If you want to know the difference between a liberal and libertarian, consider the following: Today, the House of Representatives passed H CON RES 200, a resolution of the sense of the House on events in Burma. The text of the resolution, which you can read below, calls upon the military dictatorship that rules Burma to release advocate for democracy and the rightful Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, immediately and without condition from her captivity. The resolution also calls for an end to government violence against ethic minorities and for a restoration of democracy in Burma.
Of the 432 members of the House of Representatives eligible to vote on the resolution, 413 voted in favor of it. Only two Representatives voted against it. One of those who voted against it was Ron Paul, libertarian and Republican candidate for President in 2008.
That’s libertarianism for you all over. Libertarians may talk big about defending freedom, but their version of freedom is actually rather small, focusing on the freedom to control property, and not extending any further than the borders of the USA.
Ron Paul essentially told Aung San Suu Kyi and the suffering people of Burma that they can go to hell. Ron Paul won’t go on the record even as a member of Congress to oppose the brutal smashing of liberty by the cruel generals of Burma. What good will his theoretical ramblings about libertarianism do? Why should a man so indifferent in the face of obvious injustice be elected as President of the United States?
The following is the active text of the resolution. These are the ideas that Ron Paul voted against today.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That–
(1) it is the sense of Congress that United States policy should continue to call upon–
(A) the military regime in Burma–
(i) to immediately and unconditionally release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained political prisoners and prisoners of conscience;
(ii) to immediately cease attacks against ethnic minority civilians; and
(iii) to immediately begin a meaningful process of tripartite dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, and Burma’s ethnic nationalities; and
(B) the People’s Republic of China and other countries that provide political and economic support to Burma’s military junta to utilize their position and influence to–
(i) urge Burma’s military generals to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners; and
(ii) end their attacks on ethnic minority civilians and begin a meaningful process of genuine national reconciliation with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, and Burma’s ethnic nationalities;
(2) Congress urges the United Nations Security Council to immediately consider and take appropriate action to respond to the growing threat the SPDC poses in Burma;
(3) Congress expresses support for the restoration of democracy in Burma; and
(4) Congress expresses the need for freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press to be guaranteed for all Burmese citizens.
Well it might be this part – “Congress urges the United Nations Security Council to immediately consider and take appropriate action to respond to the growing threat the SPDC poses in Burma;” – Imagine the congress of the US kow towing to the UN for action. Further, by what right do you compel other to act against these dictators.
If you feel morally compelled to act, do it yourself. Your choices range from writing your own strongly worded letter to the Junta, to purchasing some weapons for the monks, to going to Burma and joining the fight. You decide. But don’t take it on yourself to decide that others should act. You are very Generous with the lives of UN troops.
Besides, this resolution will have no effect on the situation, it is just grandstanding by people who are afraid to act themselves. At least Paul has the moral decency not to ask others to do something he will not do himself.
Burma is a bad situation no doubt. How do you suggest we pay for our military to intervene?
John,
1. Troops are not the only option at the UN’s disposal (Joe also makes this mistake).
2. If someone should never ask others to do something he will not do himself, what will we ever do with the unused football uniforms?
Ya… let’s spend more money to help another country. The USA is the policemen of the world, of course. We must help them!
Um, I don’t think that’s how it (should) work. We are in a 9trillion dollar debt, we end up in these types of wars, and a lot of unexpected consequences happen. The enemy ends up getting the food (or weapons) and the people still suffer.
And I don’t think that means he tells them to “Go To Hell”, it means “We can’t help”. Why doesn’t China help out, they have a large army! Oh wait, they’re blocking aid. They’re bad! Cept if we were to help Burma, we’d have to borrow more money from China like we do now. China owns our debt, I fear when they ask for the payments, we won’t have it.
I dono. Ramble ramble me. Bottom line: Ron Paul isn’t saying “Go to Hell!”.
Brent you idiot, the resolution DOES call for China to do something. Did you even READ it?
Why do these Ron Paul supporters think going to war is the only possible option? Haven’t they ever heard of diplomacy?
But why am I wasting the keystrokes trying to talk to Ron Paul supporters? Jim just told them the same thing and they didn’t pay any attention.
Congress can get us out of Iraq and save thousands of lives. Congress can restore the US Constitution. Congress can stop allowing special interests to rob us.
Or, Congress can pass non-binding resolutions.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the political scoundrel, distraction is the first.
Two mutually exclusive objections to the resolution:
1. It goes too far (committing us to military action).
2. It doesn’t go far enough (not committing us to military action).
The unspoken assumption is that the only way the United States can have any influence at all in the world is through military action.
Either we do nothing, or we go for a full-scale invasion.
