A Revolution in Thinking or How I Stopped Drinking the Kool-Aid
Isn’t voting a pain in the ass? My vote is just one little ballot in a sea of millions; statistically meaningless, yet it feels so important. The 2008 presidential election has caused me more intellectual grief and ideological heartache than all of my previous voting experiences combined. Finally, just a couple of weeks before the big day, I feel like I have emerged from a drug-induced state and can see the world clearly for the first time; all thanks to one little book.
I came into this election season as a confused conservative. In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush with excitement. Like any good Republican candidate in the previous couple of decades, he promised to cut spending, reduce taxes and end American military adventurism. At first, his administration seemed to be making some progress on these promises. Then, 9/11 happened. Somehow, in the whirlwind of that crisis, everything got turned around. I’ve always thought of the conservative philosophy as one based on reason and the liberal philosophy as one based on emotion; like that old joke that says if you’re a republican when you’re young, you have no heart, and if you are a democrat when you’re old, you have no brain. Looking back on the years after 9/11, I now realize that my conservative philosophy, and I think that of the Republican Party’s leadership, was corrupted by the basest of emotions. Liberals often refer to the politics of fear, but I can now put my finger on the real culprits: frustration, anger… even hatred. How dare they attack us? My love for that which I have sworn an oath to defend, the Constitution and the ideals of liberty, justice and freedom it embodies, took a back seat to my wrath, my lust for revenge.
I scoffed at the meager efforts of the media to focus my rage on a few crackpots hatching schemes in caves in the remote corners of the world. I watched the videos of throngs of cheering Muslims dancing in the streets, celebrating the blow to the western Satan. I listened to Muslim leaders denounce the attacks through one side of their face and then justify it through the other. I saw bin Laden’s stature soar among the Islamic nations. I thank God now that I and most other Americans possessed enough civilization, retained just enough reason and had learned well our nation’s historical lessons of racism and prejudice that we did not focus that rage on our friends and neighbors that live among us. But if someone had provided me a world map and asked me to identify the enemy, I would not have pointed to a nondescript spot in the mountains of Afghanistan, but drawn a large circle in the center of the map. There was my enemy, and I would do my duty and play my part to convert them to a post-secular westernized democracy or failing that, destroy them altogether. I certainly did not understand at the time that these goals were impossible, but even if I had, I’m not sure I would have cared. My anger was such that I was willing to pay almost any price for revenge: our nation’s good name, the soul of our Republic, even my own life.
Like most Americans, I turned a blind eye to the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch and the pitiful surrender of the Congress. I supported the illegal invasion of a miserable third world country not because of the obviously ridiculous reasons put forth by our government but because it fell within the boundaries of my circle on the map. I reveled in the criticism of the world community and in the suffering of Islamic terror agents at the hands of CIA interrogators and in the cells of Guantanamo. My sin of wrath that now pains me the most is my lack of respect for the Constitution. I swore an oath to defend it and when it needed me the most, I abandoned it.
By 2004, whether due to the passage of time or because enough bombs had dropped their message of revenge, my anger had sufficiently dissipated for me to tell that something was definitely wrong. I did not have much time for political awareness or self-analysis as I was busy fulfilling my own duty at sea, so far from the battlefields I foolishly wished to be upon. Nonetheless I was troubled. Where were we heading? I began to realize that something was disturbingly wrong with my ideology. The few political discussions I participated in had long since ceased being about limited government, reform of our welfare state or strengthening individual liberties and family values. They instead turned to the “war on terror”, the spread of western democracy and dreams of empire. I realized my views were clouded, but I kept faith in the fact that I was not a policy maker and that our leaders must have a rational plan.
Finally, we arrive at the beginning of this year. I had been in grad school for over a year with plenty of time for introspection. I had taken several courses in National Strategy and Policy and had re-attacked my political ideology. I had become a father. My anger from 9/11 was exhausted. I recognize now that my loyalty to the cause in Iraq was fueled primarily by guilt at this point. So many had sacrificed so much. How could I now admit that it was a mistake? I could never, will never, accept that any person has died in vain while wearing the uniform of a United States sailor, airman, soldier, guardsman or marine. Even with my faith in the American Empire unshaken, my faith in the Republican Party was long gone. No meaningful spending cuts had accompanied the tax cuts or the war. If anything the power and scope of the federal government had grown tremendously. The war itself was obviously mishandled. I could no longer ignore the shredding of the Constitution or the erosion of American ideals in the treatment of prisoners, though I was still unable to admit my complicit responsibility. The Republican front-runners looked like so many slimy politicians, ensconced in the “neo-con” philosophy.
