Ron Paul delivers the Libertarian Message to the Values Voter Debate

In a previous post on this site regarding a show of hands for Ron Paul, there were comments about the social conservatism of Ron Paul. However, after Paul's performance last night at the Values Voter Debate hosted by the American Family Association, any such doubts should be put to rest. In Paul's closing statement, Paul assumes the role of the stern lecturer, arguing that a free society cannot use federal power to legislate morality and that the Iraqi War violates the Christian notion of a just war. And he was roundly booed for it. Indeed, while the other candidates who showed up pandered to become the next Pastor-In-Chief, Paul laid out his opposition to federal laws against drugs, prostitution, pornography, and homosexuality. He had the courage to advocate marriage should be a private contract and held firm when the obligatory Terry Schiavo question came up. To boot, he also expressed opposition to any constitutional amendment banning abortion(still, Paul finished second, although a distant second, to Huckabee in the official delegate straw poll held afterwards).

Yes, Paul is pro-life, but what kind of traction would a pro-choice(anti-war) libertarian get in a republican primary? Zero. He might as well, in such were the case, join George Phillies and Steve Kubby in a futile run as a Libertarian candidate.

And, from the democratic side, abortion aside, is there any candidate who remotely comes close to matching the somewhat radical social positions that Ron Paul stakes out(well,other than Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel)?

I cannot tell you how prowd I was of him during that debate, particularly during the closing statement. He stuck with his libertarian views steadfastly and didn't cowtow for a second to the theocrats in the audience. He answered "no" on media idnecency laws, anti-porn laws, and a "Terry Schiavo" law, when everyone else on the stage said "yes." He stood by his anti-drug war stance and was booed for it. On the question of what the candidates would do to "counter the homosexual agenda," Ron said that government can't do it, and he was booed for it. Time and again, he reiterated the libertarian theme that government can't "make someone a better person," and it was an improper vehicle for attempting to do so because it curbs liberty for all. He was booed for it, but he still managed to get a substantial amount of support from the audience (as indicated by his 2nd place finish in the Straw Poll). That closing speach was classic.

BTW, while Ron was booed often, he got the biggest applause of anyone the entire night on the question of American sovereignty, when he suggested that only must we not enter a NAU, but that we should exit the UN. It was downright THUNDEROUS.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where our Rights and therefore our Liberty is placed in jeopardy by the very structure intended to protect both Rights and Liberty. Government, now little more then a conspired bureaucratically mechanical STATE, constantly seeks to legitimize itself with a veil of Constitutionalism, all the while it promotes its own primacy over the People.

I think we should not be surprised when someone like Bush overtly trespasses against the Constitution. The Constitution’s standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, the least of these are those who advocate original intent based upon a Christianized view of the founding of this country. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles upon which the Constitution was structured are neither static nor dynamic, but they are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.

This country has not seen so critical a time in our political concerns as we do at this time. It not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual’s claim to Liberty. Instead of a country filled with free people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of its reach and authority. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but are subject to the political whims of the day or what is considered necessary abridgements of Constitutional Order either for security sake or what is commonly called general welfare.

When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say that because, as we see with the Bush Administration, it is then easy for any group to take liberties with those principles and thus affect one or more sections of an opposing party or interest. Once the door is open to accept and approve the arbitrary interpretation and application of the Constitution, and then it becomes much easier for abuse to ensue. If the principles found within the Constitution are not foundational to both government and the People, then those principles will always be usurped, abused or denied. When the principles of the Constitution are no longer viewed as essential and therefore open to any interpretation, then they provide no protection from potential abuse by those of any political agenda.

One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation. It was easy for the Republicans; for instance, to condemn the Clinton Administration over its Constitutional abuses but not its own abuses now that Bush is in office. Likewise, the cry from the Democrats is equally as adamant when a Republican abuses those powers and reaches beyond the Constitution in one way or another when those breaches are contrary to their own agenda. The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.