“That’s libertarianism for you all over.” Something agitates me about the phrasing of that sentence…. I’m gonna guess your mid to late 20′s
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
— Winston Churchill
I wonder if these are the same people who freaked out when Pelosi talked to the Syrian leaders, or when Obama said as president he would talk to anyone. Talking is a big deal, but war isn’t?
Oh, so a cigar chomping fat man said it, and it therefore must be true! Convenient that Winston Churchill was an old conservative when he said it. What a big hat size he had.
I personally prefer Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Franklin. They were old liberals. I guess they were just stupid.
“That’s libertarianism for you all over. Libertarians may talk big about defending freedom, but their version of freedom is actually rather small, focusing on the freedom to control property, and not extending any further than the borders of the USA.”
Not so much.
Libertarians believe that everyone should have liberty in every sense; to say that it exclusively regards only private property (although that is a major focus) is to be completely ignorant of libertarianism as a philosophy. I know, because I am a libertarian myself.
The major objection that libertarians, like myself, have to this resolution is that it presumes that 1) the US should act as some sort of “moral authority” in the world in its foreign policy and should try to compel other governments and societies to adhere to this standard, when there is no reason why any government or society should claim such over another government or society; and 2) that the federal government of the US actually has the ability to make a substantial impact in this regard. Most libertarians are very skeptical on both points (especially the first), as am I. This is why libertarians would object to this bill, and this is why Ron Paul objects to this bill.
History shows that liberty and democracy only takes root in countries for a lasting period when the people in that country become angry and motivated enough to take it and establish it for themselves. This is how the US established a long-living democracy, this is how most democracies around the world that have existed over a long-term were founded, and this is how a standing democracy in Burma will be established, if it ever is.
What goes on in Burma is not the concern of the United States government, which has only a mandate to govern America.
By the way, although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Franklin were called “liberals” in their day, this was before the Socialists redistributed the word Liberal to themselves. The liberals of those days called for economic freedom (laissez faire capitalism) and a non-interventionist foreign policy (free trade with all nations and entangling alliances with none).
Note that if I were a Burmese Libertarian, I would not hesitate to resist their government in any way I could, and would probably be in arms against it. They’ve got a lot of gun control to prevent resistance, but there are ways around it. As a matter of fact, there were a credible armed resistance going on, I might go myself and fight. But I would not compel my countrymen to finance me, nor to fight alongside me. If their consciences so dictated, they would do so voluntarily. If they did not, I would have no right to force them.
The government of the United States of America is a government of the people by the people and for the people, and if the people of the United States of America believe that Aung San Suu Kyi ought to be released and democracy restored to Burma, then it’s well within the mandate of the government to represent that opinion, by expressing it, just as was done with this Sense of the Senate resolution.
It’s a part of assertive diplomacy, something Ron Paul doesn’t seem to have a grasp of.
The Burmese people are lucky not to have people like Rich Paul on their side. They’re more wise than you, and have decided for non-violent resistance. As a result, they have world opinion, including the opinion of the people of the United States of America, on their side.
If the United States makes a practice of giving official statements concerning the inner workings of foreign states, then then underlying assumption is a preparedness to backup those dictates.
One of the core axioms of libertarianism is non-aggression. That is to say one should never aggress against another unless he is being aggressed against. In other words, the only legitimate war is a defensive war.
Making official statements concerning the inner workings of other countries is dangerous because it can lead to illegitimate war.
Why is the US always on the “moral high ground”? Well from the perspective of any other country, it’s not. In fact it is precisely these kind of statements that lead to the majority world view that the US is arrogant and reckless. The US is ever too ready to tell not just it’s own citizenry, but also the rest of the world how to run their governments and run their lives.
If the US can make such official statements against Burma, then it can also do so to any other country. Hey England, you need to stop spying on your citizens. Hey Germany, cars on your Autobahn drive to fast, slow down! Hey China, your cities are dirty and rat infested, clean them up or else! Hey Russia, you better get more freedom of the press or we will freedomize you. Hey Mexico, you better crack down on those drug growers or we will… REGIME CHANGE YOU!
Why don’t you make a statement in YOUR own name, and stop trying to make them in MINE.
Josh, they’re not “dictates”. They’re statements. They’re not aggressive statements in this resolution either. It’s not aggression to say to your neighbor, “Stop hitting your kids.” Neither is is it aggression to say to the military dicatorship of Burma, “Release the political prisoners, stop the the violence against ethnic minorities, and get democracy back on track.”
Talking does not lead to war, Josh. If it did, then you writing your comment here would be warmongering.
You’re stretching your defense of Ron Paul beyond credibility.
