Ron Paul's Manifesto
Here is Ron Paul's political manifesto, Freedom Under Siege, a courageous book on civil liberties and the rights of Americans that are relentlessly under assault from government. It was written in 1987, on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, and is back in print for the first time.
It is here that Dr. Paul provides his most extended thoughts on what it means to be a constitutionalist in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.
He connects violations of individual rights to an interventionist foreign policy and the supposed needs of national security. Here he blasts the draft and draft registration, impositions on the right of individuals to own guns, restrictions on the freedom to speak and write, and draws out the links between all these policies.
Paul further discusses the tie between individual liberties and sound money. When a nation's money is controlled by the people instead of the state, they retain their essential freedoms. But when money is monopolized by government with no tie to a commodity, the state is in a position to ride roughshod over our liberties.
Other issues discussed include the true meaning of patriotism, the moral law as it applies to politics, the meaning of leadership in a free society, the nature of the state in light of his experiences in Washington, and the historic and ever-lasting conflict between the individual and the state.
Comments (26)
Fielding J. Hurst
Is this book back out in print? FJH
Published: August 27, 2007 3:51 PM
jeffrey
Yes, back in print.
Published: August 27, 2007 3:57 PM
zenpiper
I am a supporter of Dr. Paul, and in a perfect world his philosophy, book and campaign would be attracting far greater attention. But this is not a perfect world; the media are manipulated, the politicians are manipulated by higher-ups (notably by the Council of 300) and the world is run by secrecy. We are, regrettably, given the illusion that votes matter (the machines have been rigged for decades) and that the average person has a say in government. Well, yes, we each have a say, but it counts for little, except in local government. Nationally, we were compromised long ago. Dr. Paul's book is terrific, in theory, however.
Published: August 27, 2007 5:12 PM
TGGP
"Council of 300"? What in Sam Hill are you yammering about? Someone get Kinsella in here to mock the marginal goofballs.
Published: August 27, 2007 9:29 PM
Brian D. Kohl
I presume he is talking about the main members of the Council of Foreign Relations. I may be wrong, but I don't think he is making reference to Leonidas and his men. However, I could easily digest a good book by both Ron Paul and Heroditus in the same evening.
Published: August 27, 2007 10:41 PM
zenpiper
It's hardly a surprise that few know of the Council of 300, but there is substantial info on the Internet, and on YouTube also (a 10-part series by Dr. John Coleman, of MI6, the British Intelligence Agency). The CFR is one of its branches, as is The Club of Rome, the Tavistock Group, the Bilderburg Group and similar organizations, which do their best to avoid publicity. All seek to destabilize the U.S. via a variety of methods. If you have a few minutes, do some research and learn for yourself.
Published: August 27, 2007 11:35 PM
Steven Smith
Good to see this fine work re-available, this time with Siege spelt right; I have Doctor Paul's research to thank for the fact I learnt in the teeth of what I considerably already knew that before 1870 there was no federal justice department, only an office of the federal attorney general who supervized a reasonably few federal attorneys & marshals, all of course with quite narrow jurisdiction--at least before the war of northern aggression! the death blow to state rights. Ron Paul proved repeatedly in this sterling book why he has been the greatest living American since Ayn Rand died as well as the greatest American statesman since Joseph McCarthy or at least George Wallace--maybe even John Bricker of my own state Ohio. As to Ronald Reagan's name in this short list I do not omit but exclude it. My stand on Reagan has been aired before & I refer all critics, scoffers, detractors et cetera to the investigative efforts going back to the 1940s of Myron Fagan, Kent Steffgen & Alan Stang, which latter yet continues to unearth facts incriminating of many vile characters with malefic designs on American wlefare, safety & freedom.
Re John Coleman & The Committee of 300: I have seen his book & must acknowledge the validity of many of his points but his animus for austrianism is high for some reason as he describes Lugwig von Mises & the Mont Pelerin Society quite invidiously, surely the inspiration for Eustace Mullins' own like performance in more than 1 of his unnerving books. If Coleman has been connected to MI6 in any way he likely is poison & his less than thoroughly substantiated claims by definition are dubious. The British empire has ever menaced America more than communism, bad as it is, ever did or could. The Federal Reserve System is basically but the American office of the Bank of England, & merits immediate abolition in favor of restoral of gold specie circulation. Along with many other things sought by the truly honorable Ronald Paul!
