>> >> ron paul former republican congressman, 3-time presidential candidate - he's opposed to american intervention in syria. >> i can't imagine any moral justification for us getting involved in another war. >> on domestic issues he favourites hands-off government.

liber tarian - he's critical of both parties. >> they are all one party. >> what about his son, senator rand paul and his ambitions much. >> if the republican party don't welcome him with open arms, there's something wrong with the party. >> ron paul is our guest on talk to al jazeera. >> welcome. former congressman in texas, home of your internet video venture, the ron paul venture. tell us why you have chosen to use that medium. >> it sort of came to me. in the presidential campaigns and what i have been doing, it seems i have a lot of attention on the internet. a lot of philosophy is attractive to young people. they like the internet. a lot of the fundraising was done spontaneously through the internet.

i knew how instrumental it was, and that's where the young people got the information. because of that, after i left congress, people knew i was interested in the issues, so i had several people come to me, would you like to do something where you can talk about the issue and editorialise - i wasn't interested in relocating and that's how we ended up here. >> you live 5 minutes away, a quick jaunt to the studio. you are known for having a non-interventionist stands. let's look at the hotspots, starting with syria. what is your red line in syria, is there a moment when the united states has a responsibility to protect, go abroad and help people in crisis, who are being killed by their own country? >> yes, any country, if syria attacked the united states, or came and bombed us or sent a drone missile, that may qualify

as means to retaliate. under the circumstances, i can't imagine any moral qualifications for us to get involved in war. it's unmoral already. it's not instituted in the constitution that we should be the policemen of the world, picking and choosing and valve involving in the fights. in a practical way - think of the cost for the last ten years. we've spent trillions, it's ongoing and results are lousy. iraq is in sham bles, afghanistan is in sham bles, and egypt is a mess, and now we are talking about syria - what would be the outcome in syria? i see this as a strong argument for the policies i've been advocating for years. they are not my arguments, i

didn't invent non-intervention. this was placed in the constitution, we can defend the country, we weren't to be the policemen of the world or print money to pay for war. the constitution says if you are involved in laws - we are involved in laws all over the place, but there's no declaration of war any more. i would say there's no justification for us to do what we are doing in the middle east or be in syria. if somebody attacks us we need to respond. >> what about preventative measures, some saying, including those in the united states, government and policy leaders saying that we are creating potentially a new generation of terrorists, people who will hate the united states if we stand by and let killings happen overseas. what point are we, in our best interests taking preventative interests.

>> i think our intervention creates the terrorists. we are in their country. how would we react if they did it to us. what if china put their navy in the gulf of mexico and said, "we are going to occupy the gulf of mexico." >> if i was killed by my neighbours or government, i may be happy if anyone comes to help me. >> that may be true, but there's no justification for it, to do that. that makes the problem that much worse. so i don't see any justification whatsoever for us to be involved when we aren't threatened. to argue that there would be more enemies if we did that - the opposite is true. after 9/11 the explanation was that they want to kill us because we are free and prosperous. we have a good economy, we are free and that's why the radicals hate us. there's no evidence to that.

the people from the middle east who would like to kill us are sick and tired of us getting involved. i mean, if we send a drone missile over there, targetting a bad guy, how do we know who the bad guy is, who gave us the evidence. be do it on an -- we do it on an american citizen. what happens if there's an accident and we kill someone at a wedding. how many is dead, five people, thousands - they'll all have a resentment. i see that as a problem, not a solution. >> what is our responsibilities to allies people that will come and help us. >> that's a joke. do you think the soviets would come in - when they came to alaska, did you see the british rescue us. i don't know, i don't like the multilateral treaties, to me they are not

legal. they say, "they're the law of the land, we sign up to the united nations and they can declare war." we can't repeal and amend the constitution in that manner. i think the so-called agreements are dangerous, wrong, and not technically constitutional because you cannot commit to war in generations in the future. that's essentially what we have done. we have said that we are going to come to the rescue of all these countries, and i think it has given us a box that we are in and has been a major contributing factor to our bankruptcy which is the attack, the attack on our civil lib erties at home, bankruptcy that we are facing and looking to see how foreign policy contributes to that. in a big way it has. >> i want to talk about surveillance in the surveillance state. you talked about bradley manning, wishing to be known as chelsea manning, you talked

about him as being a whistleblower, but some say manning endangered americans overseas by releasing cables to wiki leaks giving countries insights to our perspectives, and endangering droops overseas. how do you square that? >> he did that, revealing the information to our enemies. wiki leaks - it's a responsible organisation that took the information out that could hurt someone. >> do you think it redacted enough? >> yes. if there had been people killed, you would be hearing about it. i don't think there's any evidence to that. they said that the information was turned over to the enemy, that's us, the american people. we know more now about what was going on in the middle east, and how we were committing killing and things going on that we didn't know about. it's the same way with daniel

