Below is the transcript of Ron Paul’s farewell address to Congress:
This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the
end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36
year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote
peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of
individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the
latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis
and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine
our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in
size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject
the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the
American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet
from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal
government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career
in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named
legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In
spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes
remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible
regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without
Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant
and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in
our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded
liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A
grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the
well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give
up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one
penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and
subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending
continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As
the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth
burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total
resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made
compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since
neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the
march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this
coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as
a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.
If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all
personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity
and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history
has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of
authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all
individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people
should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough
sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated
those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful
British government.
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite
weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good
news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire
for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and
growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of
teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming
the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours,
once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to
deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts,
generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this.
But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the
notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to
involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is
why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The
majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that
sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to
be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly
opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from
the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth
and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last
100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been
insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth,
destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial
obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer
than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern
for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most
people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying
about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty
seemed unnecessary.
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by
government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those
who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far
surpasses money currently going into research and development and
productive entrepreneurial efforts.
The material benefits became more important than the understanding
and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good
that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all
that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity
would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense
that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system,
it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t
produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding
of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.
Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the
middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests
will continue.
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven
by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control
system to its knees.
If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring
liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our
crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism
and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a
large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how
our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with
bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal
Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t
succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE
indefinitely—that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this
and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The
rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be
pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism
adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves,
making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot
solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits,
inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be
ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good
results.
Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s
own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be
limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed
to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail,
through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the
politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on
gaining support from special interests.
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The
answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under
these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and
the quality of life improves.
Just this recognition—especially if we move in this
direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow
through with sound policies are required which must be understood and
supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the
present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty
and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions
become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than
the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to
this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a
wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.
We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the
notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material
abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we
have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.
The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty
and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and
benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one
that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to
protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has
failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787,
warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the
erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave
us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we
now live.
Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every
need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the
rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government
into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
Debt is growing exponentially.
The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly
for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the
international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and
militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:
Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold
held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S.
and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure
and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the
authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our
entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border
disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of
the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and
foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost
their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government
bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without
totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the
President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American
citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and
the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of
liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to
challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually
influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek
power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and
preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence,
or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced
redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the
world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate
false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility,
since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what
they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the
fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust,
the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse
these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a
consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification
of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to
come easy.
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and
trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are
now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past
several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many
Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want
the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are
impossible.
Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and
self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.
The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.
Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and
bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many
in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed
with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while
facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian
dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and
rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political
parties.
It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is
driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic
differences being minor.
Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive,
although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.
Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to
desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in
a deep slumber.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates
related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal
liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.
But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use
force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.
Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic
authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.
Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when
well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never
materialize. The new problems created require even more government
force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government
initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for
invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and
the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no
respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s
permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to
behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger
with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and
order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests,
and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a
proper search warrant.
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a
government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to
exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of
civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior
from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a
standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and
Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.
Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional
administrative courts.
Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in
social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor
should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things
peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity
just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in
these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of
political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11
monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no
longer required.
The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts
can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they
number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of
the legal system—especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug
war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6
million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets
ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I
don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to
continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory
sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison
problems.
The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has
72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start
shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive
use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is
needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole
objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject
the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.
Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts,
property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign
aggression.
A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to
mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward
tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the
process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.
There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary
safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our
wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a
foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for
goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our
debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the
impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are
starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis
and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher
the outcome will be.
Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few
understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that
has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential
growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of
the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march
toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.
Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they
want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there
is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a
“touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free
markets and government central economic planning is a worthy
compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.
And the results speak for themselves.
American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject
the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that
the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with
monopoly power to initiate violence against the American
people—practically at will.
Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept
it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of
guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally
justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly
believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”
The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to
suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the
majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,”
as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is
justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying
a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US
Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in
the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it”
to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the
mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home
and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.
The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is
the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits
and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence,
then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use
of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify
an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor
individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another
yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.
If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become
relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a
great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to
get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the
wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence
increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they
believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the
special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen,
they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into
undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over
the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced
that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer
just can’t be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no
remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All
moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges,
government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency,
it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced
redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the
instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most
members of Congress.
Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are
cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is
used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor.
Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to
those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed
on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too
many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money
out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an
end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is
all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use
of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to
live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must
be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount
of force is a dangerous concession.
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and
abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a
virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their
concerns were justified.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but
spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is
that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the
importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not
understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.
The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and
the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty
we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or
trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to
promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from
demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the
government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All
branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use
their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare
state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be
recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society
that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power
and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of
new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and
the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover
wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and
benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc
with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full
consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a
significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free
society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal
government controlled school system to provide the intellectual
ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens
our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media
complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is
why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government
regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support
greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and
corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in
the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to
alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need
to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they
truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is
impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to
seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness
only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive
manner possible, according to one’s own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal
satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment
needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only
gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a
bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal
achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our
goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the
politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual
leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from
rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and
aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without
accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow
the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the
politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the
freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who
seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive,
become the true victims.
What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.
1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.
2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the
phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign
policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no
business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our
national security will result.
3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress,
but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for
preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt,
unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in
wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger
of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.
5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting
involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world
currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple
moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a
suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic,
impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for
such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of
government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty,
was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace
and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results
especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every
government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of
millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to
use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.
Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.
This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results
are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of
force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence
has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty
and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has
been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually
permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards
as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John
signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to
believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can
instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message
that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the
obsession with war and welfare.
What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist
without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people
choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the
Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who
work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of
freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.”
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral
society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral
standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all
government officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope
that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on
changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous
society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value.
At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true
is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money
or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is
taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise
should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved
by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone
sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward
changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the
virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be
overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.
Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental
policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better
understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics.
Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is
popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic
interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are
swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding
that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many
to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals
making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these
misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses
voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying
to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for
achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people
world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.