There is a February 7, 2005 article of Ron Paul's making the rounds on the Internet's Libertarian-alternative cites. The Libertarians are trying mightily to overlook all the historical, philosophical, ideological, and theological negatives associated with the current usage of Libertarianism (that's with an uppercase L, as you can readily see). It's uppercased to differentiate it from pure liberty, which Libertarianism definitely does not guarantee, quite the contrary, as we shall somewhat discuss below. I say somewhat here, because the topic necessarily branches out to cover the entirety of existence and as St. John the Divine said in his version of the Good News (Gospel), And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25.
Before I begin, let me say that as a Christian, I know that evil is very subtle for those who are still growing up. Subtle is a relative thing. From God's perspective, there is nothing subtle about it. From the perspective of a four-year-old child just realizing for the first time his or her exposure to an ever-expanding vocabulary, the term itself "subtle" has usually not been introduced or grasped within much context, if any. That child can very easily be led off. Subtleness, therefore, is something that diminishes over time, provided we grow with an eye to apprehending truth.
Throughout this process, people do not necessarily become and remain highly conscious of this phenomenon. They latch onto some train-of-thought or school-of-thought as the saving grace. Christians, of course, may be wrongfully denounced for this, in as much as they become devoted to the path blazed by Jesus. I say "wrongfully denounced," because the path of Jesus is the one and only path that is not a dead end (doesn't lead to the death of the soul, as Jesus defines that death — It is not necessarily annihilation in the sense of unconsciousness or being blacked out eternally forevermore).
The degree to which Ron Paul has latched onto Libertarianism and remains ignorant of its pitfalls or is really aware of them but is a witting pied piper, we cannot say. He has run in the circles of Libertarianism for many decades. He has rubbed elbows with the vanguard of the Libertarian movement. He has been in Congress for many consecutive terms. He ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian. No doubt, he has been subjected to many questionings concerning Libertarianism. We can readily see that he has perfected the art of dodging the landmines. We can readily see that he knows very well how to use the relative obscurity of Libertarianism to his best personal advantage. What the people don't know about Libertarianism's negatives, he won't raise. Well, we will.
Ron Paul's article is dissected below. His portions appear in block quotes for your convenience.
"What Does Freedom Really Mean?" by Ron Paul. Ron Paul 2008. February 7, 2005.
"...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."
I'd love to just write everything I'm about to write right here. The issue is exactly over the definition of terms, which Paul goes into and uses as a negative critique of current ideological usage. Therefore, I'll hold off and allow this to unfold interspersed throughout Paul's article. Perhaps I'll come back to Ronald Reagan at the end, but perhaps not, since his errors are legend and could easily swell this post to fill the world, as St. John put it.
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.
So far, Ron is mostly on track; however, he has begun to diverge here because he has not yet qualified the term "democracy" by saying "some understandings of democracy." As you will see, Ron has only one connotation of the term democracy and that's pure, direct, democracy. He writes in a way that precludes consideration of limited, representative democracy.
Now to be clear and fair here, as a Christian, I too have a singular understanding of the term "democracy" and it is pure and direct. However, where Christianity and Ron's view part company concerns how those terms (pure and direct) fit within a worldview as a whole. What I mean is that the definition of terms is built up upon yet other definitions, which, in turn, are built up upon earlier conceptualizations, ad infinitum, until one's worldview is in evidence.
One's definitions are meaningful within one's overarching context, and one's overarching context is built of all its pieces. This is why the Real Liberal Christian Church speaks of the "language of the revelation."
It is a language in the same sense as the native tongues of the various nations around the planet. One may be speaking English for instance while speaking the language of the revelation and the concepts being spoken may remain as foreign to English-only speakers as Greek. The language of the revelation may also be spoken in Greek and Hebrew and in every other such type language.
Why don't people understand the language of the revelation in their common, native tongues? Jesus used figurative and literal meanings of the same terms even simultaneously to make his point, to reach people with the truth, and to separate the intractably hardhearted from the redeemable in the here and now. When he said "bread," the meaning he was imparting depended upon his context at that moment. He might have been speaking of common bread as the smallest child is first given to understand it. He might have also been speaking of the spiritual bread (God). He might have been speaking of both.
It is within that expanded view that we must look at the terms "democracy" and "liberty" and all other terms for that matter. We must define our terms and contexts as best we are able so as to be understood and connect and not lead astray down the wrong, dead-end path.
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?
