Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul doesn’t seem to be able to speak about freedom without getting silly. The Ron Paul for President campaign is riddled with half-baked claims about the supposed foundations of American liberty. Here’s one example, from Ron Paul’s section on property rights:
“Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless.”
At a superficial glance, this seems like a profound observation about the nature of freedom in American society. Once a person stops to think about what Ron Paul is really saying, however, it starts to look more and more silly.
Is it true that without the right to own a printing press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless? Of course not. It becomes more difficult, but not meaningless. First of all, a printing press is only one way to release the news. Secondly, a person doesn’t have to themselves own the means of printing in order to publish.
I’m not arguing that people should not be allowed to own printing presses, or other means of publication or broadcast, but Ron Paul’s statement is a bit of an exaggeration and a dramatic oversimplification. There’s a lot more to freedom of the press than the right to own a printing press, but Ron Paul doesn’t seem to consider that.
What about other rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution? Is property rights really the foundation of them ALL, as Ron Paul claims?
I have a difficult time seeing how property rights are the foundation of the right to peaceably assemble, or petition the government. Freedom of speech is not dependent upon property rights either, as a person is remains capable of speaking even if that person owns absolutely nothing. What about the right to due process of law, or the right to a trial by jury? Those don’t have anything to do with property rights.
The right to confront witnesses, or the right to have a speedy trial, or the right to vote at age 18, don’t have a clear foundation in property rights either.
Some constitutional rights, like the right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure, are clearly connected to property rights. Many other constitutional rights, however, have nothing at all to do with property rights.
When Ron Paul says that “Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society”, he’s just plain wrong… unless Ron Paul doesn’t think that people ought to have legal rights unless they own property… or unless Ron Paul thinks that the United States is not a free society.
Whichever the case, Ron Paul seems profoundly out of touch with the constitutional foundations of liberty in the United States. Given that the President of the United States swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, Ron Paul seems like a downright rotten choice to become President of the United States in 2008.
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
— Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL
Personally I think your article has some serious holes in it. It is nicely written though:) “SAY HELLO TO DOCTOR NO”!!!! Get ready cause its gonna happen……..2008 baby!!!
Perhaps the concept of self-ownership is needed to make the property rights foundation of rights cover the scope mentioned.
Actually, it might be more elegant to point out that property rights are necessary for many of the other rights to actually be effective.
As for speech and assembly, your right to free speech AND assembly are very easily hobbled on public property by so-called “time, place and manner” restrictions on your exercise of these rights. My right to hold a political meeting on my own property is much more absolute than my right to hold a political meeting in Central Park.
And as for an example of how the right to a free press can be curtailed in the absence of property rights, a government with the ability to, say, ration paper, could simply deny a paper ration to those persons or organizations it didn’t like. Voila – no free press. Similarly, the state keeps broadcast media hobbled very effectively by threatening to withdraw the right to access the “public” airwaves. The impact property rights have on free speech and the free press can be pretty nicely demonstrated by comparing the content of broadcast television to that of cable television and the internet. Notice any difference there? It’s entirely a property rights difference.
Haha, boy you sure are reaching lately! You characterize him to mean that people don’t have rights unless they own property … and say that’s not Constitutional? What do you think brings all the immigrants to this country in the first place? People are not natural communists, they work to advance their lives by acquiring … you guessed it … property! And all of this proceeds from the Lockean concept that you make something yours by mixing your labor with it. The ultimate property right you have is that over your own person. This is the foundation of all liberty. To attack that is to want to squash us all into some sort of collective hive-mind. Not going to happen, thank God.
Gee, bret, you and your fellow Ron Paulians seem to be expressing a collective hive-mind pretty well… see comments #1 and #2.
Our nation was founded in a populist opposition to an overreaching government. It is not over-reaching to say that we have a tradition of small government. If there is anywhere in the world where impassioned defences of freedom would be unsurprising in a spontaneous social networking situation, this is it. Nor does the social nature of it violate the individualist premises of the defence presented. The man or woman who agrees with his or her neighbors is not necessarily a collectivist. The man or woman who decides to write an entire book without using a single ‘e’ in it is not necessarily an individualist.
