Rep. Ron Paul: "Liberty Defined"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-03/rep-ron-paul-liberty-defined
Congressman Ron Paul is very popular among libertarians and Tea Party conservatives. He recently announced he is forming a campaign exploratory committee and will make an announcement about a possible White House bid by June. The newly elected chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy joins Diane to discuss the meaning of the term "liberty" and how it is the seed of America.
Guests
Rep. Ron Paul
physician and twelve-term congressman from Texas
Video Extra
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says that the U.S.'s killing of Osama bin Laden "raises as many questions as it answers." Paul says that "right now" would be a good time for the U.S. to withdraw forces from Afghanistan and that he believes "the connection between foreign policy and our financial problems is very significant." Paul also believes the government should release some proof of bin Laden's death. "Why does our government invite conspiracy theories all the time?" he said:
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul talks about his views on abortion. "If you don't have high respect for human life, you can't have respect for liberty," he said:
Program Highlights
Rep. Paul on bin Laden's Death
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) spoke with Diane about everything from the U.S's killing of Osama bin Laden to his thoughts on how abortion policy relates to the idea of "liberty" as he defines it.
Paul said that in spite of the pleasure most Americans felt upon hearing of bin Laden's death, the event "raises as many questions as it answers."Paul said that "right now" would be a good time to get out of Afghanistan, emphasizing that one of bin Laden's stated goals was to get the U.S. to bankrupt itself through its involvement in Afghanistan.
Paul also had doubts about the U.S.'s ability to confirm that it was, in fact, bin Laden they had killed. "To my knowledge, I didn't know they could do DNA proof that quickly," he said.
Defining Liberty
"Liberty for me recognizes the fact that each individual has a right to his or her life and that the government is not allowed to coerce them into trying to mold their economic life or their personal life. It's the absence of coercive force by government and a rejection of coercive force by any individuals," Paul said.
Diane asked Rep. Paul about the place of regulatory agencies in protecting the public, especially people like miners who work in dangerous situations. "They don't do a very good job," he replied, citing the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig last year in the Gulf of Mexico.
When Diane suggested that there would be even more disasters if we didn't have such regulatory agencies, Paul responded that "...too often, the government gets in bed with big business, and that's where our tragedy comes from."
Abortion
"You believe in smaller government, but you think government should put a stop to abortion," Diane said.
"What I'm most interested in is the recognition of the value of human life," Paul said. "If you don't have high respect for human life, you cannot have respect for liberty, and that's what I'm interested in," he said.
Paul added that constitutionally, the federal government is "not supposed to be enforcing any kind of regulations or laws like that."
"There are strong reasons to believe that the unborn has legal rights."
Scaling Back Government
Diane closed the interview by asking Paul which specific parts of the government he would eliminate if he was elected president.
Paul's list includes: the Department of Education; the Department of Energy; the Food and Drug Administration; and deep cuts to the Pentagon's budget.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
These ideas of pure freedom seems dangerous. Can I start growing marijuana and selling weapons to children because I have the iniate right to as long as people want to buy them?
Anyone who thinks that Government involvement=safety or security are simply deluding themselves.
Although I agree with much of what Rep Paul espouses, I find it inconsistent for him to promote liberty and at the same time come out against abortion. Although abortion is often a choice of convenience, this is a cultural problem not a political one. To deny a woman the right to choose, the right to exercise her free will, whether her decision is wise or not, is an abomination of what the U S Constitution is all about.
Does the astounding hypocrisy of Rep. Paul preaching that food choice and evolution are a matter of "personal choice," but then claiming that my choices stop with my own body and my own reproductive freedoms somehow escape him?
I would hate to live in his country.
History is full of examples of big business taking advantage of everything they can, even when regulations are in place. Mr. Paul mad made the statement that he feels the business owner should be help responsible for harm caused by their product. Does he really think that the tobacco companies would have paid for damages caused by their products if not for government regulation? Also, he says that he is not sure that we should even follow the constitution, but keeps referring back to the constitution.
Hard to separate his religious beliefs from legal policy. I don't think people should eat meat, he doesn't want women to have the right to choose. As long as our society has a low priority for mental health and social services abortion has to be legal.
I think it should be made clear that the people of Tuscaloosa and Birmingham Alabama live in the middle of Alabama. Not on the coast and not in tornado alley. I would really love to see Rep. Paul tell the now homeless families in Tuscaloosa that it is their fault they lost everything because they chose to live in the path of a tornado and they are responsible for fixing it.