So I cast about for a change of direction and in came Barack Obama. I, like most of America, had assumed that Hillary Clinton was the de facto democratic candidate. The very first primaries proved us wrong. I was enthralled. I had heard of Obama a few times in the preceding years, always as an up-and-comer and now I saw why. He spoke of bringing change to Washington, of real political dialogue and statesmanlike decision making. And he looked the part. In Obama I saw the end of wind-breaker politics. He wasn’t just “one of the guys”; he was a man with a vision. And so far he was pulling it off. Every ball of dirt the Clintons threw at him just slid off and he didn’t throw anything back. Because I could no longer trust the Republicans’ claims about reducing the federal government, the only significant difference between the parties seemed to be their Iraq War stances. Obama said he wanted to pull out as quickly as possible. That sounded like “cut and run” to me, but I could respect his viewpoint because he had opposed the war from the beginning. It is one thing to say, “See, I was right. Now I’m going to get you boys out of there.” It’s a whole other thing to vote to send in the troops (or to cowardly and unconstitutionally cede your authority to make war to the president knowing full well what he intended to do with it), then suddenly say, “Oops, my bad. Sorry boys, it’s an election year. I ordered you all in to die for nothing.”
So I got behind the man of vision. Of course, I followed the Republican primaries as well. The moments that caught my attention were the debates, particularly when John McCain and Rudy Giuliani got into it with a congressman from Texas that I had never heard of, Ron Paul. Each time, I felt that Paul was making sense. He was talking about fiscal conservative values and a rejection of our self-imposed role of world policeman, things for which I had given my vote to George W. Bush eight years ago, but that I had since largely abandoned. But the scorn of the other candidates, the moderators and the audience reminded me that Paul was a hopeless idealist, a dreamer. Also, I wasn’t quite ready to abandon the Empire. So I registered as an Independent in my home state and dropped my primary ballot for the man of vision, Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, it was not long before I discovered what exactly that vision was. As the general election ramped up, the divisions (and surprising similarities) between the parties became more obvious. One of Obama’s main campaign pledges was to add a whole new health entitlement program over Medicare and Medicaid to the mandatory spending of our federal budget which was already burdened by 53% with such programs. Currently residing in California I have seen first hand what happens to a government that is castrated by mandatory spending. California is going bankrupt at 94%, which means the governor controls a total of 6% for the annual budget. There are not a lot of options in 6%. On top of this and other enormous new expenditures, Obama was promising a tax cut to 95% of working Americans… even though only 53% of working Americans pay any income tax at all. It became painfully obvious that Obama was an old-school, wealth redistributing socialist. On top of that, as Iraq faded into back page news, Obama softened his rhetoric to include “in accordance with conditions on the ground” phraseology, and he made it clear in one of the debates that he fully intends to deploy American forces to trouble spots around the world such as Darfur. Worse yet, when the mud started flying this time, kicked off by McCain to be sure, Obama was quick to fire back. His new politics lasted all of two attack ads before he was wrestling in the mud.
So I meandered unenthusiastically back to John McCain. The man is a war hero after all. But it was hard to get excited. If I heard about the bridge-to-nowhere one more time I was going to put my foot through the television. In fact the only thing I ever heard McCain specify that he was going to “shake up” in Washington was to put the hammer down on earmarks. Great. That’s like a barber plucking one hair out of my head and asking for his fifteen dollars. So McCain was not going to fix anything. I was just supposed to vote for him because he probably wouldn’t to anything quite as socialist as Obama. Otherwise, the only issue McCain had was Iraq, on which the two campaigns were quickly melding and I was becoming increasingly doubtful about.
Into this lackluster voting decision entered the current economic crisis. The artificially inflated housing bubble popped and a bunch of jerks were caught with their pants down. What do McCain and Obama do? Both of them rush back to Washington to posture and prance and essentially agree that a huge bailout has to be passed to try to re-inflate the bubble and stretch out the inevitable collapse for a little while longer. At the time, I didn’t really understand what was going on, but like many Americans the idea that 700 billion dollars (or more) should somehow be snatched out of thin air by a government that was already operating in deep deficits and distributed to Wall Street investment banks in order to keep me out of a bread line just didn’t add up.
