Posted on 06/06/2004 10:07:32 AM PDT by Optimist
NEWS & VIEWS EXTRA! "I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." Inside Ronald Reagan Those of us concerned about liberty have had good reason of late to be interested in Ronald Reagan. Increasingly, California’s former governor has been turning up in first place among Republican figures in political opinion polls, among Independents as well as Republicans. In addition, in recent months Reagan has taken to using the term "libertarian" (or "libertarian-conservative") to describe his political philosophy. All of which naturally made us interested in taking a closer look at the man and his ideas. Thanks to the efforts of the late Ned Hutchinson (a former Reagan aide), REASON was able to obtain time out of Reagan’s busy schedule for him to be interviewed by Editor Manuel S. Klausner. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Reason Interview
REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?
REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REASON: How would you distinguish "socialized" fire departments and "socialized" fire insurance companies? Or would you be in favor of socialized fire insurance also?
REAGAN: No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there’s bound to be a grey area, an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other.
I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.
...I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REASON: These days, most private universities are the recipients of Federal funds. Do you think that it’s proper to use tax revenue to finance higher education?
REAGAN: Well, if I answer that question then I’m answering that we should do away with our state universities and frankly I haven’t given enough thought to what could be a counter-system.
At first, there was a great opposition to most of the Federal revenues that are going to education on the part of many educators. Once the money was there, however, it was like the farmer who went into the woods and came back with the wagon loads of wild pigs. When they asked him how he had done it–they’d been wild for a hundred years–he said, "I built a fence and I put corn down and fed them, and they got used to eating the corn there, so l extended the fences’s sides and finally I had an enclosure and I corralled them." He said, "If I can get them to take food from me, I’ll own them." And this is what really happened with Federal aid to education. You know, the Federal Government could have done it differently if the Federal Government did not at the same time want control.
* * * * * * ** * * * * * * *
REASON: (Regarding taxes) Aren’t we deluding ourselves to talk in terms of consent, though? When we talk about taxation, aren’t we really dealing with force and coercion and nothing less than that?
REAGAN: Well, government’s only weapons are force and coercion and that’s why we shouldn’t let it get out of hand. And that’s what the founding fathers had in mind with the Constitution, that you don’t let it get out of hand.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REASON: Back to taxes, you’ve been very critical of the People’s Lobby and the League of Women Voters’ drive to change the Constitution to do away with the 2/3 majority requirement for raising bank taxes . . .
REAGAN: If they’re really a People’s Lobby, why aren’t they going to do what we tried to do and were opposed all the time that I was governor. Don’t change that part of the law–change the other part of the law that says the rest of us can be taxed by a simple majority. If they really want to put a referendum on the ballot, why don’t they go out and say to the people, do you want to change this and make it so that a simple majority can increase that tax or do you want to make it that it requires a two-thirds majority of the legislature to change any tax?
REASON: You’re sounding like a libertarian, now, Governor. We’d like to go all the way to 100 percent requirement for taxes!
REAGAN: Well, I don’t know if that would work or not ... but I think that this other one will. Look–you’ve got a legislature that takes two-thirds to pass the budget, it takes two-thirds to pass an appropriation bill, a spending bill–so why shouldn’t it take a two-thirds majority to say whether you’re going to raise the taxes. But these are fools who are circulating this petition, and again the League of Women Voters have explained that they are against any effort on the part of government to restrict government’s ability to meet the needs and so forth. In other words to spend your money.
But they are fools in thinking that business somehow is getting a special break. Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can’t be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REASON: Now that you’re in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?
REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.
REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?
REAGAN: I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we’re not saying to you give up what you’re doing, but, can’t we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they’re doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)? I think this is the most irresponsible and most dangerous Congress, in my experience, that this country has ever had...
I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility. I know that you can’t get a balanced budget instantly, but at least an end to deficit spending. Then the goal, established as quickly as possible, of a balanced budget, and begin the retirement of the national debt, or the reduction of it certainly. I think that it should be a government, or a party, that has a position that makes it plain that even though there are social faults that may lead to people turning to crime the individual must be held accountable for his misdeeds. That on the world scene we’re going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.