elsberg. when elsberg revealed - it was based on a lie and iraq was based on a lie. >> as a member of congress who served many terms, president obama comes into office and changes. the rhetoric changes from the day he gets into the oval office, in terms of surveillance and what should be done to monitor americans and those overseas. have you had a moment in congress where you had classified information where your perspective gained because you had more information. you gained more knowledge. >> zero. after going for a couple of years i quit. >> the intelligence briefings. >> yes. it's a propaganda tool. congressman jones from north carolina, he went, listened and believed them, and voted for the war, and now suffers because it

was a wrong thing. anything you hear there will be in the newspaper or the tv the next day anyway. but all you hear is the propaganda and why you have to support the war. i stayed away from it, didn't believe in it and didn't have to worry about talking about it. if you talk about it you might a, "you heard about it in classified information", i never bothered and they never truly wanted to give us information. that was not the goal of the briefings. >> when we come back, dr paul's stance against government intervention issues, and we'll talk about obamacare. obamacare

. .

. welcome back to talk to al jazeera. our guest is dr ron paul, congressman representing a district in texas and has a non-interventionist stance on domestic issues. let's talk about the enemy. a government rule considered to have worked is the auto-bale outs in 2008/2009. was it the right move? >> i don't believe in government taking care of special privilegeses wealthy bankers or company. i don't think that's what the government was set up to be. the word non-intervention is my word. you talk about libber tarians, progressions - i'm a non-interventionist, foreign policy and personal liberties. the bale outs, if it did work, i don't think it was worthwhile. if it did work it's like saying, you know, if the bank - if a bank robber was successful and nobody got hurt and he got away

with the money, well, nobody got hurt. he got away with the goods, he had a neat trick, no one was shot and someone got the benefi benefits. that's what the bale out is about. >> what about the jobs, there were estimates that a million jobs could be lost because of trickle-down effect. >> that's what they did, they caused a bubble and bust. blame it all - put it at the feet of the federal reserve for creating these problems. yes, that is a big problem. but to turn around and say free markets create unemployment, it's exactly the opposite of this. but you take the housing bubble. it's more clearly seen than, say, the bale out of the car companies, which i think was morally wrong and bad economic policy. the housing bubble - who made the money. everyone deserved an hour, give people easy credit and write

laws to say you have to get credit if they are not creditworthy. everyone was getting house, it was a beautiful system, they'd have perpetual wealth. there was a lot of speculation, derif ties, mort companies make money, bankers make money, and they overextend themselves and go broke. the world is coming to an end. if we don't do this there'll be no jobs, we'll have to bail them out to save the average person. none of that happened. they bailed out the big companies at the expense of the little guy. on housing - the people lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. with all that bale out it didn't help the average person and we are starved for jobs because they do not understand economics and the business cycle >> you are against the obamacare, the health care law.

you've been against that. that is a goal, says the president, to keep people from declare bankruptcy by trying to get everyone insured, tackle things for pre-existing conditions. let's look at that. should they be required to be covered by insurance companies? >> no way. if you want - if you want to transfer wealth from one person and give it to someone else and say, "you must pay for the care of someone else", that's a socialistic system. to call it insurance is foolishness. where we are now is 10-15 miles from the gulf. let's say i didn't buy insurance for my house and there's a hurricane in the gulf. do i have the right to go to the insurance company and say, "i want insurance, pre-existing condition, there's a hurricane out there." that's not insurance. there's so much distortion of

langua language. call it something else. i'm so convinced that government medicine is atrocious to the patients and everybody. i interviewed a doctor on my channel who has ha private clinic in -- has a private clinic in okay lea loama. he privatised it. people are flocking in to him because he can take a $30,000 procedure in the system developed with the government and corporations in charge, he can take a $30,000 and do it for $3,000. people go to india for the same reason. >> what do you do, do you throw out medicare? >> you don't need it, it's going broke. what happened to the medical system when the soviets broke up? it went broke. >> the country is becoming

detroit. can they provide health care for the people of detroit? not any more, only if they get money out of another city that is more frugal. it doesn't work. this whole idea that people who use government force and tyranny to transfer wealth are the only ones who are the human tarians is a falsehood. if you truly care about your fellow man, you have to endorse freedom. the greatest prosperity is always associated with the greatest amount of freedom. if you want people to be prots perrous, the -- prosperous, the largest middle class that occurred was in this country. it's not there. the characteristic of economics and the system we have is the destruction of the middle class and transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. there is this - wealthy get waltedy, but the -- wealthy, but

the middle class are suffering. >> when we come back on talk to al jazeera, the future of the republican party, and we'll ask dr paul about the future of his son, senator rand paul of kentucky and possible presidential aspirations. stay tuned.

