Posted on 05/11/2011 5:19:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.
"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."
Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.
"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."
Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.
"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"
The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.
"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."
The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.
Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax -- essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.
In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.
"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."
A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.
"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."
But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.
"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government -- you cannot have these deficits -- if you don't have the Fed."
We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.
He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"
Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."
Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."
Where have you been? JR has made no secret of his opinion about support for Ron Paul over the years.
I think some issues should be settled at the state level' is not the same as ‘I support buggery and think everyone should do it as often as possible.’
Actually, if you find an honest libertarian, or happen to catch them talking about it on another site, (done that), you will find them ADMITTING in so many words, that they supported homosexual marriage on FR for years under the guise of *the government should stay our of marriage.* Read it with my own eyes, I did. It is THE cover for support of it while being able to deny it by appealing to the fact that they never came out and SAID they supported gay marriage.
I see you all are already questioning my loyalty, conservativism and probably manhood.
Quite a few assumptions there, none of which apply to me.
I'm sure someone has already checked the last eight years of my posts for proper compliance.
If you find out who's been checking your last 8 years of posting history, let us know.
What 80% did you agree with with mommya? I found lots of liberal positions of hers, none conservative. Supporting the defunding of the military as a way to cut spending when there's plenty of other areas to hack, slash, and burn sends up red flags everywhere. There are far better places to start cutting than our national defense.
LOL! You had me at “Monty Python.”
The myth that aristocrats could have the serfs or peasents’ wives before the husbands was discussed on FR years ago.
It’s just a myth. Not a habit, not a standard, not a common practice, etc.
Just. Not. True.
Your screeds are interesting but win you no points. The Constitution is NOT the SOURCE of our RIGHTS. Never was, never will be. The CONSTITUTION IS A LIMIT ON THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT, PERIOD. All else comes under God, Family and Church. In about that order.
In a word, if something is NOT MENTIONED in the Constitution, it is NOT something that government has authority over. How simple is that?
You need to pull your head out of the sand. Are you sure you're on the right FR?
Where have I ever suggested that the Constitution is the source of rights?
In a word, if something is NOT MENTIONED in the Constitution, it is NOT something that government has authority over. How simple is that?
Are you talking about sodomites "marrying" each other or abortion?
The folks that I know are libertarians first and Christians second. They still expect “the government” or “the rich” meaning someone other than themselves, to take care of the needy.”
Now THAT is an outright LIE. Someone who is against government as much as libertarians are would no more call for government “welfare” than Stalin would have allowed free-market capitalism in Russia. You’ve been around here long enough to KNOW that. It may not get much mention, but charity is to a libertarian, as to a constitutionalist also, a private and PERSONAL thing. For example, I do not give to bums on the streets, nor to the United Way “charities,” as they are a waste of good money on collectivist schemes. I do my own work through my church, with veterans. Oh, and I tithe and give as well.
With respect to the Federal government, neither marriage nor abortion falls to their jurisdiction. It’s that simple. I could POSSIBLY live with a definition of marriage placed in the Constitution, with the STATES to enforce it. On abortion, a simple federal law stating that life begins at conception, together with a rider stating that the federal courts have NO jurisdiction to rule on that law, would essentially compel the States to prosecute abortion as the murder it is. THAT is what Dr. Paul has sought for many years. I could go for that as well.
Just how much of what you espouse has to do with controlling the offensive (to YOU) behaviors of others and how much to just ensuring that what goes on in PUBLIC PLACES does not endanger non-participants to that particular behavior? Answer that and we can continue.
Remember, in a FREE society there WILL be folks who do things YOU might not like. Some folks may even SIN. So it’s a question of where the line is drawn. Is it drawn to suit YOU? What about YOUR behaviors that offend your neighbor? Does he get to see THOSE outlawed???
My pleasure, handsome! Thank you for all the pings.
I guess people like that myth to pretend that marriage was never a social contract formally recognized by government; that it is merely a private or church business.
You are a nasty piece of work! I didn’t call you a liar and I do not appreciate you calling me one. The folks of whom I speak are California cousins, some of which are moonbat liberals. When that bunch was asked about religion they announced that they believed in “everything”. That belief system has a name but I can’t remember what it is. The other bunch also California cousins and some of their friends, were raised Catholic, claim to be Christian libertarians. A quote from them was “we are social liberals and financial conservatives, which makes us libertarians”.
Then you’re gullible. ANYONE who tries to pass himself off as a libertarian/Christian/whatever and calls for MORE GOVERNMENT is pulling your leg so hard it came off in their hands. Tain’t so at all, period. The libertarians I’ve known (from California, mostly) have ALL been for smaller government. Some so small as to be microscopic, most of the rest as long as the Constitution’s in charge FULLY, they’re OK.
And I didn’t call you a liar; I said your statement was a LIE. Big difference. Big distinction.
Then you’re gullible. ANYONE who tries to pass himself off as a libertarian/Christian/whatever and calls for MORE GOVERNMENT is pulling your leg so hard it came off in their hands. Tain’t so at all, period. The libertarians I’ve known (from California, mostly) have ALL been for smaller government. Some so small as to be microscopic, most of the rest as long as the Constitution’s in charge FULLY, they’re OK.
And I didn’t call you a liar; I said your statement was a LIE. Big difference. Big distinction.
Try not to get your history from movies. Jus prima nocte never existed in Britain. It has been referenced in regard to King Evenus III (John III) of Scotland, who never existed, in the legends of CulCollen (sp) of Ireland, and King Edward III of England in the movie 'Braveheart', which was fictional in this respect.
Quote where I said such.
It wasn’t a movie I got it from, nor are your assertions PROOF it never happened. ANYTHING in history has a root of truth somewhere. It’s just not always possible to pick out, but to assert that there are no records, so it never happened, is ridiculous. Besides, just how often do you suppose someone’s gonna boast for the record that he had someone else’s bride for the night? Just like slave owners and their female slaves... it HAPPENED but no one talks about it...
First he claimed congress had been lied to about going into Iraq. His rhetoric was exactly like the RAT's talking points. Then he went on to blame it on Dick Cheney because he was so involved with the CIA. At that point, I turned off the radio but evidently he went on to say that if he had been president, he would not have gone in and gotten bin Laden. He even lamented about the Seals taking out an unarmed man.
Ron Paul is crazy. I don't want him anywhere near the WH.
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.