Ron Paul wants to empower people. Ron Paul want individuals to make more decisions about what is best for them rather than a distant federal government doing it for them.
The problem with this philosophy is that it gives the mainstream media and his opponents too much freedom to interpret his words in ways which suit them.
So Ron Paul believes the federal government should not be getting involved with business which affects the states. That is the start and the end of the argument.
Unfortunately, this stance give spin doctors a field day. This stance gives them so much latitude they may find it hard to contain themselves, as this paragraph shows.
Fox News article today by Shane VanderHart and James Bell that highlights this “problem”
Unfortunately, Congressman Paul opposes any federal action to protect the unborn in line with the 14th Amendment and the Republican Party Platform.
At the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina, Congressman Paul said of the idea of protecting the unborn using the constitutional authority of the 14th Amendment: “Well, if you wanted to stretch the interpretation and enhance the power of the central government rather than enhancing the power of the local government, because they deal with all acts of violence. I think they’re quite capable.”
In other words, much like Mr. Douglass, Dr. Paul believes that states rights supersede human rights.
Apparently Ron Paul wanting to give the power to states for their own laws means Ron Paul believes human rights are less important that states rights.
This is obviously completely misleading.
Ron Paul wants to hand the power of judging human rights vs state rights to the people of the states.
Shane VanderHart and James Bell, the authors of this article are exposing his own prejudices by insinuating that people in the states will vote against human rights if the federal government does not step in.
I let you to be the judge if Shane VanderHart and James Bell are right or wrong.
The argument put forward by Shane VanderHart and James Bell are typical of the mainstream media and socialists.
The most obvious point people like to attack Ron Paul on is private healthcare
Apparently Ron Paul says, if you don’t have health insurance you should not get treated.
If you can not afford health insurance you should not get treated.
The line goes that because Ron Paul does not believe that the federal government should pay for the healthcare of the poor and therefore Ron Paul believes that the poorest in society should go without healthcare.
Again, this last line say more about the people who say it than it does about Ron Paul.
The people who want federal health insurance are saying that people are basically all bad and do not want to help people who are less fortunate than themselves.
This is the socialist mentality and personally I find it insulting as a human being.
Ron Paul’s position is that people are basically good and enjoy helping others.
Personally, I buy into the Ron Paul argument.
I have not met a single person that does not get a sense of satisfaction from helping someone who needs their help.
From opening a door from someone to saving a person’s life. I believe humans are hard-wired to get a pleasurable response when they help someone.
If you believe that you are basically a bad and selfish person then of course, forcing you to do something against your will could be the only way to make society function. Which means you can not vote for Ron Paul.
If on the other hand you have a faith in the goodness of yourself, you do not need a government to force you to do something which the government thinks is best.
And this is what it comes down to.
But I hear people saying, “but I am a good person it’s the others that are the problem, they need to be forced to do the right thing because they are bad”.
Are you sure you are a good person? Because you are saying it is right to force people against their will to do something they do not agree with.
As long as their will does not infringe upon your liberty what business is it of yours? Why do you think you have the moral high ground over another person? What gives you the right to restrict the freedom of someone else?
There is no way you can fully understand the motives of others.
What gives you the right for your experience, knowledge and beliefs to override the experience, knowledge and beliefs of others and in turn restrict their freedom by commandeering their property and labour against that person’s will?
Before you jump on the bandwagon saying that people are basically selfish and that people need a “loving” government, think what our opinion says about you.
More Stories
Why Greeks Want The Bailouts To Stop
Banks – Have Governments Forgotten Their Purpose?
Lagarde List – Does Greece Have The Dumbest Media & Politicians In Euro Zone?