Friday, March 7, 2008

While I could consider voting for Ron Paul due to his Libertarian leanings...this is why I won't.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence knew what they were doing. "Life" was listed first because if a man doesn't have his life, he can't have "Liberty" and the "Pursuit of Happiness". A government's first responsibility is to secure "Life", or safety. It doesn't say, we are guaranteed life. No life lasts forever and for me, liberty is worth defending until death if so required.

But if government does anything, it should be securing it's populace from the threat of death.

If you've clicked into that link, you'll see that Cliff May at the National Review gets it.


Ron Paul had the Libertarian side of things right, but he missed why we fight abroad....so we don't have to fight at home. It's all well and good to defend your home only, bolt the doors, load the shot gun, etc.. What happens when you've allowed the rest of the world to run amok, to sink in the sewer of fascism. You won't be able to leave you house and what kind of life is that? To say nothing of the "Pursuit of Happiness". It's why I won't be voting for Ron Paul regardless of how much I might agree with his Libertarian leanings.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine, 1792

1 comment:

Proof said...

The sad thing, is that for all of those Ron Paul followers who bought into his rhetoric about the Constitution and freedom, he did not show them that the price paid for that freedom, eternal vigilance, is not something the US can easily walk away from.
Coupled with the fact that he was "All hat and no cattle" for twenty years in Congress, without ever exhibiting the leadership skills necessary to be the Leader of the Free World, made him a very poor choice, indeed!