The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Paul ArchiveBlogview
We Must Declare Independence
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

As Independence Day comes around again we should spend a few moments between barbecue and fireworks to think about the meaning of independence. The colonists who rebelled against the British Crown were, among other things, unhappy about taxation. Yet, as economist Gary North points out, the total burden of British imperial taxation was about one-to-two percent of national income.

Some 241 years later, Washington claims more of our money as its own than King George could have ever imagined. What do we get in this bargain? We get a federal government larger and more oppressive than before 1776, a government that increasingly views us as the enemy.

Think about NSA surveillance. As we have learned from brave whistleblowers like William Binney and Edward Snowden, the US intelligence community is not protecting us from foreigners who seek to destroy our way of life. The US intelligence community is itself destroying our way of life. Literally every one of our electronic communications is captured and stored in vast computer networks. Perhaps they will be used against “dissidents” in the future who question government tyranny.

We have no privacy in our computers or our phones. If the government wants to see what we are doing at any time, it simply switches on our phone camera or computer camera – or our “smart” television. Yet today we continue to hear, “I’ve got nothing to hide.”

In a recent interview on our Liberty Report, Edward Snowden made the excellent point that, “saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”

Think about the TSA. The freedom to travel is fundamental, and our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is the law of the land. But if you dare to exercise that right by purchasing an air ticket, you are treated like a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Don’t dare question as the TSA agents commit acts that would be crimes were they done by anyone else. Yet so many Americans still believe this is what it takes to be “safe.”

Think about the military industrial complex. The US government spends more on its military empire than much of the rest of the world combined. Our so-called mortal enemy Russia spends ten cents to every dollar we spend on weapons of war. Yet we are told we must spend more! Imagine the amazing peaceful scientific discoveries that might be made were so many researchers and scientists not on the government payroll designing new ways to end life on earth.

Think about the Fed. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 the US dollar has lost some 98 percent of its value. Is the destruction of our currency not a cruel form of tyranny, hitting hardest those who can least afford it?

I think it’s time for us to declare our independence from an oppressive government that seeks to control our money and our lives in ways unimaginable to those who rebelled against the British Crown in 1776. Our revolution is peaceful, and it concentrates on winning hearts and minds one at a time. But it marches on. We must reclaim the spirit of independence every day and every night and intensify the struggle against those who seek to impose tyranny upon us.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Civil Liberties, Federal Reserve 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. alexander says:

    Dear Dr. Paul,

    You should be President of the United States !

    What a wonderful article.

    Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /rpaul/we-must-declare-independence/#comment-1922754
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Since 1913 I believe the dollar has lost much more than 98% of its value, or am I missing something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    I have utmost respect for Dr. Paul and a lot of suspicion about the Federal Reserve, but America's standard of living (in addition to the dollar's buying power) have not uniformly declined by 98% since 1913.
  3. Issac says:

    Tyranny has strengthened exponentially with the arrival of modern diversity in the west. What hope is there for your peaceful revolution when a non-peaceful revolution is being fought by the left’s coalition of the ascendant minorities? Who honestly believes, after all these years, that you can sit down with the average Mestizo or an African and get him to appreciate the unseen costs of income redistribution? It’s madness. Pure madness. A madness derived from the ultimate ideological tyranny. The tyranny saying we’re all the same, just individuals, with no group traits or group competition.

    The reasoning behind libertarian thought is sound, but the premises are absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm not so sure about your history. E.g. the first major expansion of federal regulatory power occurred during a period of high immigration in the Progressive Era, but the second expansion under the New Deal took place after immigration had been drastically cut, while the third expansion in the 1960s took place at the same time as immigration rules were relaxed but after several decades of low immigration. You could argue that those expansions were due to the delayed effect of earlier immigration waves, I suppose, but then is your hypothesis even falsifiable?

    Having said that, I do think there is good evidence that an increasing Hispanic population will lead to increasing support for big government, based on opinion polls like those of Pew.

    Libertarianism doesn't have anything to do with beliefs about group traits, except insofar as it claims that every human is entitled to the same human rights to self-ownership, including property ownership. Whatever your beliefs about black vs white traits, I don't think you can deny that both blacks and whites are humans. But libertarianism doesn't predict that blacks and whites will perform the same on average, and it doesn't mandate that blacks or whites should not discriminate against each other.
  4. MEexpert says:

    Here! Here! Dr. Paul

    Why can’t more people see the situation as clearly as Dr. Paul Can? I second the sentiments of alexander. For my part I wrote in Dr. Paul’s name in 2012.

