The Libertarian Statesman

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:39:37 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com - Dr. Paul answers questions from readers of Steven Dubner's Freakonomics Blog. [lew]

Q: Why is it that, even in the midst of unimaginable deficits and an economic crisis, both our enormous military and our policy of drug prohibition remain sacrosanct? Do you think this reflects actual democratic opinion, or is it the work of powerful, but numerically small interest groups?

A: I think that it might reflect democratic opinion, but only because each issue has been demagogued.

Take military spending. I believe in a strong national defense. I want our troops here, defending our territory; I want nuclear submarines and an adequate arsenal of weapons that can repeal any conceivable attack. What I don't want to do is spend a trillion dollars a year maintaining an empire.

Today, our troops are in 130 countries. We have 700 foreign bases. We can spend far less and have a stronger national defense than we do right now. But if you question our foreign policy, you are branded as un-American. And we're told that if we don't "fight them over there, we'll fight them over here." That's absurd.

On your second example, the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way -- through local laws, communities, churches, and families -- to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.

There are certainly some powerful special interests that benefit from our flawed foreign and drug policies. Now, do I think they openly conspire together to deceive and manipulate? No I don't. The system is much to complicated to think a few puppet masters control the strings. But I do think we'd be a lot better off if we listened to our founding fathers and obeyed the Constitution. The founders would never have formed a D.E.A., and they would be horrified if they saw our troops spread thin around the globe.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (3):

The only way to end the

Submitted by Horatio on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:01:16 GMT

The only way to end the INSANE War on Some Drugs is to change the language. From this point forward, the proponents of IWOD must be referred to as junkies. Over and over again, until those who follow the discussion in any media begin to think of prosecutors, police, prison officials, defense attorneys(!) as junkies, in need of rehab, and not to be taken seriously.

Edit comment

IWOD!

Submitted by Griff69 on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:23:58 GMT

That's excellent, Horatio. Especially, the "IWOD", although, taking the cue from you, wouldn't that be IWOSD?

Edit comment

True

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:36:08 GMT