Rep. Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk- Monitor thy neighbor

Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.

Now the Justice department wants to extend the new investigative powers to private citizens. It recently unveiled Operation TIPS- Terrorism Information and Prevention System- as part of President Bush’s Citizen Corps initiative. The goal is to enlist thousands or even millions of Americans to act as spies for the government, reporting suspicious activity to officials using a handy toll-free hotline. The Justice department especially hopes to enlist mailmen, delivery drivers, plumbers, gas-meter readers, and the like, as they have access to private homes and businesses in their daily work. As usual, the war on terror is offered as justification for this proposal.

This almost might be funny if it were not real. Imagine the rampant abuses possible with a national spy program. Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they don’t like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity. I certainly hope the Justice department employs some very patient people to field the flood of useless calls.

If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you’re not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious- that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society- invites denunciations and sharp reminders that "we’re at war." Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on terror to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy.

I applaud Congressman Dick Armey for adding a provision to the homeland security bill that would prohibit the Justice department from implementing the TIPS program. His opposition brings needed public attention to this terrible idea. But even if Congress supports him, there is no guarantee another informant proposal will not surface soon thereafter. Congressional oversight of administrative agencies (consider the Treasury department and its renegade IRS) is nonexistent. The Justice department almost certainly will seek another way to implement the program, with or without congressional approval.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what kind of society we hope to leave our children and grandchildren. A civilized and free society would not be discussing, much less seriously debating, any proposal to enlist private citizens to act as federal neighborhood snitches.

>>>Talk about delusional.

Yes, you are totally delusional, but the again, all libertarians are delusional, in one way, shape or form.

If you want to know the truth about the conservative politics of Ronald Reagan and understand what drove him, try reading a book written by the man himself, instead of listening to the rhetoric of others.

Besides, with one exception, the Reagan children have never been supportive of their fathers conservative politics. For starters, Ron jr is the anti-Reagan, Patti Davis was the societal rebel and Michael Reagan promotes Michael Reagan, period. All three have their own personal agenda. The only one that had a strong kinship to The Gipper, was Maureen and she was more of a political moderate then anything else.

Ronald Reagan remains a great conservative, whose politics were in direct opposition to the Libertarian philosophy. You need to catch up with the truth and stop engaging in false claims.

As I sifted through the bickering, reading the occasional post of substance, I noticed that "Libertarian" and "libertarian" are being used interchangably.

Both quotes from Ronald Reagan make sense to people on both sides of this issue, if you take notice of where the "l" is lower case, and where it is capitalized.

The libertarian ideology is not one and the same as the Libertarian Party platform. I consider myself a libertarian. I am not part of the Libertarian Party, nor do I intend to register as a Libertarian. Just a few examples of where I differ from the Libertarian Party:
- I support "profiling"
- I support maintaining an offensively natured, forward deployed, nuclear-armed, standing military
- I think the Libertarian Party platform contradicts itself, where it reads that children should not be allowed to force a religion upon their children, but then goes on to say that "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs"
- I also think that abortion is unconstitutional and thus it should be banned

After reading your profile page, its clear, you are a violent and dangerous political malcontent. You trash conservative Republicans like myself, with caustic and incindiary rhetoric, calling us "evil" socialists and "sociopaths", because they don't agree with or support your political philosophy of fringe extremism. Not only that, but you bluntly state, you're willing to committ premeditated murder.

Here's a quote from your profile page.
"I cannot think of one elected official for whom I would brake, if I saw them crossing the street, nor one for whom I would not put the vehicle in reverse and back over, afterwards."

Whether you consider yourself a libertarian, or a Libertarian --- the definition of a "Libertarian" is, a member of a political party that advocates libertarian philosophy --- your rhetoric and behavior labels you a fringe extremist and reactionary absolutist. This isn't the type of rhetoric that Ronald Reagan was engaged in. Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative and never talked of killing his fellow conservative Republicans, nor his political opponents on the leftwing either.