Then, as if a voice in a dark room calling me towards the light switch, I saw an interview with a man who seemed to know exactly what was going on. After I saw it, I went online and watched more videos. There were videos all the way back to the 1970’s in which this man was warning of the coming crisis. More importantly, he wasn’t waving a magic wand or “explaining it in terms the common people could understand.” What Ron Paul was saying just made sense. Because the federal government had adopted a policy of maximum spending and growth, it could not allow normal market adjustments and used the Fed to bull through such times by printing fake money, thereby destroying the dollar. And here we are today on the edge of hyperinflation and a complete economic collapse thanks to government intervention meant to “protect” us. He seemed so wise, but wasn’t he just the kooky guy the Republicans laughed at a few months ago? I looked up those debates again and I remembered that I had initially felt he had won the debates before I had been told otherwise.
Then, I saw that he had written a book: The Revolution: A Manifesto. It was cheap, short and highly rated on Amazon. I ordered it and two days later sat reading it on my living room couch. His first major point was my most difficult to swallow: rejecting the American Empire. He didn’t just endorse pulling out of Iraq, he insisted that America needed to pull it’s troops out of Korea, Europe and the 130 countries around the world they are currently stationed. Paul wasn’t only rejecting everything I had been taught to believe about America’s role in the world; as a Naval Officer, he was threatening my very livelihood. But he wasn’t espousing some crackpot opinion. His arguments mirrored those of the Founders and of the Constitution itself. Who am I to think my opinions, or those of our modern leaders, superior to those of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or Benjamin Franklin? If they were such naïve fools, our Republic never had a chance anyway. Then, I thought about my own education in history. What Republic ever transitioned to Empire and retained the integrity of its institutions and the liberties of its citizens? I think the best argument I have heard against Paul’s non-interventionist ideas is that releasing our military control of the world might allow another Hitler to rise. I now fear that embracing the Empire and the centralized government needed to maintain it might allow another Hitler to rise… from our own nation.
Paul goes on to re-educate me on the founding principles of the Constitution, the ridiculous mockery the Fed has made of the dollar, the nature of individual rights and liberties, and the myths I have been sold about the necessity of Big Government. I felt like I had been drinking the funny Kool-Aid for most of my adult life and Paul had just knocked the cup out of my hand. After I finished the book in just a few hours, I dug out an old copy of the Constitution; one of the little booklets that Congress prints out in what I now see as some sort of sick irony. I read it as if for the first time. The fog is clearing and I am experiencing The Revolution. It is a Revolution in Thinking that I feel like I now share with those great men who identified the inherent rights of man and built a government that can sustain them, if we just have the courage to believe in it. Please, if you believe in liberty, justice and freedom, get your hands on a copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul. Experience the Revolution.
(Note: As a member of the Armed Forces, my views in no way reflect the policies or views, official or unofficial, of the United States Navy or Department of Defense.)
Thanksgiving is going to be interesting…
Very interesting message, a little suprising but very interesting. Do you subscribe to the Ralph Nader “there is no difference between republicans and democrats?”
There are differences, but they are trivial compared to the problems facing the nation. Both candidates believe that the US should guaruantee security in the world. Both candidates believe the federal government exists to solve everybody’s problems. And both candidates are promising a lot of things they must know that they can’t actually deliver. They argue about trivial issues and make broad sloganist generalities like “he’s a socialist” or “believe in change” while in reality both are socialists and neither believes in real change. We need a fundamental change in our political system, namely to start following the Constitution again, as well as in our views of government vs. personal responsibility.
Thanks for this. It takes courage to admit that maybe what you’ve been led to believe is a lie - and eloquence to write in such a way that others might come to the same understandings you have. I hope many, many more read these words.
Well said, sailor. I’m reading quite a bit of very clear thinking lately from the men and women of our armed services, and I’m glad to know how many of you take your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution seriously.
BTW, to be precise: Obama IS a socialist, and so is McCain. They both voted for the bailout, which is about as blatant as it gets.
Welcome to the revolution.
*Hugs*
The unwritten rule of truth is the most powerful of them all.
That only he who seeks for truth of his own accord and his own willing will indeed break free from the bonds of deception.
That is what makes the Ron Paul Revolution a true revolution and not some cult. We don’t have to indoctrinate you. Eventually you will get curious, you will dig deep and you will read about him and about liberty. You will convert yourself.
