The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Disturbing

(See in situ)


I know folks around here are just going to call me naive and think this a fruitless effort, but I went to the comment area of the site and wrote a quick note explaining why I can't support this Our America Initiative. I tried to make it brief (i.e., you'll find no dissertation on the history of Hamiltonian federalism and whiggery and how many of the Revolutionary principles were subverted from the get-go, nor a deep discussion of the evils and mischief of central banking), but I did my best to point out two particularly troublesome problems with the issues section, and point out directly that I would not support the Initiative because of them. Here's what I wrote:

I am a member of the Libertarian Party and I supported Gary Johnson for President in the last election cycle. I was initially excited about the Our America Initiative, but I found the issues section of the website to be poorly conceived. On many of the issues, the statements provided are too broad to be meaningful. Even more unfortunately, many of the issues with more specific statements seem wildly off-base from a libertarian perspective. To have the issues section single out Israel as a nation that we should defend militarily flies in the face of the Constitutional original intent that you purport to be championing. What happened to the Founders' admonition to engage in peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none? Treating the state of Israel like a US dependency damages our own security posture, while undercutting Israeli sovereignty. Furthermore, while your section on the economy is well-organized and thoughtful, you have a full, separate section on the Federal Reserve that is wishy washy and ambiguous. If your goal is truly to "enlighten" the American people about our traditional republican values and the power of free markets and limited government as an engine of prosperity, we must engage in a far more vigorous discussion of market alternatives to state central banking.

For the reasons stated above, I cannot support the Initiative at this time, but I wish your organization the best of luck as we continue to broaden the debate and encourage the adoption of a political culture based on the enduring promise of individual liberty.

Warm regards,
Justin M. Hill