Real democracy is freedom. Real democracy is where everyone is free to choose salvation. Real democracy is where the truth is not censored. Where the truth is not censored, everyone will choose salvation. There is much more that could be said here, but again, we will let it unfold as Ron raises points in his article.
Also, as we will explain, the "republican constitutional system" of which Ron Paul is speaking itself is not real freedom.
Please note here though that Ron Paul is definitely hearkening back to a time before democratically elected representatives where in vogue. Ron Paul himself has been democratically elected. Yet he says that because the word "democracy" doesn't show verbatim in the U.S. Constitution that, that signifies that limited democracy is not foundational to that Constitution. Now he knows this, yet he avoids it throughout his article because it doesn't serve the agenda that he intentionally keeps hidden, exactly as he accuses others of doing by virtue of his references to George Orwell above. What I'm saying here is that Ron Paul is being selective. He is deliberately accusing others of limiting the context to suit them while he himself his guilty of the same thing. It is hypocrisy.
Now why would Christianity not also be guilty of this? The reason is because Jesus didn't limit the context. Jesus's context was infinite, eternally. Jesus did not limit the debate, so to speak. All theologies, philosophies, ideologies, definitions, contexts, and the like were open for refutation by his cosmic view, both material and spiritual.
That's one of the reasons we love him. It is the reason we love him, because the one thing translates into all the other aspects about him and his teachings and great and good deeds. His view is consistent. It is the only view we've ever heard that is.
Contrary to Jesus's theology, Ron Paul's Libertarianism is far, far from being able to withstand scrutiny as to whether or not it will result in what is best.
Also, as for the "whims of the masses" and "pre-existing rights," the very pre-existing rights to which Ron Paul refers are themselves arbitrary allegations. Those "rights," according to Ron and his ilk, are to be understood from within the confines of the secular, humanistic, Hellenized, so-called Enlightenment era.
This is a huge area. In brief, the official churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican to which the "founding fathers" were primarily reacting) have made many errors down through history. They have done many things that are decidedly opposed to Christianity (the teaching and example of Jesus). Rather than correct those errors within the churches, the "founders" chose rather that which would afford them the greatest license to build up their own personal, private estates, including estates that owned and worked slaves and did other clear and plain evils. Ron Paul serves only to perpetuate gross deviation from Christlikeness.
Why choose Libertarianism when one may choose to emulate and join Jesus? Which path will result in the best eternal existence? We know that Jesus is not a Libertarian, although he is a lower-case libertarian. His way results in the greatest freedom possible.
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.
Now, Ron Paul says, "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." Not so. A truly democratic election in Iraq would result in the creation of Christianity. Why? In a true democracy, there is no censorship or coercion. The whole message of Jesus Christ would not be censored. Islam would have to debate openly, honestly, and directly, which path would result in what is best for every person. No clerics or militia or other group could threaten or punish anyone during the entire process. In fact, in order to have a truly democratic election, Christianity would have to already exist in the hearts and minds of everyone in the country. Only Christianity is willing. All other systems are unwilling, because they all fear loss, whereas Christianity is assured victory where there is no censorship, where truth is not suppressed.
We must also address the meaning of the term "government." Ron Paul is using it in a context that is certainly not all-encompassing. Jesus, however, rightly considers God the supreme governor and authority over everything. We agree with Jesus wholeheartedly. God's government is not anti-freedom. Of course, the definition of "freedom" is up for debate here until Jesus is understood. Government is how things are governed, ordered, regulated, etc. Everything is governed regardless of how chaotic and random it may be perceived. No matter how the human spirit may deconstruct or misconceptualize, everything remains subject to government. Nothing gets out from under the control of God. We cannot remove things out from under him.
This issue becomes one of sovereignty. Who is the sovereign? Who has the ultimate say over individuals? The Libertarians say it is the individual. Christians say it is God and the individuals and the whole that is their collective or Church. Jesus teaches that Christians are one in heart and soul and that they abide (dwell, live) in God and that God, in turn, dwells in them, individually and collectively. The implications of this are profound and when both properly understood and put into practice, have a radical impact upon the world that is in error concerning such matters. The whole manner of governing and being governed is stood on its head. It does not result in Libertarianism but rather libertarianism and collectivism, simultaneously and non-coercively. It is this truth that the powers that be have sought to keep under wraps from before Jesus.
Ron Paul too doesn't want to discuss it openly at any length for to do so would expose the errors of his political economy and prevent the selfish outcome he desires (whether he's fully aware of his selfishness or not — we more than suspect he is aware since he is an admirer of Ayn Rand, as we shall see).
