Talks about foreign policy at about 2:00
He says "we don't need our troops in there", meaning Iraq and Afghanistan. I also saw a vid of him where he was asked if he would have passed the GI Bill, and would not give a direct answer. In other words, he does not really say what he thinks of foreign policy and he likes to talk in terms of the collective, "we" instead of "the government".
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
How is this Peter Schiff being neocon? From my understanding, natural rights and natural law are very big parts of libertarianism. A part of natural law includes the right to seek restitution from aggressors. Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice. In fact, going after Bin Laden and his cronies was the morally correct thing to do.
Political Atheists Blog
He also said in the first Crash Proof that WW2 was an expensive war that the US unfortunately had to fight. He's no anarchist. Also, I don't think it would have been wrong for the U.S. to send in a small force to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan (if he was really there a few months before the invasion). But Iran and Iraq are totally uncalled for.
I wouldn't call him a neocon though. Neoconservatives are members an intellectual movement whose roots lie in the Trotskyite and Menshevic wings of the communist movement. They are, essentially, social democrats in conservative clothing. Peter Schiff is a plain fiscal conservative with an understanding of economics.
Spideynw:I also saw a vid of him where he was asked if he would have passed the GI Bill, and would not give a direct answer. In other words, he does not really say what he thinks of foreign policy
He wouldn't give a direct answer because he hadn't made up his mind at that point. The GI Bill, in Peter Schiff's view, has to do with compensation for services rendered by members of the military, not with war. This is obviously a tricky question to deal with, since on the one hand soldiers do deserve compensation (especially if many of them die in pointless wars of occupation), but on the other hand, the US government is insolvent.
krazy kaju: How is this Peter Schiff being neocon? From my understanding, natural rights and natural law are very big parts of libertarianism. A part of natural law includes the right to seek restitution from aggressors. Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice. In fact, going after Bin Laden and his cronies was the morally correct thing to do.
He said if he "knew" Iraq had WMDs, he would have taken them out. He also [sort] of justified going after Iran if they have WMDs.
That sounds like a neo-con to me.
krazy kaju:Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice. In fact, going after Bin Laden and his cronies was the morally correct thing to do.
RP being as radical as possible again.. imo it largely amounts to: let the PDA's go after them... lol
DD5:He said if he "knew" Iraq had WMDs, he would have taken them out. He also [sort] of justified going after Iran if they have WMDs.
He's justifying going after the WMDs, not starting an endless war of occupation. There's a difference.
Imagine, for a moment, that we lived in an anarchocapitalist society and one foreign country is threatening nuclear war. Do you think PDAs would stand idly by or would they act to end the threat?
DD5:That sounds like a neo-con to me.
That sounds like you don't know what a neocon is or the difference between the Old Right, the New Right, and neoconservatism. Peter Schiff seems to be seated in the New Right camp. Barry Goldwater was the founder of the New Right.
krazy kaju:How is this Peter Schiff being neocon? From my understanding, natural rights and natural law are very big parts of libertarianism. A part of natural law includes the right to seek restitution from aggressors. Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice.
Really? So you don't think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?
krazy kaju:Imagine, for a moment, that we lived in an anarchocapitalist society and one foreign country is threatening nuclear war. Do you think PDAs would stand idly by or would they act to end the threat?
That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat.[
Schiff is no neocon, but he proves himself here to be, like most Americans, a foreign policy airhead. Trouble is, unlike most Americans Schiff is running for federal office. He is a good guy, but his run is beginning to look like a big, big mistake. If he is going to go on with this he should get a serious crash course in foreign affairs from Ron.
krazy kaju:Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice.
DD5: Talks about foreign policy at about 2:00
That's hardly being a neocon. He's not a perfect anarcho-capitalist, but he is working towards a smaller government.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
He said if he "knew" Iraq had WMDs, he would have taken them out. He also [sort] of justified going after Iran if they have WMDs. That sounds like a neo-con to me.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
How is this Peter Schiff being neocon? From my understanding, natural rights and natural law are very big parts of libertarianism. A part of natural law includes the right to seek restitution from aggressors.
Better than almost all other choices for politicians, Schiff is a combination of Ron Paul with some Ayn Rand tendencies (on foreign policy). He was against Irag, and has said repeatedly to bring home all the troops from Korea, Japan, Germany, etc... which makes him pretty high up on the non-intervention meter and a move in the right direction. Rather than dramatize some of his less than perfect answers from an Anarchist standpoint, everyone should really embrace that a real small government private citizen with tremendous Austrian economic knowledge could actually become a US Senator!
Unfortunately, Schiff, unlike Rand Paul, is a somebody, an accomplished entrepreneur, speaker, author and guest on finance shows.
Trading that position for a Senate position is a net loss in my mind.
Someone like Rand Paul on the other hand is perfect, because his profile and sphere of influence is much lower and smaller.
