http://libertymaven.com/2008/10/23/ron-paul-fundamentals-the-role-of-government/2723/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:04:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://libertymaven.com/2008/10/23/ron-paul-fundamentals-the-role-of-government/2723/comment-page-1/#comment-1490 RBurnett Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:26:15 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=2723#comment-1490 I wonder what Ron Paul would say to James Madison. who said in the 51st Federalsit that the first duty of government is to control the governed and the second duty to control itself, that the primary control on the government is a dependence on the people, yet it is necessary to have resort to auxiliary precautions, which include but are not limited to the law and the Constitution? Indeed, there is as much said about popular folly as there is about popular or majority tyranny--indeed, the so-called libertarian J S Mill stated, after making the case for the sovereign individual, that this soverignity was not for the immature, indeed, that despotism is a legitimate mode of government when dealing with barbarians, if only to help them out of their barbarism. Aristotle also noted the need for the occasional intervention of the wise statesman, the so-called philosopher-king, to help the self-governing polity when it goes off track. The history of American politics is, from the beginning, full of actions by American politicians outside of the law and the Constitution for our own good--so said Jefferson himself in a letter to Breckenridge(Aug 1803) in defense of his illegal act in the Louisiana Purchase, defending the Purchase as while beyond the Constitution, yet for our own good. Sounds like McCain's idea of helping. There's also this: Despite those auxiliary precautions, the people will get whatever it is they want, if they want it long enough and elect representatives who will follow thier wishes. There need not be any Revolution, just a law or amendment passed that makes a new thing of the rest of the law or Constitution, indeed, simply a new way of thinking or a new tradition or set of habits.The 14th Amendment has been cited as one such amendment that altered a lot of things, the development of the political party (a thing not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Federalist, although alluded to in the discussion of the faction) and the extension to women and minorities of the right to vote. What exactly is Paul's position on these three things? Eliminate political parties, repeal the 14th and take the vote away from those mentioned? That this would bring us back to the original Constitution is an irrelevant debate as to do any of these things is to provoke a real Revolution, and not the tepid thing that the Paul presents. I wonder what Ron Paul would say to James Madison. who said in the 51st Federalsit that the first duty of government is to control the governed and the second duty to control itself, that the primary control on the government is a dependence on the people, yet it is necessary to have resort to auxiliary precautions, which include but are not limited to the law and the Constitution? Indeed, there is as much said about popular folly as there is about popular or majority tyranny–indeed, the so-called libertarian J S Mill stated, after making the case for the sovereign individual, that this soverignity was not for the immature, indeed, that despotism is a legitimate mode of government when dealing with barbarians, if only to help them out of their barbarism. Aristotle also noted the need for the occasional intervention of the wise statesman, the so-called philosopher-king, to help the self-governing polity when it goes off track. The history of American politics is, from the beginning, full of actions by American politicians outside of the law and the Constitution for our own good–so said Jefferson himself in a letter to Breckenridge(Aug 1803) in defense of his illegal act in the Louisiana Purchase, defending the Purchase as while beyond the Constitution, yet for our own good. Sounds like McCain’s idea of helping.
There’s also this: Despite those auxiliary precautions, the people will get whatever it is they want, if they want it long enough and elect representatives who will follow thier wishes. There need not be any Revolution, just a law or amendment passed that makes a new thing of the rest of the law or Constitution, indeed, simply a new way of thinking or a new tradition or set of habits.The 14th Amendment has been cited as one such amendment that altered a lot of things, the development of the political party (a thing not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Federalist, although alluded to in the discussion of the faction) and the extension to women and minorities of the right to vote. What exactly is Paul’s position on these three things? Eliminate political parties, repeal the 14th and take the vote away from those mentioned? That this would bring us back to the original Constitution is an irrelevant debate as to do any of these things is to provoke a real Revolution, and not the tepid thing that the Paul presents.

]]>