Skip to comments.Rick Santorum is tired of you people wanting the government to leave you alone…
Posted on 01/19/2012 9:18:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I mean, really. How dare you peasants tell the government what to do? How dare you tell them to stay out of your lives? Santorum 2012!
(VIDEO AT LINK)
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that Im aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
- Rick Santorum
First off, the phrase radical individualism is something I expect to hear from a Saudi imam. Hell, I wouldnt be too surprised to hear it from leftists in this country. When I hear it from a Republican candidate for president, I sit blinking for a couple of minutes and then curl up in a ball under my desk, crying softly.
Secondly, I have to wonder: is Santorum insane, or even more out of touch with his base than any of the other candidates? This guy has the balls to whine about people wanting the government to leave them alone? Um, Ricky, Im pretty sure the top issue for most conservatives is government overreach. Theres this thing called ObamaCare. Heard of it?
However, the true Emmy award winner of this piece is when he disputes the notion that government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low. Youre absolutely right, bud. I hope you get up on a podium tonight and deliver, in that notoriously whiny timbre of yours, admonishment to all those non-traditional conservatives who wont shut up about lower taxes and less regulation. See how that flies in South Carolina. Rick Santorum is a statist theocrat. Ive said it before, and been challenged on it. I consider this quote to be a follow up to this endlessly disturbing piece from nine years ago. Rick Santorums agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views. He is as far removed from the Tea Party, and the concept of small-government conservatism, as Barack Obama.
But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldnt have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day. Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.
In the last paragraph he forgot Governor Buddy Roemer.
What he did say ends him as a politician.
This is a Santorum hit piece by a no name blogger. The clip is of two Libertarians who have no idea what they are talking about just like Ron Paul. They take a few snip-its from long interviews and then babble on about him being anti freedom.
Just listen to them pimp for Paul and Gary Johnson in this interview. Libertarians are not Conservatives and they never will be. That is Santorums point and if you listen to his examples, they are sound. If the Ron Paulites “if it feels good, do it” crap is so great, why isn’t the Libertarian Party the predominant of three parties and Ron Paul running away with the nomination?
Rick, I want the ****ing government to leave me the **** alone, and that includes you!
Rick Santorum did not appeal to us to allow the government to fix a nonexistant problem from a couch with Nancy Pelosi.
I’ll take the hopefully ex womanizer with the Neptune sized ego, if that is what it comes down to.
Santorum just went way down in my eyes if this is his view. He wants government to be big? Just because that’s a common trap that governments around the world (but not the US during the first hundred or so years of its life) fell into? If he’d even say it should be smaller than it is now, that would be better than nothing. But boy, how tone deaf to say the least. And the Tea Party would bolt on this about as much as it would bolt on Mitt.
“That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that Im aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Let me ask you something, 2D Vet.
Do you believe that a culture that elevates personal autonomy as the primary good, is one that has any respect for religious faith?
At least Newt retracted when he learned more, and he recently committed himself to belonging to a church that, at least on paper, takes womanizing as a serious sin.
Picking a president, at best, will be to pick the sinner who will still do the most good. I’m going with Newt.
Point was that conservative believe in limited government. I know you understood this, but are deliberately twisting his words to tear him down for the propellent of your candidate. How about having a point of view/argument actually based in substance and not talking points. We can’t ridicule liberals if we use their tactics now can we?
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right."
"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues."
"That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that Im aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
- Rick Santorum
Hasn't he ever heard of The United States of America?
This fruitcake sounds like Obama/Reid/Pelosi!
Does Santorum really understand what Tea Partiers are getting at? It’s not an ultra-Paulish vision (and by the way somehow Christianity got along just fine side by side with alcohol and pot in the first 150 years of this country’s life). I don’t think he groks it, any more than he groks that the 2nd amendment is more than hunters!!
