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.
"3. In the 1800s children worked in factories like slaves, until government stepped in and we got child labor laws. People say pure unfettered capitalism allowed this. Comment?"
People seem to forget that the Industrial Revolution was responsible for taking us from a time when poverty was in the 70 - 80% of the population to a place of 20 - 30% all through the market not government. Of course through innovation and higher productivity, we have even less poverty now.
During the Industrial Revolution people were leaving agricultural life for a reason. The factory conditions while bad, were providing an improvement for the way of lives of their families in comparison to life on a farm. The argument against child labor assumes that these parents are horrible people but in fact in that time the family unit needed as many people working in order to feed themselves. The children assuredly worked on the farm as well but the chance of survival went up dramatically because of the gains in productivity during the Industrial Revolution. Now obviously child labor was a horrible thing but the other option was much worse in that the family would not be able to earn enough to eat. As productivity through innovation went up child labor naturally went away to the point that by the 50s many families had only one person working out of the family unit.
Conditions improved in factories naturally because when two factories were open the one that had better conditions got workers for less money because people were willing to work for less in better conditions which forced other factories to adopt the same conditions in order to compete for the best workers and to keep prices down.
Revisionists history seems to think bad working conditions went away with legislation when in fact it is a natural market process.
ZoomZoomC wrote:
"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. Thank you for your great work."
You admit that you tuned in only to the last 5 minutes, and yet you believe Paul was "disrespectful" to Rehm? Rehm actually called the man by his son's name Rand and then couldn't wait to interrupt him before he finished answering her own questions. This must be the sort of "great work" you expect from Rehm.
To everyone that calls Ron Paul hypocritical for his stance on abortion,
He has said countless times, most recently in his book, that he does not think that the federal government should have anything to do with abortion. How is the hands off approach hypocritical?
And who will protect us from government's worst impulses? Government is just people, people who have the right to use force against other people.
I think Dr. Ron Paul needs to prescribe himself some medication so he can calm down. What a shrill, angry man
Did any liberals or progressives hear Dr. Paul say he is willing to cut the military by 75%? There is a deal to be made there!!!! Make that reduction and we can use part of the savings to actually build the peaceful green economy. All we hear from everyone now is cut, cut cut...if there are going to be cuts, let's start with the military industrial complex. Progressive can also jump ship and ruin the Republican party since there is no one for us to vote for in the 2012 primary.
I don't even know where to begin responding to this line of garbage.
You have to understand Ron Paul runs because people ask him to; not because he wants to gain anything in particular.
He has always considered his running to be one of education on liberty and freedom.
@_Dempster_ . Bravo,
We are taught that Laws were passed to ban Child labor and all of a sudden the world was a better place. This is the pretense of knowledge.
Those children were working for a reason. The Industrial Revolution was named such for a reason. In a free society, the government's job is to enforce the "rules of the game," but there were no rules yet. So maybe there were grounds for government involvement as we created those rules.
Instead of asking if Paul would have approved of child labor. It is a much more relevant question to ask why the children had to labor. Were the parent's horrible people? It would seem that maybe they were. Or, did they need to work to contribute to their families? Did the greedy capitalist beat down doors and enslave the children?
Because the industrial revolution increased the productivity of labor, standard of living increased for all. It did this because inc productivity led to the inc in value of free time to the individual. The father could work for 5 hours and produce the same amount of wealth as he would have in 10 hours under the previous market. Purchasing power was increased. Instead of taking this new free time, he could work the same amount and pass off much of his new free time to children.
This made it possible for a fam to have 1-2 breadwinners. Once we were able to support our children, we could seriously look at doing away with child labor. Ever wonder why the Industrial Revolution preceded Child labor laws by 30-50 years depending on how calculation? (an example of the government jumping up in the middle of a parade and pretending to lead said parade?)
It is also because of the market that we are able to look across to third world countries and condemn their use of child laborers as a horrific consequence of capitalism. As one example, policies instituted by the US in the 80s rejected importing the products of child labor. Basically instituting our own version of child labor laws resulted in cities like Bangladesh having increased child crime, pan handling and prostitution. Way to go child right's activists.
Good show! Diane asked good questions. Judging by some of the other comments, I get the sense that several people misunderstood his points about regulations. His support for protection of "property" includes peoples' bodies and health of course!
Fabulous show today Diane! Thank you for having Dr. Paul on your show and giving some of these "revolutionary" ideas a bit of air time. I see in many posts here there still is much misunderstanding in these ideas so I would suggest buying Ron Paul's book(s) to gain a greater understanding that a 51 minute interview could never give. Many of the questions I see would be answered with little time invested in reading and learning. BOOMBOOMC... You are supposed to sign in with another screen name before agreeing with yourself! LOL
A great interview with a man passionate about liberty. I noticed most of the comments disagreeing with his positions are in fact based on incorrect interpretations. He thinks killing innocent humans is a bad thing, including fetuses and in wars of aggression. It is not the place for the federal government to have anything to do or say about it, which means that they should not prohibit it, and likewise they should not force taxpayers to subsidize it.
If you have a problem with women choosing to abort then maybe you should look at the pressure that is put upon them that is the opposite of celebrating childbirth from the morality police decrying sex and wedlock to people that insist a career is preferable to motherhood or exclusive of it.
He is a doctor but opposes licensing of physicians because it limits our freedom to choose what we do with our bodies and who we choose to help us. He opposes recreational drug use (except a little red wine apparently) but is in favor of the freedom to use drugs.
He might personally oppose the practice of homosexuality but he is completely in favor of letting people to choose to do so. He is not in favor of the federal government having anything to do with the institution of marriage, either in granting permission or of special priveleges to heterosexual unions.
He is against entitlements but he is not in favor of ending social security, medicaire, medicaid, etc., abruptly because people are currently dependent on it. He is in favor of ending the military empire so we can slowly wean these dependent people off of the programs that encourages their addiction to them.
What a great man, God bless him.
Ron Paul isn't an angry man. He is obviously very passionate about his views, but angry? I don't think so.
I'd like to suggest that the stupid white people in the libertarian "get government off our backs" movement move to Somalia. It is there that we have the ultimate libertarian society. No central government at all. Whoopee. Freedom at last! This crackpot redneck and his idiot son (Neanderthals aren't extinct, they're now living in Kentucky) advocate a society identical to the one depicted in a Mel Gibson Mad Max Road Warrior movie.
Ah, the "Somalia" argument. Haven't heard this one in a while. Somalia is actually faring quite well compared to it's neighbors and has also improved significantly since the time that it had a central government. Don't take my word for it, it's in the CIA fact book. Those wacky libertarians! Quoting the CIA Factbook and conducting studies that concur with the World Bank. What a lunatic fringe! And clearly, since we point out that relatively stateless Somalia has in many ways done better than its neighbours, and better than it did when it had more government, we must mean to disregard all of the developed world's hard-won victories of modern science, capital accumulation, and human rights. It follows that we should move to (or at least vacation in) a country that is part of a continent rife with superstition, famine, disease, and female genital mutilation. Now that's comparing apples to apples.
Anyone who is interested, check out the following stories, they confirm my claims:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090515-3.htm
http://mises.org/daily/2066
I leave you with a quote from the aforementioned CIA fact book:
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."
If you go to the FDA WebSite and read about the history of drug development, you will find that the snake-oil peddlers sold products (elixirs) that were not efficacious; they also were not safe, containing ingredients like alcohol. Because their product labels did not list all ingredients, unknowing mothers gave them to their children to stop their suffering. What was the snake oil peddler's incentive? He kept making money because folks did not have the information to draw the logical conclusion - the elixir made their children worse, not the disease process. Once licensed medical doctors connected the dots, government legislated regulations that required labeling of ingredients. The public demanded this legislation. Let's fast forward to today's comment about large pharma: they lobby for stricter regulations, which block cheap competition. FDA regulations are a result of the public historically lobbying for more protection, especially as a consequence of children either dying or being born with birth defects as a result of taking unsafe medicine. The sole mission of the FDA is to ensure that drugs/therapeutics are safe and effective before being sold. The FDA regulations do not increase the cost of the drug or slow down time to market. It is advertising and marketing that drive up the cost. And since 1990, the time from submission of a new drug application to launch has decreased significantly. And for life-threatening diseases, there is expedited review - how the HIV/AIDs drugs came to market so quickly (again, public demand, not large pharma).
Some of your statements sound like opinions without the support of evidence; some border on the hyperbolic. This is how demagogues speak. It is not helpful when we, as a society, need to discuss solutions to problems in non-ideological ways.
