Are you an individual? Than he is for your rights as such.

As a long-term reader of FP (since I got my IR degree 7 years ago), I am shocked by the non-sensical statements piling up in the forums.

"Are you an individual? Than [sic] he is for your rights as such."

Anyone taking politics seriously cannot make this statement. Have you followed Stephen M. Walt? Politics is not about individuals but about their conflicting interests!

The idea of 'individualism' and personal freedom developed out of the American and French revolutions, they were anti-aristocratic, anti-imperial concepts that justified the overthrow of monarchical and colonial rule. But they were also bourgeois concepts, pitching the interests of emerging capitalists (in the US) and a new class of urban professionals (France) against old established aristocracies.

The result was the replacement of political domination with economic domination that continued to spur the call for further worker revolutions whose interests were first and foremost as poor workers and secondly as 'individuals'. Universal suffrage and formally equal rights, the electoral empowerment of the previously excluded and dominated (women, the propertyless, blacks) were not motivated by their interests as 'individuals' but by their interests as disadvantaged groups.

The problem is that 'individual' freedom does not eradicate structural disadvantages. The general strike in France in 1968, the English Miners' strike in 1984, the L.A. riots in 1992, were NOT about 'individual' freedoms but expressions of discontent of structural (economic and racial) inequality. Did Martin Luther King want tolerance towards darker people and personal indvidualism or the fierce struggle for black equality in all its guises?

Let's get rid of these notions that 'individual' rights are for everyone and get realistic!

"since I got my IR degree 7 years ago"

Is it too late to get your money back for your worthless IR degree? Or are you able to pay back your massive loan working as a bank teller? You obviously learned everything and nothing in pursuit of this illustrious degree...

No member of my family ever needed a loan for a degree. It's the beauty of capitalism. And you'll find that a good degree from a top 3 university will pay for itself in no time. Had I needed to, I could have paid back a loan after the first year at Merrill Lynch. Afterwards, that 'illustrious degree' converted into the best PhD program in the country. It's Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital at work. But you should stick to your bank tellers and James Joyce to understand the world.

I think Ron Paul would say that 'universalism' is not as preferred as individualism. I'd say universalism sounds creepy.

Honestly its really not a job cut, it's a spending cut. Jobs paid with tax money don't grow the economy, they shrink it. The power vacuum is the same theory as the 'domino effect' which didn't bear out. It's highly dubious to think that leaving Germany and Japan and places like that would leave a power vacuum. It's also highly pointless to worry about it in third world nations.

Don't wish to be critical SYHR but, you're not an economist.

Taxes used to create jobs do create jobs, directly and then through multiplier effects. The effects from salaries paid abroad don't have as great a multiplier effect, but when troops deployed abroad send home money, eg., to their families, then multiplier effects arise.

And you are no economist either. Military jobs are not productive jobs by their very nature. They are destructive. They create no wealth, at all, only destroying more. Printing money to pay troops only reduces the value of the currency in use, making everything more expensive. An economist you certainly are not. That kind of "multiplier" only multiplies the debt it initially creates.

Find your answers on your own. They are there waiting for you.

Exactly Jeff.

Military spending is similar to a child spending all of his money on firecrackers and then the child lights the firecracks. Then what value remains? It is exactly the same with the military exploding bombs, shooting ammunition, or all the fuel that is used by the military in ships, planes and vehicles whether it be during peace time or not.

Now one could make an argument that the manufacturer of firecrackers and his employees would benefit but the fact is that no value is created for the purchaser (who far out number the manufacturer and his employees ) in this case. And of course this fact can be verified if one just contemplates the consequences if everyone spent all their funds on firecrackers. Then there would be no value left to purchase food, fuel and shelter or anything else of lasting value.

In the case of the military expenditures one really has to think about all of the billions of taxpayers money that have been spent on equipment only to have the equipment destroyed after a few years of use ( in fact just go to liquidation.com and they will have millions and millions of dollars of equipment that the taxpayers have purchased (much of it new) which will be sold for pennies on the dollar. And of course most of the equipment is specialized equipment (call it millitary planned obsolescence) so the taxpayers get almost nothing on the sales. The costs of maintaining a standing army will break the US at some point in time just as it did to Rome.
The average US citizen complains ,for example ,the roads are not being repaired but never questions who gets his taxes.
Of course Dr. Paul is correct. And yet the US voters elect people like Bush, Obama, Pelosi and Boehner.

