Ron Paul: Freedom From Government

Congressman Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk – February 9, 2009 reposted to Libertarian Party blog by Donney Ferguson, and from there to IPR by Paulie.



President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush. When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them. This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern.

The logic behind funding faith-based initiatives seemed reasonable to some. Private organizations are much more effective in charitable endeavors than government programs and bureaucracies. Therefore, why not “outsource” some of the government’s welfare-state activities to these worthy organizations? This appealed to many conservatives, especially after the follow-up executive order exempting recipients from discriminatory hiring laws, which assured many that taking federal funds would not jeopardize their control over their own operations. But beware the government program started under an administration you like, for it may look a lot different under the one you don’t. Exemptions that Bush gave, Obama can take away.

But now, dependencies on federal money have been set, operations have been expanded accordingly, and many charities are waiting breathlessly for the administration to tell them what new conditions they will have to meet. With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant’s faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago. Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding? Can they remain solvent without it?

This is the major problem with basing a private business model on the receipt of government funds. This money does not come without control, or the future possibility of control. We are seeing parallel control grabs in industries that have recently been the recipients of taxpayer largess. Government officials are now discussing executive compensation on Wall Street, banking, and in the auto industry. How much is too much to pay someone? When is a bonus deserved? But because politicians have bought their way into these industries, these are now political decisions. It is easy to utilize class envy to whip up public support for these interventions, but government always slides down the slippery slope. Politicians are also discussing other aspects of these businesses in which they are not expert, such as, what should lending standards be? What sort of cars should we direct the auto industry to make? Once government money infiltrates a balance sheet, “taxpayers” meaning “politicians” have a say in how you operate.

Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations. Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end. It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities. Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money. This is the best protection from government control.

28 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Freedom From Government

  1. John Lowell

    Without meaning any reference to his text above, given his cowardly rush to the exits during last year’s election campaign, I suspect that more than anything else right now we need a bit of freedom from Ron Paul.

  2. John Lowell

    Robert,

    Enjoying freedom from Ron Paul is a blissful state not easy to achieve. One is constantly regaled at enthusiast sites with House floor speeches by Paul, comments by Paul, worshipful reveries of the Paul that just couldn’t quite find a way of turning his back on a warmongering Republican Party. Many here might be helped through benefit of your experience in turning Ron’s picture to the wall. How’d ya do it?

  3. paulie cannoli Post author

    John Lowell is not against big government, whether it’s social issues or the economy, so perhaps he wants to use the government to make him free of Ron Paul or anyone who thinks like him. Well, actually, not perhaps – he’s openly said it before, he wants libertarians tortured to death for the crime of disagreeing with him.

  4. Catholic Trotskyist

    Where? He has certainly criticized libertarians harshly before, probably even more than I have, but I don’t think he believes in torture. Perhaps that was an impersonator?

    Given Ron Paul’s lower profile since the election, it would seem that over 90% of the country is free of Ron Paul. I wish you luck on your endeavor John, and hope that the only way to solve it is not by avoiding independent/libertarian-oriented websites entirely. I had sympathy for him as an anti-war candidate, but he has proven himself to be a weak and unskilled political player.

    GOD BLESS THE SOCIALIST STATE, GOD BLESS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH AND ITS HOLY FATHER, AND GOD BLESS BARACK OBAMA, AMEN.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    Where?

    At TPW, and here. For example, see the comments at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/chuck-baldwin-thanks-ron-paul-for-presidential-endorsement/

    Lowell: What is to be made of the vapididity of the Libertarian defense of “any activity that is peaceful and honest”, for example. For having done so, shouldn’t people that write such twaddle be dunked like witches into vats of steaming horse phong?

    Lowell: Well, I suppose the only important question to be raised at this point is if you might have felt comfortable writing that platform line, ?any activity that is peaceful and honest?. Were you the author of or sypathetic to that brilliancy, big P? If so, you do indeed deserve to be dunked in the fashion of a latter day Salem witch into a vat of animal ca-ca. Best to make the punishment suitable to the crime, of course.

  6. John Lowell

    paulie,

    It’s been rare that someone’s been as taken with my writing actually to bring it out of obscurity in this way. Your exquisite tastes abound, good man.

    You’ll note in the text above a focus, not upon torture, but on a proper punishment for a most paralyzing stupidity. Fittingness is the guiding principle here, of course, not remediation. One cares little if an idiot benefits from a pooh-dunking, just that he gets one. It’s like Tom Friedman’s face having been made resplendent in pie that day last year. Yet not all ca-ca dips are to be justified in terms of vacuity. For having run out on his enthusiuasts last year, Ron Paul every bit deserves, if your pardon the double entendre, “the stool”. Imagine Ron, from the comfort and safety of his House seat, being taken bodily to the manure pile, protesting in his coloratura the whole way. Now that’s a weekend’s entertainment, eh?

