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."
Thank you for admitting you have been posting non sequiturs to distract from your appalling illiteracy.
FR is an example of "Freedom of Association" which relates to the First Amendment and has NOTHING to do with marriage. Tell me they aren't arguing for homosexual marriage.
When debating, the_conscience continues to misrepresent what others stated. When asked for quotes, they have none.
They were zotted for Post 138 in which they state 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.
Again, try to tell me they didn't support homosexual marriage and deserve being zotted by Jim.
And WHY are you questioning that the OWNER zotted them? Jim reads more than one post before zotting ANYONE. He has said so. AND Jim has also stated that he does NOT support Ron Paul.
This from the guy that threw away his vote in 2008 on Ron Paul and gave us Obama.
I just read the whole thread in one sitting. The zottees were supporting gay marriage. There’s more than one way to support gay marriage, and they were just trying one of the more devious ways. It is fitting and proper that they were zotted.
Thank you. The poster was trying to use “freedom of association” to back homosexual marriage. I thought that was obvious also.
You did good work, DJ. Refuted them point by point. You should definitely bookmark this thread for your scrapbook.
When will he stop saying he’ll “Audit the Fed” and actually put those words into action? He’s Chairman of the Committee in charge of that.
Golly. Thanks Sam. :-)
Go pimp your scam artist elsewhere.
The unemployed dog catcher could kick Obama's ass. Means Obama is beatable and he's got a record to run on and it's not pretty. No one would run on a record he's built up for himself, from high unemployment, three wars, high gas prices, rising food prices, porous borders.
She’s at least partially correct: MANY (not most) FReepers are afraid of true liberty, of MINIMAL government. There’s NO WAY to deny that truthfully...
And I ALSO served, for well over 22 years. In many ways I STILL serve, as an oath is FOREVER. And my oath was/is to the Constitution, so my aim is to make FedGov FIT that document. Which means cutting government (defense included) greatly. Defense not so greatly as the elimination of over 90% of OTHER government spending and meddling.
How long did YOU serve?
*snort* giggle!
The Constitution explicitly protects the right to life in the Preamble, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (as does the Declaration of Independence), that means that a state CANNOT vote to take it away. Would you support a state's right to legalize murder?
As far as homosexual "marriage," the GOP was founded on the principle of protecting the sanctity of marriage.
Why, thank you so much. Nice of you to mention it. ;-)
Being Christian and libertarian is MOST compatible, because when a Christian libertarian helps his neighbor, he does it with HIS OWN RESOURCES, not YOURS. Any MORE questions?
“I get the feeling you guys would be comfortable in a Muslim country.”
With enough ammo - Yeah.
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.
No, it’s NOT the Christian’s duty to let society go to hell, handbasket or otherwise. HOWEVER, you as with many lazy or collectivist “Christians” seem to be under the misapprehension that GOVERNMENT should do YOUR job. CHRIST was and is about INDIVIDUALS: each INDIVIDUAL must accept God’s gift PERSONALLY; each INDIVIDUAL must be a witness of God’s redeeming love; each INDIVIDUAL must chastise sinners and lead them to God. NOWHERE does Jesus tell His own that we should get GOVERNMENT TO DO OUR JOB. If you call yourself a Christian, get up off your fat butt and DO YOUR OWN WORK. There’s a-plenty of it! Leave Government OUT of it.
England also had serfs and peasants, by any other name, who could also be ordered to let the lord of their manor have his way with the bride on the wedding night. I vastly prefer to have marriage left to the churches, who will be most likely to PROPERLY define it as between a man and a woman.
Having government involvement for many centuries is NOT a recommendation that a practice continue.
Oh, and your troll-bait questions:
MARRIAGE is for anyone, homosexually—inclined or otherwise, AS LONG AS it’s understood to be between a MAN AND A WOMAN, not a man and a “half-a-man” or whatever.
I don’t care if homosexuals serve in the military. Many have served with honor. It’s just that we don’t really KNOW FOR SURE who they were, as their service was more important to them than their sexual identity... which is just as it SHOULD be. The ones now want to serve just to FLAUNT their sexual identity. THAT’S a BIG no-no.
Abortion is murder, period.
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.