Let me ask you something: Do you want the president’s personal religion to determine what you and I can do? Right now we have an anti-American Mohammadan and may soon have a Mormon or hard-shell Catholic (Rick) in the White House. Are you ready to give 10% of your gross household income to Salt Lake City?
And then promise to curtail government to those limits.
Thomas Jefferson didn't buy a bunch of ships that were authorized by Congress.
I think he made the right executive call.
Rick Santorum’s Roman Catholicism isn’t the problem here.
I'll answer for 2D: A culture can be, or not, without the help or hindrance of government. Government, in this nation, has a very specific and limited role at the Federal level.
This is where Santorum gets it wrong. He would take the very same statist approach at the federal level as the godless commies. He would insist all moral issues be decided at the federal level.
This is ABSOLUTELY contrary to the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.
Our Federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof.
The question of religious faith should not be in it's lexicon.
In which case, the writer is sadly ignorant of Robert Bork.
Paul gets it partly right, but has huge blind spots, including that the US has well passed the point where it can ignore the rest of global goings-on. That genie won’t go back into the bottle. For that reason he’s not suitable.
Rick looks kind of like Maxwell Smart here.
“Let me ask you something: Do you want the presidents personal religion to determine what you and I can do?”
I asked you a question. Answer the question.
Do you believe that a culture which elevates personal autonomy above all other good is a culture which has any respect for religion?
Santorum is spot on here. American culture was never about personal autonomy or ‘self rule’. It was about personal responsibility - the obligation of the individual to look after - not just himself, but his family.
That is why we are in trouble today. People have forgotten their obligation to care for their own families, and to serve their community not just themselves.
So, yes, Santorum is right. Americans have always valued individualism, insofar as indivdualism promotes personal responsibility. This is what Ron Paul doesn’t get. You cannot have a society which values personal autonomy, because it falls apart.
There has to be a balance between the two.
Now, answer my question, please.
True conservatives don’t need a nanny state to watch their every move. They are self reliant. Free men can defend themselves and their neighbors. They don’t need overlords.
Santorum blew it on this issue.
A great quote from the SCOTUS about this:
[The] right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
-Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)
Why is it his role to pontificate on social ills if he’s a presidential candidate — unless he thinks that government is the solution? His cure is worse than the disease.
What does that have to do with the role of the federal government in peoples lives?
We will get back to a restricted government.
It may take another 100 years, but people want freedom. And won't be denied.
And now that we're not stuck working from daylight to dark, and have a way to communicate, it's going to eventually happen.
This is not great-great-grandfather's plantation, and the natives are restless.
I don’t grok you.
“Does Santorum really understand what Tea Partiers are getting at?”
Do you understand what Santorum is getting at? Santorum is saying that American culture has never been solely based on personal autonomy. Faith has been a huge part of why America has been strong.
The problem isn’t that Santorum doesn’t understand the tea party, but that you have misunderstood Santorum. Santorum is saying that there has to be a balance between the individual and between society. Tilting it to the individual is how we get things like, “If it feels good do it”.
“Its not an ultra-Paulish vision”
That’s what Santorum is arguing against. He’s arguing against the Paulbot libertarian argument that the individual is the only thing that counts.
“somehow Christianity got along just fine side by side with alcohol and pot in the first 150 years of this countrys life.”
You might want to check your history. Plenty of dry counties, even today, upheld by the community not wanting the sale of alcohol in their area.
And pot? Are you a pothead? That explains why you are savaging Cain. I hope I’m not paying for your ‘rugged individualism’.
“I dont think he groks it, any more than he groks that the 2nd amendment is more than hunters!”
So you can show me where your right to smoke pot is in the consitution.
Your tone indicates that you think you’re my superior and can demand answers from me. I don’t know where in the Hell you got that idea.
“Hot Air” is the perfect name for that site
Where has the hysterical drug “war” gotten except worse and worse gangs and drugs? Things which were hardly ever seen when it was a low key thing that churches and polite society addressed in extra-governmental fashion?