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    You’ll note in the text above a focus, not upon torture,

    You advocate a literal revival of the witch trials, including torture and murder for those who don’t share your compulsory notion of “morality” at the hands of the regime – as if the existence of the regime, or anything it does, is – or even could be – moral. This also constitutes a perversion of the religion you claim to follow.

    Indeed, if anyone were fitting of such treatment, it would only be those who advocate it against others for the “crime” of advocating peaceful and honest relations among people.

  8. Catholic Trotskyist

    John is not the first nor the last writer to use imagery of torture to make a point. Anyway, the inquisitionists are still less powerful than the Libertarians and Catholic Trotskyists, so there’s not much to wrorry about.

    I neglecetd to mention that I do have Ron Paul in my shadow cabinet, along with both Paulie and John. This is in an effort to create a national unity government in the future.

  9. Preston

    So the government is to blame for the fact that some charitable organizations are depending on the government to survive?

  10. John Lowell

    Paulie,

    “You advocate a literal revival of the witch trials, including torture and murder for those who don’t share your compulsory notion of “morality” at the hands of the regime – as if the existence of the regime, or anything it does, is – or even could be – moral. This also constitutes a perversion of the religion you claim to follow. ”

    I’m always entertained when those that justify what is objectively perverse speak of others’ perversions of religion and morals. Have we caught you in a moment of transfiguration, perhaps, paulie, in a kind of movement from bath house to theological peritus, so to speak?

    “Indeed, if anyone were fitting of such treatment, it would only be those who advocate it against others for the “crime” of advocating peaceful and honest relations among people.”

    Yes, into the pooh and repeatedly, I say, for anyone caught up enough in himself actually to find real meaning in such idiotically subjectivist constructs as “any activity that is peaceful and honest”. What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Platitudes aren’t principles, son, they’re just self- satisfying and self-serving pap. And they hardly stand muster posited as a ground for human behavior.

  11. John Lowell

    Cattrot,

    You say:

    “John is not the first nor the last writer to use imagery of torture to make a point.”

    Into the brown with every fool, I say, friend Cattrot. 🙂

  12. Steven R Linnabary

    Yes, into the pooh and repeatedly, I say, for anyone caught up enough in himself actually to find real meaning in such idiotically subjectivist constructs as “any activity that is peaceful and honest”. What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Platitudes aren’t principles, son, they’re just self- satisfying and self-serving pap. And they hardly stand muster posited as a ground for human behavior.

    ??

    I gotta’ say, John, it REALLY is hard to debate somebody who doesn’t understand the meaning of “peaceful and honest”. I hardly find the meaning to be “trite and/or insipid” as you seem to be suggesting.

    And if “peaceful and honest” cannot be used as grounds for human behavior, what in God’s name could be?

    PEACE

  13. John Lowell

    Steven,

    “I gotta’ say, John, it REALLY is hard to debate somebody who doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘peaceful and honest’.”

    Why certainly, Steve guy, every sociopath just intuitively grasps the universal meaning of the words, “peaceful” and “honest”, now doesn’t he? Just ask Joe Stalin.

    “And if “peaceful and honest” cannot be used as grounds for human behavior, what in God’s name could be?”

    God’s name, perhaps? 🙂

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’m always entertained when those that justify what is objectively perverse speak of others’ perversions of religion and morals. Have we caught you in a moment of transfiguration, perhaps, paulie, in a kind of movement from bath house to theological peritus, so to speak?

    No, but I did catch you in such a moment. Lest there be any doubt, your advocacy of the torture of others for advocating peaceful and honest relations among people is in fact objectively perverse, and completely against the teachings of Jesus which you claim to follow as well.

    What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

    Exactly what it says. If you want materials for further reading or viewing, there are many of various length and format.


    Platitudes aren’t principles, son, they’re just self- satisfying and self-serving pap.

    It’s a principle, not a platitude, I’m not your son, and your characterization of our fundamental principle as “self- satisfying and self-serving pap, ” and advocacy that you should sit in God’s place and judge (and carry out judgment through the initiation of coercive force), would be dangerous if you somehow got into power. Fortunately, you have no such actual power, but those who have perverted your alleged religion along similar lines before certainly have in the past. We can only hope that this will remain in the past; we are still dealing with many of the consequences, unfortunately.