This is a true revolution.
“The republic will cease to exist when Government takes from those who are industrious and gives to those who refuse to work.” -Thomas Jefferson
“If the American people should ever allow private banks to control the money supply; first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the land that their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson
There are two parties in this country that use names of forms of government as their title. We are a republic, whether are not you are a Republican, Democrat, or any other party title. This country is not a democracy. Yes, this is a word game, but that word game is what let us get where we are today. There is a war going on for your mind, pay attention and things will get better.
Just wanted to say thanks for this blog post. For all of us out here that supported Ron Paul during the primaries, it’s good to know that his message is still spreading. Here’s a post I wrote awhile back about some of the things that learned after finding out about Ron Paul and his ideas.
I recommend mailing your copy of “The Revolution: A Manifesto” to John. Sure to make for an interesting Thanksgiving.
I had about the exact same experience, except by the time the debates rolled around I had been semi-educated and was already rooting for him. You explained the emotion of the experience very well. I wish more people could read this.
I won’t lie - I teared up as soon as you spoke about re-reading the Constitution with new eyes.
Wonderful heartfelt message there, Chance. Your sentiments echo mine. Thanks for writing. We have fallen so far.
Thanks for a great article. I was never interested in political issues until a friend told me to research Ron Paul. It killed me to see his message squashed by the corporate media, and my apathy grows by the day.
The most frightening fact about all this is it is so damn obvious what is happening, if you have the desire to think critically. Yet, I still hear “Who’s Ron Paul?” The general public is too controlled– to programmed. It seems so hopeless.
However, if anything good came of this, it is how much I have learned since opening my eyes and caring enough to learn about what is really happening around us. I am part of this team and I will continue to convey our messages to anyone who wants to listen.
I still have a glimmer of hope that I will see the ideals of our forefathers come back into play before my end. Even if it’s just some of them.
An excellent and thoughtful post, well written! Should be read by everyone!
Congradulations on your epiphany my friend, I know what you mean when you talk about feeling like coming out from under the influence of some drug. Please do all you can to get others curious about the ideals of Constitutional Government. Make sure to stop by Campaignforliberty.com for more info and to read up on news/information that you might be interested in reading/viewing/passing on. While you’re there, you can also contact new friends.
Chance,
I share your feelings and discoveries, my apathy has been cured by Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty. I was introduced to these ideas by my 25 year old son who I never imagined would become politically inspired. Only a few months ago I was a republican, dyed in the wool…but I read the book “The Revolution”. Thanks for your story.
Chance,
It was a pleasure to read how you heard about Dr. Paul and have joined his revolution. My own path was similiar. When I first voted as a 19 year old Army Spec4 in Kuwait, I cast my ballot for George W. Bush thinking he would cut taxes, reduce our role as nation builders overseas, and restore moral leadership to the White House. Then he got in and replace tax and spend with borrow and spend and expanded our quasi-empire. (So far as we know he hasn’t been banging the hired help, so maybe one of three ain’t bad.)
I voted Libertarian for governor in 2002 for tax and spending reasons, but was ambivilent on the Iraq War. I was in college and the only ones opposing the war seemed to be the radical leftists, and I certainly didn’t want to be lumped in with them, so I kept my reservations to myself. It wasn’t until my National Guard unit was back in the Mideast (Egypt this time) and I read the letters to the editor in Stars and Stripes that I saw the futility of occupation and was confident enough to oppose it.
Since I had heard of Ron Paul through the Libertarian Party, I was eager to join his campaign when he announced in January 2007. Only I never imagined how many people he would reach with our message of freedom and peace. Now I’m looking forward to the Campaign for Liberty and I think we can accomplish some great things. Thank you for joining us.
Congratulations!! Welcome to the Revolution. It is wonderful to see and hear of so many coming to their senses. It is a grand moment when you catch the fervor that was alive and well in our founders. To feel a kinship with those gentlemen so long ago. To understand their love of freedom, liberty and country. We need more people to open their eyes and realize that patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution is what will keep our freedoms in place and regain those we have lost. Loyalty to a president or representatives who care nothing for the constitution is a betrayal to your fellow countrymen, to the founders and all the men and women who died to birth this republic.
We are the sons and daughters of Jefferson, Franklin and Washington…it’s about time we start acting like it.