The first quote from Ronald Reagan, posted by Doug Fiedor:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."-- Ronald Reagan

Here’s the definition of libertarian, from Merriam-Webster:
an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action

The key word in this definition is, of course, liberty, which is freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

I stand by my original statement. It is incorrect to use Libertarian and libertarian interchangeably. Reagan Man pointed out the following:

"...the definition of a "Libertarian" is, a member of a political party that advocates libertarian philosophy..."

Of course, the Libertarian Party does advocate some libertarian principles, but what makes it a skewed sample of libertarians is that it goes too far advocating principles beyond those that fit the label of libertarian. The Libertarian Party demands freedom from legitimate, limited, constitutional government, in addition to arbitrary or despotic control. It advocates adherence to the Constitution, only when it is convenient to the fringes of the party (anarchists/ACLU types), who tend to be quite vocal and have a large hand in writing the platform. It is in this area that I believe the Libertarian Party is inconsistent (see prior post). And it is in this way that the grammatical error of using Libertarian and libertarian interchangeably becomes a larger error that grossly alters the meaning of what is being said.

Ronald Reagan articulated a similar sentiment, in the quote posted by Reagan Man:
“Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.”

So, my original point stands:
“Both quotes from Ronald Reagan make sense to people on both sides of this issue, if you take notice of where the 'l' is lower case, and where it is capitalized.”

As for the conclusion of Reagan Man’s last point:
“…your rhetoric and behavior labels you a fringe extremist and reactionary absolutist. This isn't the type of rhetoric that Ronald Reagan was engaged in. Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative and never talked of killing his fellow conservative Republicans, nor his political opponents on the leftwing either.”

I did not, nor will I attempt to imply that Ronald Reagan is or was a fringe extremist or reactionary absolutist. I did not, nor will I attempt to claim that Reagan ever did or ever will engage in such rhetoric. I did not, nor will I attempt say that Ronald Reagan ever did or ever will talk of killing fellow conservative Republicans or political opponents.

My point is simply that Ronald Reagan’s posts will make sense if you read what he said, understanding that there is a difference between Libertarian and libertarian. If you read the second quote, he even makes it clear that he understands this difference, even though the quote is 27 years old.

There seems to be a knee-jerk hostile reaction to the thought that Reagan may have had something in common with libertarians. I think that this is largely because of a misunderstanding of just what libertarians and Libertarians are – there is a difference. I do not think that anyone who has posted in this thread is attempting to blemish the record of the man who slashed taxes, won the cold war, and maintained the dignity of the office of the Presidency.

>>>There seems to be a knee-jerk hostile reaction to the thought that Reagan may have had something in common with libertarians.

As I already pointed out in RE:#6, Ronald Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative who believed in the fiscal responsibility of the federal government. Through three campaigns for President, I supported Reagan's political agenda, that promoted tax reduction/tax reform, removing waste, fraud and abuse from government, abolishing certain departments/agencies and generally reducing the overall size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. These are time honored, traditional conservative beliefs and values.

Many members of the the Libertarian Party and those who support the libertarian philosophy believe in "limited government". Many other Libertarians and libertarians, believe no government is required and are actually anti-government anarchists. Reagan wasn't anti-government. Reagan was pro-government. Reagan wasn't an impractical idealist. Reagan was a pragmatic leader, who supported compromise to advance his conservative agenda.

>>>I do not think that anyone who has posted in this thread is attempting to blemish the record of the man who slashed taxes, won the cold war, and maintained the dignity of the office of the Presidency.

Of course not. But many people are attempting to say Ronald Reagan supported the libertarian philosophy and was some kind of libertarian hero. He wasn't, he isn't a Libertarian/libertarian hero. Reagan never called himself or considered himself a libertarian. PERIOD! This one interview that Reagan gave to Reason magazine in 1975, is being used to support contentions that simply aren't true.