Published: August 28, 2007 3:28 AM
Philip Haddad
It would be great to have a 2nd edition, much has changed and it hasn't escaped Dr. Paul's notice. Preach it Paul.
Published: August 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Nelson
If he weren't so anti-immigrant I'd be a lot more supportive of him. Keeping a Federal blockade against willing laborers from meeting up with and working for willing empolyers doesn't say "pro-freedom" to me.Published: August 29, 2007 9:38 AM
Robert M.
Nelson,
He's not anti-immigrant, he's anti-ILLEGAL immigration. I wouldn't even mind letting them come, but their freedom gained is my freedom lost. This is due to our tyrannical government trying to help everyone with everything. They usually dont pay taxes so guess who gets stuck with the bill for their ER bills (they aren't typically the healthiest bunch,) their kid's education, and the bill for translators mandated by the state. Also, property rights aren't strong where they are from and sometimes they forget that they are here and ignore them.
Published: August 29, 2007 2:02 PM
Nelson
Lies.
"But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity." - Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
One man's freedom is not more important than another man's (all men are created equal). As far as taxes are concerned, they can pay taxes if they're legal. Keeping them illegal does not help. And the comment about them ignoring property rights (especially if there's an easy legal means of entry)? Hopefully you'll never be selected for a jury with your preconceived convictions.
Published: August 29, 2007 4:39 PM
IMHO
Robert M:
I understand what you're saying. People believe that we have unlimited resources (natural and financial) and can therefore admit an unlimited number of people. As it is, the Southwestern states are fighting over the water supply.
It is said that by making all immigrants legal, they will begin to contribute taxes and thus pay their way. But when you consider the low wages they'll be receiving, I don't know if they'll be able to contribute sufficient taxes to cover the services they'll require and that the government will happily provide; i.e. food stamps, low-income housing, health insurance, education.
We need to fix the problems in this country first before applying any more pressure to a system that's about to blow sky high.
Quite frankly, I would not be opposed to a moratorium on all immigration until we get our act together.
Published: August 30, 2007 9:25 AM
Brainpolice
"If he weren't so anti-immigrant I'd be a lot more supportive of him. Keeping a Federal blockade against willing laborers from meeting up with and working for willing empolyers doesn't say "pro-freedom" to me."
The implications of border enforcement and immigration restrictionism: protectionism in the labor market (the unions gotta love it!), tax-payer funded walls (a pork-barrel heaven), black markets that exist BECAUSE of existing limits on migration (we all should know our prohibition theory here), more federal control over the states, more homeland security bereaucract and reinforcement of government ownership of land (the borders themselves, of course, represent a government's claim of territorial monopoly). Oh, and it's a total violation of free association.
I'm amused by the pragmatic and utilitarian arguements put foreward by the separatists (and yes, border enforcement is a type of separatism) on this issue. Apparently everything from free association to voluntary contract can be tossed out the window in the name of cultural concerns or exaggerated economic doomsday scenarios. "Forced integration" is claimed, but forced segregation through the guns of the state is no better, and CANNOT be logically rationalized using libertarian principles.
Published: August 30, 2007 10:43 AM
Kaj Grüssner
If you listen to what Dr. Paul says he is clearly not against immigration, in fact he welcomes it. Just listen to his interview at Google. He is against giving illegal immigrants citizenship ahead of those who have entered the country legally and are waiting for their citizenship to come through. Surely this is very reasonable and just? How would you feel to get jumped ahead in the line for citizenship by someone who came into the country illegally and did nothing to actually deserve citizenship?
Its obvious that Dr. Paul wants immigrants to be able to come into the US and work, but they should do so legally and responsably, i.e be ready to pay for their own education, health care, housing and all else with the money they earn from their labour. In practice this means less bureaucracy, less mandates put on the states by the federal government and easier passage into the country. If the immigrants actually have to -fend- for themselves when they get here, they wouldn't become scapegoats or targets for racist, populist political movements anymore.
How anyone can think these ideas are bad or anti-freedom is beyond me. Gaining freedom on the expense of others isn't being pro-freedom, it is socialism.
Published: August 30, 2007 12:22 PM
Robert M.
Nelson,
Maybe if you had read my comment then you would have know that I was referring to the illegal immigrants as not having respect for property rights, as evidenced by the damage done in my home state of Texas due to illegals near the border.