I like how Obama sort of kicked off his whole campaign message with the anti-Iraq war stance(bringing the troops home now), yet since the first presidential debates and as the campaign progressed he was all for a “gradual” reduction in troops….In order to send more troops in Afghanistan….In order to make air strikes against suspected militant targets in Pakistan….Yeah that makes a lot of sense. The only difference any of these candidates have in regard to change in foreign policy, education or the economy is on emphasis- so no change.
I was given the book from a friend named Dale at a Monday night gathering that most of my more intellectually inclined friends frequent on a weekly basis. I’ve got two other friends that are diametrically opposed on most issues with any political weight, and not having found myself interested in politics before, I simply listened to what they were espousing without fact checking the nature of their arguments or even having a basis of comparison, a standard if you will. I knew that the things I was hearing from both sides were heavily being spun to suit the tastes or political ideologies they were representing. It seemed that there was no reason to ever concern myself with believing either because politics seemed to be about lies and self-interest and little else. The book has changed my outlook on this a great deal. I now feel that it’s my own duty to educate myself and to not be as complacently apathetic to what’s going on around me. I’m going to be pulling out a copy of the Constitution next and look forward to the discussions that I’ll be having in the future.
As for the post, I don’t know how much more eloquent it could have been stated. Excellent post.
~Ben~
Welcome aboard! I too am stepping away from the Kool-aid bowl. Am ashamed to have drunk from it most of my life, even though I felt something was not quite right. Now I can put my finger on the problem thanks to the good Doc.
Welcome to the Revolution, my friend. Like others who have commented before me, your eloquence brought me to tears. Thank you for sharing your story.
[...] My vote is one little ballot in a sea of millions A Revolution in Thinking or How I Stopped Drinking the Kool-Aid [...]
Chance,
Thanks for sharing that with us, it was well thought out and very well written.
I thank God above that there are still men like you around, and your ability to see through the fog is inspiring.
Warm regards,
- Al
That was great! its good to see conservatives coming back to their roots…we don’t have to be disillusioned by our ideas of freedom, liberty and the free markets because they were hijacked by neo-cons posing as conservatives
Thanks for the recommendation on The Revolution, my friend. You were right - Ron Paul connects the dots and articulates so many things that I have thought, and we have talked about, in a way that makes reality crystal clear. I am not a full convert, yet, but I am a full supporter.
I just want to knock that kool-aid bowl over… Just think who else might wake and be counted. It would be nice if Dr.Paul were a write in in every State, then we’d see some real numbers.
Chance - Great post and I thank you for sharing your experience. I think many of us had the same experience on many levels. I had seen these sheets spray painted saying ” Google Ron Paul ” and one day I decided to actually do that. What I read seemed to true to be true! Then I started watching videos and watching the debates. I became angered at the way he was treated, and even more angered that the other candidates seemed to have no clue! As soon as his book was released I searched book store after bookstore for it, sold out everywhere. I had to finally per order it and got it a week later. I couldn’t put it down, and have since read it 2 more times and loaned it to several friends who have read it. I am not reading Creature from Jekyl Island that Dr. Paul recommends.
Keep spreading the word, America is waking up!
Thanks to everyone for reading and posting comments! The link from the Campaign For Liberty and the other websites people posted this article on drew over 2500 people to the site in just two days. Wow! It’s very fulfilling to have so many people read about my experience and to hear from people who have had similar experiences. I can only hope that maybe just one person who hadn’t heard of or been receptive to Dr. Paul’s ideas of liberty went out and found a copy of The Revolution to read. Small things like that is where real change comes from.
Thank you for this. Paul had always been pushed to the back of the bus. I felt he was a kook too.
But, one point that the author ( very well written ) misses I think : you can’t put all your eggs in one
basket case.
While I believe that Paul was the one true Federalist in the race - and I am a Federalist, I also feel
that much of his foreign policy platform was from the 18th century. The world has gotten sooooo
much smaller since 1787.
During the late 1700s, Fundamental Islam existed - but being 12,000 physical and three months
intelligence miles away - it had little influence on our lives. Today, we are there and they are here
and we are only an opportunity away from 11/11/08.
Good that our author, the recent grad student finally came to the conclusion that Osama, ( I’m sorry
- OBama ) is indeed the highest profile Socialist to run for the Presidency this go around - he now
needs to go back to his statements:
“They instead turned to the “war on terror”, the spread of western democracy and dreams of empire.”
