2 votes

Rand Paul is he against or for, foreign aid?

Rand has been pushing for foreign aid cuts little by little, Egypt,, middle eastern countries...

Back on 2/4/11 Rand Paul stated End 'welfare' to Israel. What Rand is doing with saying we need to de-fund aid to Palestinians. He is being a realist, and completing objectives that he can see possible. He never said he was for Israeli aid. He just said, no aid should be given to those who don't think Israel should exist. In reality what is his position? End all foreign aid.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand's position, whatever it

Rand's position, whatever it is, is not his position. All of the minarchists tell me he is playing political jujitsu. Rand will continue to do so until he become President Paul, then he will seek to impliment all of his father's policies. Which as it so happens will never get through congress, thus nearly nothing libertarian will be accomplished. He will move us about 10 miles towards liberty, with about 990 mile left to go. Someone will most likely now ask me if I want to move another 1000 miles into tyranny with Hillary, and to that I say it's 6 one way, half a dozen the other.

I am told we need to back Rand because he is the closest thing to a viable libertarian candidate, yet those same people don't consider the viability of anything he wants as president getting through congress.

What would a Rand Paul presidency look like? about the same as it does now, except for whatever executive orders he issues to the alphabet soup of agencies. We get what we all really want though, to feel like our team is the winner.

The Power Of The Veto Pen

is nothing to sneeze at.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

So

What would president Ron Paul look like then? From your argument.. you equate liberty as non accomplishing. And again when has he supported foreign aid? Hee has not

President Ron Paul would be

President Ron Paul would be like Congressman Ron Paul, a shining example of how a human being should conduct themselves, but unable to pass anything through a corrupt legislature. I admire Dr. Paul greatly, but practically speaking he was only a protest vote.

Could a good man rise to the top of the Mexican mafia and convince the mafia to stop extorting people for "protection" money, and to stop running the drug trade? Of course not, he would get "wacked", by a faction that doesn't want their profit flow stopped. If the mafia stopped doing those functions, they would no longer have a purpose, and another mafia would just replace them.

A fundamentaly flawed system cannot be steered in a good direction. I think there is way too much romanticism for how the system was some kind of pure thing back after independence from England. The founding fathers were not so saintly, and like my mafia example they did not like the King cutting into their share of the loot. If they were all about freedom and not a competing management team, why would they own slaves? Sure it was common to own slaves, but the idea of not owning slaves on moral grounds was a known concept as well. A concept that many chose not to embrace because it was not profitable.

I once spoke with a taxi driver in London and he explained to me that in British schools the revolutionary war was not taught as a foreign country throwing off an opressor, but as a British civil war. Americans did not fight British, British fought British. You can't have patriotism for a country that doesn't exist, but you can want to seperate from your fellow country men when they over tax you.