>>>Here’s the definition of libertarian, from Merriam-Webster: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action [capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles]
The key word in this definition is, of course, liberty, which is freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

Thanks for posting that definition, but you forgot a key component. So I added it on. However, I believe the two key words in that sentence are absolute and unrestricted. And the fact is, absolute and unrestricted behavior leads to chaos and chaos, as we all know, eventually, leads to anarchy.

In addition, your excessive rhetoric doesn't coverup the fact, that you've advocated the use of violence to settle political matters and it would appear, you have a total disregard for human life. You make that very clear on your profile page. The conservative movement doesn't support a violent agenda. I didn't realize the libertarian philosphy supported such violent behavior.

Definition of libertarian, from Merriam-Webster: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action [capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles]

The key word in this definition is, of course, liberty, which is freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

Response from Reagan Man:
“…I believe the two key words in that sentence are absolute and unrestricted. And the fact is, absolute and unrestricted behavior leads to chaos and chaos, as we all know, eventually, leads to anarchy.”

Absolute and unrestricted, in the definition of libertarian, refer to liberty, not to behavior. Absolute and unrestricted liberty does not mean that I and I alone retain the right to do as I please. It means that all have the right to do as they please. In order for this condition to exist, all must respect the rights of one another – otherwise, by definition, absolute and unrestricted liberty does not exist. It is this understanding and the understanding of human nature that necessitates the need for government. Anarchists share some views with libertarians and Libertarians, such as a yearning to have less restraint from government, but the two groups are not the same. Likewise, Reagan shared views with libertarians, but he is not a libertarian. Moreover, while it seems that you were attempting to contrast the views between Reagan and libertarians, I think that you only drew comparisons.
For example, you posted the following:
“Ronald Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative who believed in the fiscal responsibility of the federal government. Through three campaigns for President, I supported Reagan's political agenda, that promoted tax reduction/tax reform, removing waste, fraud and abuse from government, abolishing certain departments/agencies and generally reducing the overall size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. These are time honored, traditional conservative beliefs and values.”

“Reagan wasn't anti-government. Reagan was pro-government.”

“The conservative movement doesn't support a violent agenda.”

All of the above are views held by most libertarians, not the fringe members of the Libertarian Party, which has hijacked the term. It is because of this that I am amazed at the reaction that has resulted from the quote from Reagan, where he said:
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Less government, more individual freedom – two areas that libertarianism and conservatism agree upon. Why is this such an outrage?

You point out that some libertarians and Libertarians are anti-government anarchists, and then you hammer home the case that Reagan was not anti-government. You are arguing against a case that is not being made. What you are arguing against is the notion that Reagan was a libertarian, and your conclusion is right. But, you back this up by arguing that Reagan was not anti-government – that is not what a libertarian is. Your correct conclusion follows from inaccurate assumptions. It is the fringes of the libertarians and believers in the Libertarian Party platform who are anti-government, or nearly so.

I pointed this out in the last post, but I will write it again – libertarians who buy into the anarchist view of government represent a skewed sample of libertarians. I would go so far as to say that most, by definition, are not libertarians. If they are libertarians, that is, if they believe in and desire absolute and unrestricted liberty, I would expect that their anarchist leanings are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. The only way that a person can logically come to the conclusion that anarchy is a means of ensuring unrestricted and absolute liberty is to not understand human nature. Most libertarians understand the need for government, because they understand human nature. To deem that libertarians as a group are anarchists, because some libertarians are anarchists, is a logical fallacy. You cannot accurately judge a large group on the basis of its smaller fringe elements. That would be like walking through a junkyard, looking at bunch of old junked Ford trucks and concluding that Ford trucks do not run.

Just a few points.

Your tempered responses are a welcomed change from some of the heated libertarian rhetoric that is continually spewed around here. I especially take note of the following remark you made.

>>>... Reagan ... is not a libertarian.

Finally, honesty.

You also reach some conclusions that aren't true.

If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision. Just don't expect astute political observers to accept such a reality. If you want to be associated with the term "libertarian philosophy", then you can't pick and choose to the extent you want to. Why not just call yourself an independent and leave it at that. That would be real political honesty.

