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.
Libertarianism is like any idealized construct ; Communism, Democracy, Capitalism, etc. It's only as good as the people running it. Given what I've seen of human nature in my 50 years, Libertarianism = Oligarchy = Banana Republic. Government must must protect us from our worst impulses.
This was great insight into not only Texas, but why he is marginalized. IF he had any solid points rather than a rant, I'd be interested. As it is, he is a raving lunatic in the wilderness of half-truths and dogma. Surely helps me understand his son's reactionary foolishness.
Thanks for Ron Paul. Good to hear comments straight from horse's mouth. FDA not necessary? One moment Rep. Paul claims agency works for "big business", the next it "keeps drugs off the market" for 10 years after being approved in other countries. Could that be that US FDA requires drug companies prove products are "safe and effective" and other countries have lower hurdles? More drugs are recalled abroad after those fast-tracked approved drugs deliver "bodies in the streets." And that's why FDA was created, as far back at 1906 with Pure Food and Drugs Act which prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. "Dr. Paul" is a medical doctor and should understand the importance of this but he's consumed with grandstanding. He's guilty of practicing politics without common sense. The antidote? The ballot box.
His views on abortion certainly are troubling at times. I wish he would focus on early term abortion to make his stance more clear. However, he's speaking about principles. I think it takes a stretch of the intellect to grasp his point here. As a doctor, if a fetus is harmed he is legally responsible. This implies the fetus has certain rights that are being protected. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the person responsible for her death would be charged with double homicide. This would apply even if she was on her way to the abortion clinic. If these rights are given to a child in the womb at all other points in its existence, why do they not apply when a woman chooses to receive an abortion?
Now, you and I may both disagree that those rights should begin at conception - and I think this is the ultimate question when it comes to abortion. That should be the topic of discussion.
His personal views may be one thing, but what's so relieving about Dr. Paul is that he doesn't attempt to legislate them down our throats (like all other Republicans).
And for the record, Dr. Paul is far more concerned with ending the killing of innocent lives overseas than he is about the abortion issue. I think he's more focused on ending war than any other politician today.
Fascism is also about Freedom?" Where do you get such nonsense?
Fascism is a type of socialism. Fascism is not even a racial thing. Read the quotes below and realize that these uSA have been moving towards a more fascistic economic (ie. socialist) system, aided and abetted by liberals (oh, sorry, progressives) and the so-called new-cons.
Here is the motto of the Fascists:
"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state)
Here are a few quotes by, non other than, Benito Musolini:
“The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide; he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, life, which should be high and full, lived for oneself, but not, above all, for others — those who are at hand, and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after. ”
"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. . . . National pride has no need of the delirium of race."
I'm saddened and very disappointed with the D.R. program with Ron Paul. Diane, you were not prepared to challenge his charges and broad statements. Has NPR joined Fox? Why were fact and truth ignored?
That show has pleased conservatives, and irked me. You could have asked about our constitution within the context of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You could have talked about human dignity and God given rights and responsibilities. It seems that faith leaders have ignored human rights also.
Please provide balance.
Hardly nuanced. More correctly simplistic with little connection to the reality of living in the U.S. in 2011 or beyond. The whole notion of shared responsibility and risk is part of living in a country this large and varied. And I love it this way. A country devoid of regulation borders on lawlessness which gives way to corruption and hopelessness for the vast majority of human beings in this country. Ron Paul nicely removes the humanity and wants to argue about his view of nirvana. What's also frightening is his complete lack of understanding about economics. This guy makes Ayn Rand look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm. (old reference)
This helps large drug companies because the FDA holds back drugs that create healthy competition in the market. The large and powerful companies do not want any smaller brands getting their product out there because it hurts their business. This allows 'Big Pharma' to charge much higher prices and leave the consumer with no alternative.
Often the large pharmaceutical corporations are the ones lobbying for stricter regulations. While of course we can see why regulating drug companies is desirable, below the surface these regulations really serve to block cheap competition into the drug market, and act as a protective barrier that makes the large companies larger and more powerful. Wonder why health care costs so much?
Try to think like a businessman for a second. Do you think you'll make any sales if your medication does not work, and/or is harmful to those who use it? Producers have an incentive to make good products. If it's not good, they've wasted their time and money and will go out of business (unless they have government on their side).
