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."
I take it you also believe, as a minarchist, that homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" each other and serve in the military and you also believe that a woman should be able to "choose" to murder her children?
McCain was not my first choice either. I didn't vote in the primary because by the time Texans got to vote McCain was the nominee, chosen by crossover democrats and the MSM.
I considered voting for hillary in the dem primary but decided there wasn't enough soap to make me feel clean afterwards.
Neither did the Founders.
What pagans do that does not harm me does not concern me.
What they do DOES harm you. Being in denial doesn't mean their affect doesn't exist. It simply means you don't want to do anything about it. Nice witness for Him. NOT!
Obeying God is my concern not the States concern.
Not the point. And God doesn't support anarchy but libertarians do.
And you didn't answer what I asked.
tell me drugs should be legal.
Square social liberalism with Christ, our Constitution and our nations Christian roots. And don’t forget homosexuality.
LOL - FReepers are a “fearful bunch?”
is that what they’re spouting over at Daily KOS these days?
Well, Paulbots are an entertaining bunch.
Agreed. I’m done for now.
It only makes sense to a moonbat.
Because nobody is buying your dreck. Conservatives and FR will not join you in your delusion.
I think she likes military people but doesn’t like their stuff like guns and tanks and bombs and stuff...... ya know?
snort****** :D
*resnort* giggle ROFL!
LOL!!!
If you understood the Constitution you wouldn’t be asking such stupid questions.
The States role is to protect me from harm by a neighbor. That’s it.
So because you fail to begin with the foundational thesis you instead assume the State has certain authoritarian rights to impose rules on peoples private behavior. Completely anti-constitutional.
So to answer your stupid questions from a Constitutional perspective:
a) Marriage is a religious affair. According to the Constitution people have a right to free association. That you wish to encroach on this right is telling.
b) The State has a right to prohibit homosexuals in the military if they feel that it would harm their duties to protect American citizens. Their obligation is to make sure they protect American citizens from harm in the best way possible.
c) The State has an obligation to protect babies as well as mothers. No, mothers cannot kill their babies.
You may score a double ZOT on this thread.
You think it has something to do with achieving some level of moral behavior. You believe Christianity is a cultural affair.
I believe Christianity has to do with individuals. I believe Christianity is about a person's trust in Christ.
It's not the States responsibility to force people to trust Christ.
You're the one advocating anarchism.
The States role is to protect me from harm by a neighbor. That’s it.
I'm not sure what state you are referring to, but that's NOT what the Constitution says.
So because you fail to begin with the foundational thesis you instead assume the State has certain authoritarian rights to impose rules on peoples private behavior. Completely anti-constitutional.
Again, not according to the Constitution of the United States of America.
a) Marriage is a religious affair. According to the Constitution people have a right to free association. That you wish to encroach on this right is telling.
Our Constitution is based in English Common Law and they have been regulating marriage for nearly a thousand years.
But, I'll take that as you supporting homosexual "marriage."
b) The State has a right to prohibit homosexuals in the military if they feel that it would harm their duties to protect American citizens. Their obligation is to make sure they protect American citizens from harm in the best way possible.
So, if the powers that be at any given moment decide it's not harmful to have sodomites in the military you don't have a problem with it?
c) The State has an obligation to protect babies as well as mothers. No, mothers cannot kill their babies.
Your only correct answer on this thread.
Those are all very nice assertions but do you have any actual evidence to back them up?
Where did I say it was?
Is it a Christians duty to stand by and allow society to go to hell in a handbasket?
Look up Banns of Marriage, the English started requiring them in the early 13th century.
DJ believes that Christianity is about achieving a certain level of moral behavior.
DJ believes that the State should enforce what DJ believes are the moral behaviors that are Christian.
Therefore the State should force people to be Christian.
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.