Folks, folks. Do not lose sight that Dr. Paul is primarily addressing FEDERAL powers/authorities. Where the Constitution is silent the central government has no authority. Good ideas, even great ideas, if the central government has no explicitly delegated power then is has no authority. In regards to ignoring the limits of the Federal government both the Democrats and the Republicans are the same; they just ignore the Constitution for their respective goals.
I find it very odd that Ron Paul and the tea-party have chosen Ayn Rand as their patron saint.
Over the years, I’ve read Ms. Rand’s fiction, as well as her philosophical writings and interviews. You seem to admire her libertarianism, but I found her ideas to be, not just selfish, but sociopathic. In fact, she once expressed admiration for the “individualism” of a sadistic murderer (William Hickman).
Ayn Rand believed in a democracy of “superiors” only, and opposed the idea of democracy for the “masses” (most of us middle class, working people) who she called “lice” and “parasites.” She was not just an Atheist, but chastised anyone who believed in a greater spiritual power, saying “the concept of God is degrading to man."
Mr Paul may be a smart man. Again, maybe not. Nuance is not something he is skilled with. I am not sure how he'd react to this statement: "
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare..."
What part of "...promote the general welfare..." is he not getting?
One last thing. Dr. Paul says that the FDA serves drug companies, but then states that the FDA holds back the approval of drugs by several years. If they only serve the drug companies, wouldn't it make sense to approval all drugs as soon as possible? These are the kinds of contradictory statements that leave me baffled.
How do you teach people to be responsible and accountable for the choices they task the Government to Make for them?
We citizens can only elect representatives who are willing to take all the power of decisions without providing any direct accountability or feedback to the people who might want to choose their own laws and taxes and the rest. Federal Law has become so complicated adn complex that an ordinary citizen can barely UNDERSTAND what is said.
Representative Paul,
With all due respect for your perspective on the role of government in protecting individual liberty, please consider that in the ideal society we all are responsible, moral, and ethical humans who respect one another and have good will. That is, there are no sociopaths or psychopaths who take advantage of those who are vulnerable. You have many arguments that I can agree with. However, it is important to keep the dialogue open on ideas in order to see the perspective of the many without personal attacks in order to live in a civilized society. But for the Libertarian's reductionist perspective on the reality of society, you would otherwise have my vote.
I really am outraged to hear what this man is saying. Reading through the comments it seems as though a lot of people support his views and it is really baffling me. Do they not hear how ridiculous his statements are? He's so concerned with people having abortions, saying that life is so sacred when he should be concerned with the United States' lack of compassion for human life by killing innocent people abroad.
His example of people having abortions in the 9th month of pregnancy is completely crap, how can you use such a rare instance as a rule of thumb like all women who have abortions have no mercy and abort their fully developed babies?
I think he is missing the point completely. ugh.
I find Dr. Paul's comments about abortion troubling and misogynistic. Does he really think that women get abortions because their boyfriend broke up with them? How is it that the life of an embryo more important than a woman's right to determine the course of hers? My idea of liberty doesn't involve forced pregnancy.
I would suggest listening to this great lecture by Thomas E. Woods. It dispels many myths about the industrial revolution.
http://mises.org/media/4260/Applying-Economics-to-American-History
I think Ron Paul is a good guy. However, as with the majority of politicians in the United States, he has a limited understanding of both science and the dismal science of economics. A very fair and easy to follow explanation of economics is available at http://timothytaylor.net/economics.htm. His simple understanding of markets has no basis on either reality or economic theory.
Since we are a government of, by and for the people, how does the Congressman reconcile the dicotomy that exists between our desire to be "free" and our desire to be mothered. It is amazing how often the American people decry big government and then are outraged at its unresponsiveness when a natural catastrope happens, a corporation befouls the environment, a salmonella outbreak poisons people or an enemy attacks our interests. It amazes me that half the country doesn't vote and half doesn't pay taxes yet it is this half that screams the loudest about the evils of governement. As for free markets economics, how can there be free markets when in fact the marketplace is being manipulated daily by speculators?
Dr. Paul, your book is published by one of the few major book publishing groups. Do you think media consolidation into so few hands is ok? Grand Central Publishing (formerly Warner Books) came into existence in 1970. It became part of the Time Warner Book Group in 1998 and in 2006 was acquired by Hachette Livre; it is part of the Hachette Book Group USA.
My view is that the advances these publishing conglomerates give political books is a sort of way to lobby politicians and get money legally to them.