I disagree: the Terror War needed to be addressed then and now. and yes, the spread of Western Democracy
was / is a key element for when the people in these Islamic nations truly understands Western Democracy,
they will join in and migrate into the 21st century.
I personally, do not buy the “Empire” part. Never was and hopefully never will be a US doctrine.
No meaningful spending cuts had accompanied the tax cuts or the war.
Of course not. The cancer of Washington, DC metastasized in the Republican Party in the early 2000s.
The author needs to remember: Virtually EVERY Senator and Congressperson is a pandering Politician
- - - Not a Statesman.
The drunken sailor ( no personal disparagement intended towards the author ) syndrome became the norm
with Congressional Republicans. But, not with “No Earmarks” McCain you will note.
I reveled in the criticism of the world community and in the suffering of Islamic terror agents at the hands
of CIA interrogators and in the cells of Guantanamo. My sin of wrath that now pains me the most is my lack
of respect for the Constitution.
Oh please lest I throw up. I will not waste time speaking of enemy combatants without uniforms, assassinating
locals, fighting against Americans and coalition forces, etc. These people are not US citizens and do NOT deserve
protections under the US Constitution.
As for FISA, it was / is needed to fight these terrorists. If you do not have National Security - you will not have
personal freedoms - end of story.
Because I could no longer trust the Republicans’ claims about reducing the federal government, the only significant
difference between the parties seemed to be their Iraq War stances.
Sorry again, as I do not have time to enumerate the hundreds of Social, Fiscal, Familial, Foreign Policy
and Entrepreneurial differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Neither the twain shall ever meet. And sad
to say, we are still moving ever faster toward Socialism.
The artificially inflated housing bubble popped and a bunch of jerks were caught with their pants down.
Well now, here is an opportunity to discuss a difference: I direct you to “The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977″.
Herein is the chicken AND the egg of our current economic woes. A Carter era law, a mandate to the Mortgage industry
( ah, the Liberals telling Free Enterprise how to run their market ) to start making loans to people inside the ‘Redline’
- to people who have displayed bad credit history, the inability to pay back loans, whose major source of income was
Aid to Dependent Children and Child Support, the folks on Welfare and Unemployment.
Now here is Liberalism at its best: Class Warfare => a Social Justice initiative => pandering to the disenfranchised to
“buy” votes => the enactment of fiscal policies that make absolutely no sense in a Capitalistic society.
The Mortgage Bankers at first said “No, we cannot, we will not”. The Carter Administration said, “Oh yes you will
or you will face serious fines”. Given that, the Mortgage Industry decide to comply, but to hedge their increasingly
soft portfolios by packaging mortgages and getting some fools to market them as investments, and still other fools
to buy them.
In the late Clinton years, the Mortgage Industry warned again of impending problems. What if the housing cycle turned
downward, if the year-over-year increase in property values leveled or turned down? The Clinton boys, ie Chris Dodd
and Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank told them that Fannie and Freddie would stand behind them, and to prove that
they installed one of Clinton’s minions, Franklin Raines, as the CEO of Fannie Mae ( yes, Matilda - the Fox is now in the
henhouse ). And we all know where that went.
As to the current Presidential campaign please remember that McCain stood up in 2004 (?) and said we are heading
for trouble and that the then current lending practices and Freddie and Fannie need to be reined in. He was laughed
out of the meeting room by Dodd and Schumer.
Also, isn’t Raines on Obama’s staff? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Do I see a Presidential pardon on the horizon?
Chance:
Let me give a few examples of why a degree of government interference in our lives is necessary.
Vaccinations - (I use this frequently, I know) - Arguably the greatest scientific achievement of the 20th century, yet it does not work without centralized oversight and control by an entity capable of enforcement.
Occupational Safety (e.g. OSHA) - The free market has not historically (either in pre-Cold War America or in the less regulated Asian markets) cared much for worker safety or child labor.
Education / Research - There is no functioning Western society that does not have a preponderance of its education (at all levels) funded by the state. Furthermore, most research is done at educational institutions, and most is publicly funded.
Securities Oversight - There are many, many examples in history of the unfairness that an unregulated trading system produces.
FDA / DEA - Regulation of product safety has a demonstrably positive effect on the public good.
There are dozens more. All of which provide protection of the masses from larger, more powerful entities, such as corporations and the wealthy.
So what do we get out of more government regulation of certain aspects of the economy? Improved overall longevity, improved quality adjusted life years, improved infant mortality rate, improved literacy rate, improved full-time equivalent work output.
