United Liberty
David Carlson
Recent Posts From David Carlson
How to Defend Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:35pm | posted by David Carlson
Over the past few weeks I have had quite a few conversations with Conservatives which have led to a debate about interventionist versus non-interventionist foreign policy. It usually starts with them attacking Ron Paul for one reason or another (check out this article on Midwest Spin for an example). After I respond and question their criticism, it usually ends up being their disagreement with his foreign policy.
Foreign policy can be a very complex topic. I think that non-interventionists, for the most part, know why they support that policy much better than your typical interventionist. Many interventionists do not even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationist.
If you support non-intervention you either have found yourself in a debate and had to defend non-intervention, or you will find yourself in one sometime in the near future. I have found there are a few things to keep in mind when you are in these debates:
1) Be ready to explain the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism is the foreign policy of North Korea. Non-intervention involves open dialogue, free trade, and minding your own business overseas. Two vastly different approaches. Just because you don’t support having a global military empire does not mean you are an isolationist.
2) Know some facts and figures. The United States has over 700 permanent military bases spread out across over 100 nations. Roughly 20% of the federal budget is military expenditures. There are facts and figures that give proof that 1) our military expenditures are financially unsustainable and 2) we most certainly have a foreign policy of intervention and global imperialism.
Great Piece about a Constitutional President
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 12:32pm | posted by David Carlson
I came across this piece on Friday right before heading off to a retreat with the young adult ministry I am a part of, and I must say it is one of the best I have read about what kinds of actions a Constitutional President would take once in office.
The article, titled “My Plan for a Freedom President - How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office” originally appeared in Young Americans for Liberty’s recent publication that goes out to college campuses and other organizations all across the United States.
I think it is safe to say some people think Paul is “too extreme.” What is unfortunate, and what he points out at one point in the article, is that a Constitutional stance is hardly extreme. What is extreme is year after year passing budgets that increase rather than decrease spending while our nation is in extreme debt.
What I think is most important, though, is that this article should calm any fears that Paul’s presidency would be extreme. To the contrary he is very sympathetic to those who have become dependent on the welfare state through such programs as social security. He does not believe in pulling the rug from underneath those who have become dependent, but giving younger people at MINIMUM the ability to opt-out starting at a certain date.
Paul realizes the limits of what can be done immediately, but that does not mean there is nothing a President can do. I particularly respect his stance on foreign policy:
Donald Trump Attacks Global Warming
Mon, 02/15/2010 - 5:04pm | posted by David Carlson
Donald Trump gave a public lashing of Al Gore because of his endorsement of global warming. He said the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Peace Prize back from Gore.
As reported in the New York Post, Trump recently made these remarks at a speech to the members of the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester:
Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.
Looks like even Trump, who has openly supported liberals like Barack Obama, has joined the anti-global warming crowd. It is only logical that someone who plays such an integral part of our capitalist economy should question global warming. Trump knows that measures being proposed in Washington to fight global warming will not contribute in any notable way but will in fact destroy much of our already fragile economy.
Liberty Candidates: Too Many to Count?
Fri, 02/12/2010 - 1:44pm | posted by David Carlson
Rand Paul. RJ Harris. Adam Kokesh. Peter Schiff. Debra Medina. The list of liberty candidates running for political office is seemingly endless.
Just yesterday B.J. Lawson joined the ranks. He is running for North Carolina’s 4th district U.S. House of Representatives seat. Two years ago he was one of only a handful of liberty candidates running. Though he was defeated, this year a win is much more likely.
Two years ago having an (R) by your name was more of a liability than an asset. Bush was not popular and the Republican Party as a whole was not seen in a positive light. The public was ready for change, but recently have shown they were not looking for a change towards a hard-left agenda.
Liberty candidates are in practice more libertarian than the typical “Conservative” than the typical Republican. They are in effect in a very desirable position. Though the Republican Party is still not looked at favorably among the public, many will vote for Republicans as a vote against Democrats. On top of that liberty candidates have the added benefit of gaining many Independents and Democratic voters because of their libertarian-leaning stances that resonate with them.
Political Infighting is a GOOD Thing
Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:33pm | posted by David Carlson
A couple weeks ago I wrote a post about the term “Tea Party” and how it was meaningless because it represented such a wide range of views. In my opinion the term had come to represent such a broad range of views that, in essence, it no longer represented anything.
I received quite a bit of negative feedback from that post. What some readers fail to realize is that there are members of the Tea Party who are neo-conservative, paleo-conservative, paleo-conservative, libertarian, and “independents.” Hardly is there a consensus of what policy is desirable!
A great example of the difference of opinion in the tea party is a simple example I ran across. If you took everyone in the “Tea Party” and showed them a billboard with George W. Bush on it and the words “miss me yet?” what kind of response would you expect?
I can guarantee you that there would be many who would think it is the greatest thing ever. On the other hand you would have others who would think, “wrong message, Bush was not conservative and we need to move away from Bush.” Finally you would have many who just shake their head.
One thing we must keep in mind is that in our winner-take-all system, the natural movement is towards a two party system. It is inevitable and hard (though certainly not impossible) to change this movement. When there is only two major political parties there will naturally be fighting within the party about what the party platform should be.
I think it is nearly impossible to deny that the Republican party has shifted (however slightly) away from the neo-con agenda and closer to the libertarian agenda. This is consistent with the winner-take-all model as the Republican Party must appeal to the growing small government/libertarian sect so that their party can win the majority.