If Rep. Paul doesn't believe in federal funding of public works projects, if we should leave all infrastructure undertakings to the private sector, why is he always filling federal bills up with pork for his congressional district?
"Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.
That's not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That's what Fox News is reporting."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/ron-paul-defend.html
I never thought I'd agree with anything Donald Trump said, but I believe thinking people will never elect Ron Paul. He isn't smart enough to run this country. However, that is also my fear. Might I suggest his publisher put his book chapters in alphabetical order so the less educated could better read and later find excepts for review. It will be the ignorant, and there are plenty of them, who will elect him and that is what scares me most of all.
I would like to ask first like to thank Dr. Paul for his dedicated service to our country. His humble principals he never wavers from. Dr. Paul has talked before about a coup that is taking over our government inch by inch. My question is in 2 parts.
1.What agencies could be involved with that.
And 2, what powers might police officers have to make arrests with their oaths to protect our constitution if domestic terrorism against our constitution is found (there are countless examples already happening) to prevent the destruction of our rights and liberties?
Because the preamble is the goal/end of a constitution. The preamble does not provide/authorisze/grant the FedGov with a means for something. Therefore, the preamble is of not part of the legal side of the Constitution. The other place where the term "general welfare" can be found (Art/ 1) it has a specific meaning and Madison himself explained its meaning. And, it is not what you imply.
[edit] This is in reply to Chuck StJohn.
[edit2] And, "general welfare" is a goal, an end. If it meant what you imply then what you are saying is that the means, which is what a constitution establishes, of the FedGov also its ends. Government without limits.
Dr. Paul,
I'm almost completely in your camp, but don't we need someone to test drugs and food, not just leave it up to the capitalists running those companies?
Otherwise you are left with the "fox guarding the hen house", aren't you? Look what China did - they sold poison dog and baby food!
Here's a case where you can't say, "The businessmen selling poison baby food will eventually go out of business due to bad press, so you see, the free market will take care of the situation without government interference." Yes that's true -- but in the meanwhile, many people will die!!
Can Diane please ask Ron Paul why progressives continue to support Bush's worst policies - aggressive war, indefinite detention and the Drug War?
Given that Congressman Ron Paul wants us to remember our history lessons on inflation then he should also recall history lessons regarding companies abusing consumers and workers in an effort to gain an extra dollar. Regulations have been put in place to minimize the risks to the public. For example, even though it may take the US longer to get drugs approved to be sold there is a better chance that those drugs won't cost consumers their lives like they did in the event of the birth control pill and other such drugs. While I agree that the government needs to become smaller let's not have it be at the expense of the people today and our future citizens.
Ron Pauls rhetorical position on the reduction of military spending is intoxicating and enchanting, and exactly the low lying fruit that could be plucked that would be a huge leap in the right direction, at least regarding the balancing of the budget. I would wish that he would be more explicit how, and where, in the obscenely obese military and related foreign expenditures, he would cut. Me thinks, that if elected, we would have the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, just to name two who frequent the Diane Rehm show, instructing us that the percent of GDP of the military budget is inconsequential when compared to "entitlements," and that our "global interests and security" would be compromised, and the "American way of life" would be threatened; terms they glibly toss about without really ever identifying whose interests would be actually threatened.
It would really be helpful if the Diane Rehm show would have an extended discussion on the costs and purposes of all military spending.
Right on Ron Paul! Mr. Paul places the power in the hands of the people and takes it away from the "FEDERAL" government. I trust the people far more than the government. People that have to take care of themselves and their local communities will be far better off and will indeed prosper. The bottom line is Mr.Paul points out that what were doing is unsustainable in the extreme, any intelligent person understands this to be true. Most of the criticism I hear against his ideas are based on fear and low expectations of your fellow citizens but you yourself are above it and honorable. I find this kind of condescension disgusting.
The Abortion issue comes up a lot, Mr Paul clearly stated the federal government has NO place in such matters even though he personally has a problem with the ambiguous nature of the views held on the subject.
...and Fascism is also about Freedom---for those who "deserve" it (by dint of warlike nature, to be specific).
Property has no rights; 'property rights' is a mystification of 'extra rights for people with property, and the more the one, the more the other'. This is fine with me---up to a point, property is necessary to liberty, the due reward of industry or cleverness, and so on. But just as any physical theory can have a well-defined domain in which it were accurate, and any drug become a poison in overdose, to assume that propertarian minarchism means maximal liberty is...silly.
Pareto optimisation is not morally normative.
Most people take more orders from rich men---albeit indirectly, and on pain of penurious suffering rather than the dock---than from any government flunky.