Exavier126,

You see the obvious, but miss the unseen. It's pretty much a run in life, you can never obtain 100% efficiency, much less a multiplier.

Basically, my point is, the private sector would spend the money more efficiently than the public sector. Many times the public sector is not constrained by price concerns and does not have an accurate price structure. There is a reason why businesses love government contracts, less work more money. It's the same basic reason why socialism (or central planning in general) has giant surpluses of one product and massive shortages of another.

Steiger has it exactly right. All military expenditures are an investment in destruction, at least potentially. From nuclear weapons to small arms, as well as the paychecks for the people who design and use them (and everything in between), the best you can hope for is that they are NOT USED. The sole purpose for military expenditures is killing people and breaking stuff. Which people and what stuff is a strategic consideration, not a tactical one.

You might do well to learn just a touch about economics...just as to not embarrass yourself. I suggest starting with the Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy: http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm

The movement was CREATED by Ron Paul and then hijacked by war mongering "conservatives" in the republicrat party. It started an anti war anti statist movement, and the Insane McCain tagged Renegade Palin as a running "mate". (anyone who believes InsaneMcCain would have given Palin an inch of freedom should just quit discussing politics altogether.) The people who elected Bush2x was the republicrats in both parties, no doubt.

All this Republican vs. Democrat garbage is nothing but a wrestling match put on for the amusement of the American public. These politicians all have the same goal: protect corporate interests. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. The only difference is that whereas the Republicans focus exorbitant spending on one sector, Democrats focus spending on another sector. Republicans take away our civil liberties, and Democrats take away our economic liberties. It's all just a game. What we need to do is end the fascist dictatorship that is the Federal Reserve. It's an unelected elite that literally dictates world policy through its manipulation of the US currency, which is the world currency. Money is power.

Why not actually talk to some self-identified tea party people? That way your opinion could be informed by direct experience rather than relying on the opinions of others who in turn may have relied on the opinions of others who in turn...

If all you do is judge by the angriest signs the yelling, distorted faces the mainstream media have chosen to show you, then I contend you don't know much at all about the tea party. Get out and meet people. It could be a real eye-opener.

"The only difference is that whereas the Republicans focus exorbitant spending on one sector, Democrats focus spending on another sector. Republicans take away our civil liberties, and Democrats take away our economic liberties."

Someone watches the Judge!

I just signed up for this site so that I could respond to COUNTCHOCULA1011. Great Post! It's good to see someone who understands what is actually happening. The Republican vs Democrat debates we see on TV get us nowhere. We need to fight the real enemy which is the Federal Reserve. However, I'm not 100% sure that it should be done away with. But it at least needs to be Audited. It's secretive nature and Congress' reluctance to Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill leads me to conclude that it is up to no good.

While I don't consider myself one, I'd rather be a teabagger than a teabaggee.

Sir,

Contra your assertion that Mr. Paul's opinion is not germane to any legitimate discussion regarding U.S. policy since they are, in YOUR opinion, guaranteed to sound the death-knell to the world as we know it: People, at their very core values, really aren't any different anywhere on this planet so, in light of this fact, why would the ideals of freedom, prosperity and peace fail?

When you feature a public figure prominently in an article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/strange_brew) it is customary to allow a response by that person. Paul's article didn't link to the prior one but it clearly is a response on that very topic.

It is true that Paul has taken positions outside the mainstream and antithetical to the neoconservative/manifest destiny view that America needs to control world affairs. But it is also true that Rep. Paul's ideas, more than those of any other GOP contender from 2008, are gaining influence in the national debate and being installed in local and state GOP platforms. The future may not belong to Ron Paul but it may well be suffused with his ideas.

Everything is goig just great in the world...if you love anarchy. One man steps up and thinks outside the box (talking freedom and goodwill), and you say it is not germane to politics. When did freedom go out of style? Why do you continue to defend the 2nd and 5th planks of The Communist Manifesto that is the soul of the Republicrats? Dr.Paul is spot on.

"Everything is goig just great in the world...if you love anarchy."

