Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
Brian LePort
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566
ccscoachadams
killerbuffalo
Garnet SpyAn excellent article by the Honorable Ron Paul from Texas.
LewRockwell.com
Ron Paul
December 21, 2004
In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?
The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer – always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.
Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency – including TSA at the airport.
Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority – all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.
Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?
Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.
After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
Those who believe a police state can’t happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.
Filed under: Iraq, Philosophy, Politics, Ron Paul
Amen.
Argh.. why couldn’t a democrat be saying this??? Why does it have to be some religious guy?? I do not trust the pro lifers with big government powers.
Will you trust a man with a 30-year record of voting *consistently* for liberty, the rule of law, and in support of the Constitution?
What difference does the label (repub, democrat) make anyway? Study the candidates and vote with your mind.
Ron Paul is personally pro-life. However, he supports giving back to states the right to set their own laws with regard to abortion.
Your liberty trumps his personal beliefs. He has voted that way consistently his entire political career. Without your liberty, without the Constitution, without the rule of law, you may find yourself with no right to *have* a personal opinion on *anything*!
Ron Paul 2008
True pro-lifers understand that our Right’s do not come from other humans but from God. This is the basis for our form of government. To allow a human to snuff out another human is to deny the principle that forms the philosophical basis for all of our inalienable rights and liberties.
But, while true pro-lifers are against abortion, they must also be against big government - since it is political power, which constituties the greates threat to our personal liberties and, consequently, to God’s divinity as bestowed by His gift of individual liberty and freedom - we are all descendents of Adam and Eve.
Ron Paul is anti-abortion personally, but finds no legal recourse for the Federal government to maintain the abortion issue within the scope of its jurisdiction. Abortion issues should go back to the State and smaller, local government systems.
Could we have this and similar articles published at least once a week every week until people stat recognizing what you’re saying is a very real and present possibility.
I hope the American people as a whole, will soon band together to stop all of this madness before it’s too late.
Thank you for your intelligent post!
Excellent article. I’ve added you to my blogroll.
James Madison has said:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
These “silent encroachments” have definitely been happening in our country.
Here’s my own article on the subject:
The Great Illusion: Trading Liberty For Security
@rhys
You cannot be Pro-life and against big government. What anyone does is only the concern of that individual, any attempt to regulate what the individual does if a form of BG.
PS. How many kids have you adopted? Since you feel you have the right to dictate the terms of peoples lives I know youve at least
done the right thing for some unfortunate kids. Right?????
In his Iowa speech he said specifically “there’s no reason the federal government can’t protect the rights of the unborn” to wild cheers. Maybe he was trying to get votes, but he lost mine.
Personal liberty my ass. Ron Paul is a man divided in himself, unfortunately - if it weren’t for his anti roe v wade stance, I’d be putting up his posters myself.
Non-interventionalist, anti-drug war, anti-income tax - all of these things are good to me, not one of which RP could accomplish on his own in the office of president. Appointing another pro-life supreme court judge, he can do all by himself. One more may just tip the scale.
How many years in prison should your daughter be sentenced to for aborting her pregnancy? It is simply not a line you can cross; individual fertility rights are sovereign. I’d like the new leader of the free world to be able to comprehend that.
Sorry, leave it up to the states would have worked as a slogan about 120 years ago, but that didn’t turn out so well for blacks, women, or any non-land owning non-anglos.
Tim,
I certainly understand your point, and have several neighbors that voiced a similar concern. My question is; taken as a whole candidate, who will best represent your views on the majority of issues? It could be Gravel, Kucinich, Paul, etc…, but it looks like our choices are going to be Obama/Clinton on one side vs. ?????? on the other? Of all the republicans available, who would you prefer to see as the option? Granted the “life” issue is quite significant to a lot of folks, but so is avoiding a police-state of a country. So is internet censorship, individual liberty, etc…Which candidates are stepping up and saying NO to these encroachments? Not many. The farther Ron Paul goes in the primary race (all the way, hopefully) the more these issues will need to be addressed, because he’ll keep bringing them up. So, I believe supporting Ron Paul is in all of our best interests.
Paul, if you take him at his word, sees Roe as a states-rights issue, so it’s not at all inconsistent with his other views. Of course, that wouldn’t preclude him from nominating a pro-life judge to the SC if he had the opportunity, but a “strict constructionist” nominee would view the debate in the same way.
Anyway I’ve always said I’ll never vote for a pro-lifer, but for a race with nearly 20 candidates, the field is still rather narrow when it comes to real issues.
Sure, you can have the right to murder your babies under most any candidate, even Ron Paul since he will leave the many states to decide.
This is not about your drivel, it’s about freedom from suppression by government.
Ninny!
we are approaching, believe it or not a new k ind of life under rule and thumb of those who do not want free thinker to be heard. we are slideing toward and unknown world. we are going to find that it is not for the people by the people and of the people, it will be a dark and I mean very dark and secretive control of money and people like has never been imagined . it will stymie most people . it will mesmerise others by the use of shear power and provocative influence of the wise and influenceial doctors of the movement to control the masses
Represenitive Ron Paul is on of the last people to have any influence to stop the movement toward a controled police state. a police state is one where the people look to the governing controlers for help and aid. force will be used to stop any one who opposes the powers that falsely have good in mind for the masses. our government has a lot of people believeing that we need to depend on big brother to be sucessfull as a nation and a society. what a shame to limit people to the dictates of a totaleristic view.
tim u r full of the kind of vinom it takes to admit defeat in the world where life and liberty are free.
My first question is why is everyone on this thread arguing abortion when that is not the topic of the article? Are we having attention span problems.
@Michael. The reason it couldn’t be a Democrat saying this is that no Democrat believes it. And let me add that NO ONE should be trusted “with big government powers.”
The fact of the matter is that there is no longer any real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. They both want to spend your money and tell you how to live. They just disagree over the details.
Regardless of your feelings about the current administration, the horrible little fact is that it has played hell with civil rights. The misnamed “Patriot” Act, the president deciding he can spy on people just because he wants to, innocent people being subjected to strip searches just for committing the crime of buying an airplane ticket, these are just a few examples of our civil rights being stripped away everyday. I am 45, and I think that it is very possible that we will be living in a real police state in my lifetime. And most of you people want to spend your time arguing about who is and isn’t pro-life? Keep that up and eventually the governmental will be deciding who lives and who dies and it won’t just be fetuses.
The sad thing is the the American people will continue to welcome the loss of their rights because they are some enamored with the idea of the government making them feel safe from the big bad terrorists. BAH. If the government wants to protect me from the bad guys, they should issue me an M-16 and several hundred rounds of ammunition. I’ll look after myself.
Amen to you Robert. Those people that are so concerned about who is and isn’t pro-life don’t realize that they are not going to have a choice in the future if they keep focusing on that. What you said about,”Keep that up an eventually the government will be deciding who lives and who dies and it won’t just be fetuses.”, really hammers the point home.
Wake up, people!!!!!
The only abortion that you should be concerned with is the abortion of your basic rights.
Wake up!!!!!
There lies the issue while you guys fight with each other on issues they continue to steal your freedoms and your country……by the way where is the gold that backs our money?