PsychoSword
Moderator
I noticed this was posted on THR also:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=123367
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005
What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?
America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early
20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political
parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error
in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in
the affairs of others?
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands
of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian
casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all
needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave
foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked:
What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true
republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it
not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is
sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care,
advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and
medication.
Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never
checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and
assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of
treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good.
Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place
restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct
things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians,
regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more
aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their
power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power
corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention,
despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has
brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial
realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws
ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth
of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any
different.
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the
world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth
and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the
precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined
leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though,
the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become
apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of
billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the
Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new
super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail,
to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card,
and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of
all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for
it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security,
unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our
leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our
civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin
Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and
the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The
other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war
against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new
laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness
to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the
inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power
and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys
those who promote a centralized state.
It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath
of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided
an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize
there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties
protected.
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems.
Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in
the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount
of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering
costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are
never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it.
Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us
safer!
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for
making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the
government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent
and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA-- which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government
agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that
which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However,
local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if
the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on
airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law
enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand,
should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private
firms-- long denied the right-- should have a right to discriminate. Fine
restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for
service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right
should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should
be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well.
This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right
that has long been denied them and other private companies.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=123367
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005
What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?
America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early
20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political
parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error
in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in
the affairs of others?
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands
of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian
casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all
needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave
foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked:
What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true
republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it
not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is
sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care,
advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and
medication.
Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never
checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and
assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of
treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good.
Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place
restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct
things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians,
regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more
aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their
power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power
corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention,
despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has
brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial
realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws
ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth
of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any
different.
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the
world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth
and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the
precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined
leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though,
the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become
apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of
billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the
Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new
super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail,
to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card,
and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of
all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for
it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security,
unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our
leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our
civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin
Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and
the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The
other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war
against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new
laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness
to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the
inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power
and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys
those who promote a centralized state.
It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath
of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided
an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize
there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties
protected.
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems.
Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in
the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount
of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering
costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are
never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it.
Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us
safer!
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for
making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the
government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent
and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA-- which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government
agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that
which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However,
local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if
the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on
airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law
enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand,
should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private
firms-- long denied the right-- should have a right to discriminate. Fine
restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for
service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right
should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should
be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well.
This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right
that has long been denied them and other private companies.