The exorbitant time it takes for new drugs to be approved is time taken away from saving lives.
complimentaryad...,
Are you insinuating that I might have to actually think about what is being stated before assuming I know what is being said? How dare you suggest that what I conclude in 5 seconds of thought isn't accurate or intelligent. All this time I thought that we were trained to think as simplistic as possible.. you mean some people actually have worthwhile and principled arguments against the status quo?
Ladies and Gentlemen, please do yourself a favor, analyze the issues beyond the headliners that serve to distract you. Sometimes breaking down the subject is required to get to the core of a subject.. 5 second thoughts are what is ruining this country and world.. I ask that you devote at least 5 minutes (more if you're able) to discover the argument's merits rather than stay in your cave of shadows and puppets. Instead, you would rather kill the messenger than listen to the message.
Apparently, the Fox News audience doesn't hold a monopoly on ignorance.
What role did authority or government play in human endeavor for betterment, in invention and discovery? None whatever, or at least none that was helpful. It has always been the individual that has accomplished every miracle in that sphere, usually in spite of the prohibition, persecution and interference by authority, human and divine. - Emma Goldman 1940
I do not understand why some individuals are hostile, and unresponsive to what Dr. Paul has to offer this country. Everyone has seen the wheels spin right and left filled with broken promises and the illusions of change. Liberty has been shed for protection. Food has become corporatized and controlled. Our monetary system is self defeating. The list goes on and on. If belief is an issue read these “ Patriot Act” , “Codex Alimentarius”, “ The Federal Reserve Act”.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. “ - Benjamin Franklin
The FDA keeps drugs being invented by small companies off the streets. These small companies are usually acquired by the established players that have the deep pockets and influence with the FDA.
I have a serious concern with Ron Paul's position on liberty. It seems to me that the freedom of the individual ends where it seriously encroaches upon the freedom of others. For instance, your freedom to drink ends where you irresponsibly get behind the wheel and endanger the lives of others. He seemed to imply that the government should not regulate how much you drink or how and where you smoke. Sorry, I think that you should regulate the activities of others where there is a clearly demonstrated danger that their liberty will encroach upon others. His view seems foolish.
So many hypocrites here that are pro-choice when it comes to abortion but anti-choice when it comes to drug prohibition, prescription drugs, monetary policy, and economics. At least Ron Paul is consistent on these issues; you own your own body and the FEDERAL government has no business restricting your choices, unless there is a Constitutional amendment to the contrary. I happen to be a pro-choice atheist Ron Paul supporter.
I am a liberal and don't generally like tea partiers, but Mr. Paul has said several things I really agree with. Mainly the corporations being "taken care of" by the government. And the getting out of the war.
I'm not real clear on the differences between liberrals and libertarians.
Dr Paul's using Microsoft as an example of the free market working is laughable. Microsoft is the perfect example of a company getting ahead any way possible, with providing a good product as a last resort. As an IT professional my estimate is that Microsoft has held the software industry back 15 years.
In lieu of the new San Francisco ballot measure proposing to outlaw the circumcision of anyone under 18, I would like to know if Congressman Paul feels that parents have the right to strap down and restrain their male infant children so that the boy's foreskin may be amputated.
The government should not regulate freedom and liberty period. How does that seem foolish? The federal government spends billions of dollars every year trying to control the populace. I think you are all scared. Scared of freedom and liberty and terrified of having to do something for yourself. The right and left has been breed for their eugenic errors to be complacent, to be spineless. For too many years the people have been given a rationed slice of bread. We have had enough we want the whole bread factory. Put aside issues that will never have an answer like abortion and religion. Why do the right and left continue to be the mason of their own prison cell?
Where does Mr. Paul stand on Gay marriage? Is it State's Rights to decide, and should Married Gay Couples have the same tax and ineritance rights as Married Straight Coulples?
Mr. Paul has no business being so flippant in suggesting how decisions about abortion are made. Nor has he addressed that the government will infringe on my right to decide medical decisions on my own body should abortion be outlawed. Government has a role in placing limits on abortion, as it does with countless other activities. He doesn't appear to be concerned about women's liberties with his attitude.
I would say that term liberal presently is a misnomer. Liberal traditionally is a word that used to define someone who has a strong view relating to advocating individual freedom. These freedoms should include the right to make your own choices regarding your health, your life, your property, your speech, your religion, the handling your finances, educating your children, what you produce, what you buy, etc.
