Ron Paul w/John Stossel on Libertarianistic Views
Posted December 8th, 2007 by Jane Aitken
This should explain to social conservatives what Ron Paul believes in personally as well as what he believes is or isn't government's role in the issues of drugs, gay marriage, prostitution, etc.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
How America Lost the War on Drugs
http://www.rollingstone.c...
After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.
..."What we learned was that in drug work, nothing ever stands still," says Coleman, the former DEA official and current president of Drug Watch International, a law-and-order advocacy group. For every move the drug warriors made, the traffickers adapted. "The other guys were learning just as we were learning," Coleman says. "We had this hubris."...
Stossel and Paul
In the Political Chowder interview a number of months back, Paul said that Stossel would be someone he would consider for his administration (or someone like Stossel).
http://youtube.com/result...
Thanks
This was a very interesting interview, the first I've seen in which RP makes the critical point missed by the masses ---- businesses are only dangerous to freedom when they get involved with the government. A free market means we are free to choose what to buy. Tell a liberal today! -JP
drugs, gay marriage,
drugs, gay marriage, prostitution? why these marginal issures, what about the part on Iraq war, health care, economic/monetary, social security?
Well said, drugs aren't
Well said, drugs aren't going anyplace anytime soon just ask any one who works in a drug rehab facility . Nor are gay's wanting to marry. Prostitution? let the men/women deal with that. We have far to many real issues that need to be dealt with as you said the war, our health care system, the economy of our country. And social security
Exactly!
I don't trust Stossel.
Government can't protect you from yourself
This is the key point of this video in my opinion, when it comes to the vices of the world.
If anything government should educate the people about products, drugs, etc..., but gov can't protect people from themselves or dictate someone doing or not doing something.
We can't afford such a tyrannical nanny government.
agreed, as long as ....
my rights are protected as well. I have the right ( quickly shrinking) to speak my mind , home school my children and to say how I feel about certain issues with out being silenced in the name of tolerance. And no one should have the 'freedom' to take life, liberty, or property with out due process- one's liberties end where other people's liberties begin.
I refuse to watch
Until ABC airs it.
A friend who watched 20/20 on Friday told me she found it puzzling that Stossel would come on and talk about the interview and then not show any of it. A lot of other people must have felt the same way.
Was Stossel just trying to make the emails asking him to cover Ron Paul go away?
No, I think it was a way to TRY to get them aired...
...by getting "everyday viewers" to write or call in and ask "Hey, what's up... why aren't you showing the piece?"
I got news for people, a LOT of video gets shot that never get aired. Just like newspapers used to have a lot of stories that were written but never published (not so much anymore as most papers don't have many reporter/writers anymore, just a few to cover some local or state junk, the rest is news service feeds that they "tweak" and republish).
But these types of interview things get done so they have the stuff "in the can" as a form of insurance for later. In other words, just on the remote chance the Ron Paul does something else unexpected, like say WINS New Hampshire, then they can pull this out and claim "exclusive" -- and also they can carefully edit pieces of it (ala the "Dean Scream") and use it to try to derail a candidate.
So at least bits of it WILL be used in the future. But probably NOT in any way that we will like.
Stossel's selling out
I feel the same way about these "online only" interviews. Several months back, when RP announced his candidacy and John Stossel was asked if he would support him, Stossel dismissed his candidacy the same way everyone else in the media has. If there were ONE PERSON in the media that should be full-boar behind Ron Paul - it's John Stossel. I am so disappointed, and I won't be watching these interviews until he fights to give Ron the prime-time slot that he deserves!
John Stossel Rules
Before Ron Paul, Stossel was a favorite target of socialists and other statists. At least he's not a lonely voice anymore.
Freedom and Law
Ron Paul's comments regarding freedom and tolerance for offensive social behavior is correct from a Federal, Constitutional perspective. He is correct in maintaining that the Federal government has no Constitutional right to legislate against such behavior.
He is wrong, however, when he extends his permissive views to the State and Local government levels. Unlimited freedom cannot be tolerated in any society. All law must rest on a philosophy of law which is always religious in nature. This is true of atheistic as well as "religious" societies (atheism is a religious philosophy). When the religious views of a people are offended by what they believe to be "wrong" behavior, they will make and enforce laws to prevent such behavior.
The problem in this country today is that we have fundamentally competing religious views vying for control of the legal system. These are primarily the old Christianity and the new Humanism. The abortion and homosexual marriage controversies arise directly from this disparity of religious views.
Restricting the Federal government from social legislation will not solve the problem. But it will shift the battle down to the State and Local levels where it belongs.
What you do with..