We're not heading toward any type of anarchy; we're heading (and are most of the way) toward Fascism, the complete "cooperation" between big government and politically-connected corporations. This is the complete antithesis of anarchy, where we'd have no entity possessing a monopoly on force that rams is Whiggish corporatist policies down our throats against our will.

1. We cannot afford to continue policing the world.
2. Our interventionism incites hatred and causes terrorist retaliations.
3. Each bomb that we drop that kills foreign civilians creates more terrorists hell-bent on revenge.
4. Ron Paul is not fringe. He's just ahead of the game.
5. With all due respect ScottGoose, your opinion is not germane to any legitimate discussion regarding U.S. policy, as your interventionist, war-hawk, jingoistic attitude is not based on common sense. If we bomb them, they will resent us. If we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Ever notice how nobody commits acts of terrorism against the Swiss?

"Mr. Paul, with all due respect, your opinion is not germane to any legitimate discussion regarding U.S. policy, as your policies are a guaranteed death-knell to the world as we know it."

Ah...another defense contractor weighs in. Sucking us dry of our hard-earned money telling us that we need to "run the world or it will all fall apart." These are the kinds of guys who run -- hard -- to be elected head of your HOA. In short, losers.

Your comment about a "death knell" only solidifies the position of Dr. Paul. A "death knell" is sorely needed for the world "as we know it". Thank you for this statement, it confirms the argument.

This shows how out of touch you really are. Perhaps you should read a June 2010 Poll that states and I quote "One thing that's very interesting about these numbers is that Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they're very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28." Since it is the independent voters that swing elections, that statement is definitely a fringe statement. If the Republican party wants to win, they will throw their support 100% behind Ron Paul, but that probably will not happen as it threatens their very existence.

I agree that the Tea Bag movement has been hijacked by demagogues who are all too eager to profit from and pander to the biases, prejudices, fears and hatred of the Tea core constituency. Yes, Dr. Paul inspired the movement, but he was rapidly driven away once the more cynical components of the Republican Party and the lunatic right fringe (bedfellows if ever there were) saw its potential.

Sane defense and foreign policies do not include complete isolationism. Bring the Army home to guard the frontiers and restructure it as an active duty cadre and reserve main force with certain rapid deployment capabilities. Decide what determines our need to intervene abroad. (Hint: its not oil.) Maintain the Navy's capability to protect commercial sea lanes (as it was originally intended to do); maintain the Coast Guard to, um, you know, guard the coast. Close these ridiculous bases in Europe and Asia.

Create a sane immigration policy that recognizes our economy's need for foreign labor yet taxes those who use it, sends the guest workers home when they're no longer needed or wanted by their employers, and places responsibility for the workers on the businesses that hire them. Just as its done everywhere else from Japan to Germany to Sweden to Jordan to Brazil.

Demilitarize and disband our dismayingly large (and growing) state security and police apparatuses. Give all Americans (and only Americans) guaranteed access to health care. Invest in science, match, engineering and technology from elementary schools to post-graduate institutions.

And cut my taxes, damnit.

...but it's hardly a sellout. Dr. Paul is merely trying to get the Tea Party to see the errors of their ways, or at least to start looking at the whole picture. It's all nice and good to get riled up about the Welfare State, but don't forget the Warfare State. The same can be said for the so-called antiwar Left. They disappeared from view after Obama won the election, or at least their organizing groups did.

The check for the TARP program to date is 2.3 Trillion dollars and growing. With the newly passed billed named the Financial Reform Act of 2010, the TARP slush fund is now permanent and does not require Congress to authorize it. Helicopter Ben jsut signs the check and voila, it is done.

Our once-proud Constitutional Republic was truly free from the military/industrial/bankster/media complex of criminals through the Administrations of many Constitutional enthusiasts, until Lincoln... Our very own "Founding Father" himself, George Washington focused on this concept in his insightful "Farewell Address", well worth further examination... Non-interventionalism is not a new idea, it is the cornerstone of our nation's history of earned leadership on the world's stage by EXAMPLE; NOT by brutal, military imperialism, practiced by thug-regimes throughout history...

Yes, some of us do realize how dangerous it is, and I agree with you completely. Once the financial system collapses (and it will), America at least will be left with a Constitution that supports the liberty of the people to begin anew, unless, in the midst of whatever manufactured or overblown crisis we happen to find ourselves in, we throw away that heritage and birthright. Then there is no recovery.