When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Relativity is prized by government bureaucrats, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.

This government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so, that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Bush Administration is only following a path that was already well-beaten when it came to power. Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the Wilson Administration, but never the less, it is far from being an action beyond precedent.

Political decentralization, a key structure found within the Constitution, is interwoven with the ideals of Individual Liberty. While it is the responsibility of the individual to place demands upon government for the appropriate execution of the Rights that foster such Liberty, it is not without precedent for any government, limited or not, to usurp and consolidate power to the bereft of the individual. Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today, it is simply not palatable to the electorate.

Currently we are asked to “voluntarily” relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one degree or another, for the sake of security. It is not the first time the government has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must remember what we do when we allow such license to government. When extra-Constitutional license is ceded to government, the government will always willingly accept for it is in the nature of government to govern more by force than by consent.

It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.

Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency. If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution?

Once again I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.

Those who seek majoritarian rule have transformed us into a national society and that fact has, in essence, crippled the proper and equitable functions of the Republic. The Constitution was not given by the assent of individuals that composed a nation, but as individuals that composed the independent and very distinct States in which they held citizenship. The States, based upon the authority of the People, then assented to the ratification of the Constitution as being federal in nature and not national. There is a very distinct and important difference that directly effects the not only the legislative process, but the application of law relating to the Right of the People and how the government functions.

It is rare that we refer to ourselves as citizens of the individual State Republics; it was once the only reference to citizenship within this country. The reason for that was that this country was not viewed as a nation state, but a nation of States united under a federal system and not a national one. The thought of being a national citizen was contrary to the entire Republican ideal and for good reason; the federal government was only a reflection of the States and the authority the citizens invested, through the States, to the federal government. The People always acted as citizens of their respective States and not as citizens under the auspices of an aggregate national government.

The Founders, well aware of the tendency of majoritarianism, intentionally placed walls of separation within this Republican system and for a very good reason. They knew that if the Constitutional transaction were to work properly, it would not, could not be regarded as forming one nation, but a federal union of States. They knew that if such a national system were to be placed above that of the federal union of States then the will of the majority would gradually bind the minority within society.

Yes, I am aware that there will be those who will relate this to the catch phrase “States Rights”, and will dutifully denigrate any suggestion that we return to a system that allowed the States such authority and powers, yet there is nothing more Constitutional then doing just that. I make no apologies whatsoever for such a stance, for I know that it is one of the primary factors in saving this country from the terminal illness it now faces under the increasingly dangerous usurpations of the so-called federal government. While the Founders instituted attributes to the government that are national in nature, such as those relating to foreign relations, treaties, and interstate commerce; those attributes were extremely limited and were delegated to the federal government but not innately expressed.

The Founders never adopted principles that remotely resemble the system that we now allow ourselves to be subjected to in this country. It was clear that the Framers of the Constitution always considered each State to be a sovereign body, composed of sovereign individuals, independent of all other States and bound only by the voluntary act of a reflective union of States. The Constitution established this union of States federally, not nationally. I will not, at this time, delve into the various actions and acts that have transformed this federal union of States into a National Union, but suffice to say, it has had the exact effects foreseen by Our Founders. They pegged the results of such a transition exactly and indeed their fears have become a reality in this country.

The Founders were extremely wise in their delegation of powers, the system of elections that provided for the House of Representatives severed a national attribute because the their powers are derived directly from the People who are proportionally represented. On the other hand, the Senate [although no longer due to the 17th Amendment], served a federal attribute because it derives its powers from the State Republics and indirectly from the People. It was an incredible system that functioned to protect the People not only against the possible abuse of powers by the government, but from the possible threat of majoritarianism.