This idea you mention, that there are real libertarians and then there are "fringe" libertarians, will come as a shock to the majority who call themselves libertarians here on FreeRepublic.

>>>Less government, more individual freedom - two areas that libertarianism and conservatism agree upon. Why is this such an outrage?

Because there are significant differences that you're over looking. The fact is, many libertarians want America to return to the strict Constitutionalist government that existed at the founding of the Republic. Any intelligent and rational person knows, that isn't possible. Conservatives want the Founding Fathers basic concepts to be followed more closely. But conservatives also understand, the world is more complex today, then it was 200 years ago and therefore, following the true intentions of the Founding Fathers, must be placed in the context of the contemporary times we live in. The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today.

Posted by Reagan Man:
"This idea you mention, that there are real libertarians and then there are "fringe" libertarians, will come as a shock to the majority who call themselves libertarians here on FreeRepublic."

I would wager that this not evidence that proves me wrong, rather it is evidence of the following:
1) The fringes of any ideology or movement, more so than the mainstream, tend to be outspoken and drawn to the arenas where they can voice their opinions, such as this medium
2) Anonymous mediums such as this bring out the most aggressive and extreme views of those who are the "fringe" of their ideology or movement

Posted by Reagan Man:
"If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision."

Is this the first time that you have heard of this idea, that Libertarian is different from libertarian? This has always been common knowledge to like-minded circles that I associate with, and even among the large listening audience of a local libertarian radio talk show host here in Boston, of all places. The dictionary definition of libertarian is not the same as the ideology that underlies the Libertarian Party. There are many similarities, more similiarities between libertarians and Libertarians than between conservatives and libertarians, but the differences are great enough that many, many of us do not wish to associate with the Libertarian Party, unless it is to change it. Do not take my word for it. Open up the dictionary to "libertarian". Set it next to your computer, go to the Libertarian Party's website, and read the platform. Moreover, pick out all of the contradictions. The party has been hijacked by anarchists and ACLU types.

Posted by Reagan Man:
"Conservatives want the Founding Fathers basic concepts to be followed more closely. But conservatives also understand, the world is more complex today, then it was 200 years ago and therefore, following the true intentions of the Founding Fathers, must be placed in the context of the contemporary times we live in. The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today."

In the sense that there was no large standing military in 1790, I agree. Otherwise, how does a large government give us an advantage? I cannot think of a government program or department, outside of the military or intelligence, that benefits our nation today. If there are any, which of these do conservatives advocate?

"If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision.""

>>>Is this the first time that you have heard of this idea, that Libertarian is different from libertarian?

Not at all. But when people have differing views from the political philosophy that drives that party agenda, they usually don't continue to confuse the issue by endlessly connecting themselves with that philosophy. That's why I suggested you become a politcal independent. But regardless of how you choose to define yourself, your form of libertarianism is part of a minority faction, within a minority faction. Sorry to burst you bubble, but thats the truth and I think you know it too. You don't appear to exhibit the typical libertarian mindset of a reactionary absolutist. So far anyway. And I give you some credit for not dwelling out there on the rightwing edge of the American political spectrum. Sometimes I think that edge is a curve, but thats a topic for another day.

However, you know what they say, if you ask three libertarians a question, you're liable to get four answers.

>>>I cannot think of a government program or department, outside of the military or intelligence, that benefits our nation today.

Of course not, thats one reason why you're a libertarian. There are even some libertarians who advocate the idea, that America would be better off if the military was run by private enterprise. The same is true for intelligence and law enforcment agencies. Thats the free market rule carried to the extreme. Wouldn't you agree?

Libertarians oppose government, because they disagree with the basic job of any government, which is to regulate and restrict human behavior and interaction, that isn't consistent with the desires and demands of society. The simple fact is, thats the job of government in any civilized society.

Personally, I believe there are far too many regulations and restrictions that have been imposed on the people and society at large and these should be rolled back. But there is a need, almost a requirement for society to have some order to it, or else we would have chaos and anarchy. There's those other two words again. The ones that libertarians always want to distance themselves from and for good reason too.