And what you said supports my argument..."One man's freedom is not more important than another man's" is exactly right, his freedom is no more important than mine. Your argument is definatly socialist in nature.
Published: August 30, 2007 4:58 PM
Kaj Grüssner
Brainpolice
If you ask Murray N. Rothbard, having nationstates at all is uncompatible with libertarian principles. He used the word "Anarcho" in his term Anarcho-Capitalist for a reason.
Dr. Paul is not an Anarcho-Capitalist, he is a Minarchist like all the Classical Liberalists of old, such as Bastiat and von Mises. He believes the state does have a function, and that is to protect every citizen's right to life, liberty and property. On of the many and very unfortunate consequenses with having nationstates is that there will be some form of separation. However, this is not a problem in a Minarchist society since there is no government welfare programs creating incentives for foreign nationals to enter the country illegally and enjoy welfare benefits.
In the society Dr. Paul envisions the only thing border patrol needs to worry about is foreign military aggression, as any civilian who enters the country will have nothing to gain but wages of labour. However, if you want citizenship you need to register upon entry and apply for it, and most importantly wait your turn. Not jump ahead those who have been waiting for several years because they had the decency to go about it the legal way. Obviously, one can easily assume that obtaining citizenship in Dr. Paul's America would be much easier than it is now.
That said, no one can make the claim Dr. Paul is not a Libertarian and consistent with Libertarian principles. Anyone who makes that claim, makes the same claim of Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and all of the Founding Fathers. Let us not forget that Classical Liberalism, for which all of the above mentioned are great representatives, is the tradition from which modern Libertarian philosophy is sprung.
Published: August 31, 2007 1:45 AM
Nelson
Do you believe they would have more respect for property rights if their livelyhood didn't depend on ignoring them? If your city was poor and didn't have jobs, would you try to work in a neighboring city that had companies offering you good jobs in order to feed yourself and your family? Would you still try working there even if their city council passed laws preventing you from entering/living/working there and the companies were willing to ignore those laws for you?
You think that because I believe people should have freedom of association and freedom to work for or hire the person of their choosing that I'm a Socialist?
Which of your freedoms are being violated? I see people working around me all the time. What do I care where they come from? If people were comming over and shooting us, that would be a problem. But if they come over and pick our vegetables and cook for us because we hire them to, that is not a problem. In fact it is a sign of freedom.
It is also a sign that we can work together and build a peaceful world if we ignore borders and treat each other like neighbors instead of enemies. Call me a (Classical) Liberal if you want, but don't call me a Socialist. I want less Government control over our lives. Let people live and work with one anoter freely. I do not want more Government control like the Gestapo cracking down on businesses because they're not hiring "state approved" persons.
Published: August 31, 2007 2:22 PM
Tim
"However, if you want citizenship you need to register upon entry and apply for it, and most importantly wait your turn. Not jump ahead those who have been waiting for several years because they had the decency to go about it the legal way."
I'm not an immigrant, so I don't know, but my impression is that urgency often trumps decency in dire situations. My understanding is that the naturalization procedure is a huge bottleneck through which many immigrants have not the convenience to traverse. They need to get out of wherever they are NOW, even if it means running afoul of our labyrinthine naturalization process. I try to be sensitive to these needs when pondering questions of the rule of law in the welfare state.
I still support Ron Paul, though I cringe at his immigration policy.
Published: September 1, 2007 3:22 PM
Kaj Grüssner
Tim
Again, if you believe the state has a function, i.e you are not an anarchist, you will have nationstates and you will have borders and you will have citizenships.
Dr. Paul's wants to lessen bureaucracy, he wants to free up the borders, he wants to let people come into the US. In other words, he wants to do all those things you seem to be calling for.
But in order to do that, we must first heavily reduce the power of the federal government and give it back to the states. We must remove most if not all social benefits so that immigrants no longer can be made out to be scapegoats, and simultaneously have no other reason to enter except to earn wages of labour. Also, those who have entered the country legally and applied for citizenship in due course must obviously come first.
Dr. Paul wants to do all this, as he has repeatedly stated. Unless you are an anarchist who wishes all the nationstates and thus all national bordes to be wiped out from the world map, or have completely misunderstood the good doctor, I cannot see any reason for you to be critical of his stance on immigration when looking at it from a liberalist viewpoint.