Current day 'liberals' generally try to regulate the listed freedoms above in one way or another imposing their values on others. A better term for present day 'liberals' would be collectivists. A belief that a central plan is needed for everyone to live in harmony.
Current Libertarians would be better defined as individualists. They have their own values but don't seek to impose them on others. While they don't try to preemptively regulate others, they do hold people responsible for activities that would trample on someone else's freedoms as listed above.
Just because Dr. Paul has a belief in something does not mean it is going to become law if he is elected. Seriously come on. I believe that marijuana should be legal that doesn’t mean I am going to hold a gun to your head and make you smoke.
M Wright,
You sir have summed up quite well why so many people support Dr. Paul.
After listening to more of what he said now I think I don't agree at all. He wants to Deregulate things? The corporations need regulated. He seems to contradict himself.
His views on abortion is not well thought through and his sarcastic ways of talking about it was dumb. What seems to be hapening is that now what they want to do is let a mother die even if an abortion would save her life. She may be an older mother with a couple of kids already that could lose their mother. The anti-choice people want to give the future baby protection, but once the baby is born then he's on his own without entitlements for mom and for the baby such as early headstart.
The word entitlements has become a dirty word but people should be entitled to enough to eat, the ability to live indoors somewhere, not homeless, and I think medical care should be in there. Medicare does not buy hearing aids. WHat about deaf people? Government does not spend a cent for abortion. People pay into unemployment and yet the conservatives want to limit this.
We need to get the Ayn Rand loving (selfishness is a virtue) congressmen out. And the Freidman economists out. His economists help only the wealthy at the expence of the common man.
A little off topic, but the phrase "the other half" has no meaning, it's the other 90%.
I hope we can get some pro-people congressmen/women in office soon. Our democracy is on the line.
thank you for the clarification on the terms.
Dr. Paul is an Obstetrician. His job was to make sure he delivered and protected babies. It would be hard for any doctor honoring his Hippocratic Oath to justify most of the abortions that take place especially as an Obstetrician. An Obstetrician is doing everything he can to save a baby born prematurally and at the same time an Abortion doctor is killing a baby in the same term that is healthy. The only difference between the two babies was one was wanted and the other wasn't. We always talk about choice but what about the babies choice?
Regardless of statement above, Dr. Paul's view on abortion is that it needs to be handled at the state level and states could find a way to approve abortions for many reasons including the example you had given.
Whatever your thoughts are on abortion, his view is that legally it is an issue that should be handled at the state level.
On entitlements a libertarian will argue that in order for you to receive any entitlement, you must first take it from someone else. I am not sure this is a very fair solution. I believe personally in charity and I give a lot of money to charity, voluntarily. I am pretty sure these charities are more efficiently run than most government charities. Of course, if taxes weren't so high stifling our economy, I am sure I could afford to give much more to charity as could others.
Constitutionally, I believe these type of programs should be handled at the state level. Imagine if each state did this in a way that worked for them. It would soon become apparent where and how the programs are ran best. When the Federal Government tries to run these programs it is almost always one size fits all.
As far as food and drug safety goes, believing government does this effectively is pretty laughable. There are many instances of bad drugs and unsafe food getting onto the market. In the age of internet, any bad products that do get on the market nowadays are quickly found out which is detrimental to a company.
Dr. Paul is not an advocate of the government defining what marriage is for anyone. He has said on numerous occasions that marriage really comes down to being a contract between two people and the government does have a responsibility to enforce contracts.
Diane - I have never heard a more disrespectful guest on your show. I joined in the last 5 min and it was hard to believe anyone would act this way with you. I just commented to some collegues that your show is the best because everyone is smart, respectful and cares about what they say. Today was different. Thank you for your great work.
I agree totally - it was a disrespectul rant, not worthy of this show.
Congressman Paul I am inching your way based on your foreign policy stance but your domestic policy stances keep me at a distance You just mentioned "human life". Can you address the double standards placed on human life say for instance the innocent life lost in the 9/11 attack versus the loss of life as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq? What do you think this outrageous double standard says to the rest of the world about the US?
And
Based on the value of human life that you just expressed when it comes to a fetus. While I do not support government handouts for fully capable individuals I do support health care for that child as well as equity in education and fair wages. Those are pro life stances as far as I am concerned.