(ThyBlackMan.com) It’s really frightening how many Americans are willing to listen to a guy like Ron Paul. The congressman is clearly one of two things – he’s either a typical demagogue, or an unthinking ideologue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction by pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then Ron Paul claims that his irresponsible solutions are a cure for all of the nation’s problems – solutions drawn from an outlandish philosophy, which, on its face, is a corruption of the U.S. Constitution, and would constitute an exercise in national destruction. Ron Paul is quoted as saying the following:
.
“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”
.
Ron Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which bears absolutely no resemblance to Paul’s interpretation. The preamble reads as follows:
.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
.
Thus, if Sen. Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Ron Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.
.
So in essence, Ron Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, Ron Paul can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.
.
Sen. Ron Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”
.
Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.
.
Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker, because that’s the price of total freedom.
Staff Writer; Eric L. Wattree
More thought provoking articles feel free to visit; The Wattree Chronicle.
A motivating discussion is worth comment. There’s no doubt that that you ought to write more on this subject,
it may not be a taboo subject but usually people do
not discuss these subjects. To the next! All the best!!
Dear Wattree,
This is a terrible piece. I don’t believe you fully understand what Libertarianism is. I am not a Libertarian myself, but I do see the value in such an ideology. You see Libertarianism in the same light as all other “conservative” ideologies, when it is in fact the most liberal ideology conceivable.
Also, in one of your responses you said “He’s employing the oldest demagogic ploy in politics. He’s simply appealing to your emotions to circumvent your common sense in order to get your support. What’s truly sad is that so many Americans are so undereducated and gullible.” That is exactly what Obama did in ’08. Obama is the demon child of Wall Street and Madison Avenue in my opinion. There is nothing genuine about Obama, it is all a hoax.
Hi Wattree,
I read the post, the comments, followed the links, and read the entire page about your family and the loss of your wife (my deepest condolences; As a person deeply in love myself I felt great empathy the moment I read about that), and I just feel like you’re a great example of a human, like myself, who has a lot of reason to think the way they do as a result of a subjective thought pattern.
You’ve said some things, the libertarian people who left comments have said some things, and I get the sense that you aren’t taking heed to the advice being offered about not only finding proper information but presenting your arguments in a convincing manner. I think if I brought an argument to you about libertarianism the way you’ve indirectly supplied this argument for statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) it would get about the same disrespect from people commenting. Aside from the misconceptions about the true nature of libertarianism, you often would make a claim and then either leave it dangling or defend it crudely with your emotional opinion. You are very good at kinda putting off a sassy attitude as you bite back at a straw man version of what libertarianism means. It doesn’t help you…
This link is much more unbiased and clearly stated, and I hope that you will, in your wisdom, gravitate toward a much cleaner approach to arguing your points.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1101a.asp
The irony of you flaunting your family credentials and marketable talents after defending welfare, promoting the voluntary exile of a free individual (Ron Paul forced to live in the wilderness so entitled people dont have to hear his ~crazy~ ideas), and suggesting that you are so defenseless that if the government didnt protect you or I from racism/terrorism nobody would, expresses how detached you are from causality and history (all of it, not just the parts on which you’ve focused). I’m sorry if the following is disappointing, but for all of your defense of statism, you are not an example of a person who had nothing, was provided welfare, and because of that picked yourself up to be a profitable individual. You did this on your own by the virtue of that liberty we still have intact to make our decisions as free agents in a positive sum game of commerce and pursuit of happiness. Take proper credit for your actions; you are a smart man.
Ron Paul has admonished the idea which so many neocons espouse that if you want to fix the debt you cut welfare and the host of domestic entitlements. He knows that the true failure in our economy is not in our good will, but in our corrupt fiat currency and out of control spending on countries that are not the USA. Do you disagree with that?
For the record, this Cuban/Sioux/Spanish/Jewish/French-canadian likes ThyBlackMan for its range of opinions, but this particular author may be a bit too fueled with vitriol over the current political climate and the possibility of an apocalyptic change to the shell game of politics into which we were all born to back up his ~infinitely apparent truths~.
Wattree;
I might believe you about your education if you could spell steak.
Wow, this is my first visit to this site and I am astounded at the ignorance of this writer. I would reproach no one for being ignorant of Ron Paul’s views but to write an article about it without first doing research is certainly a big mistake.
There are many points I would take issue with, but I think at the heart of the author’s disagreement with libertarianism is his belief that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the rights of individuals and the common good (or general welfare).
Part of what libertarians are arguing is just what the common good consists of. As libertarian Tom Palmer puts it, the common good is a “system of justice that allows all to live together in harmony and peace; a common good more extensive than that tends to be, not a common good for ‘all of us,’ but a common good for some of us at the expense of others of us.”
In any case, I appreciate the author bringing attention to ideas of libertarianism, if for no other reason to allow myself and others to correct some misunderstandings.
Mr. Wattree is siding with the plantation owner against the slaves.