Your body should be your own business. Be it drugs, prostitution, driving a two hundred mile an hour race car, sky diving, white water rafting, mountain climbing etc. We could end the war on drugs and other things, it would put things out in the open, where they should be. It would lower the crime rate and stabilize the market on these things, thus making them less desirable for profit. The war on drugs is another ridiculous thing the government imposes on its people. The government makes A LOT of money on this. Most drugs in this country are brought in by the very force that opposes it.
Your body should be your own business
This can be true to a great extent but we need to realize that we live in a society with other people and we cannot just do whatever we please even when it might seem that we are not hurting anyone else. Let's consider homosexual marriage for example. Legalization and subsequent widespread use of this practice represents an attack on the Christian concept of family. They believe it is morally wrong and will adversely affect their lives and especially their youth. They vigorously oppose such legislation because it is in violation of their religious views.
Humanists on the other hand are very opposed to creation being taught as an alternative to evolution in public schools, not because there is no scientific case for it but because it violates their religious views, the view that says there is no God, man is the measure of all things.
The basic problem is that we have competing religions in America today. This pluralistic concept is in conflict with basic human nature and is totally unworkable. It has never worked historically and is not working here today. Eventually one religious view must predominate and provide the basis for the laws that govern society. At that point the defeated group will either need to leave or succumb to the will of the majority.
Actually, IMHO the family was "killed" LONG before gay marriage
And it was destroyed by the unfaithfulness of hetersexual couples (people like Giuliani and Thompson).
Even in the 70's by the time I was in high school, probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the students were from divorced families and the number was growing exponentially (and yes this was in rural/suburban "white" America).
Since then it has gotten much worse and in recent years a large majority of students are from such broken and mixed families, often twice or thrice divorced and with several step-siblings. Anyone who comes from an "old-school" intact family is somewhat of an oddity.
You wanna defend marriage? How about enforcing adultery laws instead of the BS "no fault" divorces? How about a TWO strikes law that makes it illegal for someone to get married (yet again) after they have been divorced the second time (I mean it should be obvious by then that they have NO clue). Or personally I think even after a first divorce if they have chosen the "no fault" option. OR, put some other provision in there like we do with monetary bankruptcy cases.
I'm not one for the whole rainbow movement -- the NYC "gay pride" parades pretty much sicken me -- as examples of debauchery on a the scale of Babylon (but than again, so is "Margi-Gras").
But the majority of STD cases, the majority of child molestations, the majority of the prostitution problems, etc. are all standard "heterosexual" issues -- avoiding the responsibilities for those issues and blaming others is scapegoating, plain and simple.
Agreed! No fault divorce......
is more than 80% of the problem. What happened to integrity, keeping your promises, caring for your children.... What really bothers me is that the rate in the church is as high as the rate anywhere else. I'm really glad Ron Paul sets such a sterling example here.
What about those who don't practice a religion?
Christianity was most certainly the most common religion in our nation's early years, but I reject the notion that we have to create federal laws that govern what we do in our own homes based on what happens to be 'tolerated' by practitioners of a particular religion. The hypocrisies that I have seen (look at the Catholic church, the Bakers, etc.) leads me to believe that religious groups have NO PLACE making rules for others that they are not willing to abide by themselves. The basis for our laws should be from a human-rights rather than bible-based standpoint, and they should be limited, as a rule requires enforcement, enforcement requires punishment, punishment is almost always in the form of theft (fines) or imprisonment/slavery (jail). We have to be sure that we are not giving up our human rights simply to make others behave the way we would.
These are issues that are specifically meant to be decided at the local level. If a community wants to accept alternative lifestyles, cultures, etc. their residents will decide. Our country is too diverse for a top-down, one federal rule for everyone. That is why we have become so divided. Our worlds are actually very small, and having someone thousands of miles away making broad-based decisions for everyone is a BAD idea. Our founding fathers understood this, and tried to put in place rules to keep this from happening. Unfortunately, those who want to 'be the boss' of others and make everyone think and believe and act like they do, have disregarded these safeguards and continually call for more government regulation of our lives.
Do you support Ron Paul
Do you support Ron Paul because there are some other candidates who believe in legislating morality you might be more comfortable with? Mike huckabee I hear is great in this regard.
I support Ron Paul
I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul. He is far and away the best candidate for President we've had in many years. I just disagree with what he said about total freedom. It doesn't make sense; freedom must be restricted at some level of government.
"freedom must be restricted"
Reread what you said, think about it, and get back to us.
Wow...
Just...wow.... I'm speechless.
---Signature---
Liberals want to be your Mommy. Conservatives want to be your Daddy. Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.
---
Stop the Thought Crimes Act (H.R. 1955) with one click: http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10528846
Well, I think what he said
Well, I think what he said was kinda whacked, as I believe libertarian views work at a state level which is what I think he was saying wasn't true. But you aren't free to violate others constitutional rights in a libertarian society so you don't have unlimited freedom in that circumstance.