In the computer game Civilization, those are all very important demographic figures, and I think the same can be applied to actual society.
Where I will take issue with the socialization of our economy is with direct financial control of markets, interest rates, etc, a la The Fed. We’ll feel the pain with the bailout just as much as without, it will just be spread out over a longer period, and without a massive slap to the face, institutions won’t “learn” from the mistakes of the past 10 years.
Gary,
Thanks for the kudos. I hope you don’t mind if I respond to some of your criticisms and throw out a few of my own.
Gary said: “While I believe that Paul was the one true Federalist in the race - and I am a Federalist, I also feel that much of his foreign policy platform was from the 18th century.
Unfortunately, this is the attitude that has doomed the Republican Party. It is impossible to be both a Federalist and an Imperialist. An empire requires a powerful central government to operate which means the death of a Federalist system. I know you object to the term “empire” so here’s the definition from dictionary.com:
“empire - [em-pahyuhr]
–noun 1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.”
As our government dictates to others aspects of their domestic and foreign policy, and relies on economic sanctions and the military assets we have stationed in 130 countries around the world to enforce these dictations, I don’t see how you can say that empire is not our foreign policy.
The definition implies the historical repition of the rise and fall of empires. As a student of Roman history, I see many parallels between the fall of their Republic and the current state of our nation.
Gary said: “Sorry again, as I do not have time to enumerate the hundreds of Social, Fiscal, Familial, Foreign Policy and Entrepreneurial differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Neither the twain shall ever meet. And sad to say, we are still moving ever faster toward Socialism.”
I agree that we are moving ever faster toward Socialism. And that is precisely because the differences between the parties are so trivial. The arguments are over which country we should invade, which social policy should be enforced on the nation as a whole, and exactly how the government should blow through our pocket books. Neither represent the principles of the US Constitution anymore. Spending hasn’t been reduced since the end of WWII despite the Republicans promising to do so every election and having the power to do so on several occasions. I refer you to Dr. Paul’s book if you would like to see specific examples.
Gary said: “I direct you to “The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977″
I am quite familiar with it. I refer you to this 2002 speech by a big-spending Washington socialist that forced banks to give loans to people who couldn’t repay them:
“We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I’ve set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 — million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it’s going to mean we’re going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.”
“And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that’s too high, I’m not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don’t have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I’ve asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)”
- Sorry to tell you, this was the leader of your “conservative” party, President George W. Bush (source:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html)
My friend, you have been misled and betrayed by your party. I recommend you start trying to take it back.
By the way, you might not care, but petty comments like Osama/Obama nameplay that come straight off of talk radio reduce the value of your opinions in my eyes. Trivial distractions like that are how the American people have been bamboozled into the lack of honest political discourse in our nation.
Billy,
You have an excellent point. To what extent does the government have a responsibility to protect the people? My answer would be that its only responsibility is to protect them from other people infringing on their rights, not to protect them from themselves at the barrel of a gun.
For instance, it would be hard to imagine protecting the consumer without the FDA. But the FDA doesn’t protect the consumer from himself. It ensures that companies don’t defraud the public by providing consumables that are unsafe. The government’s essential domestic duty is to guarantee the enforcement of contracts between individuals and corporations. I would be inclined to say the same applies to OSHA, but I would have to do a little research.
I think there is definately a gray area here. Vaccinations, seat belt laws and smoking bans keep people alive. If people refuse them, does the state have the right to force them to protect their own life? Often, an argument is produced for these compulsions that by endangering your own health, you are infringing on the rights of others by raising health care costs. The downside of such an argument is that pretty much any habit can be framed to harm others in such a way. How long is it until eating fatty foods, watching television, playing video games and even reading destabilizing books are outlawed?
Permit me to present a hypothetical question. Let’s say medical science develops a drug that keeps people from feeling extreme emotions. It is shown that groups taking the medication have a 96% drop in violent impulses. By forcing the whole population to take the drug, we can essentially eliminate violent crime! Who wouldn’t want that? We’ll call the drug “Equilibrium” and we’ll train an elite force of pistol-kung-fu fighting jackboots to make sure everybody takes their pills. I think we all know how that movie ends.
Should vaccinations be compulsory? Perhaps… but we should be highly suspicious of anything the federal government tells us we have to do at the threat of their bringing guns to our homes.