Federal powers were limited to a defined sphere of influence because the Founders realized the propensity of power to corrupt those who hold power. It is readily easy to see that they were correct in their assumptions and had this country remained a Republic, such corruption would find a rather difficult expression due to all the checks and balances embedded within the system. At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the Founders placed the dependency of the federal government on the States rather than the States being dependent upon the federal government. Ultimately however, both the federal and the State governments were to be dependent on the People and their consent to be governed.

While the federal government had a multiple layer of checks and balances upon it, so too the States were placed under an equally powerful system of checks and balances. The interconnectivity of the system balanced the system and kept the respective powers and authorities in check. As the federal government was to reflect the States, so too was the States to reflect the districts, counties and local governments. Each layer of governmental processes reflected the consent and will of the People and in that reflection there was a high degree of restraint placed on each level of government. Those facts are extremely important if the application of law is meted out with justice and equality.

The possibility of ambitious encroachments by either the States or the federal governments would be inhibited by the opposition of either level of government, not to mention the possibility of the vocal opposition of the People. The Constitution did not combine powers in a way that would lead to an accumulation powers that would pose a danger to the Liberty and Rights of the People. They were very precise in purpose to decrease, although not eliminate, the possibility of such consolidation.

The Founders took particular note of the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu in the formation of this system of government. Indeed, the Baron stated: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.” He was, of course, right in his assumptions and we see such combined powers in play today as the various branches of our government either relinquish powers or their powers are usurped by another branch. Likewise, the powers and authorities of the States have been trumped by the increased powers of the federal government.

I will refrain from going into the various delegations of powers found within the Constitution, but suffice to say that the Founders thought of just about everything regarding the proper uses of powers and authorities within the system. Perhaps it is once again time to place our trust in a system that proved far wiser then the fading credibility of our present government, once again we should hearken to the voice of wisdom when it comes to the proper role of government in this country.

Ron Paul not only has the appropriate level of understanding on the issues that this nation is facing, but he also has the dedication to once again turn the helm of this massive sluggish ship around, change course and assist the People in regaining their government.

In Liberty,
Republicae-Seditionist

I was lucky enough to "know someone who knows someone" and thus had tickets to attend the event as a delegate. I proudly cast my straw poll vote for Ron Paul.
Sitting in the delegate section, surrounded by the "Value Voters" I was impressed by the ignorance of the group. They simply could not comprehend the idea that, duh, homosexuals have rights? He can't say that can he? He doesn't really mean that, does he? There was more than one occasion when I felt like turning around and slapping some sense into the woman seated behind me. I didn't do it, but the temptation was there.
The whole debate consisted of loaded questions. The other candidates pandered to the crowd, but Ron Paul stood his ground.
When Ron Paul had the audacity to reiterate that 9/11 was blowback against US policy in the middle east, the groans from the audience were very evident. I heard several "He's a nut" type comments. But as I flip through Ron Paul's book on foreign policy (actually a collection of his speeches) I find that he repeatedly made speeches in Congress warning us that our policies would bring terrorism to our shores. He warned us BEFORE 9/11 that we were setting ourselves up for disaster.
The other candidates seemed to be the kind of leaders who watch which way the herd is running, then rush to get in front and holler "Come on, let's go this way."
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has the guts to be the leader who says "Wait, there's a cliff over there and you'll all fall off if you continue. I've found a better way, follow me." He doesn't tell the audience what they want and expect to hear. He teaches them what they need to learn.

It is amazing that there are those who willfully ignore the reasons behind the attacks of 9/11. Ron Paul, with substantial authority backing up his position, is the only candidate who has continually made the correct evaluation of our foreign policy over the past two decades and yet so few seem to be listening or are even willing to consider the fact that our interventionist foreign policy plays a major role in our own insecurity.

The rest of the Republican candidates are little more then recordings, repeating the same propagandized spittle with no factual foundations or solutions except to appeal to the emotions and fears of the sheepish electorate. The Democratic candidates too offer little in the way of solutions and seem to be following the usual practice of empty promises and irrational remidies for a nation that seeks real and substantial change.