Look, many American voters will not support someone who won't blow things up and kill foreigners. Part of the notion of American security is this hollywood delta force fascination with going around the world and kicking ass wherever anyone speaks ill of bubba. If Schiff has any hope of being elected, he's got to play the game.
Mind you, he may actually be into this stuff because as someone said, he is not an anarchist.
Political action is not the answer. We have to replace government institutions with free market ones. We have to correct bad ideas with better ones. We have to open up dialog in areas where there is no discussion, and we have to shed sunlight on that which thrives in the dark.
If the truth isn't our means and end, then what are we trying to achieve?
Better than almost all other choices for politicians, Schiff is a combination of Ron Paul with some Ayn Rand tendencies (on foreign policy).
liberty student: Look, many American voters will not support someone who won't blow things up and kill foreigners. Part of the notion of American security is this hollywood delta force fascination with going around the world and kicking ass wherever anyone speaks ill of bubba. If Schiff has any hope of being elected, he's got to play the game.
Are you going to say the same when he votes to authorise air strikes on Iran?
Daniel: That's hardly being a neocon. He's not a perfect anarcho-capitalist, but he is working towards a smaller government.
First he has to work towards not killing human beings as a senator.
Tzadik: Rather than dramatize some of his less than perfect answers from an Anarchist standpoint, everyone should really embrace that a real small government private citizen with tremendous Austrian economic knowledge could actually become a US Senator!
Rather than dramatize some of his less than perfect answers from an Anarchist standpoint, everyone should really embrace that a real small government private citizen with tremendous Austrian economic knowledge could actually become a US Senator!
Nothing to do with anarchist standpoints. Peace is not an anarchists-only thing.
Marko:Are you going to say the same when he votes to authorise air strikes on Iran?
I'm not a Peter Schiff supporter. I'd be happy if he dropped out of the race tomorrow and never ran again. Didn't you get that from my post?
As for what you quoted from me, my point was that if Schiff wants to be a politician, he will have to lie or be willing to follow through on violence. Which is why I say we should abandon the political means. Those means compromise us, and if we sacrifice libertarian ideas to get power, how are we any better than the people who held power before us?
liberty student: Political action is not the answer.
Political action is not the answer.
Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts.
Regarding things he says now, you can't take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR.
He is not lying/playing a game. He doesn`t know what he is talking about. As things stand I wish he doesn`t get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer.
Caley McKibbin:Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts.
Great American demagogue impersonation. You should run for President.
Caley McKibbin:Regarding things he says now, you can't take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR
Which again was my point. If Schiff is going to lie to get power, how is he different than any other politician?
What does "our" platform mean, if we are willing to abandon it in order to implement it?
I'm not in this to "win". I'm interested in honesty. In that regard, all politicians fail regardless of how libertarian they may claim to be.
The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object?
Marko:He is not lying/playing a game. He doesn`t know what he is talking about.
Ah yes, the "he isn't evil, he's just stupid." argument.
Marko:As things stand I wish he doesn`t get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer.
I'd be more concerned with the lives of the victims than the soul of the killer.
This internet banter is simply entertaining versus compared to someone who is willing to filibuster every single new piece of legislation in the Senate....this is nothing short of being as anti-state as we're going to get right now. I think it will open minds to have someone on CSPAN slamming every government regulation on a regular basis. His behavior will be contagious and push people towards the free market more so than today. Maybe even Woods, Murphy, or Block can get involved as an advisor to a future free market candidate. Schiff is a start to eventually have an Anarco-Cap Rothbardrian vs. Minarchist Randian debate be mainstream enough to replace the current two parties.
Caley McKibbin: The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object?
Anyone with libertarian ethics could object over aggression.
Tzadik:this is nothing short of being as anti-state as we're going to get right now.
You're claiming it is a second best.
Tzadik:I think it will open minds to have someone on CSPAN slamming every government regulation on a regular basis.
I think anyone intelligent will point out that Schiff was elected, and thus government is something he supports. From there, we're back on the slippery slope.
The only way to shrink government is to abolish it. You can't abolish it, by using the political means.
liberty student: Caley McKibbin:Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts. Great American demagogue impersonation. You should run for President. Caley McKibbin:Regarding things he says now, you can't take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR Which again was my point. If Schiff is going to lie to get power, how is he different than any other politician? What does "our" platform mean, if we are willing to abandon it in order to implement it? I'm not in this to "win". I'm interested in honesty. In that regard, all politicians fail regardless of how libertarian they may claim to be.
This is so knee-jerk reactionary.
1. Canada doesn't have a President. I already have run for MP.
2. You can lie as much that you will do bad things as the reverse.
liberty student: Caley McKibbin: The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object? Anyone with libertarian ethics could object over aggression.