It's like the peak of this equation. y = (-1/4)(x-50)^2 + 50 (An upside down U)
The y axis is government control and the x axis is liberty.You need at least a certain amount of control to protect the rights of individuals but beyond that point the amount of liberty goes down.
liberty requires rule of law -- anarchy protects no one
Actually, I think Paul was occasionally using the phrase "the state" as a synonym for "government." He's a consistent defender of many decisions being made at the state level. (Though some things may not even be the role of "the state" at all -- like having a say in how a religion defines marriage.)
I think for your graph idea the axis labels need to be swapped. As government control increases (horizontally on the graph), liberty briefly rises (vertically), it peaks early, and then declines as government control increases.
The reason liberty isn't greatest with no government control is that individuals would abuse freedom and rob others of their rights. Some government control is necessary for enforcing the rule of law, to protect the rights of everyone.
If people were good, instead of self-serving and greedy, etc., and if we all recognized the equality of others, treating others as we would like to be treated, we wouldn't need government. But there's evil in the hearts of people, both in and out of government. We need to keep people from harming each other by enforcing laws, which is where government comes in. But government itself can also be corrupt, and the more power a person has over others, the more devastating the effects of their corruption. So it's best to limit government control to only what's necessary to protect peoples' basic rights.
The political struggle between "left" and "right" is like a pendulum, and pulling it to your side as hard as you can invests it with potential energy. Not only are you limiting the freedom of your opponents, but you're investing the government with the power to limit your freedom when the pendulum swings to the other side. When someone else takes office, whatever power they have is also free to be abused. And the government is abusing its power. The struggle should not take place at the federal level. There's too much at stake there, leading both sides to become desperate and reactionary. Give some leeway to the freedom of your opponents in the political arena, and work to make a difference in the private sector instead. (And try to help reduce the influence of government, to reduce corrupting influences over it.)
People really need a change of heart anyway, and that isn't accomplished by force. It's through relationships that we can make a difference in people's lives. Also, by discussing things, people can learn from each other and correct errors on each side, leading towards a consensus. It's like Ron Paul's foreign policy -- don't promote your views by force, but by setting a good example.
That made my day!
I can't wait to show your post to my hubby! :) He and I both love reading mathematical proofs, and this was excellent.
As well you should be...
That kind of attitude explains a lot about where we are right now...
I would be thrilled if every
I would be thrilled if every American voter could see this interview and other videoes of Ron Paul clearly stating his position. If everyone would just mind their own business; stop trying to build some non-existant utopian society through big brother govn't. Love and respect your neighbor, even if he smokes dope and has different views than you. Good interview. Suprised at the lack of "you can't win" and "will there be a third party" crap we've gotten so far.
Make a dent
.
You can send this YouTube video to everybody you know via email. And, if you want to make it a holiday greeting, YouTube can do that for you too.
Easy and fun way to get the word out.
Freedom is not a spectator sport
Americans will wake up to the fact that their freedom is not in the hands of a few elite men but it is something they are responsible for every day.
Talking about the bloom on the video.
Yeah, that looks intentional. I wonder who did it.
i would go
even further than that and allow the states to actually sell the drugs and use the profits to fund a hospital to help them get themselves off drugs. that way the people who dont use drugs arent forced to pay a tax for those who do.also label the drugs with names that would turn people off from drugs to begin with, like for example, a package of herion would have a picture on the box of a guy with black rotten teeth eating garbage from a dumpster and the name brand is called "Instant Loser" and it would also contain a dvd and some literature revealing the real truth about this drug and where to get help if you need it. the real reason people why people get into drugs is because of the lies and hype from people on the streets who use it and sell it themselves. this would turn that around and i think drug use (especially the hard stuff) would go way down. just my opinion
"Government's can't protect individual's from themselves"
That's the last point Ron made and it's the whole point. You can have all the rules and regulations you want, but ultimately you can never stop individuals from doing what they want to do. If you DO attempt to regulate individuals in every way, you have a tyrannical State.
Does anyone else notice the 'soft focus' GLOW around Ron Paul in this interview? :)
They have to address it sometime...
I'm glad Stossel wanted to get these issues out in the open, for anxious supporters of Paul this is an elephant in the room. We all hope and pray they don't ask him about the legalization of drugs in a debate when he has 30 seconds to respond.
When talking to people about these issues, one MUST point out that Ron Paul doesn't think it is the job of the Federal Government to set these sorts of personal liberty laws.
He detests drugs, doesn't condone prostitution, but he wants to treat adults like adults and leave it for them to decide what they want to do. It is hard logic for many ignorant people to follow, but once they come to their own conclusions they can understand.
Any discussion of heroin and cocaine with a possible supporter just might turn someone off. But discussing the need for personal liberty and the ability to decide what you want to do with your own body is a nor open ended approach to this difficult topic to sell.
Just my two cents.