Jeff Daiell
Do you see racial disparities in arrests and convictions as a problem?” Williams asked, to which Rep. Paul replied that there was a disparity– “it’s not that it’s my opinion– it’s very clear… blacks and minorities involved with drugs are arrested disproportionately.” He added that “rich white people don’t get the death penalty very often,” and that “most of these are victimless crimes.”
While Rep. Paul said he didn’t see how “we can do a whole lot about it,” he did noted that he believed the Drug War was a source of much of the tension. “This is a major thing going on and it unfairly hits minorities,” he suggested, adding “I’m quite sure Martin Luther King would be in agreement with this,” and, later “Martin Luther King would be in agreement with me on the wars,” because of his stance on Vietnam.
hey waltree. what do you think of Ron paul stating the us drug laws obama backs ,are rascist against african americans. legalize and stop the prison industrial complex that ron says is unfair to blacks/spanish. also Ron paul donated his medical servvices to interacial couples in the 70’s free of charge. please respond. thank you.
Your understanding of libertarianism is flawed.
Also, re: “the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,”” Your understanding of the meaning of the term ‘general’ is faulty.
It appears that this is a site that gets quite a bit of traffic. As such, it seems to me that places a certain amount of responsibility on you to to make your arguments based on at least a cursory amount of research.
What you present is a demonstration of complete ignorance of what libertarian philosophy states.
For the record.
It is not OK to pee against any body else’s wall. For practical purposes that goes for walls that are government property.
Libertarians have no problem with groups of people joining together for common goals. In fact we encourage it. The difference is that we prefer groups be formed by the voluntary actions of individuals in most cases.
I see you’ve been accused of giving a simplistic explanation of liberatarianism. It isn’t. Your premise is wrong from the very beginning.
I understand your beef with Ron Paul. Don’t let that cloud your judgement. If you really want to know what libertarians believe I entreat you to explore the philosophy a little bit. Believe it or not, there is a “left” side in the libertarian movement. That might be a good place for you to start. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left at; all-left.net/ is a good place to start.
I don’t really have time right now to address all the things the author brought up, but here are my initial thoughts:
Libertarianism is a philosophy dealing with non-coercive means to achieve your goals. In a libertarian society, force, the threat of force, and fraud would be prosecuted under the law. Any action that does not include infringing on someone else’s rights is perfectly acceptable. There are always exceptions but this is a general rule.
Mr. Wattree seems to be against the notion of “total personal freedom”. In taking this stance, he must then acknowledge that there are some freedoms that should be taken away from citizens. The question is then raised, “Who decides what freedoms to take?” and “How much freedom can people be trusted with?” Since we are all humans, everyone on the planet has the same rights as each other. And no one person’s rights are greater than anyone else’s. So, for Mr. Wattree to put himself in a position to be able to decide for others what rights they can or cannot enjoy is placing himself above his fellow man. Assuming you are superior to your fellow man is a dangerous view to have in a free society.
Oh, and JParker,
About my welfare check – I’m probably doing a lot better than you are, and I always will be, because I’m educated, know how to think, and have marketable skills that makes me immune to having to go out and beg another man for a job. When I wake up in the morning, my only concern is whether I’m gonna have bacon or stake with my eggs. How about you?
Jparker, you said,
“Must be a black man afraid he won’t get his welfare check.”
That’s a blatantly racist statement, but I want to thanke you for it. You make my point more eloquently than I ever could about the mentality of many Ron Paul supporters.
Black people need to stop letting themselves be divided based on one issue. The Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan could say, “Obama is not helping the Black man,” and there are Black people who will vote for him. these people know this about us, and they use it against us. They’ll tell us anything to get us to vote for them. Then they’ll get in office and cut our throats. Let’s stop being fools.
Ron Paul is a racist, senile, idiot. Wake up, man. Ron Paul doesn’t care about you, America, or your rights. All Paul cares about is creating a plutocracy. He’s employing the oldest demagogic ploy in politics. He’s simply appealing to your emotions to circumvent your common sense in order to get your support. What’s truly sad is that so many Americans are so undereducated and gullible.
Demagogues specialize in mixing fact with fiction. Simply because he can truthfully point out some of our problems doesn’t mean that his solutions, are either valid, or if he gained power he would actually employ those solutions: “All dogs have fleas. My cat has fleas. Therefore, my cat is a dog.” Can’t you see the fallacy in that?
Did the way that his son’s supporters treated the lady in video below look like people who were concerned about either freedom or human rights? I don’t think so. So what makes you think that if they gained power they would treat you any differently?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded
again, before he thought he needed your vote, his newsletter said,“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” So don’t be a fool, man. They’ve graphically demonstrated who they are, and you’re saying that the people who have sense enough to believe their “lying eyes” are sad?!!! Come on, man! Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
When I read some of these posts, it clearly demonstrates why we’re in such bad shape. Actually, it’s scary. After all we’ve been through, some of us haven’t learned a thing.
The good Ron Paul articles ((Ron Paul 2012 campaign, supporters, GOP Divide.)) get put in “OffTopic101” section, the decent Ron Paul topics ((Ron Paul 2012 libertarian revolution delegates, and now done.)) are posted in “Misc” section, while this flawed opinon trash is put in the “Politics” section.