* * * * * * * ** * * * * * * *
REASON: Governor, what about the United Nations? Are you in favor of the United States withdrawing from the UN?
REAGAN: Well, I am in favor of certainly a different policy than we’ve had. I think the United States should have taken a very drastic action; perhaps it should have staged a walk-out at the time of the recognition of Red China. I think that the United Nations today is virtually impotent when you stop to think that countries representing two-thirds of the votes of the United Nations represent less than 10 percent of the world population. It’s a funny thing that everybody who wants one man-one vote doesn’t hold it true for the United Nations!
REASON: Governor if the Republicans were to nominate a candidate that was unacceptable to you in 1976, could you support a Libertarian third party candidate?
REAGAN: I have to wait and see what you’re doing and what you are standing for.
Ping list BUMP
Place marked.
Many thanks for the post.
Best regards,
Reagan 2004. Even at room temperature, he's the best choice.
Every individual is born a libertarian.
In his personal life, he stays a libertarian right till the end, rejecting other's influence in his personal life.
The different ideologies result from man's desire to dominate others and to impose his views on them.
However libertarianism in social life would lead to chaos and anarchy.
First of all human intellectual development isn't uniform even with a given society.
Secondly, even the most intellectual human beings haven't yet reached the state of intellectual development where a utopian libertarian society can be practical.
since this requires respect for others, a responsible behavior by oneself and a belief in the higher authority of god to give you faith and hope.
libertarianism is humanity's loftiest dream, but like all dreams a utopian fantasy.
American conservatism isa libertarian realism, the utopian libertarian state tempered with real world social, intellectual, security, and monetary limitations.
Both the american conservative and non communist liberal ideologies are built around the
same libertarian core
Yes government should not intrude into individual lives, but we're not to a Libertarian legislature yet and government makes laws about the way things ought to be, right now!!! I left the Repellican party recently in disgusted silent protest, but it's like the religion I was raised in... I haven't been a member in over 40 years, but I'll probably never join another one!
I don't need clerics to lead me to Christ and I don't need either Repubs or Libertarians to lead me to the way things ought to be. I'll rejoin the Republicans when they revive Reagan's 11th Commandment and straighten up their ignorant act. They're so out of control right now that Reagan couldn't win a damn primary in CA, today!!!
I've always felt that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path. For that reason, I can't really understand the derision and scorn libertarians get from many conservatives.
Sure, we've got our "loony libertarians" who want open borders, an isolationist foreign policy, and the legalization of all drugs and prostitution.
But the vast majority of us who call ourselves libertarians would be more accurately labeled "libertarian-conservatives", since we only want decentralized, fiscally responsible, accountable government, and the ability to exercise our right to pursue happiness as we see fit, free of heavy-handed government regulation for the sake of "social policy".
President Ronald Reagan was in no way the affable buffoon his political enemies in the Democratic Party and their big media allies tried time and time again to portay him as. Indeed, he was a man of great intellect, insight, honesty, and principle, who had the ability to articulate the ideals that made America the great nation we are in a manner that few in our history have been able to match.
There has never been nor ever be Utopian anything. When ever anyone begin to talk of Utopian it sends shivers down my spine...it ALWAYS mean deaths of millions of None conformists.
So the legality or illegality of the substance made no difference; looks like a pro-libertarian argument to me.
But the vast majority of us who call ourselves libertarians would be more accurately labeled "libertarian-conservatives", since we only want decentralized, fiscally responsible, accountable government, and the ability to exercise our right to pursue happiness as we see fit, free of heavy-handed government regulation for the sake of "social policy".
What are criminalization of drugs and prostitution but government regulation for the sake of "social policy"? Why should adults not be free to pursue happiness through prostitution and drugs (other than alcohol, which is a legal drug that few conservatives want to criminalize)?
Yawn. More irrelevant BS from FR's resident liberty-hater.
Please show me and the others where and how Ronald Reagan was a "Fifth Columnist."
Why? Doesn't libertarianism allow for imprisoning those who don't respect the rights of others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.