While I would support the abolishment of the Education and Commerce departments and would support combining Energy with EPA, I don't believe it would be practical to dissolve an agency like the INS. But that doesn't mean it should remain in its current compositional makeup either. Many departments and agencies could be done away with and the responsibilty returned to the states. Many others should remain a federal responsibility. The main purpose of reducing the federal governemnt, is to get the beltway bureaucracy out of the business of spending the taxpayers money. In that regard, tax reform and cutting waste, fraud and abuse, would go a long way to reducing the overall size and scope of the federal government. But slashing the federal government down to the military and intelligence entities, as you have suggested, is just more libertarian extremism. And here I thought you were different then the average libertarian.

"I cannot think of a government program or department, outside of the military or intelligence, that benefits our nation today."

This was a poorly written sentence, on my part. I was responding to your post, quoted below:

Posted by Reagan Man:
"The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today."

My poorly worded point is that the only major advantages that have come from larger government are a more powerful standing military and a better intelligence gathering capability. Other than that, the government of 1790 is sufficent.

Posted by Reagan Man:
"Libertarians oppose government, because they disagree with the basic job of any government, which is to regulate and restrict human behavior and interaction, that isn't consistent with the desires and demands of society."

I assume, by context, that you are referring to libertarians. Throughout your previous post, you speak as if you understand what a libertarian is, but you clearly do not understand. As I posted in post 54 (clearly, I believe), libertarians recognize the need for government. I repost this below, because it addresses what you wrote:
"I pointed this out in the last post, but I will write it again – libertarians who buy into the anarchist view of government represent a skewed sample of libertarians. I would go so far as to say that most, by definition, are not libertarians. If they are libertarians, that is, if they believe in and desire absolute and unrestricted liberty, I would expect that their anarchist leanings are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. The only way that a person can logically come to the conclusion that anarchy is a means of ensuring unrestricted and absolute liberty is to not understand human nature. Most libertarians understand the need for government, because they understand human nature."

"your rhetoric and behavior labels you a fringe extremist and reactionary absolutist. This isn't the type of rhetoric that Ronald Reagan was engaged in. Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative and never talked of killing his fellow conservative Republicans, nor his political opponents on the leftwing either."

"The missiles fly at midnight... Gorby" Do you mean that ronald reagan? Nah, he would never threaten his political adversaries...

Reagan was the most anti-big-government president this nation has ever had since jefferson... another dangerous revolutionary in your book too right? You know, "that government governs best, which governs least," Jefferson?

Reagan ACTIVELY courted the libertarian vote, and got it, was appreciative of it, and said so. The republican party has a large and growing daily consortium of "dangerous types, the likes Schmedlap, Fiodor and Robinson... thanks largely to efforts of guys like you.

Congrats Schmedlap... you too have made rmans rather extensive list of most dangerous and violent political malcontents... which includes Ronald Reagan's own kids, roflmao...

You and Doug Feidor... MUST be satan incarnates... lol...

Rman, do you still check under your bed at night for those nasty "libertarian monsters"?

Get a night light dude, you're buggin'.

"...there are far too many regulations and restrictions... There's those other two words again. The ones that libertarians always want to distance themselves from and for good reason too."

That would have been a correct statement.

You seem to have trouble comprehending the not-so-subtle differences between R. Reagan's view of a much smaller, and greatly limited government that recognizes individual liberties, from your rather bloated view of a utopian, socialist, see-all, do-all, control-and-regulate-all demi-God, who finds NO area of private liberty wherein it cannot claim a compelling state interest, and grounds for subsequent violent intrusion.

There is a big difference.

You already admit government needs to shrink in a few areas. Consider that the rest of us want to see it shrink in a few more...

It is a simple question of degrees. How much MORE government do you want for yourself? When is too much government too much? Too much freedom is scary for some folks. I fear big government far more than I do big freedoms...

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.