP and its citizens' rights to LLP. Not a single non-interventionist, nor capitalist, would have supported the Iraq war.

I am not a libertarian, and don't claim to be one.

 

[MatM]

Honestly, I'm not taking too much from his conversation after the town hall a few weeks ago. The gentleman started with, "I like a lot about Ron Paul, but his foreign policy concerns me." Or something similar to that and Peter's response had a few "ifs" and "would haves". I don't think it was a carefully thought out response and I think he was inclined to give an agreeable response.

I don't think Peter has a fully formed foreign policy opinion, I think his primary focus has been fiscal and monetary. I feel confident that after a few discussions with Ron Paul on the subject he will be a non-interventionist. He was on RP's campaign, but as an economic/financial adviser and I doubt his discussions with the Dr. covered foreign policy.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Libertarians believe in the rights of EVERY individual to their Life, Liberty and Property. Schiff believes Americans are entitled to those rights, but the Life, Liberty and Property of Iraqi's, Iranians and whatever the boogieman du jour the military industrial complex concocts are his to decide. Is that a big "L", little "L" or some twisted "L" libertarian?

Libertarians are a portion of the political spectrum, they are not the single-axiom minarchists that Libertarian Party fruit loops try to paint them as. It's possible to support the war in Iraq (which Schiff never said he did), or a bombing of an Iranian nuclear site, and still be libertarian.

Believe me, I was very excited about Schiff's candidacy. Even more so than Rand's. That's all changed for me, but hey, to each his own.

I'm just trying to communicate to you that unless you lower the bar from 100% adherene to your personal ideology, you're never going to be satisfied. Schiff brings a lot to the Senate, and we should support him.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Honestly, I'm not taking too much from his conversation after the town hall a few weeks ago. The gentleman started with, "I like a lot about Ron Paul, but his foreign policy concerns me." Or something similar to that and Peter's response had a few "ifs" and "would haves". I don't think it was a carefully thought out response and I think he was inclined to give an agreeable response.

I don't think Peter has a fully formed foreign policy opinion, I think his primary focus has been fiscal and monetary. I feel confident that after a few discussions with Ron Paul on the subject he will be a non-interventionist. He was on RP's campaign, but as an economic/financial adviser and I doubt his discussions with the Dr. covered foreign policy.

I understand Schiff's reticence to give non-interventionist foreign policy answers - because it's a GOP non-starter. Rand Paul walks the magic line PERFECTLY. His answers give enough fodder to the "peace through strength" GOP ideology without caving to open neoconservative empire-building. It's important to walk the fine line because, at the end of the day, this is a GOP primary.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I disagree. If you assert to right to kill someone on the premise that someday they might kill you, then you are not a "non-interventionist".

What if you replace "someday they might kill you" with "are shown to be actively planning to kill you"?

 

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Peter Schiff Picking His Battles

The gentleman started with, "I like a lot about Ron Paul, but his foreign policy concerns me." Or something similar to that and Peter's response had a few "ifs" and "would haves". I don't think it was a carefully thought out response and I think he was inclined to give an agreeable response.

I feel confident that after a few discussions with Ron Paul on the subject he will be a non-interventionist. He was on RP's campaign, but as an economic/financial adviser and I doubt his discussions with the Dr. covered foreign policy.

I agree, Schiff is merely picking his battles so that he can get elected. If he started discussing the rationale behind a non-interventionist foreign policy as well as the true nature of our involvement in the Middle East the McCain-Palin sheep would never vote for him. The man's not stupid; he's trying to win a Senatorial election against a well-known incumbent.

Rand Paul is employing a similar strategy. On his campaign website, he begins his article on national defense with this:

“Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.” (www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/)

This could also be misconstrued if taken out of context:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy." (www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/)

A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Supports a Neocon Foreign Policy http://www.wearechangenewjersey.org/?q=node/884

 

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

I understand Schiff's reticence to give non-interventionist foreign policy answers - because it's a GOP non-starter. Rand Paul walks the magic line PERFECTLY. His answers give enough fodder to the "peace through strength" GOP ideology without caving to open neoconservative empire-building. It's important to walk the fine line because, at the end of the day, this is a GOP primary.

Thank God someone here understands campaign strategy.

 

[Liberty Star]

Please note...

1. Peter said 'if'.

2. The USA is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the U.S. Constitution mandates the government to honour international treaties and enforce armistice where required. Remember, Part V of the Treaty of Versailles placed restrictions on the German Army, Navy and Air Force. The Allies' failure to enforce these restrictions lead to another World War, one much worse that saw more than one hundred million dead. Treaties are made for good reason and ought to be kept for even better reason.

3. Schiff is running for Senate, not Congress. He will only be able to vote on funding for a war Congress declares. Peter will not be starting any wars.

Actually Senate is way more important than House when it comes to Foreign Policy, Senate Foreign Relations Committee is one of the most instrumental Congress bodies in shaping America's Foreign Policy.

Another question is does Shiff apply same standards for a tax payer funded invasion for Iran or Israel under a nuclear NP treaty?

 

[klamath]

I agree, Schiff is merely picking his battles so that he can get elected. If he started discussing the rationale behind a non-interventionist foreign policy as well as the true nature of our involvement in the Middle East the McCain-Palin sheep would never vote for him. The man's not stupid; he's trying to win a Senatorial election against a well-known incumbent.

Rand Paul is employing a similar strategy. On his campaign website, he begins his article on national defense with this:

“Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.” (www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/)

This could also be misconstrued if taken out of context:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy." (www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/)

A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Supports a Neocon Foreign Policy http://www.wearechangenewjersey.org/?q=node/884

I think it is time to drop the gerneral slamming of McCain and Palin for their views on foeign policy. It is getting very hypocritical. We may not agree with those views but the "Sheep" shit needs to come to a halt.

 

[Keller1967]

I think it is time to drop the gerneral slamming of McCain and Palin for their views on foeign policy. It is getting very hypocritical. We may not agree with those views but the "Sheep" shit needs to come to a halt.

So that acceptance of a diet neocon agenda can move one step forward?

 

[G-Wohl]

I think it is time to drop the gerneral slamming of McCain and Palin for their views on foeign policy. It is getting very hypocritical. We may not agree with those views but the "Sheep" shit needs to come to a halt.

I agree 110%. The people who go around making up juvenile names for morons are no less morons themselves. It gives off a really bad image, and certainly makes me feel embarrassed for supporting Peter Schiff at times.

Peter conducts himself quite well - sharp, witty, always factually accurate, and friendly. We should be conducting ourselves the same way.

 

[klamath]

I would disagree, and G-Wohl sums up my position on this nicely.



Every Republican always pretends to be a fiscal conservative. Schiff is clearly not just selling fiscal conservatism as a campaign strategy.


Foreign policy is the only difference between neo-cons and libertarians? News to me considering many domestic issues supported by Hannity and Co that I find reprehensible.

IMHO there is no watershed issue - look at the Nolan chart - your position on it is derived from a combination of issues. That is the standard we should hold for candidates: with all things considered, where does the candidate fall? Schiff falls firmly in the libertarian quadrant of the chart, so IMHO he's a good candidate.

Actually Schiff doesn't have a voting record we can look at. We only know what he says in his campaign. And there are a hell of a lot of fiscal conservatives republicans in congress.

 

[rawful]

Actually Schiff doesn't have a voting record we can look at. We only know what he says in his campaign.

And his countless media appearances. He risked his reputation for years going on all those shows and being ganged up on. If he was going to sell out on that issue, I think it would have happened by now.