I understand that Ron Paul is a supporter of Austrian economics and was a friend to Milton Friedman from the mid-70s until his death. I am just wondering how Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be different from that of Friedman’s. It is my understanding that the Chicago School, led by Friedman, was involved in shaping many foreign interventions by the CIA and US government in South America in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Would Ron Paul support a military coup in a sovereign nation in order to install free market corporatism?
Uh, no, and neither did the Chicago Boys. Pinochet acted on his own, and asked for their help. They abloged, but did not support his actions. After all, if you’ve already broken the eggs, you may as well make an omlete with them.
I have read that Friedman believed that initiation of force is a justifiable as a means to an end. Congressional investigations have found that the Chicago School was involved in planning and organizing the political and economic coup where Pinochet overthrough the democratically elected President of Chile in 1972.
I am looking to define Ron Paul based on what he believes and to find out if his morals are in line to what I believe. There seems to be a difference, as far as foreign intervention, between Paul and Friedman and I would like more information on this difference.
I’ve heard this rumor of a connection between Pinochet and the Chicago boys and I have some reasons to question the authenticity of this information, while I can’t refute it.
What I however noticed was the technique used by those making that allegation. Instead of refuting the social and economic teachings of the Chicago Boys, they’d rather tried to pin something on them by connecting them to a military dictatorship that is accused of “human rights violations”. That’s the famous guilty by association method used so often, when the accuser has actually nothing on his mind worth saying.
I’ve never heard any evidence of a connection other than left-wing guilt by association. In any case, Ron Paul position on foreign interventionism is very clear, and he obviously doesn’t support anything like what you mention.
If Ron Paul supported a military coup in another country he wouldn’t be a non-interventionist.
What you have to keep in mind, is that comparing Paul to Friedman is comparing apples and oranges. Paul is a politician (or citizen statesman as I prefer to call him), and Friedman was an academic.
When we talk of Friedman’s involvement in foreign affairs, we are talking about a private citizen. When Paul talks about foreign policy, he is talking about government policy. Ron Paul has made it quite clear that he does not believe that the GOVERNMENT should be involved with the internal affairs of other nations, and that our GOVERNMENT should stay out of entangling alliances. However, as an individual private citizen, he may well support the overthrow of the regimes in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, and the Sudan. I don’t know if he does, but let’s for a second assume that is the case. It is entirely different what he chooses to believe as an individual and how he chooses to spend his own money on the one hand, and on the other hand, what he believes GOVERNMENT policy ought to be and how he believes the GOVERNMENT should spend taxpayer money. Once again, government and society are two entirely different animals.
I can only speak for what I have seen of Ron Paul and he would not support any GOVERNMENT actions in a foreign nation. He would give wide latitude to individuals and non-government orgaizations, those created and funded voluntarily and not with force, to trade or do business in foreign nations.
Non-Intervention is the foreign policy based entirely on the ideas of Washington and Jefferson:
Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship to all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Which is right from the New Testament of the Bible:
Mostly: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
and less so: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land. Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called children of God.
I can only speak for what I have seen of Ron Paul and he would not support any GOVERNMENT actions in a foreign nation. He would give wide latitude to individuals and non-government orgaizations, those created and funded voluntarily and not with force, to trade or do business in foreign nations.
Non-Intervention is the foreign policy based entirely on the ideas of Washington and Jefferson:
Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship to all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Which is right from the New Testament of the Bible:
Mostly: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
and less so: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land. Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called children of God.