>> welcome back to talk to al jazeera. our guest, former congressman ron paul is doing the ron paul channel an internet video show. 3-time presidential candidate, twice on the republican certificate and once as a libertarian. the republican party is accused of being too white, too old. >> for get them, the republicans and democrat party. both parties endorse the fra reserve and military intervention overseas. both depend on the mon etising of debt and planning the economy and deficit increases. no matter what they say, the same procedures continue. so i forget them completely.

>> despite your frustration for the party you ran for president under the republican party, and you served as a cop congressman. where does it go. >> it's irrelevant. there's no competition. you have two parties, do the third and fourth get in the debates? do they get a fair shake. they can't get on ballots. we kill people in the middle east to make sure they have elections. then they have an election, we don't like it and we get rid of the guy elected. in this country you don't have a fair shake - whether it's major media or anything else there's a fair shake. does the green party get a fair shake. the american people don't care. we have a big contest and people are convinced there's a difference, but most people stay at home because they are sick of it all. they should bring people into

your philosophy, your beliefs, get them interested in your channel. how much do you have to think about how much your message is taken. one thing you talked about is the civil rights act of the 1960s. you said you wouldn't spoor elements of it -- support elements of it because of property rights and civil liberties. defend the statement? >> why should i be on the defensive in america in a free society as if private property rights are mean and vicious. all civil liberties are protected by property right. if you believe in personal choice and sexual preferences, it's protected because you have privacy in your home and bedroom. if you want privacy and freedom to speak, it's the press, tv stations and newspaper. everything properly protects civil liberties. if you throw out a basket of saying property rights is detrimental to civil

liberties, it's a fallacy. you wanted to get repeal, the bad lus. you repeal the stuff. government was the one that was doing the discrimination. they endorsed the slavery, the jim crow laws, segregation. during my lift in world war ii, it was the segregation. that - you get out of the way because any time the government sanctions something, it's wrong, and they have caused so much trouble and now we are still suffering from the bitterness and the hatred. i do not like to see people talked about in groups because i do not think rights belong to groups. i don't believe there's rights for minority or women. everyone has equal rights as an individual. they should be treated as an intriffedual. if that is not understood -- individual. if that is not understood you

can't solve the problems. >> are you concerned about losing african americans who say it's a non-starter. they say civil rights changed their life, their grandmas rights. >> they never would have been challenged if they understood civil liberty. if you under liberty or how we got to the problems - get the government out of the way. think of all the things, all the way from slavery to jim crowe to the military. i mean, it's all been government orchestrated. >> talk to us about your policy on the drug wars, and what, do tell, an inner -- what do you tell an inner city school administrator trying to keep hard drugs out of the school to protect the children they work with? >> it's an important subject. it's related to the issue of discrimination. there is where there's still a lot of discrimination in how the

drug laws are enforced. i have been a vocal opponent to the drug war because it's useless, i think. now you have 12-13% are blacks, if they are mistreated, into courts compared to the whites. you are more likely to be arrested and prosecuted. the judicial system, government, has been discriminating in many ways against blacks and minorities. it's an area. the drug war is a bad system. it needs to be done away with. it only came about since nixon's time, where we had this drug war, which protects, you know, the alcohol companies and the drug companies and everyone else because they are afraid someone might smoke marijuana and get benefit from it. >> i want to get back to politics, your son, rand paul, is getting attention. he's thinking about exploring the presidency in 2016, running for president.

where does he stand in the rarity scheme, and how does he compare to governor chris christy, seen as a moderate mainstream source? >> you'll have to ask him, i've never talked to him about it. >> you never talked about rand running for president? >> i really haven't. i didn't talk to him about running for the senate either. i wasn't surprised he did. i think i went to kentucky one time for him, so he made up his own mind. he's like a libber tarian. i've not talked to him about it. >> what do you think about his position in the republican party, where he stands and what he is carving out. is he part of the next generation of the work you are doing? >> only time will tell. it's a tough thing to challenge a party. i remember in a debate someone said, "ron paul why are you up here, you're not a republican.".

i said i'm for a balanced budget and other things, and there's no place for me in the republican party, so there's something wrong with the republican party. he'll have to face that type of things, his views obviously will be close to mine. if the republican party doesn't welcome him with open arms, there's something wrong with the republican party. they want to be a big party, and like i said the leadership in both parties are close together. he'll be challenged because the republican party - i didn't ask him, but in the campaign i said the republican party has lost its way. the democrats lost their way too, because they are one and the same. they believe in big government and don't care about personal liberty. they care about fighting wars. the military industrial complex, the medical, the surveillance industrial complex. we are facing a crisis because

both parties are owned by the corporations who make a lot of money on this. that is the challenge we have as americans to find out whether or not we will save our country by restoring the principles of civil liberty >> dr ron paul, former congressman and 3-time presidential candidate. thank you so much for talking to al jazeeraindustrial complex. congressman and 3-time al jazeera. al jazeera.