Yeah, but “GOD BLESS RON PAUL!” and ““SAY HELLO TO DOCTOR NOâ€!!!!” are pretty collective hive-mindey. I’m not saying there isn’t anything to Ron Paul. I’m saying there seems to be a cultish aspect to some of his followers, not unlike the weirdly slavish devotion to Howard Dean that went away as soon as he became psychologically unuseful.
Well sure, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate for a sec.
Both Magna Carta and our Constitution were drafted by property owners, even slaveowners, who had to be appeased for the process to move forward. “No taking of life, liberty or property without the due process of law” was really the central theme; the rest was mainly procedural and the Bill of Rights was actually an afterthought to appease the populace — the powdered-wigs really didn’t think it was necessary.
And in truth, debate has raged ever since, whether democracy creates capitalism or vice versa. There are strong arguments on both sides.
Finally, regarding the “printing press” analogy, it can hardly be regarded as coincidental, that every totalitarian movement, from Russia to Germany to China to Cuba to present-day Venezuela, appropriated the media among their very first actions.
I’m still no Ron Paul fan; I’m just sayin’.
That sounds like a pretty fair response to me, Alan. What do you think, jclifford?
*laffin’* Thanks! Lot better assessment than I got from globalist_elitist… you should have seen him trying to tear me a new one, over on Third Party Watch. Sheesh.
“Secondly, a person doesn’t have to themselves own the means of printing in order to publish.”
Tell that to Wycliffe..
That few pounds of flesh that makes up a human, is it yours or are you a slave?
You are just wrong. I invite you to reconsider.
At the the Constitutional convention many people argued against the Bill of Rights. They reasoned that Constitution limited the abilities of the government to those that were stated in it. If you add the Bill of Rights then the government would then assume all power over anything not specifically cited in them over time. I think those people have been proven correct.
Yes, Alan is right, the American revolution was an elitist movement, for property owners only, and the Bill of Rights was added later at the insistance of Rhode Island, who took in all the fleeing religious groups the Puritans were killing off. As I recall you couldn’t vote unless you owned property, or maybe that was England, at any rate the tradition was already there that you weren’t a stakeholder without property. I suppose they had to lower their noses and their standards and include the riff-raff to get everyone on board with their revolution.
Martin Luther found out about owning printing presses, or at least access to them, the hard way–the pope sent agents to kill him after he printed the Bible. Monopoly on information was understood very well, even back then.
“The ultimate property right you have is that over your own person. This is the foundation of all liberty.” But somehow I don’t think the RonPaulites extend this “property right over your own person” to someone who is pregnant.
About the whole “printing press/media” issue, even if you don’t own a source of media (computer, tv, etc.) can’t you go somewhere else and use one?
Actually, Iroquois, they DO extend it to someone who is pregnant, just not in the way that you would hope. More on that today, as I close the loop in the next Ron Paul article.
Alan, I don’t accept the argument that because the Founding Fathers were property owners, that the foundation of American liberty is therefore owning property. After all, the Founding Fathers all had wigs. That doesn’t mean that the foundation of American liberty is wigs.
Goodness, these Ron Paul supporters act like a bunch of groupies.
Um, Sean, although some may have argued against the Bill of Rights, some argued for it. They were added. They are now part of the Constitution. They are what the Constitution is.
The most disturbing thing to me in looking at the comments from Ron Paul’s supporters to the several articles I’ve written about him is that they seem to have a disrespect, or even a loathing, for the Bill of Rights.
Ralph Nader thinks Ron Paul makes a great democratic asset to the presidential race, provided he doesn’t fold on the issues he allegedly supports.
Like making abortion illegal? Like banning citizenship for babies born to immigrants in the United States? Ralph Nader supports those ideas?
Property rights are a requirement for civil rights; for example, if the government can take away your home at any time, then criticizing the government is dangerous.
However, property rights are not the only requirement. We also need honest police, judges, etc., to protect us against thugs sent to stop us from speaking up. We need environmental protections, so that we’re healthy enough to speak. We need the right to travel, so that we can meet with like-minded people to speak with. All of these are sometimes in conflict with property rights, and the balance is tricky. Politicians who privilege property rights above all are either (a) not thinking things through or (b) promising to protect their sponsors’ property.
Sorry, your case for socialism is not working here…