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.
"Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion," Ron says. Here is where we will address the meaning of the term "freedom." Freedom is to be free of not just coercion but also evil that includes coercion. Now, we are required to define "evil." This is where Libertarianism is most exposed.
Evil is selfishness. That is the inevitable conclusion of the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ. If everyone were to be unselfish, that would be best for leading to what is best. There is no other path that is better. Therefore and simply put, freedom is the absence of the humanly contrived government that is based on selfishness.
Understand here that Libertarianism is not the absence of human government. It can't be. Humans are governed and always have been. What matters here is that Libertarianism is government of, by, and for selfishness. It is their way of saying allow each person to be as selfish as he or she wants while at the same time allowing locals to say what is and isn't a crime and how to enforce laws and mete out punishments. What's free of evil about that? All it shows are selfish hearts fighting against other selfish hearts that are at the top of the heap right now of the heap of selfish spirits.
There are Libertarians who hold with doing no harm to others while each person is free to do whatever he or she wants. However, that's just falling short of Christianity. It is just a means of avoiding finally being righteous through-and-through. They want to maintain that little out so they can continue engaging in some selfishness (evil), and they know it in the backs of their minds.
Now, Ron Paul's political economy allows for "national defense" and local protection of "individuals against criminal force and fraud." However, Jesus said don't fight at all, don't commit selfishness at all, don't defraud at all. That's the right governing philosophy to promote. Who needs national militant-defense when violence itself is offensive and engenders more of itself the more people resort to it, including for defense? It isn't the right example for eternal justice. It isn't good enough. In addition, Jesus went way beyond just saying what not to do. He said to take care of each other. Since he said that Christians are to be one, then necessarily Christians are to do that collectively as well as individually. Heaven on Earth is the result, and everything else just serves to retard it.
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.
Ron writes, "Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive." Well, he's using the term "government" here to the deliberate exclusion of God. He knows full well that an alternative to his Libertarianism is Christianity as defined by Jesus Christ. He knows the history of those who hate Jesus. He knows that the implications of all that Jesus teaches and lives means that those who hate him ought not to be doing what they are doing. He knows that Libertarianism comes out of the hearts of people who are being basically greedy. He knows that despite his call against coercion that hypocritically he doesn't advocate doing away with all coercion but rather stands for maintaining coercive power in the hands of those who will forcefully prevent Christianity, meaning will forcefully prevent people from coming together collectively to do all the things Jesus Christ said we all ought to be doing.
Now, the government of Christianity does not require taxes. Jesus was against taxes but was for the government of God. God's government requires no taxes. In fact, money isn't needed in God's government at all. In fact, money is an insult and the people need to be weaned from that system, that addictive poison.
Paul is right though to say that donations are not taxes. Donations are completely voluntary. That's why Jesus never forces anyone to profess Christianity or to put even a penny in his common purse. Christianity is completely voluntary. No Christian attempts to force anyone else into accepting real freedom that is the absence of selfishness, greed, violence, harmful behavior of every kind, threats, intimidation, and all the like. Libertarianism cannot make that claim. It falls far short of the necessary sense-meanings of all the terms. It speaks way too much in terms of the letter of the law as opposed to also the spirit.
The New Commandment is lost on the Libertarians. Their hearts are too hard for it.
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.
Oh, this is deceptive. The "political left" is left undefined here. However, The Bible makes clear that real liberalism is generousness that leads to bounteousness that is the opposite of scarcity. Jesus fed the five thousand on five loaves and two fishes as a sign for what God will do when hearts are softened enough. We need to start softening the whole of humanity. It is the workings of God's governing principles. God's is the largest government and God is surely benevolent. Falling away from God results in government by apostates that leads to scarcity. Also, providing "housing, medical care, food, etc. for others" means that at the same time the doctor is helping people, the doctor isn't paying for anything. He or she is being fed by equally loving, caring, serving souls who do for the doctor as they should want the doctor doing unto them. It's the Golden Rule that all the gold of the type Ron Paul is storing up for himself and his family and in the whole world can't purchase.
