by US Representative Ron Paul (R)
at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul155.html
Before the US House of Representatives, February 11, 2004
A wise consistency is the foundation of a free society.
Yet everyone knows, or thinks they know, that consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson
been quoted to belittle a consistent philosophy defending freedom?
Even on this floor I have been rebuked by colleagues with this quote,
for pointing out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and
precisely following our oath to uphold the Constitution.
The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It's considered
beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting consistency;
otherwise the self-criticism would be more than most Members could
take. The comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an
attitude that consistency not only is unnecessary, but detrimental.
For this reason Emerson's views are conveniently cited to justify
pragmatism and arbitrary intervention in all our legislative
endeavors.
Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil beliefs.
Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these views, however.
Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees
philosophic competition. For instance, the views in Hong Kong
eventually won out over the old communism of the Chinese mainland.
But it can work in the other direction. If the ideas of socialism,
within the context of our free society, are permitted to raise their
ugly head, it may well replace what we have, if we do not
consistently and forcefully defend the free market and personal
liberty.
It's quite a distortion of Emerson's views to use them as
justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out
of Washington today. But, the political benefits of not needing to be
consistent are so overwhelming that there's no interest in being
philosophically consistent in one's votes. It is a welcome
convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment,
the congressional district, or one's political party. Therefore, it's
quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a
hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean
one's willingness to give up one's own personal beliefs in order to
serve the greater good whatever that is. But it is not possible to
preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are
no stronger than this. Otherwise something will replace our republic
that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something is not
known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we
have.
As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in
defending political views that were deemed worthy and correct.
Emerson clearly explained the consistency he was criticizing. He was
most annoyed by a foolish consistency. He attacked bull-headedness,
believing that intellectuals should be more open-minded and tolerant
of new ideas and discoveries. His attack targeted the flat-earth
society types in the world of ideas. New information, he claimed,
should always lead to reassessment of previous conclusions. To
Emerson, being unwilling to admit an error and consistently defending
a mistaken idea, regardless of facts, was indeed a foolish
consistency. His reference was to a character trait, not sound
logical thinking.
Since it's proven that centralized control over education and
medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing
these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized
planning, this is much closer to Emerson's foolish consistency than
defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful
manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.
Emerson's greatest concern was the consistency of conformity.
Nonconformity and tolerance of others obviously are much more
respected in a free society than in a rigidly planned authoritarian
society.
The truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him
against those who rigidly and consistently defend a free society,
cherish and promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A
wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed
today than any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent
policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical
junction, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish
inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a
few:
Conservatives Who Spend: Conservatives for years have preached fiscal
restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have
rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size
of government, while supporting a new-found religion that preaches
deficits don't matter. According to Paul O'Neill, the Vice President
lectured him that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less
government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called
neo-conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many
Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will
come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing
government growth is impossible. Is it any wonder the national debt
is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year? Even today,
the only _expression_ of concern for the deficit seems to come from
liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we
have gone.
Free Trade Fraud Neo-mercantilism: Virtually all economists are for
free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many
quickly add, "Yes, but it should be fair." That is, free trade is
fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism
is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free
trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms
a different group of citizens like importers and savers in
competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many
so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international
agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more
than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and
sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are
more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance
true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal
commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it
mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation.
Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are
used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.
Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored. But simply
put, one ought to have the right to spend one's own money any way one
wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic
benefit for our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve
production here at home. It also puts pressure on us to reassess the
onerous regulations and tax burdens placed on our business community.
Monopoly wages that force wage rates above the market also are
challenged when true free trade is permitted. And this, of course, is
the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes higher-than-market
wages, and business likes less competition. In the end, consumers
all of us suffer. Ironically, the free traders in Congress were the
most outspoken opponents of drug reimportation, with a convoluted
argument claiming that the free-trade position should prohibit the
reimportation of pharmaceuticals. So much for a wise consistency!
Following the Constitution Arbitrarily, Of Course: Following the
Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and
conservatives at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and
most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or
another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the
Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one's opponents, when
convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent
voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish
one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome
reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to
massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring
the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited
government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no
problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government
expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of
office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government
power is rarely followed.
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain: Paper money and inflation
have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced
freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a
financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a
consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from
central-bank monetary inflations the depressions and inflation,
unemployment, social chaos, and war the only answer has been to
inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists,
the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and
exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by
Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the
stock market slump and a slower economy namely a record monetary
stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to
blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve's previous errors, though the
evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United
States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate
information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the
truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of
inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are
politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long
term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in
order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the
addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary
stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it
inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in
all areas personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices
are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and
overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without
liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in
Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans
still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money,
mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems,
along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from
our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow
more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk
about a foolish consistency! It's time for our leaders to admit the
error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the
advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank
inflationary policies.
Alcohol Prohibition For Our Own Protection: Alcohol prohibition was
a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally
woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking
continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much
more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in
the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole
experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did
not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in
the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount
of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to
advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a
medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous
crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into
the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced.
Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that
a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory
sentences sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses is a
popular political stand. Facts don't count, and we can't bend on
consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are
flooded with non-violent drug users 84% of all federal prisoners
but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on
drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients' need for legitimate
prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their
ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous
law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and
at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of
the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer
today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, "Heroin
clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the
stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of
health." Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it
describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies
undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug
war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We
should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions,
and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting
regulation by the states alone.
FDA and Legal Drugs For Our Own Protection: Our laws and attitudes
regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly
exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based
on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and
drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that
bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can
efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at
reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that
in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them
from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great
savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online
slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the
legal expenses, and don't get the friendly treatment that politically
connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer
promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not
available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No,
our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own
decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven
safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of
making mistakes, even after years of testing. It seems criminal when
cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and
pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free
society! For those who can't get a potentially helpful drug but might
receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own
back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA
comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients.
Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to
injury.
Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were
written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our
country had much greater respect for individual choices and state
regulations in all health matters. The nanny state is relatively new,
but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the
dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications,
never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding
illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It
was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available
over the counter. However, Ephedra used by millions for various
reasons and found in nature was made illegal as a result of one
death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own
decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will
probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can
never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well
have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and
responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This
reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom
and responsibility.
Foreign Policy of Interventionism General: Our foreign policy of
interventionism offers the best example of Emerson's foolish
inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become,
our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world.
Most of the time our failures prompt even greater intervention,
rather than less. Never yielding to the hard cold facts of our
failures, our drive to meddle and nation-build around the world
continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our
meddling a term our CIA invented prompts us to spend endlessly
while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Refusing even to consider the failure of our own policies is
outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special
interests and the military-industrial complex, molded with patriotic
jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy.
Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that
average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous
and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war
propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail.
Certainly the wise consistency of following the Constitution has
little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our
militarism over the last hundred years would have made us more
reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates
us more each day.
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the
Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East,
could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into
World War I to satisfy Wilson's ego led to a disastrous peace at
Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-
advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing
guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide
conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have
prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century
Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden,
Saddam Hussein, and many others only to regret it once the
unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported
turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement
such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the
wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the
foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally
would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over
the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure
in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its
policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to
a failed policy a foolish consistency as our leaders have
repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail
despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled
consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy
making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war
against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass
destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that
Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but
essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little
concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies
refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without
the United Nations was proper under our notion of national
sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to
war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S.
Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct
declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going
badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over
the transition except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund
that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The
contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too
numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine
of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or
consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people
and world peace will suffer.
Promoting Democracy An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed: Promoting
democracy is now our nation's highest ideal. Wilson started it with
his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His
utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his
naïveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back
tragedies of World War I and World War II. It's hard to imagine the
rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But
this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting
U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in
Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring
democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are
demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United
States. But our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet
ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in
Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration doesn't
want. Democratic elections will have to wait.
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on
others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never
hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of
meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results.
Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought
over the past hundred years, few question the principle and
legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the
seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism,
the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial
complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of
our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500
body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the
administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of
thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American
people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is
unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace
result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing
countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful
example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: "American engagement
abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries
where we've become involved." So far, the peace in Iraq that is,
the period following the declared end of hostilities has set the
stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial
state. A U.S.-imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the
Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in
this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while
retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can
result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the
festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers.
The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to
the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and
hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish
policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson's utopianism of
making the world safe for democracy, let's try a new approach:
The internal affairs and the need for nation building in Iraq are
none of our business.
Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and
the private-property/free-market order through persuasion and
example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or
preemptive war.
We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves
and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as
destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single
Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite
majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)
A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for
each state or province, is the only hope in a situation like this.
But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government
here in the United States, we can't possibly be the ones who will
impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles
away no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type
of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an
understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an
intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other
reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to
maintain an empire circling the globe. It's a Sisyphean task to
rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems
mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and
demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste
billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands
around the world.
The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive
branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper
declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to
spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to
the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to
our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman.
We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus
lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree with great sadness
for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a
good peace I can only say, I disagree and hope I'm wrong.
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government A Convenience or Necessity?
Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is
understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our
enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans,
with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly
address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining
liberty! It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it.
It's tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the
argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power.
But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for
safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does
not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future
attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is
a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly
defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more
properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the
time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with
conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the
temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that
behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist-planted
bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some
become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is
achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the
terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness.
This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive
throughout the world, the neo-conservatives who want to bring about
various regime changes for other reasons conveniently latch onto
these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our
expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the
Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do
all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders
to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from
Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it's invading Iraq,
threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it's
now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and
the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to
do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One
would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation
becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our
flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American
people were frightened into supporting this war because they were
told that Iraq had: "25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of
botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas;
significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes
used in developing nuclear weapons." The fact that none of this huge
amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned
from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found,
doesn't pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely
look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of
potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus
lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few
weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat
to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks.
