Ron Paul on a Libertarian Foreign Policy: Five Key Fixes

We are often asked, when criticizing the foreign policy of the past several Administrations, “oh yeah, what would you do?” Well we decided to come up with five specific fixes to the prevailing foreign policy that we believe would make a huge difference and would move us much closer to a foreign policy of peace and prosperity. Our top five today on the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

6 thoughts on “Ron Paul on a Libertarian Foreign Policy: Five Key Fixes”

  1. How could America reject this true American statesman 3 times? Just think of where this nation could be if his policies had been followed (especially auditing and ending the Federal Reserve)?

    1. We don’t know what Trump will do. Maybe he’ll go after the Fed after he’s done a bit of infrastructure spending.

      I’m not sure what Paul or Trump would/will be able to do though. Reagan wanted to do more than he did. Congress had different goals.

      1. Reagan educated the public as to his plans and their purpose. He had a democratic majority in Congress yet still got stuff through (yes, massive debts, the drug war, and tons of other freedom-hating things). Paul has been educating people his entire career – in sound economics and sound foreign policy. If he can get tens of thousands at rallies at UC Berkeley and UCLA (socialist havens) to cheer “End the Fed, End the Fed!” then he most certainly could go on TV and spread the message and ask the people to demand that their “representatives” do the right thing. It all comes back to the people.

  2. Negotiate and renegotiate the treaties with the Indian Nations. And treat us like the separate nations we truly are. Standing Rock is a great opening.
    Trump for once kept his mouth shut about Indian policy, but his past is going to haunt him. He’s one of the crowd who use the term “our resources” to include Native possessions. But that’s going to hit him straight in the face about his promise to promote American oil (and very related water resources) by refusing foreign oil. Since most of American Oil is on land that’s Native American. And the watersheds which would be polluted by the Oil Exploitation, especially those which go through Native lands, also go to everyplace downstream.
    Which is: Everywhere. And his policy of removing all Environmental protections will bring on a catastrophe similar to the one (the dust bowl) to kill off the Buffalo and consequently the rest of the prairies.

    Same goes for all grazing, timber and mineral exploitation. It’s foreign land that the U.S. has no business (literally) destroying. The extinction of the passenger pigeon and almost extinction of Buffalo, elk and quite a lot of American species should have been a wake up call, also the Dust Bowl. Also people who live downstream from fracking who can light their well-water on fire.

    Right now there’s a big hooplah about a freshly discovered source of shale oil. Exploiting it will poison the wells of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma almost immediately. And Oklahoma is still the Indian Nation.
    Texans put a different spin on it, mostly hurt feelings for every time the Texas Rangers went in to Oklahoma and took an ass kicking from the tribes.
    Also the tribes collected transit fees from Texas cattle drives.

    But their peevishness on those issues doesn’t diminish the land rights of the Oklahoma tribes or… especially… the water rights of everybody who lives downstream. The attitude the oil companies adopt is that if We The Peasants don’t like drinking their poison, for Their profit margin then We The Peasants are responsible to clean it ourselves using filters the Oil Companies and their Washington-Austin-New York Axis of Evil will provide them at a handsome profit for the W-A-NY Axis of Evil. That’s not acceptable and the fact they’re dealing with foreign AMERICAN entities brings it right back to articles 4 and 6 of the US Constitution.

    If the U.S. is now suffering buyers (more like “takers”) regrets about Indian Treaties, NATO and the UN too damn bad. The U.S. is constrained to renegotiate treaties rather than unilaterally abandon them.

    Standing Rock is one huge pivot.

    1. Self-identifying conservatives would take environmentalists more seriously if they focused on water quality as you do.

      What bugs people is talk of global warming as if that’s most important, when obviously water quality is more important. Similarly, the same people calling for protecting the environment tend to want overpopulation via mass immigration when our water resources are already taxed. It makes no sense. Sierra Club used to focus on immigration; then it got paid not to… I dunno what the situation is today, but most people just assume do-gooders are in it for the money.

      Once resources are exploited here, cosmopolitans will just move to the next area. They’ve no sense of home, and they care for nothing.

Comments are closed.