The Age of Enlightenment resulted in a new idea that our rights weren’t something handed down to us from the king, but maybe instead we have natural rights because we are human. If we are to live without a king then these human right needed to be protected by the law. If our rights are protected we can do anything we want as long as we do not hurt other people. Right now we have more people in prison than any other country because people want to use the law to force onto others what they think is right. Once people start using our laws to make other people do what they think is right, there is no end of do gooders and the laws that people passed to do good, ultimately fail to do what they are supposed to. The problem is that every time makes a big law that effects lots of people, it is never as good as it is when all the people work together to work out their problems. When people work out problems on their own there are good solutions and there are bad solutions among the different groups. If we learn from each other then competing ideas for our many problems leads to more solutions as the bad ideas fail and the good ideas spread. The problem is that people see the failures and say we need to do something. They go to the politician that writes the laws and say we need to fix the problem. The politician will spend money to hire the best experts and come up with an idea to fix the problem. Since these problems effect a lot of people, whole groups of people will have competing ideas on which solution is best. Ultimately a small group of people decide on a law that effects many people. We believe that the more people can work out their problems if the laws are used to protect our natural rights or human rights instead of trying to do good. The more we rely on the experts to solve our problems the less we compete and the worse off all of us are. For 99% of the history of man, small groups of people told the rest of the world how to live. Freedom and Liberty are rare in this world and they need to be protected. The very nature of man destroys liberty as we ask for fixes to our problems. It is only a few men throughout history who have stood up for the principals of Natural Rights and Liberty. Ron Paul is one of those people.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for office who can restore sanity in Washington; Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to restore the rule of law in this country; Ron Paul is the only candidate running for office who understands and has a vision to restore the economic principals that made this country prosperous; and Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to reform the unsustainable policies that are leading to our decline. Obama and the rest of the field is only offering gimmicks to manage the decline while Ron Paul is bold enough to challenge the status quo on sound money, inflationary policies, corporate bail outs and hand outs, fraud, unsustainable military growth, and Ron Paul is bold enough to challenge the failed system of bureaucracy instead of trying to throw money at our problems.
Critics say that Ron Paul’s policies are radical, but revolutionary is much more appropriate. Our forefathers led a revolution against the British because they taxed too much and they were infringing on our civil liberties. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in place to protect us against tyranny, but once again we are threatened. We’re threatened with an economic collapse, we’re threatened by ever increasing debt and taxes, and we’re losing our civil liberties in the name of security. Fortunately for us we do not need a whole new system, we don’t need any bold new plans, we only need to have a President who will uphold his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ron Paul served this country for five years in the military and he understands like our veterans understand and our Armed Forces understand, they take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;”. Ron Paul is the only candidate who seeks to defend the Constitution from domestic threats which is why our troops overwhelmingly support him instead of the other candidates getting their support from the banks and the special interests.
Corporatism I feel is going to be a big issue because it reaches across party lines and as far as I’ve seen Ron Paul is the only one addressing the issue. First off we want free markets because free markets allow for a better standard of living even for the poorest in society. If we look at the World’s most free economies: Singapore or Hong Kong, their energy use per capita which is a good approximation for a standard of living, are leaps and bounds beyond any other country. Even though it is counter-intuitive that when people do less for each other in the form of social welfare in a society, the poor actually benefit more. When we have government programs that tax and spend to help the poor first we need to build a building to house the government workers, hire a bureaucrat to administer it, then hire a staff to work for the bureaucrat, and then use what money is left to actually help the poor. As we can see using this simplistic model is that waste is built into government thus logically even if there was less taken in as charitable donations compared to taxation, because the charitable foundations are more efficient than government the poor actually receive more. If you were hit be a natural disaster, who would you want to see, the red cross or fema?
Getting back to corporatism,…as long as we have planners in all the departments of our government who effectively chose winners and losers, the special interests will exist. This creates the revolving door between our different government agencies and the industries they are supposed to be regulating. Only by shrinking the size and scope of the federal government can we eliminate all the special breaks that all the special interests now receive. Anonymous is protesting campaign finance which is understandable after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United, but that alone will not address the issue. Free markets are proven to be more efficient than central control, but we can only have free markets if we are ready to assume responsibility. The question you need to ask yourself is this: if I didn’t have to pay federal income taxes and I know that a portion of my tax dollars used to go to social welfare, would I take responsibility and donate to the local food bank? Only if we can say yes to that question can we advance society.
There is a fundamental problem with the discussion today about social welfare. The welfare state is growing we are already to the point where less than half of the average American’s income comes from wages earned. Any effort by the right to cut spending is met with issues of a government safety net to help the less fortunate. Every discussion I see on social welfare issues comes back to this same issue. And this is an issue that needs to be addressed because there is nobody talking about the alternative to a government safety net: we need to look after one another.
