Posted on 04/15/2009 7:39:25 AM PDT by AmericanHunter
Last year at this time, a presidential campaign captured the interest of many in the nation. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters like me supported the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, a long time Republican congressman from Texas. Those of us who are interested in liberty and personal independence put quite a bit of our hope for a better tomorrow into his candidacy, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Dr. Paul has a long standing record of voting in a pro liberty manner on many of the important issues of our day. Many may have been disappointed by the events that took place, but perhaps they should not be surprised. Even though Dr. Paul did not become president, or even the Republican presidential nominee, his campaign has opened the eyes of a great many people and his message continues to reverberate in the American consciousness, and indeed around the world. The freedom message is powerful and popular worldwide, not just in America.
It became evident quite early on in Ron Paul’s campaign that the establishment was not going to give into him easily, no matter his popularity. The establishment media did their best to marginalize him and his supporters and minimize the impact he had on the political discourse. They did their jobs well, as far as that went, and managed to prevent huge numbers of common folk from discovering the only candidate that could really be trusted to make a difference. But since Ron Paul was a Republican, they couldn’t keep him out of the debates like they do so many other worthy candidates with a freedom message. Unfortunately, it may have been too little, too late against an establishment that was simply too powerful.
Still, Ron Paul managed to awaken a multitude who may have otherwise remained apathetic and feeling helpless against the rising tide of political disenfranchisement that continues to pervade not just the United States of America, but the entire world. Despite the fact that he was given less time than other candidates at the debates, despite the fact that he was asked more insignificant questions having nothing to do with the main issues of the day than the other candidates, despite the media’s efforts to make him and his supporters look crazy and/or radical, he managed to deliver a liberty message that resonated in the fibers of the American people. He managed to deliver a message of smaller, more transparent government that most freedom loving individuals can agree with. Ron Paul’s candidacy was a success in so many ways simply because the establishment and their media cronies did not want the common folk exposed to such ideas and they could do nothing to stop it. The idea of freedom has always been dangerous to those in power.
Yet Ron Paul did more than just deliver the message of freedom to the masses. He was able to make some predictions about the direction this country was taking. More surprisingly, he showed that the American people are interested in economics and how money works, particularly young Americans. After all, it is the younger generations who are going to have to pay for the follies the government engages in today. What do people think debt is anyway? What do people expect from a system where money creation is based on debt? Like the old fairy tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, debts are to be paid as promised else likely the children will suffer the consequences. Perhaps the people of this nation understand more than the establishment gives them credit for and that is why there was such an outcry against the recent bailouts.
It is only now, after we have seen many of Ron Paul´s economic predictions come to pass, that he is given credibility by those who interview him in the mainstream media. It is only after an election has been held and establishment supported politicians have remained firmly in place that the mainstream media begins to give any credence to the free market proponents who had been warning all along of the impending crisis. Even now, as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others warn of a deepening economic crisis, the politicians continue a policy of increasing the debt burden and trying to maintain an unworkable, credit driven monetary system. Even though thoughtful, common sense solutions have been proffered by such gentlemen and reported on in establishment media these men are ignored by the political and banking elite as their solutions would curtail the power and control the establishment maintains over our lives and so no real change will take place despite the apparent prophetic nature of past predictions.
It´s not just the economy that Ron Paul made dire predictions about, however. He also made predictions and continues to warn about the likelihood that our freedoms will be lost. As it stands, the United States government still honors a few of the freedoms we used to take for granted, but even those freedoms are tenuously honored at best as the elite who control the mechanisms of state would love to stifle all dissent and silence all who would dare protest. Civil liberties which were supposed to be protected by the rules of governance that were outlined in the Bill of Rights which were eviscerated by the Bush administration have not been restored. It seems to me likely that those who broke the law by violating those rights which they had sworn an oath to uphold will never be brought to justice. Worse still, the burdensome tomes legislators and their friends create and then refer to as laws are not being repealed. In fact, I am certain more cryptic laws are being crafted as you read this to create larger bureaucracies with less transparency and more power than ever.