And you have not explained why it’s Santorum’s perceived role to pontificate about it, unless he’s trying to make government the answer. Nor why the Tea Party would be expected to swallow this any more than they swallow Mitt’s brew.
“This is where Santorum gets it wrong. He would take the very same statist approach at the federal level as the godless commies.”
This is a straw man. He is arguing that there needs to be a balance between the individual and between the needs of the community. And it’s not just Santorum. Go read CS Lewis. He says the exact same thing.
“He would insist all moral issues be decided at the federal level.”
Which moral issues are you talking about?
“This is ABSOLUTELY contrary to the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.”
How so? Depends entirely on the moral issue. There are plenty of moral issues which are given to the federal government. One of which is the duty of the federal government to guard the nation.
“Our Federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof.”
Ok, and where has Santorum argued to establish his religion as the official church of america?
“The question of religious faith should not be in it’s lexicon.”
And, that’s not what Santorum is arguing for here. Are you one of the wall of separation folks?
You can't be responsible for what you don't control.
I strongly disagree with you. Personal autonomy is REQUIRED for truly righteous behavior.
Otherwise, it's just following the rules on pain of punishment.
God gave us our will. Who is the government, or you, to try to restrain God's gift?
You are ass-u-me-ing a “moderation” in Santorum’s high horse speak that is simply not there. Go look at his own comments about being a “2nd amendment supporter” on his website — and it talks mostly about HUNTERS!!! The founding fathers did not put that amendment in there in order that a bounteous harvest of deer, elk, and the like might be had.
Small government does not equate to no government.
The USA is not now, nor has it ever been, an anarchistic or libertarian nation.
If you want to live your life that way, you have choices.
Apply for a visa to live in the nation that most closely matches your personal pursuit of happiness.
“Where has the hysterical drug war gotten except worse and worse gangs and drugs?”
Show me where the constitution says you have the right to smoke pot. You said that it’s exactly the same as the 2nd Amendment. Show me please.
“Things which were hardly ever seen when it was a low key thing that churches and polite society addressed in extra-governmental fashion?”
Again, the community has always had the right to regulate the buying and selling of alcohol, even today. So if you are arguing that there exists a right - no, there is no such right and has never existed the right to drink and smoke wherever you want when you want.
Now, if you are talking about the right to do so on your own property, that is one thing. But there have always been laws regulating the buying and selling, and consumption of alcohol.
“And you have not explained why its Santorums perceived role to pontificate”
Santorum is explaining why his position is superior to the Paulbot position.
And where did the founders give you the right to toke?
Please, show me.
Keep swallowing the kool aide.
I saw a You Tube video of Santorum saying these very words, but as a part of a larger presentation about society being a social contract, and about personal responsibility.
I pray to God that He will vindicate this man in the sight of all his foes.
Answer the question, please.
You ask me questions, I expect you to answer mine.
But what we have today is astoundingly and stupidly large.
I won't live long enough to read all the new laws that are passed, much less the old ones I don't know about.
God gave us 10. I can quote most of them.
Compare and contrast.
Santorum is even higher horsey than Gingrich or Perry.
And where did the commerce clause ever get to the point where the Federal government could step in where locales could formerly have their own rules? This is a constitutional abortion, never meant by the founding fathers, and we are not invited to carry on this abortion.
Rick mentioned it AGAIN in the debate tonight that abortion must be decided at the Federal level and insinuated others must as well (he did not specify which).
Roe v Wade is very bad law. It Federalized the lawful murder of the unborn.
That said, and as Paul pointed out in the debate tonight (no, I am not a Paul-bot...to preempt your constant resort to the ad hominem) there is no federal law against after-birth murder...or other violent offenses. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES such law under the 10th Amendment.
Of course, you don't agree. You are another statist like Santorum that would have Federal Laws against all sorts of corrupt behaviors. I'm sure, if given the chance, you would insist your legislator not bother with a Constitutional Amendment and just go ahead and pass, then enforce, the Volstead Act.
