Today it is usual to assume that the government owns all that we produce, and through government generosity we are permitted to retain a certain portion. We routinely hear that if a particular tax is reduced, it will be a “cost” to government. This concept must be changed if the idea of individual liberty is to survive. There is no such thing as cost to government. There is only cost to people. Government cannot grant to us our right to life
and liberty, it would mean that government controls all that we produce. Sadly this is essentially the situation in which we find ourselves today.–pg. 16
We all naively and obediently become tax collectors for the government, turning over the loot that the politicians will waste as they further destroy our right to live as we choose.–pg. 16
Americans today have more people living on the street than ever before, in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to eradicate poverty. Of course, logic tells us that if you subsidize poverty, you’ll get more of it.–pg.18
Until it’s respectable once again to champion individual rights and government, we cannot expect to reverse the trend in which we as Americans find ourselves.–pg. 18
Hey Uri,
Rick directed me to your blog. Yet another libertarian I come into contact with (I had never had any exposure to libertarianism until I moved down here). Anyway, I’ve been reading up on it a bit, and slowly coming to understand what it is all about. In the process I came across this piece. Wondering what you think of it.
Hey Jake, it is great to hear from you.
Just a couple of points.
a) I respect Michael Spencer (internet monk). He is a good man who has done some great things for the gospel. His ministry to the poor is honorable.
b) His reasons for disassociating himself from Dr. Paul are extremely personal. That is, Internetmonk works with blacks, Hispanics, Koreans, etc. On the other hand, Ron Paul was at one time (maybe 20 years ago) associated with some people who spoke out against welfarism and made some remarks that would deem to be racist. I am sure I associated myself with people who held to different ideas contrary to mine, but does that mean I am to be held accountable?
c) It is true that some of the remarks were a bit too severe, but were they all false? For instance: http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_kirchick_homophobia_claim_actually_true.htm
d) The President of the NAACP in Austin, Texas said that Ron Paul could never be a racist. Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. See http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_naacp_president_rp_not_racist.htm
e) Though these newsletters were printed in Ron Paul’s name, Paul cannot keep up with all things at the same time nor can he edit everything. At the time Dr. Paul was practicing medicine, delivering babies, and doing other things there were seven newsletters being printed under his name. He could not monitor everything while doing all that he was doing at the time. Paul has apologized for not being stricter on the writers of the newsletters.
f) Most importantly, those who wrote those letters could not be libertarians, because libertarians do not see things in collectivist terms, rather they see people as individuals. Libertarians do not see groups of black and groups of white, rather they see individual people with unique God-given rights.
h) In the end, it is what Paul’s policies are that matters, not what someone wrote using his name 20 years ago. The truth is to make Dr. Paul a racist would require someone to re-write all his policies. Paul is actually the only one who speaks about abolishing the unnecessary drug laws which discriminates against blacks.
Okay, great. Thanks for the reply, Uri. All helpful in getting my head around all of this.