Conservatives, and surprisingly many liberals,think Ron Paul is crazy for advocating such a thing. They think it’s ourduty to police the world, to maintain peace and order, and to establishdemocratic states with religious freedom like ours.
We hold thesetruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they areendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, derivingtheir just powers from the consent of the governed,
Fredric Bastiat writes:
Self-preservationand self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted useof his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, socialprogress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is alsoanother tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.
…This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man – in that primitive,universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desireswith the least possible pain.
… Now since man isnaturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it followsthat men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.
… It is evident,then, that the proper purpose of law is to usethe power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder insteadof work. All the measures of the lawshould protect property and punish plunder.
- IF we are talking aboutUS Citizens living stateside, I would argue that as long asthey are not inciting treason or breaking any laws, these proponents have theright to Free Speech just as I would have the same right to advocate going backto the establishment of Levitical law. Hopefully, both these attemptswould be deemed unconstitutional by the courts and turned down. But I don’t support bypassing Constitutional due process andthe stifling of Free Speech. And I REALLY don’t support the useof violence to suppress Free Speech.
- IF we are talking aboutforeign citizens living stateside, one could make the case thatthey are not guaranteed the same rights as our citizens do (again, nosocial contract). I’m not an immigration expert, but my guess is that ifa foreign national was inciting treason or violence in our country, at the veryleast, we could deport them back to their homelands. This may beconstrued as a military act of force, but I would argue it’s within our legaland moral grounds to use it in this case. In an extreme case where thesepeople are actually plotting attacks on us, we could detain them in militaryprisons under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Depending on the evidence, I would support this use of force, but there wouldhave to be some kind of an oversight to this use of force. The problem is that currently Idon’t see anything in the NDAA that keeps the President and the military fromabusing this power — including locking up .
- IF we are talking aboutforeign citizens living outside of the US, we have NO legal or moralrecourse to silence these people. Andthis is where we’re getting ourselves into trouble. It is not our duty tostop Sharia’s proliferation in other nations. It’s tough enough for us tojustify, to our allies and enemies, our military presence in their lands. But for us to be pushing how their laws should beestablished / people governed, that has HUGE political implications including militaryuse of violence. And I would be totally opposed tothat specific use of force.