Like all statists, you do not respect the Constitution.
In that culture each person gets to decide whether he or she wants to respect religion for him-/herself.
Religion is a personal matter, not one the government should have any say in. Religion IS an individual matter, no matter how you or anyone else decides to spin that simple reality.
I have no idea why this isn't blazingly obvious to anyone who understands and respects what this country is and always has been.
He could easily vindicate himself by clarifying things, for example that the 2nd amendment is only tangential to hunters.
More history on this country and the right to be left alone - it is one of the foundational ideas. Terrible public schools have taught us that we are slave to the state, but that was not the founder’s intention.
RIGHTS OF MAN
TO BE LEFT ALONE (quotes)
Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.
AQUINAS, ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica
[The] right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
BRANDEIS, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LOUIS, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)
The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.
DOUGLAS, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILLIAM O., Public Utilities Commission v. Pollack
The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, October 1776
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
MILL, JOHN STUART, On Liberty, Chapter 1
[Extending] the bounds of what may be called moral police, until it encroaches on the most unquestionably legitimate liberty of the individual, is one of the most universal of all human propensities.
MILL, JOHN STUART, On Liberty, Chapter 4
America wasn’t founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please.
One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle.
OTIS, JAMES, Against the Writs of Assistance, Boston, 1761, quoted in Orators of America by Guy Carleton Lee (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900)
It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.
PERCELL, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CASEY
Call it tolerance, call it respect: it is the mark of a free society that individuals are left free to pursue their own values, however wise or foolish, however enlightened or benighted, however pleasing or offensive to others.
PILON, ROGER, The Right to Do Wrong
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
RAND, AYN, The Fountainhead
[H]ow many tobacco smokers resort to theft and prostitution in order to support their habit? Yet clinical studies have shown that tobacco is more habit forming than heroin.
REDFORD, JAMES, Government Causes the Crime, Part I
Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state.
TWAIN, MARK, Quoted in Mark Twain Speaking, University of Iowa Press, 1976:384-8
Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.
WEBSTER, DANIEL, Speech at the Charleston Bar Dinner, May 10, 1847
Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?
You have it perfectly upside down. The Constitution doesn't say that you have the right to breath.
The Constitution is a LIMIT on federal government. The Constitution does not give rights, it restricts government.
I don't smoke pot, but I do rake the alleged conservatives over the coals for getting the Constitution upside down.
States could and did have “official churches” in the early years, but even those could not force anybody to go.
In tying up the loose ends of a messy civil rebellion, Abraham Lincoln was responsible, wittingly or not, for a hugely unprecedented concentration of Federal power.
“You can’t be responsible for what you don’t control.”
Newsflash, no one has full control over themselves and their own actions. People make mistakes. You are held responsible even if you lose control. Losing control is not an excuse for bad behaviour, unless you believe that getting drunk is a pass.
“I strongly disagree with you. Personal autonomy is REQUIRED for truly righteous behavior.”
No, it’s not. See, you cannot have God in your life, if you believe that you rule yourself. Personal autonomy is anathema to any sort of Faith - where you give yourself over to God.
The Founders were religious men. So was America. Your argument would consign religion to a closet, that one could simply pick it up when you leave the temple, and put it away.
It’s also the argument that Kennedy used to explain away his faith - that his faith was not the guiding influence on his life and his actions.
If that’s what you believe that America is about - you are grossly mistaken. Again, America has never espoused that ideology. America has always argued that the individual and the community must be in balance with one another.
Communism, where the individual is expunged is no less wrong than Anarchism, where the community is expunged. Both are wrong.
“God gave us our will. Who is the government, or you, to try to restrain God’s gift?”
And if God gave you your will, then you are not your own, and personal autonomy is a lie. You belong to Him. Not yourself. You do not rule you, God does.
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.