Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
And we have to reject that totally and in principle.
So this is quite a different program, and it puts the pressure back on the individual.
Some people will say, "This won't work. We can't do this because there'll be anarchy.
We don't want to not govern; and we need government. What would happen? It'd total chaos."
You know, it'd be the opposite. In some ways you'd have more government. It'd be a different
government. It'd be self-government. People would have the responsibility taking care
of their own lives. It's self-government that we want.
And if there is to be some government, the more local the better. In case there is someplace,
happens to be a liberal city, some place in the country, and they have city laws and they
are onerous and we don't want those kind of laws in Texas, we don't have to follow them
under this system that I'm talking about. But you happen to live in a liberal city,
and the city becomes onerous, it's up to you to you to change those city laws and not even
the cities or the states take away your liberties. And hopefully all cities would act in that
manner.
A lot of people would like to see this philosophy in a negative way. And the media will quite
frequently come up to me and say, "Well, you're foreign policy sounds idealistic, but isn't
that isolationism?"
No, it's not isolationism. And I'd certainly bring ALL our troops home immediately. But
in contrast to isolationism, I like the idea of freedom to trade, freedom to travel and
the freedom to communicate and freedom to have diplomatic relationships and iron out
differences. But this whole idea that is isolationism is sort of a protectionist notion sort of
a mercantilistic -- that we have to isolate ourselves from the world. The founders never
believed in this. They believed in travel and trade with the firm conviction that the
more we trade with countries, the less likely we are to fight them.
Think of the magnificent relationship... at least the magnificently improved relationship
with Vietnam. Think of the 20-years plus of the United States telling the Vietnamese how
to settle their civil war. How many millions of people died? Plus sixty-thousand of our
men died. And now what do we do? Now, we trade with them, we talk to them, their president
comes here. And much of what has been achieved in peace could not be achieved with war. And
there is no reason not to have the confidence that foreign policy of non-intervention is
very, very productive and it is very, very much cheaper than fighting wars.
There is no reason to fret about what might come of the Middle East. There certainly could
be problems when we're going to leave because we know we will have to leave some day. And
the sooner we leave the better.
The one thing that we have to realize is that empires always end. But to be in denial and
say, "What are you talking about? We're no American Empire." But if we're in 130 countries,
700 bases, and we're building more bases in Iraq, if you understand why we are attacked
and threatened, and understand the nature of blowback, yes, we will have to leave.
Most empires end disastrously because we go bankrupt. And we literal can't finance our
welfare state and we cannot finance our war without, ironically, borrowing from China.
So this is not a viable system. The sooner we get back to the basics of protecting individual
liberties, free-markets, and foreign policy of plain-old common-sense, the sooner we will
get back to our peaceful and prosperous society that we all desire.