Comment: Until they discover the HEART of Dr. Paul's message.

(See in situ)

In post: How long?

Until they discover the HEART of Dr. Paul's message.

Which can be found exactly here.

"Government should NEVER be able to do anything YOU can't do."

Meditate on that. Review each and every function performed by our federal, state, and local governments, and ask yourself whether or not YOU have a moral right to do exactly the same thing.

For example, "public education":

  • Do you have a moral right to educate your own children as you see fit? Yes, you do.
  • Do you have a moral right to accept voluntary assistance from other people to educate your children (useful if you are very poor and/or not a good teacher yourself) Yes, you do.
  • Do you have a moral right to forcibly extort money from other people (i.e. levy "taxes") to pay for your children's education? Or anyone else's children? You do not.
  • Do you have a moral right to force other people to allow YOU to educate THEIR children as YOU, not they, see fit? You do not.
  • If you and two of your neighbors get together and "vote" on who should educate the child of a fourth neighbor, on what should be taught to the child, and how much your neighbor should pay for the "privilege," do you THEN have a moral right to force him to comply with your demands? You do not.
  • Does it MATTER, morally speaking, how many neighbors gang up on neighbor #4, trying to force him to do something he believes is wrong? Is there some numerical point at which wrong becomes right? No and no.

If you understand Dr. Paul, it's easy to see that government has no business in educating children.

In the end, you must realize that the distinctive feature of government is force. George Washington got it right:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

The central question for any government function then becomes: in what instances do YOU have a moral right to use force against another person? In what situations are YOU morally entitled to forcibly take their money or property? Under what circumstances would YOU have a moral right to forcibly imprison them? In what situations do YOU have a moral right to compel them to behave in a particular manner?
Consider: you have a right to defend yourself. You have a right to defend other innocent people. You have NO right to injure or coerce other people or to take their rightfully-acquired property.
Think about it for awhile, and you necessarily conclude that the only MORAL function of the men who call themselves "government" is to defend against aggression -- never to commit it. ALL the other things that government does are IMMORAL functions. ALL the other functions are instances of instituted aggression (against which all men have a right to defend themselves).

Among the many things "government" does NOT have a right to do is to "be the leader." No man has the moral right to rule another. The commands issued by "government" (which are commonly called "laws") have no more moral force than the commands of any neighborhood bully.

There's a book which explains such ideas much better than I do: The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose