What does freedom really mean?
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. - Dr. Ron Paul, February 7, 2005
7 comments:
Government is a necessary evil to prevent evil from necessarily having the upper hand. Hobbes and Locke both understood this in their "social contract" idea. People voluntarily give up certain rights in order to insure that they can maintain other certain rights (protection of property and security). It is impossible to enjoy "freedom" without also feeling secure in your person and possessions. There is a balance that must be maintained. Hobbes erred a bit too far on one side (and thus became a defender of absolute monarchy) while Locke felt that individuals should overthrow any government that fails to protect their rights and institute whatever form of government that would. The representative democracies of Britain and the United States owe much to his thinking.
Why must Ron Paul be so negative about government? If the people can control the government (ok, we need to take responsibility for that!), why can't government become a force for good and benevolence, or at least enable good and benevolence to occur?
I agree with you that government is necessary. But I don't think he's particularly negative.
Consider... he's opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Then in 2006, many would argue (including himself probably) that the people voted against the war. Yet what has changed? So while I can't speak for him... do the people control the government?
The problem with Ron Paul is that he has a terrible history of making many documented racist statements. The guy is a nut.....in between the few moments of lucidity....
1:14 can you cite sources? If not, I dismiss your anti-Paul comments.
I think the source of the accusations against Paul being a "racist" is his opposition to affirmative action.
Here is an example of how different views of government lead to different conclusions. Does the government have the obligation to address issues of racism? A libertarian might argue no, it does not. People can think what they want to think, and the way to change how people think is through reason and rational argument. But what if people do not behave rationally? Did it work in the American South? Or did the government intervene justifiably to address the injustices? Shouldn't government begin to tackle the root cause of the injustices, the attitude of racism that was allowed to prevail?
Affirmative action has been one program to try to address the historic inequalities. It's hard to say when the time will come when it is no longer necessary, but I am not sure that the time has arrived just yet.
Quod said...
"Here is an example of how different views of government lead to different conclusions."
the TM said in BC minutes...
"This cannot be characterized as a cost... Mr. Milone pointed out that this fund balance does not lend itself to a cost benefit analysis, because the start is a false premise that there is a cost involved. There is no cost; there is a revenue investment that sits there that is being debated as to its use."
Quod... you are exactly right. Some would characterize the 8% fund balance as an investment. Some would characterize it as a cost.
Either way, it's obvious that views on government... even at the local level... can vary.
Tim Freedom and the fund balance?
Post a Comment