That should tell you what you need to know.
The articles that are fairly written about Dr paul aren’t allowed to drink from the water fountain in the Politics section.
Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.
The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It’s a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.
A much larger issue is how might we interpret the deafening silence about the day-to-day murder in black communities compared with the national uproar over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Such a response by politicians, civil rights organizations and the mainstream news media could easily be interpreted as “blacks killing other blacks is of little concern, but it’s unacceptable for a white to kill a black person.”
Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker, because that’s the price of total freedom.
This is a thought-provoking article? This is worthy of any street corner madman’s rant. Congratulations.
Trickle down economics was a scam.both sides backed nafta. This country is broke due to the crony cApitalism involving government and supranational corporations. The so called rich pay 70% of all taxes and 50% of Americans pay no tax at all. Stop picking fights against the wrong enemy. Look at monetary policy and inflation due to federaL reserve central banking. The red vs blue team paradigm is a distraction. Ron Paul has balls for speaking against the wars and military industrial complex and if you don’t care about that you should applaud dr paul for voting for the decriminalize of drugs. He actually says the federal war on drugs targets minorities in unfair numbers. The war on drugs kills more people then the drugs. But hey he is too crazy and doesn’t want freedom so forget it. Good job with the kids, your hardwork shows dividends
Oh, and one other thing, Jr. You asked,
“Are you personal involved in educating your kids or are you too busy with work and demand the state do it for you?”
Yes I did. I educated both my son, and my daughter. They are both now highly educated adults, and they are both doing better than me.
http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/fathers-pride.html
Jr.,
Open your eyes! Ron Paul doesn’t want you to be free. He want’s to change the laws and institutions so the POWERFUL will be free to exploit you. It’s the very same game they ran on you regarding “trickle-down” economics. They convinced America to pay the rich people’s taxes and they would use that money to rain prosperity down on you. Are you feeling any rain, or prosperity?
Don’t be so dumb.
James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudice Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.
Ron Paul views every human being as an unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights.
how has the federal dept of education worked out for you? no child left behind or race to the top. is the government the provider for you? are you personal involved in educating your kids or are you too busy with work and demand the state do it for you?
Ron paul wants you to be free. why is that crazy?
Must be a black man afraid he won’t get his welfare check.
By the way, Daddysteve and PJ, what’s your names?
DaddySteve,
It’s not so much that the critique is simplistic, it’s just that it’s a simple concept and easy to see through if your mind is not in such a fog that you don’t want to open your eyes. Over complicating very simple concepts is one of the demagogues most potent divices for confusing the minds of simple minded people.
Ron Paul’s basic appeal to White bigots is that his philosophy is a direct assault on the rationale that underpens all civil rights legislation, including school desegregation, the laws against housing discrimination, and Equal Employment opportunity.
You see, what he actually wants to do is abolish government, which means all the laws that protect our civil rights. “Limited government” is nothing but fascist code for that concept. When you limit government, that creats a vacuum of power, and vacuums are never left dormant. So when you create a vacuum of power, somebody is always going to step in to fill that vacuum, and it’s invaribly the most powerful and ruthless people in the society. That’s why government was created in the first place, to protect us from such people.
So what the people who are dumb enough to want to abolish government fail to understand is, regardless to how ineffective they think our government is, at least they have the right to vote. But if we abolish it, they’ll be at the complete mercy of the ruthless and powerful – and without any laws to protect their rights. And as Black people we should be particularly concerned about that. Here’s what Ron Paul’s newsletter said about us: “I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Thus, what Ron Paul is actually calling for is a form of corporate fuedalism, where the nation is run by corporations, and Blackwater enforces the “law” – and we’ve see an example of libertarian justice at a Rand Paul rally (Ron’s son) below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded
So I hope that’s detailed and specific enough for you, Daddysteve. But I get the feeling that I could call the Devil evil and you’d say it was simplistic. Some people are like that when they’re presented with something they don’t want to hear.
Eric
To “PJ”, actually his name is on the article and it is not junk. There is a lot wrong with the Libertarian ideology but it takes a degree of common wisdom to see them as on their face they seem good. But the heart of this writer’s argument is that we are many people in America, not one individual. And what Ron Paul’s supporters think is that “the good old days” of “White only” bathrooms and water fountains will come back if the government stayed out of things, and for some strange reason, they think that that would be better for Whites. History has proved that Blacks did a lot better under segregation because they created their own.
Another thing to look at is the belief of unregulated business. That’s crazy on it’s face. Not to mention the Constitution is what created business and therefore, regulates business.
@daddysteve – the critique can be seen as simplistic, but so are the arguments of Ron Paul that support his crazy ideology.
If your gonna write this garbage, at least have the balls to put your name on it. That should be enough to turn readers off right there, a so called journalist who won’t put their name on their so called articles. Sounds a lot like the magazine I seen at the Walmart counter the other day. The headline read that a giant octopuses would come out of the sky and kidnap every American citizen on May 16th.
You’re critique is simplistic……very simplistic.