It’s the job of our government to speak in representation of us. If you don’t like that, then speak to the government about it. Be an active citizen, and try to get them to change their tune.
“History shows that liberty and democracy only takes root in countries for a lasting period when the people in that country become angry and motivated enough to take it and establish it for themselves. This is how the US established a long-living democracy,”
Bad choice for your argument. The US wouldn’t have made it without the help of France and Spain.
I’m not a huge Ron Paul fan, but I fail to see how a simple resolution will solve *anything* and bring relief to those suffering in Burma. It’s simple grandstanding by the congress that will accomplish NOTHING. Good for those who refused to take part in the charade by voting NO.
Mark, you’re making the mistake of concluding that either a resolution solves the problem of the repression in Burma, or it “will accomplish NOTHING”.
In fact, there’s an awful lot of territory in between.
It is much preferable to have the House pass a resolution like this, adding pressure against the government of Burma, than for the House to turn a blind eye, which is the course of action that Ron Paul seems to favor.
By your argument, Mark, speaking out against injustice is the wrong thing to do, just a charade, and we should say “good for you” to the people who refuse to say anything, as if they’re being brave instead of just lazy and uncaring.
No, Mark, I don’t agree with that.
I wish the House would pass a resolution to secure our borders. I live in Phoenix and we are being overrun by illegal aliens.
The link I provided details the drug army operating in Arizona at this moment.
The azcentral website reports there are as many as 200 drug cartel soldiers operating in Arizona every day.
That is more important to me than what is happening in Burma – Does that make me selfish or racist?
Ron Paul is against intervening in other nations affairs. That would, I’m guessing, including statements on the morality of their governments.
He recognizes that US intereference/meddling in the Middle East was the cause of anti-American hostility by people such as Bin Laden. He seems to believe that if we’d leave everyone alone, they’ll leave us alone. In regard to Burma, i’m assuming he figures it’s better to keep our mouth shut and be friends with whoever is in charge of the country, instead of potentially pissing off the government if they squash the protesters and then we need something from them.
Now, I’m not saying I agree with him, but I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be in Iraq if he was President at the time.
Here’s an opinion piece by former president of Czech Republic Vaclav Havel titled Silent Myanmar Days. Maybe this will provide more background about the role of China in financial support of the military junta that deposed the democratically elected government and international hopes to bring pressure on China ahead of the Olympics.
http://jordantimes.com/?news=2622
What happens in Burma is none of our business, as a nation. If Americans as individuals want to go over there and invest their lives or money in that mess, hey, go for it! Don’t make the rest of us who don’t give a damn contribute our tax money towards it. If the people in Burma want to be free, they ought to fight for it. It’s none of our affair what happens over there, and I’m proud Ron Paul was willing to stand alone, as he always is. Go Ron Paul!
What does this accomplish? They are only words that are merely feel good talking points. If you ask me this legislation was a wast of time by our elected servants and the real issue they should be voting on is ending the Iraq occupation and bringing our soldiers home.
He makes it very clear why he was opposed and the open door statement on the possibility of the UN advocating or recommending military force is a legitimate concern, then there is the most important one and that is addressing our own erosions of civil liberties here!
Your rant or rhetoric seems to be more about your personal opposition to Ron Paul because he threatens your choice for president, whomever that may be.
Are you a Republican? Democrat? Do you support one of the war mongers in either party? Is this another attempt to discredit Ron Paul for anything you can find on him that you do not agree with?
How about Congress voting to issue a strong statement condemning our very own CIA for our holding of so-called terrorists (political activists)around the world while torturing them. Would this not portray us as being hypocritical?
A strong country at home sends a powerful message to the world and it should be we preserve our citizens civil liberties, so we ask you (substitute any dictatorship) do the same. A little diplomacy goes a long way.
Your ranting is just that and it is an attack on Ron Paul’s integrity.
So I ask this; Do you believe in our constitution?
Ron Paul’s vote is an attack on Ron Paul’s integrity. I’m pointing out a fact – Ron Paul voted against this resolution. Why are you so bothered by the facts, Jesse Lewis? Does it disturb your faith in Ron Paul?
Your position depends upon the assumption that speaking out against repression of liberty is a waste of time. Ron Paul and his supporters seem to agree with that assumption. I do not.
There is nothing in the passage of this resolution that is against the Constitution, Jesse Lewis.
As for whether I am a Republican or a Democrat, I think you’ll find I’ve written articles criticizing members of both political parties. Why don’t you take a look around Irregular Times and the articles here to see if you can get a handle on what my political position and interests are?
Ron Paul, regarding Statement on Burma, H Con Res 200:
“I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example. ”
Or, as I am fond of saying: “Practice what you preach!”