Talks about foreign policy at about 2:00
He says “we don’t need our troops in there”, meaning Iraq and Afghanistan. I also saw a vid of him where he was asked if he would have passed the GI Bill, and would not give a direct answer. In other words, he does not really say what he thinks of foreign policy and he likes to talk in terms of the collective, “we” instead of “the government”.
How is this Peter Schiff being neocon? From my understanding, natural rights and natural law are very big parts of libertarianism. A part of natural law includes the right to seek restitution from aggressors. Since the terrorists who attacked the United States resided inside Afghanistan, there was nothing wrong with going after them and seeking justice. In fact, going after Bin Laden and his cronies was the morally correct thing to do.
He also said in the first Crash Proof that WW2 was an expensive war that the US unfortunately had to fight. He’s no anarchist. Also, I don’t think it would have been wrong for the U.S. to send in a small force to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan (if he was really there a few months before the invasion). But Iran and Iraq are totally uncalled for.
I wouldn’t call him a neocon though. Neoconservatives are members an intellectual movement whose roots lie in the Trotskyite and Menshevic wings of the communist movement. They are, essentially, social democrats in conservative clothing. Peter Schiff is a plain fiscal conservative with an understanding of economics.
He wouldn’t give a direct answer because he hadn’t made up his mind at that point. The GI Bill, in Peter Schiff’s view, has to do with compensation for services rendered by members of the military, not with war. This is obviously a tricky question to deal with, since on the one hand soldiers do deserve compensation (especially if many of them die in pointless wars of occupation), but on the other hand, the US government is insolvent.
He said if he “knew” Iraq had WMDs, he would have taken them out. He also [sort] of justified going after Iran if they have WMDs.
That sounds like a neo-con to me.
RP being as radical as possible again.. imo it largely amounts to: let the PDA’s go after them… lol
He’s justifying going after the WMDs, not starting an endless war of occupation. There’s a difference.
Imagine, for a moment, that we lived in an anarchocapitalist society and one foreign country is threatening nuclear war. Do you think PDAs would stand idly by or would they act to end the threat?
That sounds like you don’t know what a neocon is or the difference between the Old Right, the New Right, and neoconservatism. Peter Schiff seems to be seated in the New Right camp. Barry Goldwater was the founder of the New Right.
Really? So you don’t think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?
That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat.[
Schiff is no neocon, but he proves himself here to be, like most Americans, a foreign policy airhead. Trouble is, unlike most Americans Schiff is running for federal office. He is a good guy, but his run is beginning to look like a big, big mistake. If he is going to go on with this he should get a serious crash course in foreign affairs from Ron.
You`re too young to remember this, but a war was not the only shot at getting Osama. At the time the Taleban regime had made an offer to apprehend and extradite Osama bin Laden for a trial in a Moslem country. Bush could have had Osama on trial in Saudi Arabia, UAE or Pakistan (the three countries which had diplomatic links with the Taleban rather than with the Northern Alliance, and also all pliant countries under the thumb of the US) or he could have had him shipped there and then leaned on them to pass him up to the US. Instead Bush turned them down so he could blow up things.
That’s hardly being a neocon. He’s not a perfect anarcho-capitalist, but he is working towards a smaller government.
Yes, if Schiff was honest in his concerns about so called WMDs he should be fighting the most deranged and criminal government on earth, which also happens to have the biggest stock pile of WMDs and uses them. That government is of course the amerikkkan government. However, instead of fighting against them, Schiff is trying to get a job with them…and partly subscribing to amerikan militaristic ‘foreign policy’
Doesn’t make any sense does it ?
I guess one can use ‘natural rights’ to justify anything. War is peace after all…
Better than almost all other choices for politicians, Schiff is a combination of Ron Paul with some Ayn Rand tendencies (on foreign policy). He was against Irag, and has said repeatedly to bring home all the troops from Korea, Japan, Germany, etc… which makes him pretty high up on the non-intervention meter and a move in the right direction. Rather than dramatize some of his less than perfect answers from an Anarchist standpoint, everyone should really embrace that a real small government private citizen with tremendous Austrian economic knowledge could actually become a US Senator!
Unfortunately, Schiff, unlike Rand Paul, is a somebody, an accomplished entrepreneur, speaker, author and guest on finance shows.
Trading that position for a Senate position is a net loss in my mind.
Someone like Rand Paul on the other hand is perfect, because his profile and sphere of influence is much lower and smaller.
Look, many American voters will not support someone who won’t blow things up and kill foreigners. Part of the notion of American security is this hollywood delta force fascination with going around the world and kicking ass wherever anyone speaks ill of bubba. If Schiff has any hope of being elected, he’s got to play the game.
Mind you, he may actually be into this stuff because as someone said, he is not an anarchist.
Political action is not the answer. We have to replace government institutions with free market ones. We have to correct bad ideas with better ones. We have to open up dialog in areas where there is no discussion, and we have to shed sunlight on that which thrives in the dark.
If the truth isn’t our means and end, then what are we trying to achieve?
Which means he is not a libertarian. This is not about anarchism vs miniarchism.
Are you going to say the same when he votes to authorise air strikes on Iran?
First he has to work towards not killing human beings as a senator.
Nothing to do with anarchist standpoints. Peace is not an anarchists-only thing.
I’m not a Peter Schiff supporter. I’d be happy if he dropped out of the race tomorrow and never ran again. Didn’t you get that from my post?
As for what you quoted from me, my point was that if Schiff wants to be a politician, he will have to lie or be willing to follow through on violence. Which is why I say we should abandon the political means. Those means compromise us, and if we sacrifice libertarian ideas to get power, how are we any better than the people who held power before us?
Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts.
Regarding things he says now, you can’t take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR.