Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 02/05/2007 10:30:18 AM PST by jmc813
With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate--not political victories.
Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.
In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision. Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.
ping
... I am impressed.
Give Rep. Ron Paul a ceegar. He just hit the bullseye.
Keynote address for the Repub 2008 Convention ???
Very well said and most refreshing.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Amen.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn!
...there is a sickness in humanity that makes us idolize the strong man - so long as he is wielding his power against people we don't like. The larger and more indiscriminate the franchise, the more likely this tendency is to come to the fore and influence practical governance. This is is the opposite of what liberals predict, but it's been borne out time and time again around the world.
Ron Paul bump.
This needs to be condensed and put into :60 second TV commercial form. Then, it should air on "Oprah", "American Idol" etc. "Brought to you by the Conservative Party". This would be the only way for this to have an effect. And it NEEDS to have an effect!!
Sorry, but I just don't like this guy and I will certainly not support him in the primary if he's runs for President. His views aren't my views.
Specifically, which of his views expressed in this essay do you disagree with?
I love Ron Paul. I would be at the front lines cheerleading his run if I didn't disagree with his WOT thoughts.
Maybe I'll get lucky and Duncan Hunter will ask him as his running mate ;)
That is indeed a good way to put it.
Ping.
Excellent treatise by my Congress critter, Ron Paul!
There are a lot of freepers including myself that disagree strongly with Paul on foreign policy. Do you disagree with the premise of this particular article though?
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) makes an eloquent case in this essay supporting the Republicanism championed by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Unfortunately, it’s not 1801 and Ron Paul is not Jefferson’s equal as the messenger. It takes an exceptionally articulate, brilliant, and charismatic person to persuade a nation so far removed from the philosophy well received in the first decade of the 19th century. Ron Paul is not equal to that task in the 21st century and he is wrong on the most important issue today of defeating radical Islam; a foe that threatens the security and stability of democracy and all its forms in the western world.
"-- Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate--not political victories. --"
Princip. Conservative wrote:
Sorry, but I just don't like this guy --- His views aren't my views.
You don't agree that our constitutional system was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government with the rule of law?
Indeed. And yet so many 'conservatives' are willing to hand over even more power to the 'right' candidate as long as the candidate's promise to use said power fits the faithful gaggle's cause
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts
Well that's right out. Who else would the party faithful adore and practically worship?
"Keynote address for the Repub 2008 Convention ???"
Only in your dreams. The country-clubbers and RINOs who now own the GOP wouldn't accept this any more than the Demonrats do.
"There are a lot of freepers including myself that disagree strongly with Paul on foreign policy. Do you disagree with the premise of this particular article though?"
Not necessarily. I'm in favor of limited government and all that, but, imo, Ron Paul is a controversialist. I just don't like his silly strict approach to things. For instance, his opposition to the FMA - he had his little reasons not to support it. I don't know, he just isn't my kinda guy.
Ron Paul is an awesome Patriot! I would very happily vote for him.
He has my vote.
The country-clubbers and RINOs who now own the GOP wouldn't accept this any more than the Demonrats do.
-----
A tragic reality for America and its Constitutional Republic. Who stands for America in Washington? I don't see anyone anymore.
Ron Paul wrote:
"-- Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.
The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial.
Those reasons are multiple and varied. They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect "our" oil. Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile.
This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world's resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty – all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism. --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm no big fan of Ron Paul's neo-isolationism, - as I believe it is possible to avoid "entangling alliances" without basing our current policy on "perpetual meddling in the affairs of others"..
-- But as he says, perpetual meddling has indeed been our style for a "hundred years". -- And I will certainly defend that truth & Pauls right/-even duty, to say so.
Can you agree on "meddling"?
What sucks is, not enough people share Rep. Paul's view of government. Most hypocritically of all, Republicans have grown very fond of their power, seeing it as an end in itself. That's how they became part of the problem, and that's why they got fired in '06 (and for that matter, in '92 too).
I would agree with you that Congressman Paul's views on foreign policy leave much to be desired. But his views on limeted government re domestic policy are as valid today as they were in Jefferson's time. That's because human nature hasn't changed, and constitutional government provides checks on abuses of power.
We may need Ron Paul to do to Hillary what Perot did to Bush the Elder.
He's got my vote!
mark
You're quite right, and I didn't mean to imply an association with the Republican Party by capitalizing the word; rather a reference to the important, political value system of republicanism. I didn't make that clear, my fault.
Thankfully Hunter wouldn't touch R. Paul with a ten foot pole. Hunter supports the war, Paul is against the war.
I love this guy. I will not waste my vote on any other come 2008.
Gotta read this Ping!
Wow, i don't know him from a hill of beans at this point but of all the candidates messages I've heard over the last few POTUS cycles this is the best by far!
I hope he really means it, I could support someone with this type of philosophy
Given the nuclear and biological weapons of today, an intolerable threat is not easily defended against, and our mortal enemies are not ones under control of any government or any nation. A nuclear or bio weapon deployed by a well-funded, rogue group of fanatics at a critical time and location in the U.S. can collapse the economy and social order in weeks and in turn cripple the interconnected economies of other democracies in the world. Our military strength and the ability to defend the U.S. inevitably arise from the economy.
Some radical, rogue groups only learn from real demonstrations of intervention where their acts of aggression cost their cause far more than it gains. We are faced with foes today motivated by irrational, religious beliefs who earnestly seek to cause the deaths of millions of civilians and the martyrdom of their own combatants. The enemy has repeatedly demonstrated it is willing and able to wage war within the borders of the U.S.A. Not even the threat of the former Soviet Union can compare since the leaders of the U.S.S.R. never exhibited suicidal tendencies in plans for domination.
If Al Qaeda sees that when they destroy one of our occupied buildings in the U.S. we take one of their countries in the Middle East it’s a lesson they won’t soon forget. It’s better that terrorists learn this lesson now, in lesser responses from the U.S., before they come to believe a nuclear/bio attack on the U.S. is a winning strategy for them. It will alter their future plans and the plans of other terrorist groups and enemy nations. Like a burglar casing homes to rob in a neighborhood, the enemy will look for an easier target to hit.
Projection of power and use of brute force in disproportionate foreign intervention is the only response that the savages of radical Islam understand.
The problem is Illinois has too many pro-leftist voters in it, and it's becoming even more of a blue state everyday. Illinois is already the "Massachusetts of the Midwest".
"I hope he really means it." He most certainly does. When you see a congressional vote of 434-1, guess who the one is? He tilts at windmills, but I know of no person in politics to whom I would more willingly entrust the principled freedom of the country.
As well you should be sorry. Can you point out a single flaw or misstatement in this essay?
Hey, Top. How are ya? Ron Paul's got MY vote as well! Any time!
Semper fi
If you'd like to see true hatred, mention Ron Paul to any GOP house staffer. They universally loathe the guy, primarily because they know he's no logroller like their bosses are, and he is a constant reminder of what fiscal conservatives believe.
I only wish we could be so lucky as to have him win the GOP nomination. But what lobbying pimps will donate to a man who won't whore himself?
Yep, the day Paul spoke out against Iraq is the day my support for him plummeted. Anyone that criticizes the war and our troops shouldn't be elected dog catcher. He's right on all the other things though.
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.