Welcome to PatsFans.com

Ron Paul: Government Cannot Protect Us

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Terry Glenn is a cowgirl, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,883
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

    Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

    The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
    Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

    I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

    Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

    http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/250407Paul.htm
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,845
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    I read this earlier in the week, Ron Paul makes some salient points here. As bad as the VT tragedy was, the reality is that about 10 million kids go to college everyday safely. To just create more laws, a knee jerk to 'blue ribbon" panels without thinking about consequence is not a good thing for this country. To believe that the government on any level can correct the wrongs of this shooting is flat out wrong.

    I really like his last paragraph:

    "Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The only true conservative on the GOP ticket and our resident reich wingers seem to hate him because he opposes the occupation.

    Lets see, who else is there?

    Crossdressing Rudy? Liberal
    Multiple Choice Mitt? Uber Liberal
    John McCave? Ummm...liberal when it suits him.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,646
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    His lofty talk sounds very nice, but the fact is running a society is not as simple as protecting liberty. We have all sorts of processes and rules that make sense. People are required to have auto insurance, a sort of socialist tool. Bridging the states requires both a sound legal framework and funding for such things as interstate highways and railroads. Providing a basic level of protection requires that police and the state have certain rights in certain situations. While, we don't want too much government interference, a society of 250 million may sometimes collectively come up with rules that help people. Freedom is not being lured into carrying a gun because you know everyone else on the bus or train carries a gun. Freedom is not living in fear because you know you live in a gun crazed society. Ron Paul, like many Republicans, poses simple answer to complex questions, and in my opinion they're not very useful.
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Since when do you advocate less government interference? OK...who are you and what did you do with Patters?

    Maybe our society is too large to be able to manage in a free way as Paul describes. Maybe it's time to break up the team into more natural states capable of self-government without the need for extreme security and government control. The northeast gets to keep the flag.

    Just throwing it out there.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2007
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I know you are a big fan of government. Two weeks ago Bill Bradley was asked on Maher what has govt done for us lately. His answer??

    We sent man to the moon.:rofl:

    He couldn't think of anything more current apparently. I'd tend to agree with Maher on this one: this government hasn't worked for the people in quite some time. Its worked well for corporate hegemonists, but thats about it.

    Why? Its bloated, inefficient, and completely hamstrung by special interests. It is no longer for the people or by the people, and thats the painful truth.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,646
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I don't dispute that government isn't perfect, but compared with any other large group it's not bad. Compare government with corporations or unions or the Catholic Church or any other kind of group (engineers, atheists, plant lovers, etc.), and chances are it will be overall as honest and effective as those groups.

    The one thing government has (and a key to my thinking about government) is that by law it it comparatively open. It can't easily hide its mistakes and corruption, like other groups can. It's meetings, it's records, it's rules are part of the public record. Even the corrupt Bush administration hasn't faired too well on keeping everything it wants secret (though they continue to try).

    What has government done? Where do I begin? Ended slavery, made civil rights the law of the land, created the GI bill, electrified rural America, created a good judicial system, ensured some sort of education for everyone, passed laws that protect the environment, established OSHA, brought about treaties, etc. etc. The list is enormous.

    If someone shows me things that can be cut and areas where there can be more efficiency, I'm all for it. Anyone in their right mind would be for that. But, a lot of people seem to believe that capitalism is some sort of economic elixir that within its own framework solves every economic problem. That's simply not true. The system needs modification, guidance, and oversight on a regular basis, because it's run by the most unpredictable thing: human beings. In this age of technology, people seem to believe that one can identify patterns and perfect processes for systems that rely on the arbitrary and random nature of humanity. We have to resign ourselves to the limitations of the species.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    It's been that way for 50 years now.
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    All of these things seem like ancient history to me. Anything in say the last 10 years that sticks out?? I can't think of anything.

    Maybe the internet? Spun off of private investment. New drugs? Same thing. Environmental technology. Ditto.

    RW is right. But I disagree with his timetable. This government has been incompetant garbage since the 60s-early 70s IMO.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,646
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Well, in the last 10 years or so we see the Family Leave Act, renewal of the Voting Rights Act, and of course the multitude of programs that protect us and our economy (OSHA, FDA, SEC, the military, etc.).

    The Republicans haven't passed any new programs or even optimized things. Their basic strategy is to complain about a program, cut it so it gets even worse, and then call for the program's elimination. The current government is particularly corrupt, inept, and bad, but that doesn't mean all its programs are bad. Many of these programs were put into place in other times.

    Many pork barrel projects help spawn new technologies and manage aspects of our economy that seem not to work within the confines of a free market -- farming is probably the best example. Also, as terrible as FEMA was in the aftermath of Katrina, there are a number of government programs that did work to provide people with emergency housing, low cost loans, and grants.
  11. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I stuck my nose in here for the first time in over a year to actually say anything pertinent and to monitor conversation here. (Hmmm, seems kinda empty without him around:) )

    I was going to link Ron Paul's site because for the first time in a generation, I am actually excited about a Presidential candidate. Shoulda known it would have been discussed and dissected by now......

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>