Oh, "the laws of economics" are defined here by Ron Paul as only the Capitalists define them. It means to them laissez faire. It means, "Let do." To the Libertarians, it means let capitalist do whatever they want so long as they don't mess with other capitalists in the free-enterprise system that is only as defined by those capitalists. The term "free" in free-enterprise system is far from the meaning of being free from evil that is the selfishness of others. Let the market dictate is the Libertarian Capitalists rule. Don't regulate it. Rather regulate everything that would seek to combine for unselfish reasons. Prevent all egalitarian collectivist attempts, as those will eventually displace selfishness and the so-called free-enterprise system. That free-enterprise system, claim the Libertarian Capitalists, has its own built-in regulatory ability. Selfishness takes the place of conscience. Economic necessity sees to the needs of the people sooner or later or all will die. The selfish will share, because if they don't their workforce or propertyless wage-slaves will die leaving the capitalists (owners of the means of production) to have to actually work at manual labor, which is beneath them. They are too smart for that. Their built-in self-superior intelligence merits their being on top and employing wage-slaves and most importantly brutes who will beat anyone who won't do what they are told by the owners, which is to be selfish and not Christlike. It's where selfishness always leads. Just look at history.
If this sounds like it's coming against the Libertarian Capitalists from the large-c Communists, you're partially right. Marx went at the Capitalists as the Capitalist go after egalitarianism and even voluntary collectivism. Marx was an atheist who hated Jesus. Marx was, as are the Ron Paul Libertarian Capitalists, militant (violently coercive). He stole ideas right out of the Gospels wholesale, but said that Jesus was wrong that it should, and even must be, voluntary. Rather Marx said that it should, and must be, forced on people for their own good, as if the people are always nothing but stupid brutes. Marx was every bit the elitist that are the Capitalists. Jesus though proved them all wrong. The common people definitely understood, even better than did the haughty, well-educated, self-styled intellectuals of the day.
This is where the orthodoxy of the Libertarian Capitalists blocks their ears most, because undermining Capitalism at the roots defeats their cherished selfish accumulation of mammon and all their private, special privilege and advantage and egocentric and unfounded pride, conceit, and arrogance. Rather then giving and sharing freely as required by Jesus for all Christians and to necessarily avoid various levels of damnation, they must have their medium of exchange (mammon) so they may profit from trade.
"The landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away." What did Jesus say about Christians and his Church members collectively? For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Matthew 25:35. So, do the Christians charge the stranger rent? Do they present the hungry and thirsty with a bill after the meal or drink?
As for the ultra-wealthy doctors, especially in the U.S., where Ron Paul had the funds and connections to go through private medical school and accumulate his private riches, what bill did Jesus present to those of faith who were healed? What is this selfishness on Ron Paul's part? Doctors in the U.S. are the highest paid professionals. Why did they become doctors? Did they become doctors to heal the sick and to ease suffering and pain out of the goodness of their hearts and out of their deep and abiding sense of compassion and mercy and lovingkindness, or do most become doctors because their parents know that doctors can, and most do, end up being stinking rich? Their motivation is root evil. I use the term stinking, because the selfishness, greed, accumulation, hoarding gained off sickness, pain, and suffering is offensive. That system is rotting garbage that needs to be buried.
Doctors make lots of money that they don't plow back into their practices. They invest in all sorts of capitalistic enterprises. That's why so many of them are Republicans. They practice "healing" as a capitalist enterprise. Profit is the motivation.
They are for capitalism in medicine, but they are also for regulating the market. Hence the requirement for a license to practice healing. If Jesus were here today, the capitalists would ask to see his license. If you aren't connected or your family hasn't somehow obtained the wherewithal or you haven't sufficiently ingratiated yourself to the powers that be, you won't get into or through medical school and receive a license to make all that money off disease.
There a doctors, however, who don't really like the system. They feel trapped. They know it's a racket in many respects, and do the best they can without rocking the boat so much that the system spills them out and yanks their licenses.
Ron Paul, a medical doctor himself, suggests that he advocates against unqualified coercive government by humans. He doesn't though advocate for the freely giving and sharing government of God for humans. What charge does God have for the rain for the crops or for the sunshine to grow them or the water or soil? Human beings ate for millennia without paying any money to anyone. Ron Paul wouldn't even exist if not for that. When Ron gets a cut or a bruise, he doesn't heal it. God does. Where are his receipts for having paid God for God's services? God doesn't present a bill. Yet God is vastly more educated than is Ron Paul. Why does Ron advocate some artificial rule rather than advocating for what God does, as Jesus advocated for what God does? What did Ron Paul have to pay to enter this life?