    Read More
  5. jtgw says:
    @Issac
    Tyranny has strengthened exponentially with the arrival of modern diversity in the west. What hope is there for your peaceful revolution when a non-peaceful revolution is being fought by the left's coalition of the ascendant minorities? Who honestly believes, after all these years, that you can sit down with the average Mestizo or an African and get him to appreciate the unseen costs of income redistribution? It's madness. Pure madness. A madness derived from the ultimate ideological tyranny. The tyranny saying we're all the same, just individuals, with no group traits or group competition.

    The reasoning behind libertarian thought is sound, but the premises are absurd.

    I’m not so sure about your history. E.g. the first major expansion of federal regulatory power occurred during a period of high immigration in the Progressive Era, but the second expansion under the New Deal took place after immigration had been drastically cut, while the third expansion in the 1960s took place at the same time as immigration rules were relaxed but after several decades of low immigration. You could argue that those expansions were due to the delayed effect of earlier immigration waves, I suppose, but then is your hypothesis even falsifiable?

    Having said that, I do think there is good evidence that an increasing Hispanic population will lead to increasing support for big government, based on opinion polls like those of Pew.

    Libertarianism doesn’t have anything to do with beliefs about group traits, except insofar as it claims that every human is entitled to the same human rights to self-ownership, including property ownership. Whatever your beliefs about black vs white traits, I don’t think you can deny that both blacks and whites are humans. But libertarianism doesn’t predict that blacks and whites will perform the same on average, and it doesn’t mandate that blacks or whites should not discriminate against each other.

    Read More
  6. MarkinLA says:

    The freedom to travel is fundamental,

    Says who? So no wonder we cannot keep jihadis out of our country. Yes, most of what Paul says about American citizens losing their freedoms is worrysome but “the freedom to travel”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    keep jihadis out of our country.
     
    Ron Paul has always respected the sanity of a border- he isn't one of those suicidaly insane libertarian ideologues who pretend borders don't matter. If he was, I never would have been able to be one of his most ardent supporters.

    Ron Paul is the greatest American statesman of our time.

    End the Fed!
  7. Rurik says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    The freedom to travel is fundamental,

    Says who? So no wonder we cannot keep jihadis out of our country. Yes, most of what Paul says about American citizens losing their freedoms is worrysome but "the freedom to travel"?

    keep jihadis out of our country.

    Ron Paul has always respected the sanity of a border- he isn’t one of those suicidaly insane libertarian ideologues who pretend borders don’t matter. If he was, I never would have been able to be one of his most ardent supporters.

    Ron Paul is the greatest American statesman of our time.

    End the Fed!

    Read More
    • Replies: @BCR
    Every time the discussion of borders comes up, I am reminded of the interview I heard on the BBC right after the Brexit vote. A 20-something interviewee, a student in Great Britain, possible German accent, bemoaning the outcome, said "I don't want the concept of borders in my mind."

    My first reaction was to offer to begin to peel his skin off so he might understand the need for and natural occurrence of borders. A bit harsh, I know, but it usually gets the concept across quickly.

    The problem, as in most cases, is one of balance and proportion. How much, and what, is necessary to provide the desired outcome? The desired outcome itself is a long and complicated discussion. Lovely family homes and the most vile prisons are both built with walls. ("I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!").

    It's one of the paradoxes of "diversity": without borders there is no "over there" for a distinct culture and people to develop, and eventually all-encompassing inclusiveness destroys the differences we are supposed to be celebrating. This is not a judgment about which is better or worse, more or less developed, higher or lower, pick your attributes. It just find it odd that usually the loudest voices celebrating multiculturalism are also the ones demanding a borderless society.
    , @MarkinLA
    Ron Paul (and I supported both his Presidential runs with my maximum 2300 dollar donation) is a big L libertarian who actually does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.

    His only saving grace on borders is that he believes that the President MUST enforce the laws on the books which put him light years ahead of the GOP and Dems.
  8. I agree with most of this. However, if given the choice to fly with passengers who have been subjected to intrusive TSA checks, and those who have not, the wise traveler will surely join the first group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    I agree with most of this. However, if given the choice to fly with passengers who have been subjected to intrusive TSA checks, and those who have not, the wise traveler will surely join the first group.
     