-See you in NH 1/3 - 1/7...
Maybe 20 years ago that
Maybe 20 years ago that would have been true. Now, it is so blatantly obvious that the federal War On Drugs has been such a blatant failure, I don't know of anybody who could possibly defend it! If anything at all, it should be a state function, and is not constitutional. Anybody who has had any experience with the effects of the war on drugs is going to know it hasn't helped anything.
RP brought up his opposition to the war on drugs during the Tavis Smiley PBS debate. He was succinct and convincing. He doesn't need to hide from this issue. He's a doctor and has amazing credibility and well thought out ideas on it.
For the record, I don't use drugs, whether they be legal or illegal. It should be a moral/medical issue, not a legal/criminal issue. I don't like drugs, and I have seen the destruction they cause. That destruction is only compounded by an incompetent, meddling, draconian government.
Ron Paul got wild applause
at the PBS debate (and in our family room) for *emphatically* stating the war on drugs must end. The "war" amounts to a war on our inalienable rights (especially 4th & 5th amendments) and is much more harmful to society than the 1.5% of society that is addicted to drugs. (the same percentage that was drug addicted before the prohibition of *some* drugs and some plants)
The question about "black-on-black" crime came up at the GOP YouTube debate. Unfortunately Dr Paul didn't have an opportunity to state that drug prohibition (just like alcohol prohibition) is the leading cause of crime in America, especially among minorities and the poor in the core of urban cities. Many police chiefs have stated that the so-called "drug culture" is at the root of most violent crime. Some in law enforcement have started realizing that drug prohibition is the cause of the "drug culture," just as alcohol prohibition was the cause of an unprecedented murder rate, the rise of street gangs, and the "speakeasy culture."
check out : www.leap.cc
It was just a decade ago that states (now 11 of them) and thousands of cities began changing changed their laws regarding Cannabis. More harm-reduction policies are popping up like needle exchange programs. The propaganda on this rhetorical war is ridiculous, and many Americans are waking up to this fact. Personally I think the war on terror is ultimately helping us end the drug war, as many see the correlation between the two.
The "war on terror" is the "war on drugs" on steroids where civil liberties are concerned.
Anyway, those two moments in the PBS debate remain my favorite debate moments so far, especially hearing the applause afterwards. The poor in the inner cities understand this more than the average American, but mainstreamers are finally starting to figure it out.
-----------------------------------
"...it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
I love Ron Paul
How can anyone not love this guy? He speaks the unvarnished truth, no matter what. I honestly believe that anyone who has heard Ron Paul's message, and rejected it, is simply afraid of the responsibility required to be truly free.
These people have grown accustomed to the prison walls; they are caged human animals.
---Signature---
Liberals want to be your Mommy. Conservatives want to be your Daddy. Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.
---
Stop the Thought Crimes Act (H.R. 1955) with one click: http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10528846
Great signature...
it's true, the nation of sheep have been conditioned and don't even realize it. I'm still ''coming around'' - recovering if you will.
Honestly though, I wish the interview had begun with 'what it means to be a Republican' before going into Libertarianism - because there will be a LOT of people who just won't get this.
I fear that the MSM (Radio included) will use snippets of this first part of the interview and try and use it out of context. That's one reason I hate 'a 6 part interview' format. We need it all out now... and all in context.
I wish...
the MSM would stop hounding on the morally negative ways to use one's freedom, and start being "balanced" and discuss the positive opportunities that now arise from unbridled freedom.
Imagine: If the Internet were regulated for the next 20 years, and then someone interviewed Ron Paul about unregulating it, they'd say, "You mean you'd be OK with pornography and smut on the Internet? Who's going to protect our children from it??"
Yet, today, we have an unregulated Internet, and imagine, PARENTS like myself, are repsonsible for protecting my children from the smut. AND look at all of the positive things we get from the Internet - again, it wouldn't be the topic of discussion.
This government has become such a nanny state that people have been allowed to become irresponsible and ignorant. However, we're paying heavily for it, and STILL we have no utopia.
Ron's position on personal freedom scares people, not because the message of freedom is scary, but because the end result will require people to get off of their lazy butts and be responsible citizens, parents, and workers again - like their grandparents were!!
This IS the difference between a Ron Paul supporter (who gets off his/her butt to help change this nation) and other candidate supporters who let the campaign tell them what to do (just like they want/allow the nanny state to do).
Wow
Just think how many people are being exposed to what freedom means. Even if Dr. Paul didn't win, all our efforts are really doing a lot. Liberty is actually becoming a mainstream idea! Also, Dr. Paul is not equivocating one bit. Good job.
yes, RP is a teacher
From the beginning, that's been my incessant motivation. I know that every bit of energy directed into promoting RP is well spent regardless of the election outcome.
That said: I'm totally set on winning, so don't get me wrong. ;-)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com