Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
The P Test There is the Libertarian Test, the Nolan Chart Test and now here is my P Test. Take it and see where you stand.by Harry P
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
In my opinion, this may be one of the easiest Presidential choices in a long while. It is an easy decision because the questions you need to ask yourself are very basic. It is easy because the differences in candidate's positions are so clear-cut. Ok, maybe not the individual candidates but certainly the types of positions they hold are easy to discern.
For me and maybe for you too, this election comes down to the basic philosophical question of intervention or non-intervention. The "P Test" has just one 2 part question about policy.
Part A, Foreign Policy: What do you want our nation to stand for?
1: Intervention = a strong aggressive military abroad = war = debt = death.
OR
2: Non-intervention = a strong defensive military at home = trade and diplomacy = peace = life.
Part B, Domestic Policy: What kind of government do you want here at home?
1: Intervention: The rule of men; a Democracy where groups large and small sway the rules, where certain men are above the law; where the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act and Executive Orders rule the land.
OR
2: Non-intervention: The rule of law; a Republic where individual rights are protected, where no group or man is above the law; where our Constitution and Bill of Rights are upheld.
How we, as a nation, answer these basic questions will determine who will be our next President. It will determine the very future of our country; but please don't feel pressured!
To score this test, simply add the total of your answers to Part A and B; 2 points is the lowest score with 4 points the highest.
If your score equals 2, vote for any of the Republicans and most of the Democrats except Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.
If you score 3 by picking Part A as 2 and Part B as 1, vote for Dennis Kucinich.
If you score 3 by picking Part A as 1 and Part B as 2, frankly I don't know who you should vote for as I can't place any candidate into this category. Everyone who is for foreign intervention is also for domestic intervention because you need the one to support the other.
Don't be fooled. While some of the Democrats are against the war in the middle-east, they are not against military intervention and will continue our aggressive military posture around the world. Big government depends on war or the potential for war to keep us fearful and dependant.
If you score 3, here is something you should consider "1: aggression, war, death" and "2: the rule of law" or "2: peace, diplomacy and life" and "1: the rule of men" are diametrically opposed to each other and can not co-exist for very long. Eventually, the "1" will corrupt the "2" until the "2" becomes nothing more than lip service. Please reconsider your answers.
If you score 4, then vote for Ron Paul (R) or (possibly) Mike Gravel (D). It's sad to say that no other Presidential candidate fits into this category.
It's interesting to me (discouraging but interesting) that the 2 men who stand for peace and the rule of law are considered to be the outsiders; the kooks, of our presidential choices. This is a very telling indictment as to where our Nation is heading.
We are at a critical "fork in the road" in our nation's history. Will we continue down the path of "intervention", represented by all of the "Media Darlings" being touted as our only viable choices (supposedly meaning they're the only ones who can "Win")?
Or, will we disregard this obvious and dare I say deliberate attempt to continue our Nation's slide into oblivion in favor of more international control of our country and the American people?
I hope you scored the maximum 4. It is time for "we the people" of this nation to wake up and come to our senses while we can still make these choices.
Harry P
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Harry P only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Harry P is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is a rhetoric test. You didn't really define what type of intervention that you would give. Do we need to intervene when a woman is raped? What about when a child is being abused? Do we need to have a non-interventionist view on domestic policy, where we "mind our own business"? Scary how fast I can turn this arround on you. Try to do a better job next time.
@ the Statist: Nice try, but he did mention that this would still be a nation governed by laws. Quote>"where no group or man is above the law"< Which implies that as long as you're not breaking the law, you are left alone. Hence, your 'rapist' and 'child abuser' would still be prosecuted. Dig deeper...I need a challenge.
What laws should exicst? Would you imprision people for trying to live a better life in a better place? Would you Put people in jail for buying, using, or selling drugs? Would you have laws that limited what type of car that you could drive? And if so how come we can do this with people and not other nations? Is it not a good thing to do? If a group of people were being put to death in gas chambers simply for being an illegal race should the US intervene? And if so why and why not?
You are right. I mistakenly assumed that everyone would understand the term “Intervention”; but apparently not. Intervention is “any interference in the affairs of others”. I would extend this definition to include “by the use of force”. I also assumed that the “rule of law” would be understood to prohibit and penalize all acts of violence.
What is a crime? A true crime only occurs when force, coercion or fraud is used against another; where there is an actual victim who has been materially harmed. Contrary to what our government has ascribed to, there are no other “legitimate crimes”, only social interventions. So most of your “what ifs” would be irrelevant in a truly free society. Just because our government uses the “color of law” to infringe on our rights doesn’t make it right.
As far as intervening by military force in another country’s affairs, this violates the very fabric of national sovereignty and lawful jurisdiction that we as a nation of laws (supposedly) espouse to hold so dear. Our people wouldn’t tolerate it if it were done to us, so why should we expect that interfering in other nation’s affairs would be tolerated by their people?
I guess you are basing part of your question on the morality of intervening when we see harm being done to others; whether individuals, races, or nations.
Obviously we are not going to stop hatred and violence in the world with a flip of a switch. But if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn’t), much of this “unrest” can be directly attributed to our government’s covert and overt interventions already perpetrated throughout the world. How many elected government are we going to over through? How many dictators are we going to subsidize before we learn?
We first need to get our own government house in order, obeying our own laws (the constitution) then we would be better equipped as a people to help others in other nations. We must lead by example and stop attacking other countries for profit. Violence breed violence and more violence is only a temporary and superficial solution.
But that doesn’t answer your question. Should our government take action when someone is in trouble like the ones suffering in Africa or in other countries? Yes, but not with the barrel of a gun and not by “economic sanctions” that only hurt the ones we are trying to help. However, that doesn’t mean that we would not defend ourselves or even other nations, if circumstances were such that our congress would actually have enough reason to declare war. They don’t declare war because the reasons are superficial, political and for profit and they know it.
Our government and our people should use diplomatic and humanitarian measure to help relieve conflicts and promote peace. The American people are generous to a fault. When someone needs help here or elsewhere Americans come through. But we have been cheated out of our goodness and generosity by the confiscation of our wealth by our own government. How much good could we have done here and in the world with the (literally) trillions of dollars that have been spent on wars and interventions that only benefit the elite?
I know you probably think I’m naive. I would guess from your “post name” that you have very little faith in people being able to govern themselves and total faith in an elitist big government taking care of us; otherwise you would have picked a different name. But nevertheless, I’ve given you the courtesy of responding with a sincere attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