There are remedies available for these problems also. Dr. Ron Paul understands what these remedies entail and gave us his recommendations during the debates. On top of my list is to bring all our troops home from all around the world. As a nation the United States has over extended its budget and its authority by trying to administer an empire it should never have built in the first place. It is time to give the rest of the world the freedom to police their own nations and to keep our troops here to defend ours. It is time to deal with other nations fairly on a private business level, letting them sell their resources for what open markets will determine is a fair price, rather than trying to force them to bow to the will of our corporations. If this causes higher energy prices, then so be it. Perhaps if that were the case we would develop better alternative renewable energy sources. We should have fair trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
It is long past time we ended our wars of aggression. Too much life and treasure has already been lost on an activity which by its very nature can only destroy. Wars of any kind only serve to generate an atmosphere of fear and animosity that darkens the future for all mankind. This kind of paranoia only serves to stifle the overall productivity of the world. Rather than concentrate on producing products and services to improve the lives of others, products and services that destroy are emphasized. Rather than concentrate on products that bring joy and value to one´s life, mechanisms and policies that bring about misery to others are pursued.
Fear is the biggest threat our society faces. It is this unreasonable, irrational emotion that has eroded the American way of life faster than any enemy ever could. Because of its grip, we have allowed the protection of our freedoms to be undermined by an unscrupulous few with their own agenda. Because of its continuing presence we can expect more restrictions on the exercising of our rights.
On more than one occasion last year, Dr. Paul referenced the United States Constitution as part of his answer to a question. As far as I could tell, he was the only candidate to do so. He is, in fact, a self proclaimed defender of the Constitution. Enshrined within the body of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which are meant to restrict government’s activities and protect an individual whose natural rights might otherwise be violated by a far more powerful and possibly tyrannical entity. While the Constitution may not be a perfect document as evidenced by its past and present inability to prevent government abuses of civil liberties from taking place, it is a document those who have been unjustly persecuted can point to in their defense when making such claims. It is, at the very least, a good outline of how a just government ought to treat individuals under its auspices.
Many have come to believe that the Constitution is the document that grants American citizens their rights. This is not so. To suggest this would be to suggest that government can take rights and freedoms from its people. These rights and freedoms aren’t granted by government, but are a natural part of the human spirit. This is the case worldwide, not just in America. It is a condition that has been known to philosophers and hidden by tyrants for millennia. The question is not whether or not humans have rights that can be given and taken; the question is whether or not one can openly exercise his individual rights without fear of retribution from those who hold stations of power. This is a measure of the amount of freedom one has in a given society, and in today’s United States of America many have become afraid to exercise their rights due to the flagrant disregard the federal government shows for its own rules as outlined in the Constitution.
Last year in the debates Ron Paul was right about the direction the economy was taking. He was right about the federal government disregarding freedoms. He remains right about establishing a new, sound monetary system based on something other than debt. He remains right about curtailing government abuses by adhering to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Just following those two simple steps would do so much to begin to bring fiscal sanity back to our economy and peace of mind back to our society. If the government continues to ignore such sound advice, perhaps it is time that common men begin to ignore government dictates and implement their own free market institutions based upon these principles which most politicians no longer care to uphold.
See, this shows that you (nor Heinlein) don't really understand what "liberty" is. Liberty involves constraint on behaviour - liberty involves the necessity of refraining from infringing upon the life, liberty, or property of others. Without that, you really DO have anarchy - and if you've bothered to even read a sentence of John Locke, then you know that anarchy (what the classical liberal theorists called "the state of nature") is the antithesis of liberty. Anarchy is anti-liberty, since NOBODY's freedom is truly safeguarded. Indeed, the classical liberal theorists, from Locke all the way to our Founders, knew that you cannot have liberty unless it is safeguarded by a consensual, commonwealthian government.
In short - "government" itself is not the enemy of liberty, it's the TYPE and SCOPE of government that is - when it is either not representative of the people (i.e. not consensual), or else expands beyonds its rightful scope of protecting the natural rights of all members of the commonwealth (i.e. is not commonwealthian).
Laws against murder are not a hindrance to liberty. Laws upholding contracts are not a hindrance to liberty. Neither are laws against theft, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc. (i.e. much of our criminal law). Shoot, laws that forbid you to dump motor oil into a stream that runs through your own property, but then goes through a lot of other peoples' properties before finally ending up in the county water supply - that isn't an infringement on liberty, either.
