Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Peter Schiff Says He Might Support Attacking Iran

Was Tyler Cowen right? Will the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul wing of the libertarian movement turn toward the hard right, or at least the political wing of the movement?

Rand Paul supports the war in Afghanistan.

Now, Peter Schiff says he might support attacking Iran and that he might have gone after WMDs in Iraq. Thus, supporting the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Cato has supported some wars, so maybe its the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul political wing moving hard Cato. Or maybe you just can't trust politicians, any of them (outside of Ron Paul) from infringing on personal rights and liberties, which sounds like what war might do.


  1. Ron Paul voted against the Iran sanctions bill. The BBC reported:

    "Critics of the legislation say it could backfire and lead to Iranian citizens blaming the US for any supply shortages.

    "This will unify the Iranian people against us," said Republican Representative Ron Paul, who opposed the measure."

    Paul's words on the topic:

  2. It's interesting you mention Cowen's comment. At the time, it made no sense to me since some Cato people were pro-war. If anything, Cato was more likely to be neo-con republicans than Rockwell/LvMI. I would agree with Cowen that there is sometimes an very annoying xenophobic element to the the Rockwell crowd, but disagreeing with Cowen-- I think, on the whole, they're better representatives of what libertarianism is.

    To me, war is where the line must be drawn for libertarianism. I say be big tent, and accept all types-- save for the warmongers that wax philosophic on the virtues pre-emptive war. You cannot accept what was once the foreign policy of Hitler and shrug it off like it is ethical like some Cato-ites have done.

    . . .

    Like Ron Paul's son Rand, I have been skeptical of Schiff ever since he began his political campaign.

    While I think Schiff is very intelligent (as shown when he predicted the current economic mess,) based on interviews he had given after he announced his candidacy, I felt he was holding back on some of his views to appeal to a larger audience. This didn't bother me so much at first, but I felt without a track record or principled votes somewhere, I would hold off supporting him until I was sure he would be principled. Now, after hearing about this, I've changed my mind. There's absolutely no way I can support him. Pre-emptive war is not a practice to be condoned, ever. For me, this is not a negotiable item.

    Rand Paul is another similar problem. I felt he held promise when I first heard about him, but as time passed and I heard more about his campaign rhetoric, he came off like a low calorie diet version of the neo-con party line. That makes him not only useless but not trustworthy and possibly even "George Bush II" dangerous.

    It is an interesting public choice problem, too. Are these people campaigning saying these things for their campaign or are they just voicing their true beliefs? I think Rand actually believes what he's saying, I haven't decided on Schiff yet, though. Either way, I have no use for any of this and I'm sure others feel the same.

    Why would I lend my support to someone that is basically a carbon copy of the evil garbage that is being practiced now? I'm not doing it and I know I'm not alone in this.

    As imperfect as he is, there was a reason Ron Paul could construct a large, excited flock of people that believed not only in him, but his ideas-- He never compromised his principles, no matter how politically unpopular they were. And when he said something in interview, speech, debate, or book, it was a forgone conclusion he would vote that way in the congress. I can't think of any congressman that would even think to endure decades of 434-1 votes just on general principle.

    I can't really say anything else save that I'm disappointed in these developments and I'll make it a point to tell people not to support Schiff or Rand in any way.


  3. I agree with PR/S and Anonymous. CATO is clearly more "right-wing". Whether Rand Paul and Schiff are supporting the wars to get elected or not doesn't matter. No politician can be trusted.

    Ron Paul may be the exception that proves the point.

  4. The only thing that Ron Paul ever wiggled on was the ever growing inside job case for 911. I recall he did it in one of the GOP debates, and it really, really turned off a lot of people: just another lifetime pol.

    He knows better. Of course he wants to live and not be suicided. The only person out there who would say what he really thinks, 911 included, is Gov. Ventura. Of course he wants to live too, but I am hoping he can find enough of his navy SEAL ops types to watch his back.

    Of course, I don't know why Ventura would ever want to be president of this US of A. Maybe prez of the next provisional gov after the ever accumulating sh*t hits the fan.

  5. Not surprised by Schiff at all.
    A bit by Rand Paul, who, I thought would take his father's positions.

    I had my doubts when Schiff started suggesting that RP was too old to represent the Lib party..

    It's all about co-option.

    The Lew Rockwellians are often nativist sounding..

    But remember, that nativists exist in every country...

    Each neutralizes the other...and thus in toto they counter interventionism
    masquerading as smooth internationalist libertarianism.