America’s dangerous foreign policy
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:30pm | posted by David Carlson
I am currently enrolled in a Foreign Policy class at my university. Ever since I was introduced to Ron Paul’s theory of non-interventionist foreign policy I have become very interested in the subject. Sadly, it was in a way hard to grasp his ideas because they have been such a minority viewpoint in the United States today. Nevertheless, after reading “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” I had a much greater understanding of his viewpoints and their justification.
Even though the class has already started, I have already been presented with a seemingly obvious notion: Americans do not care much about our foreign policy. They are generally apathetic and believe it does not affect them significantly. This apathy has been changed somewhat since 9/11, but it is still generally true that something like health care or another domestic issue will be given much more attention than foreign policy.
It is clear that those who want America’s foreign policy to be changed must link our foreign policy to our domestic policy. How does it affect us here, on our home turf? Why should we care what our nation does abroad as long as it keeps us safe? I believe there are a few very simple yet profound answers to this question that, at the very least, should spark debate and bring foreign policy higher on the issue attention cycle:
America’s foreign policy makes us less safe
3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Be Upset About Big Bonuses
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:09pm | posted by David Carlson
In the State of the Union Address President Obama again attacked banks and proposed a special tax on those businesses because of the big bonuses they are giving out:
To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
Attacking banks for giving out big bonuses is simply ridiculous, and here’s five reasons why:
1) Unless you have ownership in the company, it shouldn’t matter to you
Let’s say that a company like Home Depot decides to pay out big bonuses to their managers. The only people who should be upset are the stock owners. These owners could have received some of this money as dividends but instead it was used to pay big bonuses to the managers. This should be the same concept related to the banks: their bonuses really have nothing to do with you, unless of course you are owner of the company stock.
2) But the taxpayers own part of the banks!
Yes it is true that we “bailed out” the banks. Here’s the problem: Americans should be upset at the government for being irresponsible with their money. If the manager of your investments put a high percentage of your cash into a company that was likely going to fail sometime soon, wouldn’t you be upset? That’s what our government did: bailed out failing companies. If anything your anger should be directed at our government for even MAKING us owners of these failing institutions.
Palin endorses Rand Paul
Mon, 02/01/2010 - 5:59pm | posted by David Carlson
Editor’s note: We posted about this last week, but has since become official.
What could be a better followup to my previous post than scanning the front page of Politico and stumbling across this headline: Palin endorses Rand Paul
I checked Rand’s home page and found this:
National political icon and conservative leader Sarah Palin has endorsed Dr. Rand Paul in his bid for United States Senate from Kentucky. The Paul campaign has received a generous donation from Governor Palin’s PAC.
Sarah Palin has clearly seen that Rand Paul supports smaller, constitutional government and is taking the fight to the career politicians and will shake up the tax and spend crowd in Washington D.C.
“Governor Palin is providing tremendous leadership as the Tea Party movement and constitutional conservatives strive to take our country back,” Rand said.
“Sarah Palin is a giant in American politics. I am proud to receive her support.”
“I’m trying to go to Washington to fight to lower taxes and spending, and for term limits and balanced budgets. I will go to protect the lives of our unborn children,” Rand said.
We know one thing: Rand has the Republican nomination in the bag and now its a matter of growing in his polling against the Democrat challengers.
Rand Paul Has Kentucky Senate Election In The Bag
Mon, 02/01/2010 - 4:24pm | posted by David Carlson
Rand Paul is the next Senator of Kentucky. The election is all but wrapped up.
Most people will immediately respond that it is way too early to make such a statement; how can we possibly know what will happen over the next nine to ten months? I will concede the point that we can never be sure how an election will turn out ten months before the vote, but all evidence points towards a Rand Paul win come November.
1) Polling
Rand has seen meteoric rise in the polls over the past five months. He went from losing 26-37 in August to establishment pick Trey Grayson, to leading Grayson 44-25 in December. Also, while he was picking up this lead there was an increasing number of undecided voters from 17% in August to 32% in December. The momentum is clearly on Rand Paul’s side.
2) Campaign
From the beginning Rand has arguably run a stronger campaign. Despite never being elected to office in Kentucky, Paul had the advantage of being Congressman Ron Paul’s son. This allowed him to make his announcement on national television that he would be running for Senate. While Trey Grayson attacked this as an example of how Paul was an “outsider” to Kentucky, the famous comeback by Paul swung this war of words in his favor, “I’ve been a Kentuckian longer than Grayson’s been a Republican!”
Drug Prohibition Shows Americans’ Illogical Beliefs
Sun, 01/31/2010 - 2:20pm | posted by David Carlson
I, like anyone else, wants to believe that America is made up of logical individuals. I wish I could agree with this assessment, but American culture and government makes me question this belief.
The fact that marijuana prohibition is still in place despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a safer substance than alcohol is truly mind-blowing. Any logical individual who gives any significant time towards understanding the issue will undoubtedly realize that the arguments against marijuana prohibition are large in number and substance.
One friend of mine said that there is just more important issues and people only have limited time in the day. This makes a lot of sense, but I still personally think the time commitment necessary to understand why marijuana should be legalized is minimal.
Even with that statement in mind, our culture daily make a big deal out of celebrities and athletes who are caught using marijuana, yet they do not find a problem with someone becoming intoxicated. Furthermore, you will hear alcohol users speak about marijuana users as if they are doing something wrong or are just “lazy stoners.”
Of course I am making generalities and there are many who are sympathetic to marijuana law reform, but the fact that there is not a large majority who support marijuana legalization shows how illogical Americans are.
Lets “get smart” as a nation and repeal marijuana prohibition.
