Ron Paul: Liberty is More Important Than the Illusion of Safety

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vlVhLvyFE&feature=player_embedded"]Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 8/22/11 ~ Liberty is More Important Than the Illusion of Safety - YouTube[/ame]



TEXT
Ron Paul: Liberty is More Important Than the Illusion of Safety

Ron Paul
Aug 23, 2011

Recent incidents of violence in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home, as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in American cities. This is why Congress must view the economy as its first priority and a matter of national security: unless and until we get our fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue to deteriorate.

The fundamental lesson every American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. Both Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas. But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass killers. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened these tragedies. And we should remember that theft, arson, and property damage were not the only criminal acts in London–innocent bystanders were assaulted and killed as well. In those instances deadly force used in self-defense would have been fully justified.

Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. This means, frankly, that we must safely own and use firearms to deter or prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons. It is absurd to think police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the clock.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? 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 unless they use force or fraud against others. 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.

Comment: Go Ron Paul, thats right we have to protect ourselves, government can't do it. And government knows that, but still goes after our second amendment rights for self protection. We want the dangers of freedom, not the lies of protection of a police state.

Sad thing is, the people running this place do want a police state, and the people disarmed.

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8049928552570056488"]Planned Police State[/ame] VIDEO Planned Police State

PLANNED POLICE STATE

Dr. Stan Monteith of www.radioliberty.com goes over the growing police state in the USA and abroad.

The growing surveillance in our lives, how we are watched, monitored, listened to, tracked and how the

"War on Terrorism" is being used as an excuse for a growing web of control over our lives.

From chipping our animals to chipping us, from plans for suspending the Constitution and putting us in camps for “our protection”

Is the US government (or its owners) really out to protect us, or could it be the government is more worried about protecting itself from we the people,

could there be even more to it? Why are our rights being attacked in America? Why is it, that it seems like leadership is more interested

in doing to us, what they profess “evil terrorists” want done to us? Could they hate our freedom?

What is the final out come of what is being planned and what will life be like for coming generations?

Is there a spiritual element to this as well?

Find out in this exciting video presentation.

DVD version available from www.radioliberty.com with a syllabus full of documentation. 1 Hour

 

In 1940, the Dutch had a great deal of liberty, freedom, and tolerance - that is until the Nazi boot stomped down on their necks.

If you have poor safety or security, you won't have liberty for very long.

 

If there is government, there is neither freedom or safety.

 

if you live on "an island entire unto yourself", then you don't need a govt. add one more person, and you will form rules and regs over time in order to minimize conflict.

 

Well right now the only threat to our liberty is coming from our own government. Nations always new we were well armed as a people and that kept us safe. You have to wonder why our own government wants us disarmed if they are really concerned about our safety.

 

Rules don't make a government, the monopoly of force it claims does.

 

Who exactly is going to be conquering America? A military a third the size of ours could easily defend America from any existant threat. We have 3,000 mile buffer zones from the nearest hostile nation.

 

George Washington

Washington proclaimed firearms to be "the people's liberty teeth."

 

What about liberty vs actual safety? What about the illusion of liberty vs real safety? Clearly liberty is more important than the illusion of safety, but then again, no one says otherwise!!

 

but without it.. no large scale industrial society. You want to go back to the 19th century be my guest. I like modern living, even if it requires a bit more statism than anarcholibertarians are comfortable with.

 

More than likely, human society would evolve more rapidly without the state.

 

You mean devolve into "every man for himself".

Not everyone is capable of reaching the level of violence necessary for self defense, I'd say most arn't.

That's why we need cops on street corners.

 

The government cannot, and does not, protect you. Was the US trillion dollar military able to protect civilians from a dozen criminals with box cutters on Sept.11, 2001? The same thing with police, they have no obligation to protect you, and they don't. They're busy setting speed traps and raising revenue for their jurisdictions.

 

That is fallacious reasoning. To cherry pick the instances where government fails to protect people, while ignoring the times when government objectively DOES protect people is fallacious reasoning. Government obviously protects people. For every successful terrorist attack, there are many failed terrorist plots foiled by government. Government protects people from murder, theft, etc. No one claimed government has a 100% record, but that is very far from evidence to support the assertion that "the government cannot, and does not, protect you."

 

Government protects nothing but it's own self interests. It prevents people from defending themselves when attacked and gives criminals more rights than victims. Government is detrimental to human society.

 

I'm not fan of big govt, but when the choice is between govt and chaos or foreign domination, I'll chose my own govt.

 

well, that is I suppose a matter of philisophical perspective - from my perspective any mutually agreed upon or imposed set of rules forms a government of sorts.

 

Why would there be chaos or foreign domination? I'd bet if the government disappeared overnight most people wouldn't notice, except when they get their paycheck.

 

disarm America, and find out.

we are armed to the teeth right now, and terrorists legally enter and illegally overstay, and kill thousands, while millions are crossing our southern border taking jobs from Americans and changing our culture and language.

 

If rules are mutually agreed upon you have a contract, government exists entirely through force.

 

and if we all were knowledgable, moral, upright citizens like you - there would be no problems (at least until the Chinese occupation army arrived). but unfortunately, not everyone is a responsible civic minded citizen.

 

Yeah right, what about civil lawsuits,etc? That's where civilization matters.

The difference between the Romans and the Barbarians, was the court system. A society that can apply to a commonly agreed upon arbitrator(the court system) avoids barbaric violence.

An anarchist, or a small group of anarchists, may be able to live free of Government. But a society of 310 million would fragment into a million little squabbling tribes, each killing each other over access to natural resources necessary for survival. You know this as well as I do.

But, like man anarchists I've known, you probably believe that after a few years of extreme violence and civil unrest, things would calm down and everyone would live according to libertarian principles of non-violence right?

Peaceniks and pacifists get exploited in the real world.

 

not at all - the establishment of govt is thru contract. read the preamble to the US Constitution, the founders understood the contractual nature of govt.

 

I never signed that contract, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?

 

They weren't armed like American citizens are.

The right to bear arms is necessary to secure a free State.