Posts tagged libertarianism
Posts tagged libertarianism
“A direct assault on Internet users” is what the ACLU is calling it. A U.S. House committee has already approved HR 1981, a broad new Internet snooping bill.
And get this — it’s also authored by SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith.
They want to force Internet service providers to keep track of and retain their customers’ information — including your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.
Let’s do to the snooping bill what we did to SOPA: More than 60,000 people have written emails to their lawmakers urging them to oppose Lamar Smith’s HR 1981.
The legislation would force Internet service providers to track and retain all sorts of information about you for at least 18 months.If you’re already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.If you’re already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: TweetSource: demandprogress.org
I think it’s funny how afraid the main stream media and other politicians are of Ron Paul. It’s because he is right and he can destroy people like Newt Gingrich with words because he knows exactly what needs to be done and can effectively turn this country around. Ron Paul doesn’t need corporate power to help him. He sticks to who his is and to what he believes in. Regardless of what your outlook is on the upcoming election you have got to take that into account. Ron Paul is a true patriot and loves this country and truly wants the best for it and is the most honest and upfront person in this. I truly believe in him and support him. He is a true inspiration to me as a person.
Ron Paul for President 2012
Mises Daily: Friday, January 27, 2012 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have been deprived of one of the most important means of establishing and maintaining a free society, namely, federalism or states’ rights. It is not just an accident that states’ rights have either been relegated to the memory hole, or denigrated as a tool of racists and other miscreants. The Jeffersonian states’-rights tradition was — and is — the key to understanding why Thomas Jefferson believed that the best government is that which governs least, and that a limited constitutional government was indeed possible.
What Are “States’ Rights”?
The idea of states’ rights is most closely associated with the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and his political heirs. Jefferson himself never entertained the idea that “states have rights,” as some of the less educated critics of the idea have claimed. Of course “states” don’t have rights. The essence of Jefferson’s idea is that if the people are to be the masters rather than the servants of their own government, then they must have some vehicle with which to control that government. That vehicle, in the Jeffersonian tradition, is political communities organized at the state and local level. That is how the people were to monitor, control, discipline, and even abolish, if need be, their own government.
It was Jefferson, after all, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government’s just powers arise only from the consent of the people, and that whenever the government becomes abusive of the peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the peoples’ duty to abolish that government and replace it with another one. And how were the people to achieve this? They were to achieve it just as they did when they adopted the Constitution, through political conventions organized by the states. The states, after all, were considered to be independent nations just as England and France were independent nations. The Declaration of Independence referred to them specifically as “free and independent,” independent enough to raise taxes and wage war, just like any other state.
Jefferson was not only the author of America’s Declaration of Secession from the British Empire; he championed the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws with his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and also believed that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was the cornerstone of the entire document. He was a “strict constructionist” who believed that every effort should be made to force the central government to possess only those powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8. Delegated to it by the states, that is. All others are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people under the Tenth Amendment.
States’ rights or federalism never meant that state politicians were somehow more moral, wise, or less corrupt than national politicians. The idea was always that
- it is easier for the people to keep an eye on and control politicians the closer they are to them, and
- a decentralized system of government consisting of numerous states provided American citizens with an escape hatch from tyrannical governments.
Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government. The idea was that the central government would likely only propose constitutional laws if it understood that unconstitutional laws could lead to secession or nullification. Nullification and the threat thereof were intended to have the same effect.
The great British historian of liberty, Lord Acton . . . considered it to be a disaster for the entire world that the right of secession was abolished by the war [between the states]. The 20th century would become the century of consolidated, monopolistic government in Russia, Germany, the United States, and elsewhere, and it was a disaster for humanity. Had the rights of secession and nullification remained in place, and had slavery been abolished peacefully as it had been everywhere else in the world, America would have been a counterexample of decentralized, limited government for the rest of the world.
This is all a part of America’s lost history. The advocates of centralization who were the victors in the War to Prevent Southern Independence rewrote the history of America, as the victors in war always do . . . [but] Thomas Jefferson and Lord Acton believed that [the libertarian or classical-liberal states’-rights] tradition was the key to controlling “the sovereign will” and preventing democracies from turning into despotisms and tyrannies.
Ron Paul presenting to the University of Southern Maine
Uploaded by vjfoo on Jan 28, 2012
Ron Paul visits the University of Southern Maine. Watch as he explains what sound money and the free market really are. Listen as he deconstructs the Federal Reserve and U.S. foreign policy. This video is a great elucidation of the beliefs of Congressman Paul, especially if you know him only from the Republican debates where he has been largely refused full expression of his thoughts.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
From John Stossel:
Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? During his State of the Union address, he promised “a blueprint for an economy.” But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can’t even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.
Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like “blueprint” would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society.
But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That’s it.
Obama — and most Republicans are no different — doesn’t understand the real liberal revolution that transformed civilization. The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes. In other words, as Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek taught, the only “purpose” of law is to enable us all to pursue our individual purposes in peace.
If Obama really wanted, as he says, a society in which “everybody gets a fair shot,” he would work to shrink government so that the sphere of freedom could expand. Instead, he expands government and raises taxes on wealthier people, as though giving politicians more money were a way to make society better. Instead, the interventionist state rigs the game on behalf of special interests.
What should Obama have said in his speech? Here’s what I wish he’d said:
by EYDER PERALTA January 25, 2012
In a wide-ranging discussion with All Things Considered’s Robert Siegel, Ron Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas, said of all the GOP hopefuls, he’s been the steady one.
“All I know is that the message is powerful,” he said in response to a question about the viability of his campaign. “The message is well-received. Our numbers are growing, and we don’t go up and down like a yo-yo.”