Don't imagine he's never been confronted with this. He's heard it. He just ignores it. He's allowed himself to be conditioned into ignoring it so he may go on his merry way making a profit and gaining power and control and receiving the accolades of his followers, who are in danger of becoming, or are already, sycophants.
He is correct to discriminate between what he terms "modern" liberals and "modern" conservatives versus what the terms liberal and conservative really mean. However, what they really mean and what he says they really mean are not the same thing. Read on.
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.
Ron Paul is right up to a point. He's preaching partial-truths or half-truths. He's right that military interventions (and especially wars of aggression) are wrong. He would though have fit right in with the Deists who unnecessarily coerced the United States into being by force of arms. As for conserving tradition, the earlier conservatives of whom Paul is referring are those who sought to maintain the Liberalism of the Enlightenment that itself was a revolution against the tradition of its time. Yesterday's liberals become today's conservatives, and the liberals of today will be tomorrow's conservatives if this word-game cycle isn't dispelled.
Contrary to current usage, liberal means generous and what brings forth bounty from God and does not mean morally unrestrained. Contrary to current usage, conservative means to conserve that very real liberalism.
Also, Ron Paul didn't define "corporatism." Nor did he say what he would do about it. We are left to assume he seeks at least to limit it. First, what is corporatism? Well, it means collective bargaining. It's a fascist-leaning answer to socialism and the abolition of private property. It is government where the major sectors of the system bargain collectively with each other through representatives. Labor unions are a form of corporatism. They bargain collectively with management that represents the owners who are also a collective in that they are seen as the rightful owners of the property used by labor (employees) to produce goods or services. Government or the "state" itself is another sector in this view. The state here is that which is not privately held. Corporatism is prototypical fascism in that the next step is where private corporations actually band together in a confederation and act as the state.
This is all unchristian. In Christianity, government, the state, labor, management, etc., are all of one heart and soul. The Libertarians hate this. They say God's way is a "nanny state." Well, a nanny is a child nurse. She nurtures. God nurtures. We are all God's children. Jesus said we had better approach God as little children. That makes perfect sense.
Also, there is no private property. That is to say, there is no property that isn't the whole of Christianity's. There are only things people hold or possess that remain the property of the whole that is God and all in God and in all of whom God is. All so-called private property is the result of stealing the God-given inheritance of others.
The only reason for the current system is that there are so many people who refuse to rise above and to overcome their baser selves that have been conditioned into them. It is not their nature, contrary to the assertions of so many who claim that human beings are by nature nasty and brutish, etc. Human beings are by nature sharing. It isn't until the tempters and bullies come along, who themselves are the products of corruption of the true nature of God in us, that selfishness is fostered and foisted upon impressionable souls. There's nothing natural in it. We are Homo sapiens sapiens or "wise man." We have God-given brain matter that intentionally and meaningfully is designed that we may rise above selfishness and mere survival of the flesh in brutish pursuits. That is the true enlightenment and not the selfish pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand and her secular humanists predecessors and followers.
Christianity is a whole system. Everything within it is for righteousness sake and is considered within its whole context as true and all other as false (false-hearted, misleading, misled, unreal, and the like).
So what would Ron Paul do about corporatism that in Libertarian-speak is a code word for collective bargaining and more specifically unionism? He would further limit it or abolish it altogether, as if owners have a right to band together under contracts but workers (non-property owners) do not. That's not very consistent in terms of the so-called freedom being alleged by the Libertarians is it?
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.
Absolutely, we must get to the root meanings. That requires going well beyond anything Ron Paul has proposed here. Also, America considers itself to be a democratic-republic. Further, Ron Paul says, "We must resist any use of the word "freedom" to describe state action." He didn't define the term "state" though. Neither does he object to coercion to insure his philosophy of Libertarianism is supreme at the direct and negative expense of all those who would voluntarily form democratic collectives, such as Christian communities we advocate via our Christian Commons Project.
Ron Paul doesn't like statism, but doesn't define it either. It means central planning. Well, top-down and bottom-up is fine. What he objects to is top-down, period. He doesn't want any public collectivity. He only wants private agreements or contracts. This opens up the debate to what is public versus private and who really owns what and why. The Real Liberal Christian Church says that God owns everything, all Christians are one with God, the inheritance of the whole belongs to all who will give and share freely in strict accordance with Jesus's example, and that this is the best and only path to the highest Heaven that is the most free and liberal and conservative place there is and that is possible.
Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
*Politics and the English Language, 1946.