If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader even a bad one
incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse
if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say
that in time we'll come to realize that our invasion has made us less
safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant
Muslim groups that want us out of their countries including the
majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we
find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin
Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to
their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war
to end.
First: The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims, see
us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way
from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it's
to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy
of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this
region, it just doesn't matter few over there believe us.
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That attack was
just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought
Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the
European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on,
to some degree, since World War II, but was dramatically accelerated
in 1991 with the first Persian Gulf invasion along with the collapse
of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered
Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of
this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have
removed these troops.
Third: If these facts are ignored, there's no chance that the United
Statesled Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed
(70% of the world's oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea
regions). Without a better understanding of the history of this
region, it's not even possible to define the enemy, know why they
fight, or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks
and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that
the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an
unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to
ever ending the war.
Judicial Review: Respect for the original intent of the Constitution
is low in Washington. It's so low, it's virtually non-existent. This
causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The
Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and
it's no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That
method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it
to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is
accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not
declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN
Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come
afterward usually following the war's failure in the political
arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of
war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats,
with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority.
Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that
creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even
the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little
controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used
to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This
attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who
bragged: " stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!" This is
quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint
on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or
legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of
the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee
chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is
unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make
such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an
informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the
debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said "We know
it's bad, but we'll let the courts clean it up." And look what
happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever-
growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts
to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray,
we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by
writing laws, rubber-stamping bad legislation, or overruling state
laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant
of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the
Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do
to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It's
clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding
freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that
federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the
remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction
of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts,
including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten
Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the
issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states.
A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my
proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
Conclusion: Emerson's real attack was on intellectual conformity
without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired
facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The
greatest open-minded idea I'm aware of is to know that one does not
know what is best for others, whether it's in economic, social, or
moral policy, or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows
what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed
mind. Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge.
Governments are no more capable of running an economy made fair for
everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for
their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between
that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they
know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on
government for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to
government for all guidance and security.
Continuously ignoring Emerson's advice on self-reliance is indeed a
foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of
the militant nanny state follow. And it's an armed state, domestic as
well as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what's best for them,
while the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into
submission and obedience to every law and regulation, most of which
are incomprehensible to the average citizen. Ask three IRS agents for
an interpretation of the tax code and you will get three different
answers. Ask three experts in the Justice Department to interpret the
anti-trust laws, and you will get three different answers. First
they'll tell you it's illegal to sell too low, then they'll tell you
it's illegal to sell too high, and it's certainly illegal if
everybody sold products at the same price. All three positions can
get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for first, undermining
competition, second, for having too much control and gouging the
public, and third, for engaging in collusion. The people can't win.
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society
that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise
is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of
grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and
respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free
society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos, or libertine behavior.
Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic
rules must be followed and can be enforced by government most
suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all
voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection
of all life, and established standards for private property ownership
are the three principles required for a free society to remain
civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the
family, the tribe, or some regional or state entity.
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not
omnipotent, but also the confidence that true liberty generates the
most practical solution to all our problems, whether they are
economic, domestic security, or national defense. Short of this, any
other system generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy
failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this
end, not our military budget, which brought the Soviets to their
knees.
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative,
productive, or spiritual on one's own terms, and encourages
excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at
the expense of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to
strive for these very same goals. To understand the difference is
crucial to the survival of a free society.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cory,
>
> Nice strawman, but no bucket. Nowhere did I imply or hint or
> indicate that anyone not agreeing with what I say things mean is
> the moral equivalent of an anti-Semite.
>
> Let me re-word my point. The part of one's philosophy that agrees
> with drug prohibition is prejudiced and bigoted (supports
> aggression). It is easy for a libertarian to explain how drug
> prohibition is all those things (prejudice, bigotry, aggression).
> So it is your task to explain how it is not - and therefore why
> that particular libertarian principle should be
> changed/eliminated.
>
> No one here is saying principles can not be discussed, but you
> seem to be confusing the discussion of principles with their
> elimination/reduction.
>
> For example: Let's discuss Emerson's quote. It can be taken two
> ways:
> 1.) "foolish" consistency vs "wise" consistency;
> 2.) all consistency is foolish.
> If #2 is true, then technically it implodes itself. An
> assertion/statement implies a truth. A truth implies consistency.
> Kaboom! Or maybe he is just commenting on the smallness of his
> own mind. Maybe he should have said: "It is consistently true
> that anyone who claims consistency is consistently stupid." Maybe
> I should say, "typing is illogical". So let's assume Emerson is
> not stupid and #1 is true - and his quote loses any philosophical
> value for this discussion.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> "How does the Libertarian Party...allow..."
>
> How?
>
> Well, to begin with by recognizing that not every disagreement
> with what
> YOU say things mean does not make the dissident the moral
> equivalent of
> an anti-Semite. (No doubt you meant to say Nazi but feared being
> called
> on Godwin's Rule.)
>
> Then by recognizing that reasonable minds can differ about what
> general
> principles mean especially when applied to actual situations.
>
> Finally by understanding that no one person or clique defines
> precisely
> what any political party stands for.
>
>
>
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
>
> -Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