Warlords and militias terrorizing villages. No functioning government, courts or police. Drought and hunger afflicting half the country. That's the situation in Somalia driving the epidemic of piracy off its coast, experts say. "There are not any straightforward or obvious answers," said Chris Albin-Lackey, a senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. Piracy "is, at the end of the day, a symptom of state collapse." (USA Today 04/09/2009)
Ahh yes rtvest. Somalis are thriving in a libertarian government free paradise.
Some folks seem to mistake Libertarian principles with anarchy. Somalia is currently in anarchy. Libertarians favor government protection from initiated force (whether it comes from Somali-warlord types or well meaning social engineers).
How many see a problem with government big enough to secure the peace, yet small enough not to interfere with free association, free speech and free trade?
I'm glad to hear a politician actually supporting the first principle which made this a great nation: liberty. Think of how many times this word appears in our historical literature. Does it mean anything, or is it just a word we repeat?
Compared to the surrounding countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan, they're doing alright. In a Libertarian society there would still be police, dude. I call straw man on you.
"Libertarian principles" enable the powerful to prey on the weak and unfortunate. No surprise that libertarianism in strong in the south with a proud tradition of slavery and exploitation. Ahh yes. The south, where wages are kept low and public education is the worst in the country. No wonder Ron Paul is a redneck from Texas.
There you are again with your straw men, talking about slavery and libertarianism in the same sentence. Read one of Ron's books man.
Fascism is about freedom for fascists---they love giving and taking orders---and maximal freedom for the most warlike and servile. It is not socialism, whose goal (even if you think it impossible) is universal ease and wealth, but rather eternal struggle and war. It rejects capitalism in theory as decadent, but always seems to love cozying up to rich men (see Krupp, and Fiat, and Thyssen, and Ford, and the Hunts).
Similarly, propertarianism is about freedom for those with property, and maximal freedom for those with the most. I don't think winning the ovarian lottery should entitle you to live much better than anyone else, and even hard work is as naught without a mass of workers working for you, and the vast common store of knowledge and technology you didn't create. A 'Creature of Society', truly.
Libertarianism: all the freedom money can buy.
Mr Paul deceives in referring to Market decisions as 'voting'---unless, of course, his ideal system gave more rights to those with more property, so Wm Gates III would have O(10^6) more of a vote than most Americans.
It's lovely seeing the conspiracy-minded not notice that Dr Paul's prescription will give them the freedom to sell off their inalienable rights, and will in fact end by compelling them to so do...because they're not really inalienable if you can give them away in a contract, or for a mess of pottage.
If you define freedom as the absence of government coercion except to punish those who initiate force against another, then Ron Paul is for freedom. If you define freedom any other way, good luck.
I always enjoy Diane's program, but I was disappointed that she did not ask Congressman Paul about his views on the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Given Mr. Paul's firm commitment to "no government interference," I don't see how any progress for African Americans and other minorities would have ever been possible given his vision of America. For a long time a number of states allowed the most criminal practices against many of its people. It was only when the government "interfered" that segregation was outlawed and victimized individuals were allowed some measure of freedom. Mr. Paul is quick to yell for "freedom" when it suits his purposes.
s.s.
@Gerald Fnord
Dr. Paul said nothing of the selling of rights he is in fact arguing for more rights. It sounds like you seem to know what is better for an individual than the individual themselves.
As far as Bill Gates is concerned, you make an argument that leads me to believe you detest the man. If it is true that you do, why is it that you do not like him? Is it his wealth? Did he do something illegal to obtain it? If so that would make sense but if not, you got to remember that wealth is not something that is constant. Wealth is created.
Dollars are how we store wealth in this country. In order to obtain dollars in our market, you must create wealth (goods or services that someone is willing to pay for). Another person gives you money in excahnge for the goods produced. All this is voluntary. Bill Gates has created many jobs and in turn much wealth that most of us have benefitted from.
No matter what you think of the rich, in a Libertarian society, many of the rich would be put on a much more even playing field. Many of the regulations we believe punish the rich are in fact actually helping them. Many regulations make it cost prohibitive for other fledgling businesses to enter and compete in many of the markets. This lack of competition mean prices are higher which hurts the poor the most. Almost every regulation (usually meant to help the less fortunate) will have the unintended consequences of harming the poor.
@Tremonisha
Most of what the civil rights act did was reverse the discrimination which the government required e.g. Jim Crowe laws. Back then, businesses were REQUIRED BY LAW to have separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc. for black and white patrons. Government was a big part of the original problem.
I am also from CNY however I think he is naive bordering on delusional in some of his beliefs.
@davco1
On which beliefs is he naive bordering on delusional?