Ron Paul is a secular politician, and we have yet to hear from any secular politician who knows the meaning of the word "freedom." The very Constitution Ron Paul seeks to uphold was born of coercion he rebukes. Why not be consistent instead.
He is deeply embedded with Libertarian think tanks funded by some of the richest and most insensitive, merciless families in America. These people want Libertarianism, because it is all about privatizing everything, literally everything. Ron Paul, for instance, wants to privatize the U.S. National Parks. They want everything accessible by user fees paid only to private corporations. It is the exact opposite of Jesus's teaching about God. You know what the exact opposite of God is, don't you?
Does this mean that the Real Liberal Christian Church is for the government of the United States being as the neocons want it or the mixed-economy advocates? No. In fact, the Real Liberal Christian Church knows full well, as all the people should come to realize, that the government of the United States is a government over an inherent and irreconcilably broken house that cannot remain standing. The system of government cobbled together by the founders Ron Paul so admires is inherent and fatally flawed. The selfish-hearted and the unselfish-hearted can't live together. The former doesn't want to live as one heart and one soul with the latter. The latter cannot join to God with the former having his or her claws dug into the latter. This is what the prophecy is all about.
If you want to read some countervailing points from the socialist perspective, here's an article that does that. "The Freedom to Starve: Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul," by Sherry Wolf. Counterpunch. December 12, 2007.
Sherry Wolf believes Ron Paul is hypocritical for, among other things, being in favor of coercive measures to prevent abortion (social conservatism) and for being against immigration (against open borders for people but not for goods).
Also, his fervent "States Rights" position hearkens back to Ronald Reagan's coded racism. Of course, even if Ron Paul is no racist, states rights is just the same coercion of the federal government driven down to a more decentralized level where many despicable things can easily happen that don't draw as much attention and don't get the emphasis placed upon them for correction. It isn't the level of government outside the heart that matters; it's the government in the heart and the heart being one with others that matters.
No doubt, Paul is adamantly opposed to socialized medicine. Furthermore, we suspect that he is opposed to Social Security and Medicare.
Ron Paul is also no environmentalist. He doesn't believe global warming is a problem.
As for tobacco (a Libertarian favorite), Paul says that the tobacco industry, which funded the Cato Institute (the leading Libertarian think tank), ought not to pay for the negative health consequences of their product. He believes it is inconsistent, since many other unhealthy and dangerous things produced and sold are not likewise penalized.
However, we must point out that the tobacco industry deliberately engaged in misrepresentation and false advertising concerning the serious health risks (cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and others) of smoking and chewing tobacco, which they knew about but hid. They did that for decades. The same cannot be said for all other industries, although it may be said of many. Nevertheless, it's sheer evil and they ought to atone and take more care, per the New Commandment that is the whole spirit of the real law.
Ron Paul is though more anti-war than the vast majority of people in elected federal government. Additionally, he is correct in wanting to abolish the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve.
Also, many Libertarian Capitalists promote the Gold Standard. They call gold "real money." However, just like anything else, it is only as valuable as the psychological value people can conjure up about it. Oh, gold has its practical utility; however, as for being money, that's just arbitrary. The medium of exchange is anything people agree to honor as such.
Finally, the only thing that causes inflation is putting out more currency than is merited by productivity. Backing currency by gold won't matter if they just keep lowering the reserve percentage in emergency situations. They can do that with or without gold. Regardless, money is a false system created by selfish minds.
To clarify, Ron Paul is in favor of competing private currencies. That's just adding more needless confusion. It's no solution.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:16.
If you believe Jesus's own words, show your faith. Shine the light. Come together in holiness as one heart and one soul with all others who likewise believe. Together, we can bring forth the good works for which Jesus is calling. Freely give what you receive so all his lambs and sheep will be fed. Cleans the real temple within (the kingdom of Heaven is within us; God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwell within us) of all that Jesus cleansed from the Temple in Jerusalem (selfish and false gain). The resulting bounty of our synergistic work will overflow into feeding other houses. Many who would not otherwise see the light will convert to real love until the whole of the Earth is reborn conflated with Jesus's new vision of Heaven, as prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 65:17;66:22).
Enter the Labor of Real Love
Join the movement. Bring forth together. Give to The Christian Commons Project of the Real Liberal Christian Church to further this message and to translate unrighteous money out of its evil system. Free the children of God. Continue down this column or click the link to below the comment section to the section entitled, "The Righteous Appeal to Softening Hearts." Help with what you are able. Do it while you still have time.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)