Ron is of course correct in noting that most people misquote Emerson.
Of course, as you will note, I don't.
--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "A Wise Consistency"
>
> 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" <colowe@> 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.
