"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom." ~ Braveheart
Propaganda From Dr. Ron Paul
I tend to agree with most of what Dr. Paul writes. However, his article posted on lewrockwell.com last week ('The Immigration Question') was so inconsistent with libertarian principles I had to publicly respond. First, so I don't repeat myself too much, I wrote an article explaining there is no such thing as an 'illegal alien' because 'citizens' and 'nations' do not exist. Having seen Dr. Paul speak at the 2003 Freedom Summit in Phoenix, I know Dr. Paul, while he may not be familiar with my work, is familiar with Lysander Spooner's writing. Dr. Paul's article is so supportive of statist propaganda it's hard to believe it was posted on a website claiming to be 'anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.' In fact, it's not just supportive, it is statist propaganda. Dr. Paul wrote: 'Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.' Dr. Paul should know there is no such thing as 'citizenship.' The idea of 'citizenship' is a form of mind control. So-called 'citizenship' is statist-speak for a 'relationship' that doesn't exist viz., a 'citizen' is supposed to be a member of the body politic owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. Dr. Paul appears to agree with this in his article: 'True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States.' (emphasis mine) Government, including Dr. Paul, has no duty to protect anyone (Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616). This is only one way to prove this. I use this because it's straight from a politician's mouth. Therefore, because there's no duty to protect, there is no duty of allegiance. Without these 'duties,' there are no 'citizens.' Because there are no 'citizens,' there is no 'nation' and of course, no 'illegal aliens.' Now I want to examine pure statism, and keep in mind this is posted on a website claiming to be 'anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.' Dr. Paul's article ends with: 'We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.' Unless I'm mistaken, Dr. Paul is advocating the initiation of physical force, i.e., taxation. Dr. Paul appears to be advocating taking people's property by force; that it's OK to threaten to kill and imprison people in order to pay for a service that never has to be provided. Such thinking contradicts libertarian principles and why someone is 'anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.' It's anti-social because it exhibits a clear disregard for the rights of others. And just so I am not taken out of context, when I refer to 'others,' I am referring to the so-called 'citizens' who are violently forced to provide the 'resources' Dr. Paul believes are desperately needed for 'securing our borders.' Dr. Paul is wrong; our most critical task is to stop legitimizing gangs of killers, thieves and liars, i.e., government. Remember what Ronald Reagan said: 'Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.' (He's right, but no, I don't believe he believed it.) Why do people come to this part of North America commonly called the 'United States'? They are fleeing vicious gangs called government. People from Mexico come here because their opportunities to create wealth are violently restrained because of governments' continued insistence 'to allocate far more resources' from the people they control, plunder and murder. They believe their ability to create wealth is less hindered here. De-legitimizing government is much easier when government works so hard with us to do so. However, Dr. Paul's article is the opposite, it's nothing more than pro-government propaganda; it diverts attention away from the problem, i.e., a gang of killers, thieves and liars controlling us and stealing our property. Instead of addressing the problem, Dr. Paul advocates its continuance: 'We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower . . . .' Why is a pro-state, pro-taxation, anti-market article posted on an 'anti-state, anti-war, pro-market' website? "The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this'that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." ~ No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner. The ideology or theology allowing these gangs of anti-social parasites (government) to get away with what they are doing is really the problem. Dr. Paul's article is based on this sick theology. Without this theology, governments would be seen for what they are: killers, thieves and liars.