Much of the problem with libertarians is that they want freedom, but without responsibility. Any enforcement of responsibility becomes tyranny to them - which is simply a childish way of looking at it. Libertarians have a singular ability to fail to comprehend the extended ramifications of their own actions, and that so-called "victimless" actions may only seem "victimless" at that particular instant in time, but are not so "victimless" on down the road.
I am? Well thank you.
The record of Alan Keyes
I don't know that much about his record except that I believe he was a U.N Representative under Reagan. What do you know of that's a problem with his record?. I'd like to know so I know whether I should keep looking for someone else somewhere.
Two reasons:
1) The Democrats WANT to spend, spend, spend, so they'll take any and all earmarks that will help to run up deficits and (in their mindS) justify raising taxes.
2) The GOP "leadership" (and I'm not counting them blameless by any means) don't pay attention to what is going on about 90% of the time anywise - and the other 10% of the time, they just don't care.
What do you think is sketchy about his political/Constitutional road map? (Curious)
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Ron Paul: "First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that enables our worst enemies to live among us."
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Ron Paul:"This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state."
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Ron Paul:"Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Ron Paul "It's not the Federal Government's business to regulate pornography -- that right belongs to the States."
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Ron Paul: "All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices"
"Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions."
RP: Again, "the right to legislate against these issues reside with the States, not the Federal Government."
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Ron Paul: "The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism....Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity."
Based on your criteria for " Libertarian", Ron Paul is No Libertarian!
To RoPaul's credit, he does deviate from the Libertarian party line on a number of issues. I think folks confuse him for a Libertarian because he ran for President on the LP ticket in 1988.
***1) The Democrats WANT to spend, spend, spend, so they’ll take any and all earmarks that will help to run up deficits and (in their mindS) justify raising taxes.***
That may true, but the money is already appropriated. Why not give more of it to Democratic Congressmen?
***2) The GOP “leadership” (and I’m not counting them blameless by any means) don’t pay attention to what is going on about 90% of the time anywise - and the other 10% of the time, they just don’t care.***
I agree, but role do they play in approving earmarks in any given bill? Who actually decides what earmarks are approved or not?
It just doesn’t make sense to me that anyone would ever approve Ron Paul’s earmarks if he always votes against bills (and everyone knows this). If the money is going to be spent anyway, I can’t say I blame him for requesting money (I’d rather he not do it, but in that case I at least see why he does it).
Why post to me? I posted that Ron Paul is in the GOP, get it, republican.
I did post earlier the libertarian party position on some issues to a poster that said he might consider voting Libertarian if they weren’t so goofy.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Even the Libertarian Party itself was an entirely different Party 20 years ago. Most of the Libertarians that I knew back then were normal, successful business people, but the platform & constituency of the Libertarian Party has also changed over the years.
I'd categorize Ron Paul as a libertarian-leaning Republican, as opposed to the statist-leaning Republicans that most currently represent the Republican Party leadership today.
That being, of course, the almighty voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, and those in the leadership of the RNC and the MSM... As for the rest of "those voters who count the most", namely the voters in Conservative states, well, they just get to suck eggs.
I posted to you -- not at you -- because you posted the Libertarian Party platform. Nothing personal.
Other than being a complete pack of lies, spot on!
Who did that again?
>>>>>I don't know that much about his record ...
Really. You should get the facts on Keyes record before you jump on his bandwagon.
I agree with Alan Keyes on the issues and he gives a good speech, but his angry outreach approach doesn't work. That style didn't work for Goldwater in 1964 and it won't work today. We need candidates who can unite conservatives, not fracture us into numerous factions. Which is what happened in the last election cycle.
True....but let me ask you a question. When has Washington ever made sense?
Don’t just throw lies at us, show us in the libertarian platform where they are all wrong.
gotcha, thanks
Maybe so. One thing I've always found ironic is that so many of the hard-core "minarchist" libertarians I know personally actually work for some part of the government.
I'd categorize Ron Paul as a libertarian-leaning Republican, as opposed to the statist-leaning Republicans that most currently represent the Republican Party leadership today.
Click my nick. I wonder how where RoPaul would place on the diamond in relation to myself.
Who did that again?
Uh, the large majority of the Republicans.
If Keyes was the right candidate, conservatives would have been chosen long time ago. Keyes ran for the Senate 2-3 times and lost every time. He ran for the GOP nomination three times and never got much support from conservatives. Crying about politics solves nothing.
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.