Ron and Rand Paul are Dead Wrong
Son,
Ron Paul brings an interesting perspective to the political conversation. He is wrong, Dead Wrong. Ron Paul does not understand the process of government. He does understand that there are serious problems with the manner in which our present Federal Government is being run. But that alone does not make him correct.
I think Ron Paul has done a service to our country. He has brought the issue of centralized versus decentralized government to the forefront. I will let him speak for himself in this video – then I will comment further.
Ron Paul does not understand the Constitution that he claims to be a champion of.
Bear with me – sometimes the answers to current problems have historical roots – and the answers to complex problems have already been worked out. Over time people have tried varieties of government and economic systems. Our Founding Fathers studied the history of government and molded the bold experiment that we now call the United States of America. The idea of the United States is simple: – give people autonomy except when that autonomy affects the whole, then the whole will take precedence. The autonomy of faith is an example.
The most evident need for intercession is in commerce, crime, and military protection. The idea was introduced to the Anglo-Saxon English folks in 1066 C.E.
Until 1066 the English had a system of government with power distributed over fiefdoms around the kingdom. The Lords of the fiefs operated independent of the centralized government. William the Conqueror, that Norman rascal, defeated England at the battle of Hastings in 1066 C.E. He brought strong centralized government to England.
England prospered with the introduction of central rule. Trade routes opened, communications expanded, internal battles between the Manor States was alleviated – peace and prosperity came with centralized government. Freedom of thought led to the Magna Carta in 1215 C.E. – the first document of individual rights over government rights.
The Lords of the Manors were reigned in. They could no longer indiscriminately punish the peasant class. The rights of peasants as human entities were recognized. Every human was granted individual dignity – and the central government protected that dignity from errant local politicians.
One might easily say that the local governments came under the regulation of a centralized government. Under centralized government trade prospered, justice became consistent and predictable – if not always just. When trade prospered – the people prospered. These are historical facts, not subjective judgments of liberals or conservatives.
So how does this lesson apply to the problems facing us today. How about immigration? What about abortion? What about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). What about Global Warming?
And what about corporations – the last bastion of feudal rule?
Ron Paul would have us believe the we are not interdependent. Ron Paul would have us return to the old Lord of the Manor mentality, a return to feudalism. Ron Paul distorts history to suit his limited perspective of the process of government.
Dad
Comment by Magnus on 4 February 2008:
Paul is not citing any British history when talking about the Constitution. So… I fail to see how the situation here in the US has anything to do with 11th century Britain.
Comment by RT on 5 February 2008:
I recall that centralized government led to the establishment of one established religion in England. England also reigned over its people allowing a small voice to its people. Then in its colonies England ruled with an Iron Fist.
I would suggest you reread the history of the United States again Dad, obviously you missed something in the translation.
If rule from England and the respect it had for its people was so great then why did the Founding Fathers make a Declaration of Independence? Why did the Colonies wage a war against the goodness of a well-intentioned tyrant called King George? Why did the call of Liberty spread to France and the world? Why did the Founding Fathers write a text, now called obsolete( The Constitution) to limit Central Government?
The Magna Carte was an infantile step away from Monarchy, and Feudalism and was not fully escaped from until the signing of the Constitution.
Is it possible you are from Blue-Blood as is George Bush and you view us lowly Dregs of Tudor Society a hinderance in gaining a lordship or landgrant from the King?
States rights were to keep regions of people normally bound by common Geographical, Economics and other issues, bound together to express their views and political stands united. The representation of these States was to be done in Congress to bind us together in Commerce, Foreign Policy, and the general protection of the people. States rights were subjegated to a lesser role after the Civil War and the pendulum of Federalism won the battle. I propose now that the pendulum has swung to far and approaching the extreme of a Central government. Ending in another form of monarchy where our President and Congress are the ruling elite and bury the American people in a beauracacy of paper and regulations. We already imprison more of our own people than the USSR did at its peak. Through Central Banking our currency has lost more value and losing more everyday.
Ron Paul is not 100% correct nor is anyother canidate, oversight is needed or we would return to patent medicines, Robber Barons and the such however, the pendulum does need to swing back soon or the clock of Freedom will break and we will be ruled over by a Central government that controls all.