Of course, vaccinations and other laws also exist to protect children from their parents. I think its interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrestled with the same problem:
“Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? –to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? –public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely… It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father… What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered.”
Obviously, we decided against the whole disenfranchisement thing. It’s a tough question; a weakness in the concept of liberty. The problem is that every time we give the state more power and responsibilty the greater the precedent to take more in the future. I know you object to the “slippery slope” theory. Perhaps that’s a fundamental disagreement. I stated my point before that the government has no motivation other than the forceful sentiment of the people to surrender power. As the government becomes more powerful, that sentiment becomes more difficult to exert.
One other thing: I disagree with your thesis that we owe much of the improvements in the quality of our lives to government regulation. Those improvements are due to growth in our economy. Back in the day, our nation was being built from scratch. There was only so much production to go around, no matter what government might have tried to do about it. As the economy grows, more resources are available for everyone. Our economy and quality of life were already improving in leaps and bounds before the feds got involved. In fact, the additional growth artificially created by the government over the last 80 years or so is going to be paid back at some point, seemingly sooner rather than later, and its going to be painful.
If we continue to set precedents of violating the principles of personal liberty espoused by the Founding Fathers, we lose our way and allow our political elite to redefine our government in their own interest.
Guys, I can’t believe what I’m reading, excellent intellectual discourse,without degenerating into name calling and boofonery, rare for most discussions of this kind, I applaud your civility and sincerity of purpose-discussing the truth as you understand it without spin- refreshing.
[...] 1, 2008 by disinter Chance Litton writes: Then, as if a voice in a dark room calling me towards the light switch, I saw an interview with a [...]
Congrats, Chance. Proud of you, sir. The book is indeed excellent. I’ve made multiple copies of the audio book to hand out to friends who don’t have time to sit down and read a book. Might want to consider doing that as well. Cheers.
Chance -
Good to know there is yet another man in the armed forces that won’t shoot at me for speaking my mind on that bailout.
I have been part of the rEVOLution since about this time last year. One piece of advice is to take a look at gold and silver. It took me 6 months to really figure out what Ron has been saying for the last 25+ years. My views pretty strong, but I put a source list in an article I wrote called “Save Ron Paul’s Voice” that can be used to help decide.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5107.html
[...] A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul and had a transformational experience which you can read about here. Since that time, I have continued to read and study the principles of American liberty as [...]
I’m glad I’m not the only libertarian stuck in a soldiers body. 20+ year vet, that discovered the same as Chance that the party I thought I was proud of is not what I voted for a long time ago.
I’ve been a fiscal conservative for a long long time. If I have to live my life below my means, the too should the govt.
I would like to connect with other military libertarians to help me continue on with my Duty when my heart tells me to cut and run.
I find the article and the discussion are very interesting, however, I think we need to consider the problem of ethics in the world today.
Most anybody who reads and researches and seeks to understand our government and our world is smart enough to not be taken advantage of. However, generally, as consumers we are very much under attack. The customer is not right, the creditor / seller instead is unscrupulous. I am an attorney with degrees from highly regarded institutions in this country. But, it took me MONTHS to research the proper method to do a cash out refinance, where I read through every loop hole because I could not trust any of the brokers or lenders to help me out. Every answer they game me was done to hide something and I had to ask so many questions to make sure I had teased out all the loopholes.
This idea that men can self govern assumes that men have ethics that they will abide by, instead of tossing that out for money profit or instead believing that the ends justify the means.
How do we address the problem of the every day consumer who trusts that the product that he buys will not break in one month right when the warranty runs out, that the credit card you have will not spike your interest rate without warning you and will not do it arbitrarily, that the bank will not foreclose your house and sell it without listening to your situation, and then turn around and say you now qualify for a modification based on the hardship you have suffered? Believe me, most of the time, the courts do not get you the remedy you deserve.
Instead of being concerned with raising our children, picking proper schools, serving our communities and securing our financial safety nets, consumers are trying to dodge all kinds of obstacles in the form of one useless product or fraudulent service after another, not to mention family tragedies, violence, natural disasters etc.
How do we grow and sustain a prosperous economy if the growth of an economy is based on how much everyone is willing to buy today rather than how much every one is able to save for tomorrow? Can we really trust the private sector to get us to that kind of an economy if so how?
Thanks for reading such a long post — this is the most difficult part for me to understand about Ron Paul’s ideas, although I will admit my interest in Libertarianism is new and thus my knowledge still limited.