As a fellow German, Schmidt's comments amaze me. Why should the USA dislike looking more and more like Europe, especially Germany?

Let's actually look at the German economy before seeing the demise of European capitalism ahead:
2.2% growth in the second quarter, projected growth of over 3% this year, substantial job creation, increases in productivity, 3rd in current account balance (USA: 181st), and the only highly industrialized country able to keep up with China in global exports.

"There is still no replacement for the free market in sight, and USA has been long an example showing how well it works." Actually, if we take the American meaning of 'Roots' as in the roots of former slaves and their current condition in the ghettos that dot the American major cities, there is no comparable destitution and market failure of excluding so many people from work and prospects of gainful employment in Europe. How well does it really work in overcoming these problems? To deal with this, the US incarcerates more people per 100k population than any other nation in the world (760 - compared to Germany's 88)! Half of the prison population previously lived in American freedom but having less wealth than half of the official poverty line!

"There is still no replacement for the free market in sight?" Read your free-market economists again. Von Mises, Hayek, Boehm-Bawerk, Benjamin Tucker, et al. There is no free market in sight, according to them: patents, tariffs, the banking monopoly, transportation and energy subsidies, and market-entry barriers still exist largely unchanged since the idea of the free market was thoroughly developed a century ago by Austrian economists. Hence the existence of oligopoly capitalism, Mr. Schmidt!

China is not mind-boggingly dangerous nor is its political system. If you'd ever lived there you would know. The US puts 6x more people in prison than China and still has a far higher crime rate. Per capita, more US workers die as a result of unsafe work environments than Chinese, and manifold more than their European counterparts.

What makes China dangerous? Solely the fact that capitalism does not require democracy? If so, what are the benefits of US democracy? More violent crime, more people out of work, still more poor people locked up in prison, and faltering productivity?

If your answer is 'representation', then ask yourself how well poor working Americans or the dark people living in the derelict cores of American cities, with over 40% unemployment, lower life expectancy than their African counterparts, and virtually no future prospects, are represented (even under a black President)!

Sure, China also has an enormous population condemned to low-wage labor and outright poverty, but it is a much poorer developing state.

The only thing that is endangered seems to be your worldview that capitalism needs to breed democracy, which then protects ALL citizens and represents all their interests equitably.

YOUR ideological ANTI-EMPIRICISM is in itself the most DANGEROUS, Mr. Schmidt, not Germany's corporatist economic model or China's developmental state.

First of all, this is wrong as a matter of fact. According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html , the USA ranks 25th, with Israel and Singapore the only first-world nations outranking it, and China the only other country outside the North Africa-East Mediterranean-Middle East-Central Asia corridor. (Leave aside the fact that the CIA uses 2005 numbers in order to obfuscate the current 5.5% spent by the USA.) Is this really what global norms look like?

Second, especially given the USA's enormous relative GDP, why would global norms with respect to defense spending vs GDP be at all relevant to this discussion? How about the fact that we spend as much as the next 15 nations combined, in terms of actual spending? Is that in line with anything except the balance sheets of the MIC? The vast majority of USA military spending has zero effect on the security of the USA or its citizens, and the total could be halved several times without detriment to anything other than the profits of Lockheed et al.

It seems that the real embarassment is how the country is bankrupt because of our foreign policy. It seems the real embarassment is how to explain to grieving families that their sons and daughters did not die in vain. It seems the real embarrassment is how we prop up dictators in the name of democracy. It seems the real embarassment is how we kill innocent people in order to convert them to our "ideals". It seems the real embarassment is how we explain to the American people that our government cares more about Iraqi school children than they care about American school children. Go figure, but part of being embarassed is being wrong, and part of reconciliation is making it right.

Anarchy is defined as:
* "No rulership or enforced authority." Since the government is by the people, for the people, we the people are the authority and grant powers to the government, not the other way around. We have become derelict in our duties of self governance.

* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder), but is bound by a social code." See item 1.

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." Political disorder is evident don't you think? Lawlessness, is amok within the circles of government, and inefficiencies, well, are self evident.

* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere." The PEOPLE are the AUTHORITY in the United States, and a rogue government definitely fails to recognize that authority.

"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." Bypassing the Constitution to start wars without waiting for official permission....sound familiar?

By this definition, we already have anarchy.