If I pay taxes and some people at the IRS receive the payment, a number of pairs of hands later a portion of these taxes go to pay social welfare programs. It is the multiple people who are involved in this process as my tax dollars are allocated to government program and the inherent bureaucracy of government programs that leads to inefficiencies.
So the question I pose is this: if you were not taxed for every dollar you spent and every gallon of gas, would you spend some of the money you earned to donate to local charity organizations? If you could work less because you’re not being taxed for every hour worked, would you donate some of your time and skills to help the less fortunate?
Are we incapable of taking care of each other without the safety net of government? Are we advancing as a society or are we regressing? Isn’t the desire we see in this country of people wanting the government to solve our problems making us a more impersonal society? Instead of us willingly helping each other, divisive politics just bicker about who is going to pay for the ever bigger government.
There is no better example than Hurricane Katrina in my mind: this is an example where government forces kept people who were trying to help out of the area while our government forces proved how their inefficiency causes inept responses. Thousands of rescuers both public and private were turned away as Americans drowned. What have we become?
We look to the government for help instead of to each other. That is not to say that the government has no role is social welfare, it just suggests that our attitudes towards government has changed. If we want the government to solve all of our problems, then we have abandoned the principals of liberty which brought us such prosperity and we are doomed to a big government, forever in debt, which is good at nothing but wasting our money.
I am a Ron Paul Conservative. I consider myself to be a member of Regan’s, “silent majority.” I feel warmly about former President Bush even though he in the end, his policies let down conservative base.
We wanted revenge for 9/11. They took down two towers, we took down two nations. While I can sympathize still with that sediment, we need to step back and see what Teddy Roosevelt’s, “battleship diplomacy” has turned itself into. We have proved to have the best military in the world and as any conservative, I feel the need to support our troops where ever they are and no matter what they are doing. But that patriotism is not blind, we have a moral obligation to look at how our military might applies its violent means and what purpose do those actions serve. Now that we have our forces in Libya, its making me look back at history and really taking a look at where we have been and where we are going.
We have to start back at World War II to get our current state into perspective. I’m not a historian, not ever terribly well versed on the subject, but looking back at the period from 1940-1990 it appears to me that Democratic Presidents were the ones declaring wars and Republican presidents were the ones ending them. Then came 9/11 and now we have both political parties on the same side of the fence.
Where are the noninterventionalists? What happened to streamlining government? When we stopped kicking ass and decided we had to rebuild nations we went from serving the will of the people into something else. What are we doing? Well historically we have been in the business of setting up or supporting national leadership around the world. I can see how it used to make sense to want to support friendlies in bad neighborhoods, especially in bad neighborhoods with vital economic interests for us.
It’s not hard to see when one looks at the North Africa: the world has changed. Egypt and Tunisia are modern examples that Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence do work when widely accepted by the populace. These are some of the same principles brought to us by Henry David Thoreau and we should embrace these peaceful movements. We should applaud these efforts, but at the same time we should not alienate our friends. What we demonstrated to all our allies is that we are willing to abandon our friends; sometimes we are even willing to ask them to abandon their position. In Libya the position gets worse.
In Libya we have demonstrated a willingness to pick sides in internal conflicts and wage war on the side of our choosing. So if push comes to shove we might not support our friends and allies, but if we want we’ll unleash our military too? What gives us the right to intervene in Libya’s civil war? What right does President Obama have to tell a head of a nation state that he must go? I don’t know if we’ve turned into the UN’s attack dog or just a bully of nation states, but I do know it looks like an Imperialistic Revival in North Africa right now. If we keep on this path and Donald Trump gets his way, our military is going to become the world’s mercenary force. From his point of view it’s a sound business decision, but it’s time we need to look back and ask ourselves what we have gotten ourselves into. Is this who we want to be as a nation? What is the alternative?
The alternative is to relook at who we are as a nation. Do we want to be a beckon of hope, an example of prosperity that others can emulate or do we want to spread democracy by the sword? I think we can now look at the world and see that the blow back from propping up repressive regimes is proving to be a failure. I’ll paraphrase Ron Paul on the subject: when we prop up a dictator all it does is take money from poor people and put it in the hands of rich people. Our foreign policy entrenches the subsidized government leadership. The reason why we do it is because we want to see the countries reform. We think if we support people who promise to reform we will see reform. Clearly money and power we instill on reformers leads to many other things that aren’t necessarily in our best interests. What is in our best interest? I’ll suggest that American interests aren’t in nation building nor in nation bullying. We have a role to play in the world and for that I like our navy for one reason: on the world scale, the ships move real slow. If we hastily jump into acts of war, we can’t be sure what American interests will be. If instead we act deliberately and conserve our blood and treasure we still have a chance to reclaim our goal to be a beacon onto the world. We have 24 hour strike capability on anywhere in the world and to be frank it is much too easy for us to use it. I support Ron Paul’s call for deliberate military action with declared wars and with calling back our ground troops from all foreign shores.