Posted on 03/08/2003 9:29:27 AM PST by forest
[NOTE: This text was first published in the March 7, 1997 newsletter. It was an important message in 1997, but seems even more important today.]
Last week we gave Rep. Ron Paul's toll-free Legislative Update number (1-888-322-1414) and suggested that readers listen to his message "The Coming Police State." We were told by a lot of people that they missed it.
Originally, that message was part of a one hour speech Rep. Paul made on the floor of the House. And, thanks to Jeff in Michigan, we have the complete text. Below is the shortened version of Rep. Paul's speech recorded as the "Legislative Update:"
Centralizing power and consistently expanding the role of the Government requires an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon which a police state thrives. There are over 100 laws on the books permitting private property seizure without due process of law. We have made it easy to seize any property by absurdly claiming the property itself committed the crime. The RICO mentality relating to law enforcement permits even the casual bystander to suffer severely from the police state mentality.
The drug war hysteria and the war on gun ownership started by Roosevelt in 1934 have expanded Federal police power to the point that more than 10 percent of all of our police are Federal. The Constitution names but three Federal crimes, so where is the justification? Talk about swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have hovering over us daily the Federal police from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, CIA, DEA, EEOC, ADA, F&WL, INS, BATF, and worst of all, the IRS. Even criticizing the IRS makes me cringe that it might precipitate an audit. It seems that all administrations, to some degree, used the power of the agencies to reward or punish financial backers or political enemies.
So much [of] that had its origin in the 1930's, it was then that the FBI's role changed from friendly investigator helping local authorities to that of national police force.
We live in an age where the fear of an IRS registered letter bearing news of an audit surpasses the fear of a street mugging. The police are supposed to be our friend and the Federal Government the guarantor of our liberties. Ask the blacks in the inner city of Los Angeles if they trust the police and revere the FBI and the CIA. We should not have to cringe when a Federal agent appears at the door of our business. We should not even see them there.
A Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be protecting our right to our property, not confiscating it. Congress ought to protect our right to own a weapon of self-defense, not systematically and viciously attacking that right.
Congress ought to guarantee all voluntary association, not regulate and dictate every economic transaction. We should not allow Congress to give credence to inane politically correct rules generated by egalitarian misfits. Setting quotas ought to insult each of us.
We need no more centralized police efforts. We need no more wiretaps that have become epidemic in this last decade. We have had enough Wacos and Ruby Ridges.
It is fine by my standards to use force to respond to force initiated by another individial.
It must be directed only at that individual.
So speed limits should only apply to people that have actually run into you? Fascinationg.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers think of that? They must not have been as wise as the Libertarians.
Which book would that be? Your assertions are, as always, unsourced.
You cannot 'debate' tpaine anymore than you can 'debate' a four-year old child. Tpaine's responses always come down to: "I already rebutted that" (when he hasn't), or "that's wrong" (when he hasn't given a reason). Tpaine's 'arguments' are a slightly (and I emphasize slightly) more sophisticated version of "I know you are, but what am I". If FR had an ignore button, I'd put him on it. If you're thinking about 'debating' him, don't.
I know exactly how tpaine will reply to this post..."you can't debate me, you can't deal with my arguments"...blah blah blah". You're right Tpaine. I can't debate someone with the argumenation skills of a Rhesus monkey. If you don't know when you're wrong, you can't argue. And in tpaine's mind, tpaine is never wrong. So, I know how Tpaine will respond. Tpaine is predictable, because his stupidity is an invariable constant. Ignore him and he goes away.
It is well within the rights and authority of a community (through elected representatives)to determine the maximum speed for it's streets .
I think that you are disingenuously trying to draw me into an untennable position.
See my post #59
I don't claim that the rights of the individual supercede the rights of others.
I guess you could say that individual rights end where it interferes with the rights of others.
But that's a far cry from statists who claim that rights are subject to the whims of the state.
Your equation could also read: conservatism = enforced standards = punishing dissent = iron fisted tyrant = totalitarianism = bloodbath. Or as I have already heard leftist say conservatism = Taliban.
With the exception of a few regular posters on this site I would disagree that the conservative mindset is equivalent to the Taliban and I also disagree with your premise that libertarianism = no widely agreed upon and enforced moral standards. Laws against murder, assault, theft, fraud, trespassing etc. though limited still cover a lot of turf, enough to keep a society functional and civilized - especially a "multi-cultural" society. The wider universally held moral principles that you might believe in are only practical in a homogenous society or in a small tribe or clan because outside of those confines there is no agreement. The US is no longer homogenous. Furthermore the socialistic system we live under makes society less civil. As the reach of government grows the more it pits peoples against each other as they vie for official recognition, tax subsidized hand outs and advantage over other groups. Your argument is with leftist promoted social decay and with big government yet you see it as the fault of liberty and you fear liberty as you see it further unleashing this decay but fail to see how limiting government limits the power of the left, hence libertarianism solves the problems against which you rail.
How about my second point? I call this the "Gunga Diner" example. We all know that medical schools give money to winos to have them sign a release stating that after they die, the med schools can use their cadavers for medical training. Right? Ok, now your standard for what government can and cannot do is the "non-initiation of force", right? And you support the right to freely contract, as long as a person is at an "age of reason", right?
So, what if there's a group of people that wants to eat humans after they die a natural death? Let's say I start a restaurant--the Gunga Diner--that voluntarily contracts with terminally ill people to sell their bodies (for--I don't know, $500 a pop?) for food after they die. Ok? Now, you as a libertarian should have no problem with this, right? No violence was initiated against the people agreeing (they weren't killed; they died of natural causes), and they freely contracted of their own free will. Why is this not okay? Or is it? Even more disgusting example--why shouldn't parents have the right to sell their deceased children to said diner? Their children are their "property", aren't they?
I hate to be so disgusting, but sometimes it's necessary.
Which is an argument consistent with the moral position regarding the initiation of force.
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.