Recent Gravel radio interview

Mike Gravel was interviewed by Scott Horton at KAOS Radio Austin. Check it out here.

2 Responses to “Recent Gravel radio interview”

  1. Angela Keaton Says:

    Steve, thanks for posting this. Skyler and Jon, thanks for setting this up. Scott was tough but Senator Gravel was up to the challenge. Anyone in the third party races will need to have the facts down about foreign policy the way Gravel, Barr and McKinney do.

    Mere sound bites won’t cut it.

  2. Timothy Lions Says:

    That was a very interesting interview, I particularly liked the bit about guaranteeing world peace. Actually, Gravel was in the defense there and didn’t ask back, how libertarian doctrine would achieve that. If you held that it is the role of the state to protect the property of its citizens, then you could argue for preemptive wars too, that question has very little to do with the question why you fight and all with the question how you fight.

    But the point was very valid that only an institution that has the power to enforce world peace can guarantee it. Perhaps Gravel should reason that out himself. It is in fact in total keeping with human nature that peace seems to be most prevailing in times of uncertain outcomes of attacks. Humans do not try to find a way how to have peace, they try to find ways how to launch safe attacks. Other than that I tend to be an idealist, but in this regard one should honor empirical evidence.

    Globally, there is no other reasonable assumption than that there are and will be different groupings of people that do not share the same ideals and would, in case of conflict, be willing to kill each other. The role of world government would be to try to ease conflicts and this would be done by contracts that define alliances on certain terms. Whoever broke these voluntary contracts should be fair game for all other groups to loot. The contracts would deal with needs and terms of support and, as I said, would function as an ideals transcending foundation of military alliances.

    Perhaps you could hammer out a contract that everybody would like to sign and then you had peace. But this peace would by no means be guaranteed and neither should it. Nor should it be seen as lasting.

    Anyway, if we want to get there, and if we want all sides to adhere to such a contract, we better go for direct democracy, because the people of a nation are endlessly more trustworthy than some shadowy elite.

    I have to oppose Gravel though on his belief in charters and declaration of universal human rights and the like. I’m certainly not an Unitarian Universalist in that regard. Nature doesn’t work that way, evolution revolves around trying different tracks. A unified humanity is pointless, because humanity can only evolve in opposition to itself, in separation, the old vs. the new.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.