Dear Patriots:
What follows’ is the ending remarks
to Ron Paul’s Farewell address to Congress. His entire address to Congress is
quite long; I have chosen his ending statement because it sums up quite well
what needs be done to change things in the DC and America generally. I have been struggling with the very ideals he
herein express’s so eloquently. One
wonders however how many ears heard and how many hearts were quickened in the
Congress by his remarks? How about We
the People, are we willing to do our part?
While I have not been a great fan of
Ron Paul during the election, politics being what they are, I have always
respected Ron Paul’s opinions about government and his love for the Constitution
and its principles.
I hope you will be admonished as I was by his remarks,
and I thank my friend Thom for sharing the entire speech with me. And Thanks to Mathew Hawes for his editing
and sharing on the National Blog.
Transcript of Farewell
Address
Below is the transcript of Ron Paul’s farewell address
to Congress:
Farewell to Congress
5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty
by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world
currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of
guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous
trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted
the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such
a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve,
utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an
ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the
acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of
liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace
and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth — considering
the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every
government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds
of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the
state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to
the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human
behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.
This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in:
reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all
offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned
violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty
and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been
around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by
advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us
to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when
King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason
to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can
instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that
will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war
and welfare.
What I’m talking about is a system of government guided
by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could
not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people
choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has
little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington
DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are
capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.”
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to
mold people’s beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not
a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral
standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government
officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the
government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with
guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change
ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than
working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous
society. If we can achieve this, then the government will
change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office
has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is
true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or
power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the
right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also
becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which
bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his
principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be
directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that
it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to
flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if
the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human
emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class
warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental
policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of
love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood,
brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that
economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists
are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that
tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities motivates many to legislate
moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own
choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are
authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be
rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many
years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for
achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is
to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.