    We wouldn't need intrusive TSA checks if we strictly limited third world immigration. Racial diversity equals less liberty, not more, and it's time the libertarians loudly acknowledge this fact.
  9. @Simply Simon
    Since 1913 I believe the dollar has lost much more than 98% of its value, or am I missing something?

    I have utmost respect for Dr. Paul and a lot of suspicion about the Federal Reserve, but America’s standard of living (in addition to the dollar’s buying power) have not uniformly declined by 98% since 1913.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Mr. Green, I appreciate many of your comments. However, neither Dr. Paul nor Simply Simon made any assertion about the standard of living. The point simply is that what cost $1 in 1913 costs $50 today, i.e., a dollar today is the equivalent of two cents in 1913.

    That's not to say that this cheapening of the currency has had no real effect on people. Savers, in particular, suffer via this process -- their money, kept as such, rots away.
  10. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mark Green
    I have utmost respect for Dr. Paul and a lot of suspicion about the Federal Reserve, but America's standard of living (in addition to the dollar's buying power) have not uniformly declined by 98% since 1913.

    Mr. Green, I appreciate many of your comments. However, neither Dr. Paul nor Simply Simon made any assertion about the standard of living. The point simply is that what cost $1 in 1913 costs $50 today, i.e., a dollar today is the equivalent of two cents in 1913.

    That’s not to say that this cheapening of the currency has had no real effect on people. Savers, in particular, suffer via this process — their money, kept as such, rots away.

    Read More
  11. KenH says:
    @James N. Kennett
    I agree with most of this. However, if given the choice to fly with passengers who have been subjected to intrusive TSA checks, and those who have not, the wise traveler will surely join the first group.

    I agree with most of this. However, if given the choice to fly with passengers who have been subjected to intrusive TSA checks, and those who have not, the wise traveler will surely join the first group.

    We wouldn’t need intrusive TSA checks if we strictly limited third world immigration. Racial diversity equals less liberty, not more, and it’s time the libertarians loudly acknowledge this fact.

    Read More
  12. BCR says:
    @Rurik

    keep jihadis out of our country.
     
    Ron Paul has always respected the sanity of a border- he isn't one of those suicidaly insane libertarian ideologues who pretend borders don't matter. If he was, I never would have been able to be one of his most ardent supporters.

    Ron Paul is the greatest American statesman of our time.

    End the Fed!

    Every time the discussion of borders comes up, I am reminded of the interview I heard on the BBC right after the Brexit vote. A 20-something interviewee, a student in Great Britain, possible German accent, bemoaning the outcome, said “I don’t want the concept of borders in my mind.”

    My first reaction was to offer to begin to peel his skin off so he might understand the need for and natural occurrence of borders. A bit harsh, I know, but it usually gets the concept across quickly.

    The problem, as in most cases, is one of balance and proportion. How much, and what, is necessary to provide the desired outcome? The desired outcome itself is a long and complicated discussion. Lovely family homes and the most vile prisons are both built with walls. (“I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with me!”).

    It’s one of the paradoxes of “diversity”: without borders there is no “over there” for a distinct culture and people to develop, and eventually all-encompassing inclusiveness destroys the differences we are supposed to be celebrating. This is not a judgment about which is better or worse, more or less developed, higher or lower, pick your attributes. It just find it odd that usually the loudest voices celebrating multiculturalism are also the ones demanding a borderless society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    A 20-something interviewee, a student in Great Britain, possible German accent, bemoaning the outcome, said “I don’t want the concept of borders in my mind.”
     
    ((they)) fill their young and impressionable minds with suicidal sewage

    you don't need guns to destroy a nation or even a civilization. All you need is to control the central banks, which gives you the financial power to control the culture and the narrative (and the politicians / government and the courts and institutions right down the line), so that you can poison the youth with spiritual rot and watch as the nation disintegrate on its own.

    Such a deal!
  13. MarkinLA says:
    @Rurik

    keep jihadis out of our country.
     
    Ron Paul has always respected the sanity of a border- he isn't one of those suicidaly insane libertarian ideologues who pretend borders don't matter. If he was, I never would have been able to be one of his most ardent supporters.