Published: September 10, 2007 7:58 PM
Kaj Grüssner
Nelson
If you ask me, you seem to more of an Anarcho-Capitalist like Rothbard than a Classical Liberal like Mises :)
Published: September 10, 2007 8:01 PM
Bob
The truth is the market as it is right now is masking huge problems that no one really is grasping because of the enormity of it all.
There is no free market, and the free market is not a utopia. You all should go read some Oswald Spengler, Mises, Ron Paul, et, al, really need to be reading about ancient histories greatest philosophers, and civilizations... The only thing that protects nation states is cultural centers, and capitalism is not really a cultural center unfortunately.
Todays cultural centers are multi-national advertising agencies, so it's little wonder children and Americans in general are descending into a kind of consumerist barbarism.
What americans SHOULD be doing, is focusing their money and funding an independent organization with large influxes of capital, the government has shown itself incompetent, the good people of america really need to break away and start a new culture or form a new state. I really doubt elections mean jack shit anymore, you have to stop feeding the bad people in the corporations money that control and tool the many peoples and nations of the earth today.
Commerce only builds false unstable peace, the people themselves have to be high quality and animalistic. If anything modern marketarian states like the US, Japan and Canada are all having severe problems.
The truth is we've entered a new stage of capitalism - where corporations are nimble nation state like entities.
There are two governments: The rule by resource (money) and the rule by force and law (government), private industry is no panacea, the free market is not utopia.
I really wonder if Americans have forgotten slavery, apartheid, the civil rights movement, and how bad the 'free market' was as we go backwards in time. The further we go back in time the more free market the US was, and more people were worse off for it. Every last freedom you have and increase in pay was because you FOUGHT for it, we can never give up fighting for what matters...
Hard working people, and CONCERN for the WELFARE of your fellow citizens, once you turn into excessive individualistic animal, nations break down. You need to balance out concern for self, with concern for others of similar values. No man is an island, and you all CO-OPERATE to COMPETE, the foundation of markets is not COMPETITION like idiots would have you believe it is CO-OPERATION. You all have to accept the market and money system and participate in it by CONSENT, whether you are aware of it or not.
It's too bad really that free trade agreements were a large part of the cause of the mexican migration... I really wonder how the US is going to cope with so many people and such a strain on resources in certain states.
Published: September 18, 2007 5:45 AM
Anthony
I really don't know what to make of the above post.
Published: September 18, 2007 7:43 AM
Kaj Grüssner
Neither do I, it seems more than a little schizofrenic. However, there are only two ways to go: Freedom, or statism. Mises said as much, and he was right. The notion that we need states, governments, politicians and bereaucrats is not only incomprehensible, it is a logical anomaly.
Think about it. We know politicians can't be trusted. We know they are cheats, charlatans, frauds and outright criminals. We know this, and that's why so many of us dispise them. I don't think I've ever met a single person who've thought politicians on the whole are nice and good people, selflessly sacrificing themselves for the greater good. What I can't figure out is this:
Why do we still want them to run our lives? Why do we want people we don't like and don't trust to control us? Can someone please explain this to me?
Published: September 18, 2007 2:09 PM
chris
Why do we still want them to run our lives?
Why do we want people we don't like and
don't trust to control us? Can someone
please explain this to me?
I don't think I can explain it well and evidently, nobody else can either considering it is now January and your post was from September.
This is not an explanation per se but it seems to me that because we in the US have enjoyed such a long run of prosperity while becoming the empire we now are nobody cares about anything that goes on in gov't. Hence, the Patriot Act and many other things. As a people we are more concerned about Hollywood starlets getting divorced, going to rehab, jail, exposing their genitalia, etc.
Now we are losing our status in the world and still the masses don't notice. For that matter, I think most of the politicians don't notice. Once we have become a mere shadow of what we once were, we can hopefully expect a change for the better. My fear is that a massive collapse will bring a dictator type to power rather than somebody who cares as much as Ron Paul.
Published: January 29, 2008 1:45 AM
littlepear
A friend of mine is appalled at how little useful information is taught in K thru 12 here in the U.S. I grudgingly had to agree. We've been dumbed down by the U.S. Dept. of Education.
For instance, my European friend knew all about world history and world wars, and all I was taught was my local Southern California history and a bit of U.S. History.
Published: March 28, 2008 3:04 AM
Peter
European education isn't much better, though. Go find some middle-school textbooks from the mid-19th century, and compare with university texts from today.
Published: March 28, 2008 10:39 PM