  15. paulie cannoli Post author

    Why certainly, Steve guy, every sociopath just intuitively grasps the universal meaning of the words, “peaceful” and “honest”, now doesn’t he? Just ask Joe Stalin.

    No, but he certainly grasped their opposite, and torturing people to death for disagreeing with him. You two are much alike that way – only the excuse is different, but in reality you serve the same dark lord. It’s just that Stalin called his communism, and you call yours Christianity – which it most certainly isn’t, as anyone who can read can easily determine for themselves:

    http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

  16. John Lowell

    paulie,

    Oh, that’s right, it paulie the bigot, paulie the Christian hater, isn’t it? Why I’d vaguely recalled that you were somehow noxious like that but couldn’t quite reach through to the bill of particulars. That’s how forgetable you are to people, filth. Here’s a suggestion for today’s to-do list for you: Draw a tub of comfortably hot water, then go off in search of a razor blade.

  17. Catholic Trotskyist

    Now, that’s going too far John. Paulie has been quite fair to us Catholics by even speaking out for our continuing privilege for us to post on this site even with our disagreements. Of all the people to worry about as obstructionists against the word of God, he is nowhere near the top of the list.

  18. paulie cannoli Post author

    Oh, that’s right, it paulie the bigot, paulie the Christian hater, isn’t it?

    Not at all. But you’ve certainly shown your true colors with the remainder of that comment 18. Very much in the true Christian spirit…not.

  19. John Lowell

    cannoli,

    Now have I’ve gone and offended bigot’s exquisitely tuned sensibilities? Then, again, perhaps not. It seems more likely that I’ve made a convert of him. Bigot not only gives sermons on the “christian spirit”, he even invokes it! Where are we to find you next, cannoli, on the pages of Moody Monthly? LOL!

    Look, pig, if the bathtub/razor blade cure is not to your liking, there’s always self-defenestration. Allow me to suggest it to you. Its very much in vogue today what with the ailing economy and there’d be the added entertainment value of watching you try to fly.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    Lowell,

    In the conversation between us, there is indeed a bigot. It isn’t me. If you think that your comments are in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, or the other teachings of Yeshua, let me assure you that you are deluding no one but yourself – but I suspect that deep down, you are failing to delude yourself as well. My best wishes on seeing your way to becoming a less hateful person one day.

    From wikipedia, on the seven deadly sins:

    Wrath (Latin, ira)

    Main article: Wrath

    Wrath (or anger or “Rage”) may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengeance are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy, closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as “love of justice perverted to revenge and spite”. In its original form, the sin of wrath also encompassed anger pointed internally rather than externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of wrath directed inwardly, a final rejection of God’s gifts.

  21. Steven R Linnabary

    John, many Christians have been troubled by the fact that the Holy Bible does NOT prescribe how a government should work.

    For the past 1700 years, governments have latched onto this, as well as certain verses in the Bible such as “pray for your leaders”. IOW, governments just want us to shut up and do as we are told.

    At my age, I am not going to start mindlessly obeying some wannabe God. However, I am not going to tell you that you have to do the same.

    But I am still going to do the things that are taught in the Holy Bible, actions such as living a “peaceful and honest” life, actions that you have said were insipid and trite.

    And I’m going to continue to attempt to compel my government to treat my fellow human beings the same. I’ll do some of this through my spiritual, political and/or social connections.

    Because I can.

    PEACE

  22. John Lowell

    Cannoli,

    No more than there was a “conversation” between Ernst Roehm and Thomas Mann is there now one between you and me, nor will there ever be. I simply will not truck haters of your breed. And every time your anti-Christian bigotry rears it ugly head, even when it tries to couch itself in the language of some imagined higher morality, I’ll call it just what it is, be absolutely clear on that.

  23. paulie cannoli Post author

    No more than there was a “conversation” between Ernst Roehm and Thomas Mann is there now one between you and me, nor will there ever be.

    Ah yes. I didn’t know you are a Calvinist.

    I simply will not truck haters of your breed.

    I’ve been the hateful one in this exchange? LOL. Who do you think you are fooling?

    And every time your anti-Christian bigotry rears it ugly head

    I have none such. But you certainly do, in the true sense of the term anti-Christian.

  24. paulie cannoli Post author

    Wikipedia on the religious views of William Blake, which were very wise:

    Although Blake’s attacks on conventional religion were shocking in his own day, his rejection of religiosity was not a rejection of religion per se. His view of orthodoxy is evident in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, a series of texts written in imitation of Biblical prophecy. Therein, Blake lists several Proverbs of Hell, amongst which are the following:

    Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.
    As the caterpillar chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.

