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."
Let me write slowly...
What does Christ have to do with “social” or “cultural”?
Has nothing at all to do with homosexuality, homomarriage or the arguments they use to try and justify it.
Prove homosexuality is biologically the same as heteresexual pairing.
“Free association” doesn’t mean what you are trying to claim it does.
No troll, sodomites are free to associate with whomever they want, we are talking about them "marrying" each other.
Strange that you claim to be a Christian while pushing the homosexual agenda.
The Christian thing to do is tell the sodomites that they are sinning and call on them to repent, YOU want them to get married.
Look at your tagline and then tell me drugs should be legal. mommya admitted to being a social liberal. Square that with Christ, our Constitution and our nations Christian roots. And don’t forget homosexuality.
Let me put this more simply so you'll get it: Does Christ approve of believers supporting homosexuality, abortion and forcing others to support social programs? Does our Constitution support those things? Did the Founders support those things?
I like how the conscience keeps trying to put words in your mouth.
And he has zero idea what free association means.
It has nothing to do with marriage.
By his logic, a man should be allowed to marry his goat , or pair off with horses, dogs, etc because it’s ‘free association’.
I’ve heard that free association crap used to support homosexuality before.
From a troll not too long ago.
Yup. And I have a link somewhere about Jefferson supporting castration for sodomites while he was Governor of Virginia. Unfortunately for sodomites, they kept the death penalty.
I know.
But don’t tell them that.
They’re busy trying to be an elevated protected class where the rest of us are forced and legislated to accept them in every inch of our lives and our childrens lives.
If free association ‘applies’ at all, then I am also free to NOT associate with them.
NAMBLA types also push for homosexual marriage while pushing for lowering the age of consent.
They see it as an open door to their ‘wildest dreams’ and legal protection from prosecution.
So the Constitutional principle of free association has something to do with biology?
Please explain where, exactly, in the Constitution you find the "right" for homosexuals to marry.
Do you also support the "right" to polygamy? If not, why is homosexual "marriage" acceptable and not polygamy?
What about marriage to farm animals? Do you support that as well? If not, why not.
Have you missed the numerous threads over the years where Jim Robinson has explicitly stated that Free Republic WILL NOT be used to further the homosexual agenda? Which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
I'll try to write as clearly as I can so even you two can understand. I would not attend a Church which sanctioned homosexual marriage because marriage has spiritual implications and that's why it should remain something for each Church to decide. Now if two people of the same sex wish to contract with each other to share their possessions then our Constitution allows them to do that. Whatever they believe that contract entails spiritually is none of the State's concern.
The Christian thing to do is tell the sodomites that they are sinning and call on them to repent...
Of course that is the Christian thing to do but it is one thing to tell them and another thing to use the State to force them to comply.
I’ll say it as plainly as I can:
Free association has NOTHING to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise.
Got it?
If free association has nothing to do with marriage I suppose you guys would support the State setting up forced marriages.
I get the feeling you guys would be comfortable in a Muslim country.
Your clarity on this thread has never been an issue, the issue is your support of homosexual "marriage."
Of course that is the Christian thing to do but it is one thing to tell them and another thing to use the State to force them to comply.
Homosexuals have NEVER been barred from marriage, they have always had EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS as everyone else. YOU are trying to force the government to create "special rights" for homosexuals. YOU are coming right out of the left's playbook.
Nice of you to try and put words in my mouth.
How about you prove that free association has something to do with marriage?
Show proof, show what the lw says on it.
Go ahead, I dare you.
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.