So somewhere and sometime we have to ask ourselves how far do we want government to go. The road has been paved with the Patriot Act to suspend your rights and your opportunity to persue life, liberty and happiness. We gave up Habeus Corpus to protect ourselves and to punish terrorism. But in the end who have we punished? Business now owes no Alligence to one country and does not care about the general good of the nation. They only care about the dollar or euro. If we truly had to mobilize for war, how would we make the ships, the weapons we would need. Our steel mills rust into nothingness, our automobile industry dies a slow death. Yet, the President and Congress has seen fit to give tax breaks to them for moving the jobs of American people overseas. We were told of imminent attacks coming across the borders of Mexico and Canada thus we formed the Homeland Security and spent Billions to “protect us” yet the borders are open. Part of those Billions were to wrap FEMA and Homeland Security together for Natural Disaster Preparedness, yet we saw the ineptitude of the Federal Government to respond, and local government waiting for a federal response instead of getting busy itself. The American people have become so entrenched in the idea that government should solve all of its woes that we have become so lazy we don’t even think before we speak, elect, or come up with an original idea. We wait until the Corporate Media tells us what to believe and how to respond. Get your duct tape and plastic ready, remember?
So there is a rant. Paul’s message is more on than off. But that message has been sequestered and ridiculed. So grab your Union Jack flag and wave it or your Chairman Mao’s Red Book and greet them at the shore.
I myself will wait vigilantly.
Comment by Radical Patriot on 10 February 2008:
Dad, your tedious attempt to show your superior understanding of the US Constitution was, well, nothing! You claimed that you were going to show how Ron Paul does not understand it, but you did nothing of the sort. You write so poorly that it is hard to even puzzle out what on earth you are trying to say that RP is or is not doing
Why don’t you try again? Listen to the very video you posted here, try to understand the points that RP is making [especially the listing of points at the end], and then make a rational argument against them if you don’t agree. For example, take one clear issue, like states’ rights, and consider what the Constitution means [especially in Amendments 9 & 10] in regard to that issue, and then show why RP’s position is or is not in line with the Constitution.
And do stop trying to play Lord Chesterfield, with his letters to his son.
Comment by American Uprising on 27 March 2008:
Hey Dad it seems as though you have been chugging to much floridated water. As stated above what does a few paragraphs about old great britain have to do with our constitution. Why do you and Im sure your friends love being controlled so much. What makes a few strangers making all the decisions for us so appealing. Would you not agree that power corrupts? Are you afraid of running your own life? Really we would all like to know at least the mind set of you and people like you since it is your ideaology that as led us towards fascism. There are many who feel freedom is our right and that can not happen with bigger and bigger government, but you would know that since your very in tune with history.
http://www.InfoWars.com
Comment by Common Sense on 3 April 2008:
Last I checked, England during the historic time period stated above was NOT A DEMOCRACY, OR A REPUBLIC. America is. Based on the fact that you disaprove of limited government, I can only conclude that you feel incapable of living freely, and feel that a “big brother” type of government is necessary to live your life for you. Bottom Line: The Constitution empowers the people, but as our government moves away from those values, it empowers a select few. (who in turn advocate special interest groups which ultimately turns a goverment for the people and by the people into a goverment against the people)
Comment by yankhadenuf on 23 April 2009:
Dad, you articulate very well what I have thunk of Ron Paul all along. Of course you are correct , but Paul’s obedient underlings will never get it. Your kindred spirit in the Constitution, sister yankhadenuf
Comment by RJ on 2 June 2010:
1- “Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.” -Ron Paul
Of course, since the founding fathers were slave owners who wanted the freedom to exploit other human beings for their private benefit, and you cant have a democracy in which the people truly rule since the people exploited will oppose Oligarchy. Which is why many Libertarians are quick to perrot anti-democracy slogans.
2- American Liberty League, which threw Libertarian slogans to the mass of uninformed, were in fact Fascist industrialists inspired by European Fascism. The slogans of Freedom are intended to break appart the people(servants) solidarity so to better rule over them (devide to conquer, individualism ultimate form of division).
NeoFeudalism:
“Neofeudalism literally means “new feudalism” and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism.”
Comment by Amy on 3 June 2010:
Hey Dad it seems as though you have been chugging to much floridated water. As stated above what does a few paragraphs about old great britain have to do with our constitution. Why do you and Im sure your friends love being controlled so much. What makes a few strangers making all the decisions for us so appealing. Would you not agree that power corrupts? Are you afraid of running your own life? Really we would all like to know at least the mind set of you and people like you since it is your ideaology that as led us towards fascism. There are many who feel freedom is our right and that can not happen with bigger and bigger government, but you would know that since your very in tune with history.
http://www.InfoWars.com
Comment by Ohg Rea Tone on 5 June 2010:
Amy – did you completely miss the point of the value of a centralized government? Do you not understand the value of studying history?
https://thefiresidepost.com/2010/05/03/the-threat-of-fascism-in-21st-century-america/