    In The Everlasting Gospel, Blake does not present Jesus as a philosopher or traditional messianic figure but as a supremely creative being, above dogma, logic and even morality:

    If he had been Antichrist, Creeping Jesus,
    He’d have done anything to please us:
    Gone sneaking into the Synagogues
    And not used the Elders & Priests like Dogs,
    But humble as a Lamb or an Ass,
    Obey himself to Caiaphas.
    God wants not man to humble himself

    Jesus, for Blake, symbolises the vital relationship and unity between divinity and humanity: “[A]ll had originally one language and one religion: this was the religion of Jesus, the everlasting Gospel. Antiquity preaches the Gospel of Jesus.”[13]

    Blake designed his own mythology, which appears largely in his prophetic books. Within these Blake describes a number of characters, including ‘Urizen’, ‘Enitharmon’, ‘Bromion’ and ‘Luvah’. This mythology seems to have a basis in the Bible and in Greek mythology,[46] and it accompanies his ideas about the everlasting Gospel.

    “I must Create a System, or be enslav’d by another Man’s. I will not Reason & Compare; my business is to Create.”
    Words uttered by Los in Blake’s Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion.

    One of Blake’s strongest objections to orthodox Christianity is that he felt it encouraged the suppression of natural desires and discouraged earthly joy. In A Vision of the Last Judgement, Blake says that:
    “ Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed & govern’d their Passions or have No Passions, but because they have Cultivated their Understandings. The Treasures of Heaven are not Negations of Passion, but Realities of Intellect, from which all the Passions Emanate Uncurbed in their Eternal Glory. ”

    One may also note his words concerning religion in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:
    “ All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.

    1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
    2. That Energy, call’d Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call’d Good, is alone from the Soul.
    3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

    But the following Contraries to these are True

    1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call’d Body is a portion of Soul discern’d by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
    2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
    3. Energy is Eternal Delight.


    The Body of Abel Found by Adam and Eve, c. 1825. Watercolour on wood.

    Blake does not subscribe to the notion of a distinct body from the soul, and which must submit to the rule of soul, but rather sees body as an extension of soul derived from the ‘discernment’ of the senses. Thus, the emphasis orthodoxy places upon the denial of bodily urges is a dualistic error born of misapprehension of the relationship between body and soul; elsewhere, he describes Satan as the ‘State of Error’, and as being beyond salvation.[47]

    Blake opposed the sophistry of theological thought that excuses pain, admits evil and apologises for injustice. He abhorred self-denial,[48] which he associated with religious repression and particularly with sexual repression:[49] “Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity. / He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.”[50] He saw the concept of ‘sin’ as a trap to bind men’s desires (the briars of Garden of Love), and believed that restraint in obedience to a moral code imposed from the outside was against the spirit of life:

    Abstinence sows sand all over
    The ruddy limbs & flaming hair,
    But Desire Gratified
    Plants fruits & beauty there.

    He did not hold with the doctrine of God as Lord, an entity separate from and superior to mankind[51]; this is shown clearly in his words about Jesus Christ: “He is the only God … and so am I, and so are you.” A telling phrase in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is “men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast”. This is very much in line with his belief in liberty and equality in society and between the sexes.

    Blake said that many men really worship Satan, but call themselves Christians. John Lowell, with his fetishism of hatred, regime tyranny, and mass torture-murder of those who advocate peace, certainly seems to be one of these – certainly not one who loves his neighbor as himself, ministers God’s love to sinners, etc.

    Jesus said “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you”; Lowell, on the contrary, wants to torture and murder those who advocate peaceful and honest relations among humans; he says, in effect: hate people and deem them your enemies, and curse them; if someone turns their cheek to Lowell, he’d strike it, and the other one as well. Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself. Lowell’s message? Hate your neighbor as you hate yourself.

  25. paulie cannoli Post author

    John, many Christians have been troubled by the fact that the Holy Bible does NOT prescribe how a government should work.

    But, it does. Starting at least as far back as Judges, where God warns the Israelites against their desire for a King, such as the other nations have.

    There is much more good news in the New Testament:

    http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

    Longish, but you really should read it if you haven’t already.

  26. paulie cannoli Post author

    Paulie has been quite fair to us Catholics by even speaking out for our continuing privilege for us to post on this site even with our disagreements.

    Thanks CT. I also think there is much truth in the teachings of Yeshua. Of course, his message is not the only one which has been perverted and turned on its head by tyrants, despots, zealots, fanatics, and hateful folks such as Lowell here.

    But, unlike Lowell – who has already, as you see, damned me to hell, and wishes devilspeed me on my way there – I haven’t given up on him, and still hope that God’s true message of love and respect will reach his heart while he still has time on earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.