    Ron Paul is the greatest American statesman of our time.

    End the Fed!

    Ron Paul (and I supported both his Presidential runs with my maximum 2300 dollar donation) is a big L libertarian who actually does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.

    His only saving grace on borders is that he believes that the President MUST enforce the laws on the books which put him light years ahead of the GOP and Dems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Ron Paul... ....does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.
     
    this from his website seems to contradict that

    Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:
    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.
    3.Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards. Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.
    4.Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. [Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]
    5.End all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.
     
    https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

    all sounds reasonable to me
  14. Rurik says: • Website
    @BCR
    Every time the discussion of borders comes up, I am reminded of the interview I heard on the BBC right after the Brexit vote. A 20-something interviewee, a student in Great Britain, possible German accent, bemoaning the outcome, said "I don't want the concept of borders in my mind."

    My first reaction was to offer to begin to peel his skin off so he might understand the need for and natural occurrence of borders. A bit harsh, I know, but it usually gets the concept across quickly.

    The problem, as in most cases, is one of balance and proportion. How much, and what, is necessary to provide the desired outcome? The desired outcome itself is a long and complicated discussion. Lovely family homes and the most vile prisons are both built with walls. ("I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!").

    It's one of the paradoxes of "diversity": without borders there is no "over there" for a distinct culture and people to develop, and eventually all-encompassing inclusiveness destroys the differences we are supposed to be celebrating. This is not a judgment about which is better or worse, more or less developed, higher or lower, pick your attributes. It just find it odd that usually the loudest voices celebrating multiculturalism are also the ones demanding a borderless society.

    A 20-something interviewee, a student in Great Britain, possible German accent, bemoaning the outcome, said “I don’t want the concept of borders in my mind.”

    ((they)) fill their young and impressionable minds with suicidal sewage

    you don’t need guns to destroy a nation or even a civilization. All you need is to control the central banks, which gives you the financial power to control the culture and the narrative (and the politicians / government and the courts and institutions right down the line), so that you can poison the youth with spiritual rot and watch as the nation disintegrate on its own.

    Such a deal!

    Read More
  15. Rurik says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    Ron Paul (and I supported both his Presidential runs with my maximum 2300 dollar donation) is a big L libertarian who actually does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.

    His only saving grace on borders is that he believes that the President MUST enforce the laws on the books which put him light years ahead of the GOP and Dems.

    Ron Paul… ….does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.

    this from his website seems to contradict that

    Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:
    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.
    3.Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards. Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.
    4.Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. [Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]
    5.End all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.

    https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

    all sounds reasonable to me

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.


    Yeah, if you don't believe US workers have any rights in the US and should have to compete with anybody working for nothing. Like I said, open borders when it comes to employment.
  16. MarkinLA says:
    @Rurik

    Ron Paul... ....does NOT believe in borders. He thinks anybody has the right to work in the US if they can get hired and anybody has a right to hire anybody from outside the US.
     
    this from his website seems to contradict that

    Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:
    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.
    3.Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards. Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.
    4.Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. [Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]
    5.End all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.
     
    https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

    all sounds reasonable to me

    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.

    Yeah, if you don’t believe US workers have any rights in the US and should have to compete with anybody working for nothing. Like I said, open borders when it comes to employment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when immigration was largely unrestricted, real wages in the US were rising; we were on a gold standard at the time. I think RP and other libertarians think that the real cause of stagnating real wages now is due to our monetary policy most of all (since inflating the money supply destroys the value of people's savings, except for the few well-connected who get the new money first, before general prices have risen). That's why e.g. the stagnation seems to have begun around 1971, when we abolished the remaining vestiges of the gold standard.
  17. jtgw says:
    @MarkinLA
    1.Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
    2.Establish a generous visitor work program. Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.


    Yeah, if you don't believe US workers have any rights in the US and should have to compete with anybody working for nothing. Like I said, open borders when it comes to employment.

    During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when immigration was largely unrestricted, real wages in the US were rising; we were on a gold standard at the time. I think RP and other libertarians think that the real cause of stagnating real wages now is due to our monetary policy most of all (since inflating the money supply destroys the value of people’s savings, except for the few well-connected who get the new money first, before general prices have risen). That’s why e.g. the stagnation seems to have begun around 1971, when we abolished the remaining vestiges of the gold standard.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS