Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Politics

‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

Nov. 15, 2012 8:40pm Christopher Santarelli

Retiring Rep. Ron Paul gave his farewell address yesterday from the floor, bringing an end to over two decades in Congress and a career that featured three presidential campaigns. The libertarian stalwart’s over 45-minute address summed up the major causes throughout his career: an unabridged defense of liberty, commitment to peace at all costs, defamation of taxes, and a call for monetary policy reform. Detractors took Paul’s feelings along the lines of: the government is broken, and Congress is a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians.

Still, it’s difficult for critics to argue for another Congressman of Paul’s generation that has had such a profound ideological influence on the electorate. With his son Rand Paul now in the Senate with like minded colleagues such as Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, its clear that Rep. Paul’s ideas will still be argued for in Washington for some time to come. On ‘Real News’ Thursday the panel discussed the Texas Congressman’s legacy and the future of libertarian ideas within the Republican Party.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (104)

leonardo44
Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:24am
SE Cupp has to go. Every time she opens her mouth she gives me a headache. She’s a pandering phony who is so full of herself.
MIchelle Fields was a good addition to the libertarian discussion. Hope to see her on the panel again.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 9:13am
  Rita_Pita
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 5:49am
  Libertarians don’t seem to understand that without a strong national defense, their freedom is worthless.
  ====================
  
  Conservatives don’t seem to understand what America’s Founding Fathers already knew more than two centuries ago:
  
  ———————–
  “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
  -James Madison, Political Observations, April 20, 1795
  
  Report this comment
- Classical Liberal
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 1:50pm
  SE was terrible in that debate! She acted like a blowhard and sacrificed constitutional conservatism for faith based values? In other words, alienate all non-Christians from the traditional message of liberty because we want them to believe what we believe? That’s asinine!
  
  SE shows us exactly what is wrong with the republican establishment in this debate and why the Republican Party is fading into obscurity. Their are many Americans who would vote for liberty, they just don’t believe that the Republican Party is selling it.
  
  Report this comment
blackstone22
Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:18am
I am so tired of S E Cupp talking over everyone especially because she has NOTHING to say and then she takes forever to say nothing. Please get rid of her Blaze. S E was so rude to the guest panelist Michelle Fields who actually espoused true libertarian views, not the shameless pandering that S E gives us every time she opens her mouth. Plus it was great to hear the latina perspective from Ms Fields, exactly what is needed to win back the white house in four years. I hope we see more from Ms Fields at The Blaze and a lot less of SE Cupp.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:59pm
Wow. The MS(fake-conservative)M can’t seem to get enough of Ron Paul… now that he’s safely OUT OF POSITION to threaten the leftist republican party.

No, the leftist republican party is finished. OVER.

The Constitution Party.
The Libertarian Party.
State nullification.
NOW!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Small World
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:03pm
SO is this M. Fields chick a mole ????? I’m so confused.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Small World
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:02pm
Scott Walker stirring things up over Obamacare @dailycaller.com Now there is a good Gov.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Libertarian
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:32pm
  S.E.Cupp’s thinking is why Obama won. She is mistaken.
  
  Libertarians are stronger on the constitution than conservatives are. Ron Paul as a candidate was stronger on the constitution than any other candidate.
  
  Ron Paul republicans would do more for the pro-life movement than the Santorum’s could even dream of doing. Ron Paul stated in the debates that if we go back to and live by the 10th amendment, doing so would repeal Roe vs. Wade. As we know there was only one individual on the Republican platform that would have actually followed the constitution, voting records prove that.
  
  Ron Paul doesn’t want government in the business of marriage, he believes in small government – that we should put marriage back in the churches where it belongs. By “voting” on marriage it gives the gay agenda a platform to scream from. Be small government and say that the state should not recognize marriage, any marriage. This issue is where conservatives want big government, by supporting a federal amendment. Libertarians are more small government on this issue than conservatives.
  
  Really where libertarians disagree with conservatives is on the hugely successful (sarcasm) drug war and on foreign policy. So there are essentially 2 issues.
  
  Foreign policy is easily supported by the founders words from Washington, Jefferson to the Monroe doctrine libertarians are hands down correct on this issue. Economics is the answer to “getting along”.
  
  Drugs is a states issue, period
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:44pm
  When it comes to gay marriage, abortion, etc……
  
  The federal government cannot fix a problem it did not create. The federal government cant even fix the problems it DOES create
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:14pm
  Libertarian, You are right on the money.
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:02pm
SE’s characterization of the small-federal-government libertarian ideology was disgusting……

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:11pm
  She’s not very bright. Plus that blood lust thing she has going on makes her very unappealing personally.
  
  Report this comment
- dealer@678
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:11pm
  But what did you think about Michelle.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:16pm
  Hopefully my fellow libertarians realize the folly of thinking republicans care about freedom and the constitution. They only play it lip service, then when behind closed doors they violate the peoples rights just as bad as the dems. The GOP deserves to go the way of the whigs. Only 3 good republican congressman and one just retired.
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:40pm
  SE is duped like a lot of people on Ron Paul and does not understand him or his philosophy. He is labeled a Libertarian, but he is a Conservative Republican with Libertarian leanings, like myself. There is a difference. Words of Ron Paul:
  “We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact,the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” – Ron Paul
  His stance has always been that of individual Liberty based on Constitutional principles, that the states, not the federal government, decides all these issues.
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:55pm
  I couldn’t agree more. The problem with Ms. Cupp’s thinking is that she is only thinking in a utilitarian (hedonistic) fashion: e.g. “all voters care about is if your policies are good for them”. Freedom, liberty, libertarianism is not based on this type of thinking. It is based on moral truths: like man was created free, it is morally wrong to use force against your fellow man, it is morally wrong to rob your fellow man.
  
  With all of the “Religious Right” conservatives in the GOP, why is it that Ron Paul and libertarians are the only people talking about MORALS in government? The answer is that Religious-right-conservatives have no moral conviction, many of them are statists just like democrats, and have no respect for the rights and beliefs of their fellow man. They need a strong federal government to force their beliefs on their fellow man, rather than advocating for an open market where Christian ideas and ideals can compete for the hearts and minds of individuals, they wish to carve out a governmental niche where their ideas can exist to the exclusion of others. This is no different then democrat atheists wishing to force prayer out of schools, or force your kids to listen to their evolutionist theology.
  
  We have a two party system, but we have a one philosophy system: statism… conservatives need to wake up and understand that their breed of statism is just as evil as socialist statism. Ron Paul and libertarians under stand this, and we’re waiting for you t
  
  Report this comment
- PorkPIG
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 8:33am
  While I disagree with he views on Libertarians , I also like her because she takes on the Liberals on their turf . She will see the light sooner or later becuase without Us Paulbots and Libertarains on board the Gop will shrink and become non existent .
  
  Report this comment
dealer@678
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:01pm
Soy, where are you. This is your kind of meat

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:07pm
  sorry – missed you by a minute
  
  Report this comment
WINNEBAGOMAN
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:01pm
I am just learning who Michelle Fields is. I’ve enjoyed and respected S.E. Cupp as a conservative voice for a long time now. But during this discussion, it appeared to me that S.E. was unaware of anything Dr. Paul was about, and Michelle Fields definitely had a handle on what he was all about. It was a losing argument for Cupp from the jump, when she talked about Libertarianism being pro-choice. Wrong… sort of. Libertarieans believe in individual rights. Ron Paul believed one became an “individual” with Constitutional protections at conception. No ALL Libertarians think that way, but I would say (as a person who considers himself to be a bit of a Libertarian) most do side with Ron Paul on the Life issue.

U.S. out of the U.N. – U.N. out of the U.S.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ShyLow
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:44pm
Rand Paul 2016 !!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
justangry
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:36pm
Hey Blaze, if you fire S.E. Cupp and hire Michelle Fields, I’d consider subscribing.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WiredRight
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:43pm
  2x
  
  Report this comment
- dealer@678
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:02pm
  Giddy up !!!!
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:04pm
  i cant believe SE Cupp would rather keep a “values” platform than shrink government…..
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:13pm
  She’s even an athiest, Soy. Her fascism isn’t based on anything.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:29pm
  ahaha – i forgot about that. LMAO. So she is just a political hack then
  
  Report this comment
- Libertarian
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:45pm
  Rofl. No doubt. She is an atheist and subscribes to using God for political gain.
  
  Ron Paul is a strong believer in Jesus Christ and part of his statement on faith was that he would not use the Lord to further his political career. He is an honorable man.
  
  Report this comment
- Libertarian
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:47pm
  Absolutely, this would be a very good business move. She is hot and smart. Did I mention she is hot?
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:56pm
  Her fascism is well paid for.
  
  Report this comment
KidCharlemagne
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:21pm
The GOP is quickly dying:

———————————————-
GOP’s amnesty suicide
Thursday, November 15, 2012

Republicans are on the verge of committing suicide. In the wake of President Obama’s re-election, many conservatives are demanding the GOP embrace amnesty for illegal aliens. The official term is “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Sean Hannity has now “evolved” on the issue. Others, such as Dick Morris and Charles Krauthammer, are ringing the alarm bells: Get in front on amnesty before the GOP is swamped by the surging Latino vote.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/gops-amnesty-suicide/

There may not be a GOP in four years time….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:50pm
  Alls I know is that gov George bush and gov Rick perry have spent decades allowing illegals open access to our borders as well as all the free education free health care & free food stamps they could get thinking that those would become catholic religious right republican voters. Big surprise! They thank the demoncraps for all the freebies & morals come second when they vote. Next election you will see Texas is already over 50% Mexican & will be a swing state in the next elections or worse.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:06pm
  This is why we needed more people to vote for Gary Johnson. Republicans who live in deep blue or deep red states should have voted for Gary Johnson. But because Gary Johnson only got 1 million votes, Republicans are going to go after the hispanic vote instead of the small government vote……
  
  We tried to warn everyone but they wouldnt listen
  
  Report this comment
- Ragnars Repos
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:06pm
  As I have always said, the problem is not immigration, it’s the socialism that is waiting for them when they get here.
  
  Get rid of the freebies and the traffic slows, guaranteed.
  
  We should let people come here, just make it necessary that they pull their weight–problem solved.
  
  Again, conservatives shoot themselves in the foot on this one.
  
  Look conservatives, you can move to the right, or you can move to the left, but you’re going to have to move.
  
  I highly recommend moving to the right, where your founders’ ideas exist.
  
  Lose the socialism/collectivism/”social safety net” and sell freedom, prosperity, property rights, opportunity, etc.
  
  Or be cowards, sellouts, and leeches like the Progressives you claim to loathe.
  
  Move toward “cruel” freedom, or suffer cruel collectivism.
  
  It’s time to make a choice.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:19pm
  yep, nothing like inviting more illegals to vote for democrats. The republican leadership are complete retards. They must spend too much time drinking with Pelosi.
  
  Report this comment
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:38pm
  Voting is so 20th century. What’s the point in that anymore?
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:01pm
  Meh, “Conservatives” always vote with the socialist. It’s how it’s played out for decades. Forget principles go where the votes are. NO, I WAS SOCIALIST BEFORE SOCIALISM WAS COOL.
  
  Report this comment
DannyDutch
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:18pm
I have felt for some time that the GOP’s religion based policies, especially where individual choices are made, often act as the single area in which they have been hypocrites. As of the last two decades, the conservative notions of blocking any marriage system that isn’t between a single man and woman, censorship regarding the nation’s symbols, and prohibition have seemed behind the times and unfair to people who just want to live their lives unlike some paragon model of Christian society. How fair was it that I can become intoxicated on one substance but not the other when the long term risks are as relatively severe as the other? Why shouldn’t I have a husband or two, three, nineteen wives and two husbands? Before anyone tries to answer the question in there head (mostly because I have an economics based answer and it was also rhetorical) the real question that the GOP should be asking is why should we care if it would never have an effect on me?

The point of liberty was to allow people a sandbox of decisions and subjective choices of happiness. Progressives, statists, and the men of system are too busy trying to choose the options that we can pick from. This is the inherent flaw in their arguments. Unfortunately, the GOP has gone down this path by not recognizing its time. Conservatism is about bringing slow change. The time to accept socially accepted mores and norms is here. If we want to be the part of the upcoming wave we must work with the swell.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:07am
  While I agree with your sentiment, I believe that expanding government control over marriage contracts is not a solution. Once homosexuals gain the right to marry there will be a succession of other minority groups who want their slice of the government marriage cake.
  
  Our founders understood that the government should not be in the business of telling people what their rights are (our rights are too numerous to conceive, much less name) this is exemplified by the groups that want to get married. So the question is, why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? If government had no roll in marriage, marriage would just be a free contract between two individuals, if fundamentalist Christians want a “covenant marriage”. god bless: write up a contract, if progressive’s want an open marriage. evolution bless: write up a contract. If gays want to marry: write up a contract.
  
  The government exists to enforce contracts and settle disputes, yet now it is creating contracts and potentiating disputes (53% of govt marriages end in divorce). Government marriage is amoral and the improper roll of the State, and it has failed at its aim. Liberate marriage and give it back to people, pastors and God where it belongs!
  
  Report this comment
Ragnars Repos
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:18pm
In the long run, the effect of Progressives and Conservatives will be the same. They are merely different brands of statism/collectivism. Both want socialism, both are mystics, and both want their values foisted upon the individual American, who should be left alone.

Today’s conservatives mantra: “Give me liberty, with a side of ‘social safety net’, or give me death!”

Conservatives’ days are indeed numbered, but not because the left has defeated them. They have brought about their own defeat by becoming nothing but a watered-down version of the collectivists.

Why would I vote for Romney when Obama gives me so much more of what Romney is promising?

Collectivist ideas are just as dangerous coming from a Conservative as they are coming from a Communist.

The other side of the ‘social safety net’ coin is tyranny. It’s real simple. It’s big government, as good as it gets.

If you want to use the government as a charity your going to have to pay, and pay, and pay–and it costs much more than money, aka, slavery.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pudssweetie
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:55pm
  I am a Conservative who has many friends who are as well. We all have fought to protect the Constitution, We all believe in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights. We all believe in Small Government and keeping Government out of all our lives. We believe that there are people who are in need who do need assistance and should get help when in need, but also believe that it should only be temporary and should have a time limit on how long one receives help. We believe in defending this Country, our Flag and protecting our Rights and Freedom’s. We do not believe in Socialism or communism as we have seen from our past History how it has destroyed and oppressed people in other Country’s. There are many more Conservative who also believe in the same things and are far from what you say we are. It is people like you who choose to be indoctrinated by those who spread false propaganda about what Conservatives truly believe in. Quit drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid and believing everything you read and hear.
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:52am
  pudssweetie, some questions:
  
  1) “people who are in need… who do need assistance and should get help when in need, but… it should only be temporary” So what you are saying is that the government should engage in collectivism but only under certain time constraints. Should people in need get help for one second, one day, 99 days, 10 years, how about cradle to grave? Your position is different than the socialist’s in degree not in kind. Moreover, if a robber comes to my home and says that he will only rob me to feed his family for five days, he is committing the same crime as if he were robbing me to feed his family for five years.
  
  2) “We believe in defending this Country, our Flag and protecting our Rights and Freedom’s.” If the United States flag flew over Soviet Russia, would you still defend it? The flag is a vacuous symbol of what ever you put under it, I prefer to defend morals, such as life, liberty and property, not a fabric symbol of a government as transient as the wind.
  
  3) “We do not believe in Socialism or communism as… it has destroyed and oppressed people in other Country’s” So you advocate for policy that is just tainted by communism (the safety net and restricted welfare) because everyone knows that a little bit of evil done for the right reasons is really good? No thanks, I would rather stand against all evil in all quantities and have a *moral* government, rather than an efficient one that is kind to the needy.
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:54am
  P.S. Ragnar’s Repos, I love the Atlas Shrugged allusion!
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:14pm
Michelle Fields is a cutie. S.E. Cupp sounds so dumb every time they let her speak. The Republicans have to abandon their progressive social issues (AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL) or the country is screwed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:30pm
  She does have that wholesome look about her…..
  
  Here she is when she spontaneously appeared at Bilderberg earlier this year:
  
  Michelle Fields at Bilderberg 2012
  
  She sorta’ reminds me of the Clark Kent/Superman combo……when she’s out at places like Bilderberg, then she has the Clark Kent persona goin’ on……but when she’s all dolled up and inside the studio under the bright lights, then she’s more like Superm….er, Supergirl instead (LOL)…
  
  Report this comment
Small World
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:12pm
There is no GOP only GOPP=grand ol’ progressive party. Rep are already ripping in to Romney oh how quickly they can turn . I’m pretty much finished with the so called reps.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ragnars Repos
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:05pm
The GOP and the conservatives have no leg to stand on. I mean, when do they lose credibility? Look around. They are helping to destroy the Republic. They’re in total denial.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Giver
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:02pm
Maybe Ron Paul can effect even more change “from the outside”. May he be blessed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:34pm
  If people listen. S.E. Cupp was talking about not being able to explain fiscal conservatism, yet that’s what he did so well and attracted so many young people. It’s the establishment GOP that can’t explain it because their economic philosophy mirrors that of the Democrats. What can’t be explained logically is why the federal government should abandon the Constitution to tell people how to live their lives. I mean quite frankly, there aren’t many in Washington whose morals are anywhere close to be decent to most of us. Why let those immoral creatures define morality?
  
  Report this comment
- DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:05pm
  @justangry
  Well that’s a question for another day. I was taught to contribute to my community, today young people expect to be paid if they help others. Morality is not what it used to be. Fewer and fewer people actually have morals and that seems to be the real problem. I got a phone call the other day from a woman who said she had a flat tire & was stuck on the side of the road. My son came along & stopped & changed her tire for her & then said you remember my mom? My brother played on same baseball team as your son so you know my mom. She called to say how she appreciated that he stopped to help her. Today they are few too many young people with morals & that makes me just angry, but I did what I could raising my boys. Some other people raised idiots.jus sayin.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:33pm
  Is it really that we’re less moral today or could it be that immorality is sensationalized and more accessible? Regardless I maintain morality is a private matter. Certainly nothing for the federal government to be involved in. Every social issue they’ve attempted to correct has failed, cost too much and has expanded the government. Besides I think it’s immoral for the feds to break the law to enforce morals, don’t you?
  
  Report this comment
WiredRight
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:01pm
“Still, it’s difficult for critics to argue for another Congressman of Paul’s generation that has had such a profound ideological influence on the electorate.”

Name a congressman of any generation that has had such a profound ideological influence on the electorate…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:11pm
  The question is much more than whether someone has had an effect. The real issue is whether that effect has been good or bad, strengthening the nation or undermining it..
  
  God bless
  S
  
  Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. ~John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 7:58am
  MadAsHeII
  Thanks for your response.
  
  re: You guys should now attempt to get on board or be left in the dust. LOL!!
  
  It occurs to me that being left in the dust is not always a bad thing–especially at the edge of a cliff.
  
  So, would you dare to be so bold as to describe just what you are “on board” for..what is the end in view. I mean, really spell it out instead of hiding behind “liberty” etc. Talk about what the nation will actually look like, how it will be set up, etc.
  
  RP spoke of a time BEFORE the Constitution that he preferred because it was more voluntary. Is THAT what you are on board for…ie the Constitution is a means to an end other than itself so people can look at it.
  
  BTW: since you guys seem so keen on claiming the mantle of the Founders, talk to me about Hamilton and Madison and Jay and Washington. Somehow, no one “on board” seems to have much respect for the Federalist Papers, or what all of the Founders actually wrote. Just Rothbard, Paul, and others of that stripe.
  
  Wax eloquent….and honestly.
  God bless
  “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” ~ Associate Justice Robert Jackson
  
  Report this comment
Sapient
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 8:58pm
Good riddance Ron Paul
He is for the Constitution, as a means to an end that is no where near the Founding.
He is for liberty that is at or borderline anarchy.
He uses the words but hardly the same meaning..
He even admits to supporting voluntaryism.
Again I say good riddance.
God bless
S
“There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” ~ George Washington Maxims, Circular to the States, June 8, 1783.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Giver
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:05pm
  Ron Paul is not and has not been an anarchist. Don’t know where you get that.
  
  Report this comment
- modilly
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:10pm
  liberty borderline anarchy? You put words together without any understanding of their meaning. How could liberty as promised by the Constitution be anarchy? Such hatred for Paul instead of honest disagreement. Good riddance? You should save your disgust for the GOP who has been a party to getting us to where we are today. Instead you sop up their propaganda.
  
  Report this comment
- DannyDutch
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:21pm
  There is a difference between violent chaos (which we normally call “anarchy”) and anarcho-capitalism. Please do more research before failing to look informed. You look like a troll. You lose one internets.
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:29pm
  Hi Giver
  
  Now that people have begun to understand what voluntaryism is and sounds like, I guess he should quit saying that he supports it, and spouting their doctrines huh?
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:38pm
  Dandy
  
  Anarchy and chaos doesn’t usually start off promising violence…it just ends up that way because of its nature.
  
  Fact is, the Founders were as concerned about anarchy as they were tyranny. They are intimately connected.
  
  Republics are based on individual virtue. You knew that right?
  
  God bless
  S
  
  “The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.” ~John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:49pm
  Modilly
  
  Re: Liberty that is border line anarchy.
  
  Liberty is not total. That is why, as Jefferson put it, “governments are instituted among men”…to protect our rights…from those who will not respect them by restraining themselves.
  
  Liberty is not license now and never has been. Read what the Founders actually said and you will see what you are not being told.
  
  God bless
  S
  
  “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” –Samuel Adams
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:49pm
  I wonder how many Paul acolytes realize that the “RON PAUL” 2012 RESTORE AMERICA NOW” banner showed the “A” in Paul’s last name looking eerily similar to the anarchist “A” using the colors of the American Flag?
  
  All you Paul supporting conspiracy theorists put that in your pipe and smoke it… lmao.
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:01pm
  Time 2 End
  That bumper sticker “A” does indeed look familiar.
  
  If you want a real hoot, Google Ron Paul and ear marks. Take a look at what the “Tax Payer’s Best Friend” did when the rest of the GOP declared a moratorium on them. Find him on Youtube being asked about it. Thought he would need a chiropractor he twisted and turned so much. Would make any liberal proud.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:09pm
  you guys are what’s wrong with republicans
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:19pm
  SOY. Paul “used” Republicans like he “used” the people in his District (he was an absentee landlord), and attempted to “use” the Constitution to push a diseased Liberal-tarian isolationist ideology. Libertarianism may come back into vogue, but Paul’s Rothbard / Rockwell strain is dying… Rothbard thank God is dead… Paul shouldn’t be far behind thank the Lord and Rockwell? Maybe now that he’s been identified as the Ghostwriter of the Paul newsletters… ya’ never know who might take him out??
  
  Report this comment
- DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:20pm
  Shame on you sapient.
  Paul deserves respect he is a good man.
  You may disagree with him but he fought for what he thought was right.
  No one should be demonized for having an opinion.
  Shame on you!
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:47pm
  DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
  
  Re: no one should be demonized for having an opinion?
  
  Really?
  No matter what it is? Right or wrong. Destructive or helpful?
  Wanna think that one through?
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:52pm
  Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:01pm
  
  Time 2 End
  Take a look at what the “Tax Payer’s Best Friend” did when the rest of the GOP declared a moratorium on them.
  =============================================
  
  It doesn’t look like the GOP declared any sort of moratorium on earmarks to me:
  
  —————————————-
  In a long-forgotten tape from the 2002 Massachusetts governor’s race obtained by ABC News, Mitt Romney is seen touting his Washington connections and his ability to get millions of taxpayer dollars from the federal government.
  
  “I am big believer in getting money where the money is,” Romney says on the video, “The money is in Washington.”
  
  “I want to go after every grant, every project, every department in Washington to assure that we are taking advantage of economic development opportunities,” Romney tells the group.
  
  And while Romney now often criticizes his opponents for being Washington insiders, in this video he touts his Washington connections.
  
  “I have learned from my Olympic experience that if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there you can get money to help build economic development opportunities,” Romney says.
  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/exclusive-02-romney-touted-d-c-connections-federal-110029680–abc-news.html
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:03pm
  Kid
  Earmark moritorium they did…and RP was 1 of only 4 to break it.
  See: http://washingtonindependent.com/104609/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget-updated
  
  I lived in his district for over 20 years…he ain’t what ya think.
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 3:56am
  @Sapient, You are just a Libertarian Hater just like Time_2. Your bias clouds your thinking and you are no good to any true American. The role of a Congressman: http://www.netplaces.com/american-government/inside-congress/the-congressmans-roles.htm
  Pay close attention to the paragraph Constituent Servant, where it says; “…bring money and projects back to the district…” You should not tout what you know nothing about.
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 4:04am
  Time_2, You told all of us that there was a surprise for Paul at the convention, and you were right, which tells me that you are not what you claim to be, but an insider of the corrupt establishment part of the GOP. You also said you were going to make a prediction that all of us could take to the bank, that Romney was going to win by a landslide, the same thing that all the corrupt GOP members were saying. This should show everyone on here that you are someone that is not trustworthy.
  
  Sapient, You are in bad company with Time_2 and shows that you are as bad as him. The two of you should read this article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/ron-paul-revolution-gops-last-best-hope/
  
  You guys should now attempt to get on board or be left in the dust. LOL!!
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 8:55pm
its the future and the future for victory because Americans are not interested in endless wars for the zionists.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:43pm
  Thanks for clarifying what this is REALLY all about.
  
  Report this comment
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 8:53pm
Aside from monetary aspects… Liberal-tarianism has no real furure in a “Conservative” society let alone the GOP.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TROLLMONGER
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 8:59pm
  The GOP will go extinct. Either adapt or become obsolete.
  
  Report this comment
- modilly
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:03pm
  What passes for “conservative” and GOP is finally dead. It committed suicide. Unfortunately, it took the Republic with it due to it’s cowardice.
  
  Report this comment
- Individualism
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:06pm
  Saudi Arabia is pretty conservative.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:08pm
  I thought you were an Obamabot MONGER? Or are you just an Obama enabler?? But then again… Liberal-tarianism meets the the Liberal left on many an occasion.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:13pm
  MODILLY. Yep, the GOP sure f’d up again… BUT… the “Obama enabling” Paul / Johnson shat for brains bench warming Thrifty-Liberals did far worse in the opinion of most.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:19pm
  INDI. Haven’t you an Uncle who’s banging your 18 year old cousin to concern your Libertarian self with? Sorry, I forgot…. that doesn’t seem to bother a INDI Libertarian.
  
  Report this comment
- Individualism
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:20pm
  the kibbutz communist ideology better than libertarianism? i don’t think so
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:26pm
  “Libertarianism, either ancient or modern, flounders on its ability to deal with families or foreigners. Libertarian solutions are often the right answer to many economic and “some” social questions but the philosophy has proven again and again it cannot deal with tyrants, teenagers or two-year olds.
  
  What is the libertarian approach to broken homes, and to attaching children to their fathers in general? To the education of children to promote a Libertarian society? How do Libertarians deal with bad actors abroad? Apparently by letting them have their way until they attack the United States directly, and not even then, (as we saw by Libertarian opposition to the Afghan war). Modern wars have sometimes required a draft… Libertarians balk at this. Thus libertarian government always stands vulnerable to foreign conquest and the loss of rights and autonomy that entails.
  
  Libertarianism appears to be like arsenic, a stimulant in small doses but deadly poison when taken in large doses. For this reason, as a broad based political movement, Libertarianism will always end up rolling Mr. Beam’s twelve-sided die in its mom’s basement because it fails when the family or the state are under threat.”
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:41pm
  Hi Time,
  
  Trollmonger is so stupid all it knows is that it hates Glenn Beck.
  
  Probably only has a 6th grade education….. if that.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:52pm
  Hello MONK. I never really paid attention to anything he wrote, but I have to agree with you based on what I see just on this thread.
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 9:52pm
  Time 2 End
  You have nailed it in all cases.
  Make sure and check out the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” by Graham Wright over at the Mises Institute, and then read the comment section below.
  
  The video caption reads:
  
  “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.” ~Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:00pm
  SAPIENT. LOL… I don’t go anywhere near the Mises Institute in person or on the internet, stories or otherwise. It’s a Lew Rockwell run production which is almost like being involved with a David Duke run production…
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:27pm
  Time 2 End
  Gotcha re Mises and Lew Rockwell..
  Believe me: that video and comments would be well worth the trip…I am surprised its still up there.
  God speed
  
  “There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” ~ George Washington Maxims, Circular to the States, June 8, 1783.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:29pm
  GOP has no future, as tyrants quickly lose favor. done forget to keep your shackles polished, your overseer will be by to inspect.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:52pm
  Lol!
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:54pm
  Indi
  re Saudi is conservative.
  
  Wow…talk about comparing apples and oranges and calling them all pears.
  Not unexpected though…which more and more people are starting to realize.
  Does 2+2=4 whether anyone agrees with it or not?
  
  Inquiring minds want to know.
  God bless
  S
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 10:59pm
  Time 2 end
  
  Re: Liberal-tarianism
  
  It is amazing just how many core principles they share. Push comes to shove, they link up.
  Next thing ya know, the Paulites would set out an election and let a socialist win…oh wait…
  
  God bless
  S
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:34pm
  Time_2, You really are out there and you think Ron Paul is, you are delusional. This is an interview you and everyone else should watch all the way through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n6gXbqIWDE&feature=youtu.be
  Time_2, stop being an idiot with your bigotry of Libertarianism.
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 1:26am
  Sapient
  
  I’m not sure what is wrong with the principles of Voluntaryism: all associations between groups of people should be voluntary, that sounds like the principle of “consent of the the governed” to me. What would be your alternative to this theory of government structure? that people should be forced to enter into social contracts, how? at the barrel of a gun?
  
  If you think that our founder’s distrust of pure democracy is tantamount to saying that force can be used to make people join a society, then you are sadly mistaken. The tenth amendment and our right to freely immigrate between states are both based on our founder’s belief in the principles of what you call “Voluntaryism”. Moreover, our Constitution allows for states to secede from the union, and for patriated states to abolish the Constitution in favor of another, these are all based on the belief that moral government can only exist with the voluntary consent of the governed.
  
  I would also add that Liberty under Libertarianism IS limited, where one man’s right abuts the rights of another, one of the alleged rights is not right, thus one man is committing a crime. So you cannot exercise your liberty at the expense of someone’s life (thou shalt not murder), you cannot use your liberty at the expense of someone’s property (thou shalt not steal). But I can worship a different God than you, or eat different foods than you. But all liberty is limited by itself: ergo responsibility.
  
  Report this comment
- MadAsHeII
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 2:16am
  After the coming collapse of the monetary system and the when the government falls afterward, there is an answer. We have right now, two governments, one that is bound by the restrictions of the Constitution and another that is not. The latter will fall soon and the first will take over: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYleC7l86ys&feature=plcp
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 8:14am
  C-Delta Conductor
  
  You have made my case precisely. You seem to believe that there is no social contract unless you enter into it personally. That is anarchy and lawlessness pure and simple.
  
  The danger is that it allows ONE person to be tyrant over the rest because THEY did not agree. its a bottomless pit, hence that is NOT how we are set up. Consent of the governed does NOT require unanimous consent.
  
  Consider this from Washington’s Farewell Address:
  
  This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.”
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 8:43am
  C-Delta Conductor
  
  You seem like a reasonable and reasoning guy. So, that is why I am attempting to have a reasonable and reasoning exchange with you. Believe me, it separates you from most of your associates. Let me say categorically that you have been misled. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
  
  Now for the question.
  
  Libertarians and voluntaryists constantly discuss no force except in self defense, applying that to individuals and nation issues. Robert Ringer even had the audacity to label “non coercion” as “natural law” as if that is what the Founders meant by that term.
  
  So, let me ask you re self defense: must I be shot at and missed before I may use force to defend myself? That is a yes or no.
  
  Which ever way you go, please state the principle involved so that it can be applied elsewhere?
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 1:07pm
  Sapient
  
  I believe that there are two criteria that must be met:
  
  1) Aggression must be real (a missed shot), implied (a threat of force in exchange for corrosion), or dire (a gun is pulled on you and a shot has not yet been fired).
  2) Force must be less than or equal to the aggressor’s force (above).
  
  Now there is an important distinction that one must make before quickly applying this logic to the State. That is that the State is not a human. The State does not have a life to protect, a State does not have property to defend, a State does not have liberty of itself (indeed a State can only inhibit liberty in some form or another). On the other hand, a man has a right to life, which logically entails the right to protect it, a man has a right to property (as there exists scarcity) and thus has a right to defend it, similarly a man is endowed by God with liberty, and thus has the right to hold himself from slavery. There is one other difference between a man and a State, a State has a monopoly on force that it is granted the right to use. It’s actions cannot be brought before a court of law, and it cannot be removed from society if it misjudges the time to shoot compared with the time to run. Thus it is logical to hold the burden of the state to a higher standard as it is not human, it does not have a life or property or liberty to lose, it only has the power to take those things from individuals. A state must be well defended and strike only if attacked.
  
  Report this comment
TROLLMONGER
Posted on November 15, 2012 at 8:51pm
The GOP of which Beck and his old Beckbots are true members of has become obsolete. The Libertarian party will replace it as it should. Out with the neanderthal ways of the GOP and in with the evolution of common sense that the libertarian part will bring.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sapient
  Posted on November 15, 2012 at 11:07pm
  Troll
  Tell me about that “common sense” and start with the non aggression axiom as it applies to government:
  
  “The core of libertarianism is respect for the life, liberty, and property rights of each individual. This means that no one may initiate force against another, as that violates those natural rights. While many claim adherence to this principle, only libertarians apply the non-aggression axiom to the state.” – Ron Paul,
  
  Where does consent of the people come in?
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 1:44am
  Sapient,
  
  While I am sure that your quotation of Ron Paul is quite veracious, you have taken it out of context, or rather left out context, thus creating a straw man argument. Ron Paul and most libertarians believe that there are instances where the use of force is moral for both individuals and government. This is though the principle of self defense. Just as I would be committing murder if I burst into my neighbor’s home and shot him in cold blood, when the government launches an unprovoked strike against a sovereign nation (especially without a Congressional declaration of war) they have committed what is philosophically equivalent to cold blooded sovereign-murder. If Ron Paul believed that Force should never be used, then why does his budget proposal call for an increase in defense spending near equal to that of Mitt Romney’s? If Ron Paul believed that force was never acceptable for individuals then why would he promote gun rights and personal defense?
  
  Moreover, you misinterpret the Libertarian meaning of the term force, force can be more than just guns. It can be using the ethos of power to rob Peter to pay Paul. It can be claiming that states cannot peaceably secede, or saying that you cannot smoke pot in your own home. Each has a threat associated, and thus we call each force. In this case government force can only be used if one individual’s rights are violated by another, or a contract is broken.
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 6:31am
  C Delta
  Thanks
  
  Let me give you a real live example, from a real live RP supporter using this axiom.
  
  Society via its government passes an ordinance restricting parking around fire hydrants. Signs are posted and a box is drawn on the ground.
  
  Someone, the RP supporter, parks in that zone. When the police ask him to move, he insists that they have no right to restrict his liberty and that it is immoral for them to initiate force if he refuses to move on his own.
  
  Now, that is a real position taken by a real libertarian based on that “out of context” quotation.
  
  I understand the libertarian position, axioms,etc. Always glad to debate them. My problem with them is that they purport to be the views of the Founders when they are not. A completely different genre of thought that cannot present itself honestly. RP could not run as a libertarian,so became a fake republican. That is fraud where I come from.
  
  So, it brands itself right off the bat.
  
  Report this comment
- C-Delta Conductor
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 8:45am
  Sapient
  
  I agree completely that our founder’s positions are not the same as the position of post-Austrian liberalism (libertarianism); however, the fact that Ron Paul has run as a Republican is hardly fraudulent, what does it mean to be a “Republican”? the strict meaning of the word is someone who denies pure democracy in favor of a representative democracy with strong levels of control over the power of those representatives. If this were the definition that Ron Paul is not living up to then I must disagree as I have seen few greater proponents of hard-control over direct democracy than Ron Paul.
  
  Moreover, I agree that the principles of liberty are dangerous if misunderstood. However, I can sum up my beliefs about the roll of government and man in a civil society in a set of logically consistent axioms. Where do modern Republican’s draw their hopelessly inconsistent set of ruling principles from. To take the fire-hydrant example, why would the man be asked to move his car in the first place? Simple, for the greater good, Utilitarian calculus demands that his parking spot be subverted for the common good of the individuals whose houses may burn down. But, once you accept that line of thinking, where do you draw the line at what liberties you cannot take away. Can I kill one American to save two, can I rob 349,999,999 to feed 350,000,001? Where do you draw your limits on government if not from the self-evident rights of man and corollary responsibilities?
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 1:57pm
  C-Delta Conductor
  
  Thanks for the response.
  
  “Actually, the bottom line of all this is human nature. Our constitution was designed with a particular, understanding of human nature as demonstrated through long history of mankind’s attempts to live with each other.
  
  So, if the libertarians want to challenge the Constitution they have to provide their understanding of not only a principle, like “liberty”–we all believe in that, but an explanation of that understanding of human nature that requires government in the first place, AND why their scheme is better as demonstrated in history.
  
  The problem is simple: the principles libertarians and voluntaryists espouse are hardly new, and like socialism, they are disastrous every time they are tried. EVERY TIME. It is NOT like they were unknown to the Founders. They were, and were not only rejected, but the constitution was actually designed to thwart those very principles via elections at spaced intervals, the populace speaking through reps, state governments, etc…. all to thwart the disaster posed by anarchy and factions
  
  So, my challenge to you or anyone, is state the understanding and show me where it has worked.
  
  God bless
  S
  Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but
  
  Report this comment
- Sapient
  Posted on November 16, 2012 at 2:26pm
  C-Delta Conductor
  
  Good questions:
  
  Re: But, once you accept that line of thinking, where do you draw the line at what liberties you cannot take away. Can I kill one American to save two, can I rob 349,999,999 to feed 350,000,001? Where do you draw your limits on government if not from the self-evident rights of man and corollary responsibilities?
  
  THAT is what due process is for, and the amending process. BUT, note that it takes a genuine movement of the people so that the values of the WHOLE are reflected there not just a few lawless ones who insist liberty is license.
  
  Good questions but they have already been answered and quite well and profoundly in a way unique in all history for its balance between the group and individuals.
  
  Might want to check those out before they are tossed.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.