That is crap. A state with weapons that it intends to use is fair game any day. The people who work in the weapons plants should have thought about that before they decided to cooperate with a menace. Same thing I said in the Samuelson thread.
liberty student: Marko:He is not lying/playing a game. He doesn`t know what he is talking about. Ah yes, the "he isn't evil, he's just stupid." argument. Marko:As things stand I wish he doesn`t get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer. I'd be more concerned with the lives of the victims than the soul of the killer.
Caley McKibbin: This is so knee-jerk reactionary.
How so?
Caley McKibbin: 1. Canada doesn't have a President. I already have run for MP.
Just what the great white north needs. Someone who can force us to pay him to free us.
Where did I mention President?
Caley McKibbin:2. You can lie as much that you will do bad things as the reverse.
In English please?
Spideynw:Really? So you don't think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?
There was plenty of evidence implicating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.
DD5:That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat.
A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the "Great Satan" and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?
Marko:You`re too young to remember this, but a war was not the only shot at getting Osama. At the time the Taleban regime had made an offer to apprehend and extradite Osama bin Laden for a trial in a Moslem country. Bush could have had Osama on trial in Saudi Arabia, UAE or Pakistan (the three countries which had diplomatic links with the Taleban rather than with the Northern Alliance, and also all pliant countries under the thumb of the US) or he could have had him shipped there and then leaned on them to pass him up to the US. Instead Bush turned them down so he could blow up things.
Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?
krazy kaju: Spideynw:Really? So you don't think evidence needs to be collected and provided first? There was plenty of evidence implicating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.
Well, the Afghan government asked the U.S. government for it, and the U.S. government refused to let them review it.
And maybe you have not reviewed the "evidence", but it is pretty shaky as it stands.
liberty student:The only way to shrink government is to abolish it. You can't abolish it, by using the political means.
I agree. However, I did donate to his campaign in the hopes of spreading Austrian economics and getting more people to this site.
krazy kaju:A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the "Great Satan" and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?
All government institutions are imminent threats. Besides, if you take such Iranian rhetoric seriously, then you must also take seriously, that they "Love Americans, but hate their government".
So, if they want to kill our government, then maybe we can strike a deal with them.
Anyone denying this fact an an ideological demagogue with an agenda. It was beyond question that Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden were responsible for the 9/11 attacks when the United States military invaded Afghanistan.
krazy kaju: DD5:That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat. A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the "Great Satan" and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?
That is not enough evidence for classifying someone as an "imminent threat"; however, the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is troubling, to say the least.
krazy kaju: Marko:You`re too young to remember this, but a war was not the only shot at getting Osama. At the time the Taleban regime had made an offer to apprehend and extradite Osama bin Laden for a trial in a Moslem country. Bush could have had Osama on trial in Saudi Arabia, UAE or Pakistan (the three countries which had diplomatic links with the Taleban rather than with the Northern Alliance, and also all pliant countries under the thumb of the US) or he could have had him shipped there and then leaned on them to pass him up to the US. Instead Bush turned them down so he could blow up things. Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?
Furthermore, does not the victim have the right to bring the plainly guilty accused to their court rather having to rely on another party's?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
krazy kaju: Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?
The Taleban were a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan held huge sway over them and Pakistan could be relied on.
krazy kaju: [A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the "Great Satan" and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?
[A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the "Great Satan" and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?
Jeez, not again.
The US is the Great Satan. Get out of your cocoon. The whole world hates the US. They don`t hate Iran. Ever seen a video of an Iranian-flag burning?
Marko: krazy kaju: Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban? The Taleban were a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan held huge sway over them and Pakistan could be relied on.
This a very naive, and simplistic view of both parties. In absolutely no way was the Taliban ever a creature of Pakistan while Pakistan had given it support without which it might not have survived, it was very much an Afghani movement that was never friendly towards the pro-Western policies that had been popular after Musharraf's 1999 coup d'etat. Furthermore, the Taliban had protected bin Laden against extradition after his attack on the USS Cole, and when the Taliban had offered to extradite bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, they would only do it if he were to be prosecuted under Sharia law. Source.
laminustacitus: This a very naive, and simplistic view of both parties. In absolutely no way was the Taliban ever a creature of Pakistan while Pakistan had given it support without which it might not have survived, it was very much an Afghani movement that was never friendly towards the pro-Western policies that had been popular after Musharraf's 1999 coup d'etat. Furthermore, the Taliban had protected bin Laden against extradition after his attack on the USS Cole, and when the Taliban had offered to extradite bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, they would only do it if he were to be prosecuted under Sharia law. Source.
I need neither your lecturing, nor for you to put words into my mouth, buddy. What I said stands perfectly fine in the context I said it. I am not even going to elaborate.
laminustacitus:Anyone denying this fact an an ideological demagogue with an agenda. It was beyond question that Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden were responsible for the 9/11 attacks when the United States military invaded Afghanistan.
Well then, why didn't the U.S. government hand over its evidence to the Afghan government to review it first, before invading?