0 votes

In Defense of Ron Paul


In this particular interview by the infamous douche bag by the name of
Chris Mathews on MSNBC he tries to goat Ron Paul into saying that
racism rocks. I'm going to defend Ron Paul because I know he is not
defending racism nor is he a racist and I also know that this was the
position that Barry Goldwater had on this particular issue. It was
never a defense of racism itself but the defense of two important
freedoms that we do not lose when we enter into the mysterious object
called society. Those freedoms were the natural right of property and
the natural right of conscience which were illustrated in Locke's Two
Treaties of Government.

Locke believed that man without society was in his natural state and
in this natural state their is nothing that can judge us other than
our own conscience. This is true because society as a whole does not
yet exist so we are alone with our own conscience but when we enter
into society that changes since our actions can be judged by others.
In this state, man loses a freedom he had before he entered into
society which was the freedom of conscience. And if we are to believe
that the rules of society exist only to preserve the natural state of
freedom then we have to accept that society can not assume the power
of God and judge our actions since in the natural state we were only
judged by our own conscience and God.

The idea that our private actions are subject to some kind of social
judgment seems to violate our natural freedom. This is why society
has no right, if it is to protect the natural state, to judge
individuals within it. It has no right to be the judge of any
individual within it since it can not be greater than God or whatever
source of morality a person reasons to be best. This right belongs to
individuals and not to society as a whole so, as much as this might
upset some social conservatives or anti-capitalist liberals, society
is not the end-all-be-all of morality. That right solely exist for
the individuals within it since a society that is designed to protect
the natural freedom of all can not interfere with an individual's own

That same society has no right to interfere with the decisions of an
individual's own conscience or on how to order the property that they
have. Again, a society that orders itself in such a way to protect
the natural order of the people can not interfere with the people's
own property. That property establishes a private sphere that can not
be touched by society rules and whatever property government has was
given to it by a donation from the private sphere. This divides the
people and the government into two distinct sphere separated by their
perspective properties and because the government's property was
extracted from the people everything that government is was created by
the people. The people's property existed far before that and the
government's property was established by the people after that point
in time. This makes Government is a creation of the people since
everything it has was established by the people themselves from their
own already existing property.

Government possesses a title to its property and the people possess a
title to their own property. These titles describe certain powers
over that property and no title held by either government or person
says that one has any rights over another. This separates absolute
authority from the government and the people because the absolute
power of each entity is limited over its own property. Government can
pass whatever laws it wants over its own property and because the
people also have the same absolute power over their own property the
people can pass whatever rules it wants over theirs.

A separation of authority begins to appear between government and the
people and because of this the only authority that government can have
over the people is the one that serves the purpose of protecting the
property of the people. It can not interfere with the natural right
to use that property as they wish so its only role is to facilitate
the honest trade of that property and to protect the right to use that
property as each person thinks is best.

Simply put, a government that is established to protect the natural
freedom of the people can have no authority over a person's property
any more than I have over the authority to use someone else's
property. Government can desegregate its own property all it wants
but it has no right to desegregate the property of anyone else because
it has no natural authority over that property and it has no right to
judge a person over how that property is to be used.

Trending on the Web