Does Freedom Need Federal Intervention?

My grandmother watched PBS's American Experience: Freedom Riders last night and highly recommended that I watch it as well.

Watch Freedom Riders on PBS. See more from American Experience.

Now, I don't know how to embed videos and the code I copied from the site doesn't seem to work on Daily Paul, but I have attempted to spread this video far and wide on Facebook asking my friends, simply, to share it with their friends. It's interesting, however, that I'm spreading a video that clearly shows how federal intervention is necessary to protect freedom.

All of us have heard about Dr. Paul's shortcomings when it comes to equality. "He would repeal the Civil Rights Act," is a statement thrown around quite often by Paul's detractors. But, the assumption seems to be that America would fall into a racist society just as soon as government allowed us to do what we'd like. There is a paradox, here, that I can't quite explain.

These riders chose to ride for freedom, yet freedom seems to be something too many Americans are now afraid of. It was clear then that as long as Southerners were free to enforce segregation on their populations, nothing would change. The federal government was needed and federal legislation changed everything and made America a harmonious place for peoples of all races, religions, and ethnicities. Right?

We all know that's not how it happened. We all know that America still has many problems when it comes to equality and freedom. We also know that the rule of law can do nothing without the will of the people supporting it or, at the very least, adhering to it. There can be good laws and bad laws at any level, but outcomes, eventually, fall to the good or bad behavior people choose to embrace.

I often wonder if a Paul presidency would result in anarchy or states trampling the rights of their citizens. I often wonder if his drastic cuts in federal spending would result in uncontrollable chaos. I only wonder that, though, because I fall victim to the same scare tactics that so many others fall victim to.

I don't believe that societies that are post-racial will descend into segregation if Paul were president, nor do I believe that societies that have been integrated by law are somehow free of racism or segregation. What I do believe is that freedom is something worth fighting for and that freedom, as Paul often says, is a force that can unite people just as it did with the Freedom Riders in this video who, despite belonging to different religions, races, sexes, ethnicities, and regions, united to fight for what was right. Had more people let go of the hatred in their hearts, the federal government wouldn't have been necessary, but I don't think Paul, despite claims he is a neo-Confederate (and you're one, too, since you support him), would allow Freedom Riders to be beaten or killed in the name of the wrong type of freedom.

Paul, in fact, changed my views on so many things I once hated because those things weren't like me. He opened my mind up to what freedom and liberty, terms so often just thrown around, really meant. I am hoping more people will realize that there is absolutely nothing the government can do without people, as individuals, choosing to do them or allow them first. It wasn't, after all, federal legislation that led to national change, it was national change that led to federal legislation.

Freedom may very well require federal intervention, but Paul takes his responsibilities very seriously and is the one candidate who speaks about freedom and liberty the most of all our current (with few exceptions) field of candidates (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/01...). You can, of course, anticipate the arguments to this claim.

"It's just talk," some could say. We know better, though. We know Paul walks his talk.

"He supports freedom, but not the freedom to marry," others may say. We know better there, too. We know that Paul would rather take marriage out of government's control to allow humans the chance to fulfill their ideas of happiness.

"He is all about rights, except the right for a woman to choose," some also say. Well, he believes that life is the first right we have, so would naturally be against abortion, but he is also against the federal government deciding the issue in the first place.

"He is against the federal government controlling us, but is perfectly fine with the states doing whatever they'd like," it has been said. We know that Paul's unwavering support for freedom and liberty would also justify his use of the federal government to protect individuals from truly oppressive states.

But, finally, I think we know, as Paul supporters, that this has never been about Paul or his greatness or his faults. This has always been about America. Not about American in the sense of empty platitudes and false patriotism, but about America that embraces freedom and equality and rejects oppression and inequality. I think we also know that it starts with us. It starts with people willing to let go of their prejudices and biases and move forward. It starts with actually considering individuals and their character before color, race, gender, religion, sexuality, or party.

I hope this message, whether Paul's elected or not, spreads. I hope it brings about reflection, forwards the aims of peace, and allows more people to see the value in freedom rather than fearing the responsibilities it brings. In the end, it is our responsibility to protect freedom.