What Does Freedom Really
Mean?By Ron Paul
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/211/pages/What_Does_Freedom_Really_Mean%3FBy_Ron_Paul/
What Does Freedom
Really Mean?
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently
coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes
were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called
donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we
should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is
living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about
freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating
more government action or less.
By Ron Paul
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a
clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law
of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald
Reagan
12/26/07 "ICH"
-- - We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used
countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq.
They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their
true meanings are very different.
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly
repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,”
“democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused
so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In
Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously
dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians
and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively
associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In
other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely
meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to
accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to
believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply
majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom.
Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by
our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in
the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that
under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the
inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious
individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant
revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses,
while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet
how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither
in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very
founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and
U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation
of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean
the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the
minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be
democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider
themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but
is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no
matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all
our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea
whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not
free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not
whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather
whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social,
and business lives without interference from government.
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our
Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive
government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a
very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and
little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with
protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first
time, a government was created solely to protect the rights,
liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion
beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both
through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated
powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic
government could be as tyrannical as any King.
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently
coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes
were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called
donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we
should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is
living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about
freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating
more government action or less.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material
wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to
create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when
the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is
rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.
But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this
argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible
only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words,
government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected
to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are
coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,”
which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has
become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought
about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives
favor an all-powerful central state– but for militarism,
corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater
conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand
government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and
intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between
conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed.
“Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and
distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government
utopian grandiosity.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in
politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and
attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and
remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government
that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word
“freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current
meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in
favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so
few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18951.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
ALL KNOW it was inside job, they are in
forced denial, and they just refuse to believe that their leaders
would execute them for profit and geo political maneuvering. It’s
called cognitive disassociation, its nothing really complicated. Its
just simple denial to keep them in a safe comfortable bubble
"If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for
it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is
responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the
pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in
Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our
halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our
politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government
are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it." famed
Nineteenth Century revivalist Charles G. Finney
"Indeed
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.":
Thomas Jefferson
THe
current planned economic 'collapse' is really a wealth transfer and
consolidation from the middle class of America and Europe to the
international bankers and multinational corporations. Their plan is to
soon have a feudal system in place worldwide, where citizens are
really high-tech serfs in bondage to their overlords, the
corporate/government. The plan is to drive down wages through
outsourcing of high-paying manufacturing and technical jobs, institute
wage-slave service and unskilled manufacturing jobs for the majority
of people, and drive down real income through devaluation of the
dollar by manipulation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve
(such as dumping Billions of dollars into the financial markets) and
artificially increasing the costs of energy products through
artificial commodity market manipulation. The current housing crisis
is forcing many people out of home ownership (which, through property
taxes is mere rental of property from the government), driving more
people into rental tenancy. All these economic slavery programs are
intended to maintain a tightening grip on managing people's lives.
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get
it now!