Ron Paul on the Aurora Shooting

[CuteOldGuy]

Brilliant, as usual.

Security and Self-Governance

The senseless and horrific killings last week at a movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted. Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed. As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the resolve to create a society that better values life.

We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.

Internal self governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.

Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government “do something” to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

From the Ron Paul House website: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...talk&Itemid=69

[icuminpeace]

Very well said.

[BigLouie]

So according to Ron Paul liberty means letting mad men buy assault rifles and mow down people at will.

[Guest123018-4]

No , I think he means liberty is using sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, or driving a vehicle through a crowd of people, or fertilizer mixed with some diesel fuel, or hijacking some planes with box cutters, or mail bombs.

[icuminpeace]

The point is that you cannot control the actions of every citizen unless you live in a totalitarian regime.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

The point is that you cannot control the actions of every citizen unless you live in a totalitarian regime.

Yet half our nation think it quite ok for half our Federal Taxs be spent to controling other nations citizens.

[CuteOldGuy]

More than half our nation think it is ok for our government to control us. That's the problem.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

More than half our nation think it is ok for our government to control us. That's the problem.

The whole nation thinks it ok for government to control us, they just can't agree by which means. Will it be military control (the GOP) or civil control (the Dems)

[CuteOldGuy]

Or free citizens (the Libertarians)

[theaustinescorts]

"Freedom is not defined by safety."

What couldn't be more obvious.

The problem with this world is that most people are timid, and just want to be told what to do. Most people want to be followers, and those individuals who figure this out are able to make at lot out of it.

btw more people die every week on roads in Texas from traffic accidents so people might try to put this stupid event in Aurora into perspective.

Aurora is theater, "terrorism" is theater.

It's all just an illusion.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Or free citizens (the Libertarians)

Freedom just another word for noting left to lose....

People that value material things will give up freedom to obtain and keep those material things.

Why do you think we 'voluntarily' give the government a tax check?

[Bukkake in Outer Space]

Ron Paul is awesome.

[Doove]

Serious question. Do you think there should be laws against drunk driving? Yes or no?

[Guest123018-4]

Sure just like there are laws against murdering people.
So which do we outlaw, the vehicle or the booze.
I think we tried the booze route and it created organized crime that exist still today.
Maybe we outlaw vehicles so that if you are drunk you will never have the option of driving.
So what do you want somebody else to give up to make you FEEL safer?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Sure just like there are laws against murdering people.

Irrelevant comparison.

If i murder someone, i've infringed on their rights. Obviously. But if i leave a bar, get pulled over for having a tail-light out, and blow a .23, i'm fucked, in spite of the fact that i harmed nobody.

So i'll ask again, do you think there should be laws against drunk driving?