Government "Protection"???
The following article - and my response - originated here.
Do You Need Government Protection From Sarah Palin, Ron Paul And Rush Limbaugh? By George Rasley | 4/3/13
In his “farewell address” before Congress, libertarian Republican Ron Paul asked in so many words, “why is liberty so hard to sell?”
Congressman Paul answered that question at length in his speech (which you can read here),but in summary, he said that in the early part of the 20th Century, “The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable… They failed to recognize that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.”
One of the “progressive” ideas that seemed so right and “fair” was the notion that there were certain groups in American society that were “oppressed” and needed government protection and “benefits” to advance and gain equal status with their non-oppressed fellow citizens.
The list began with African-Americans, former slaves who were indeed oppressed. However, it soon began to expand to include the poor in general -- any minority ethnic group, homosexuals demanding to be accepted, even women, who constitute more than half the population of the country.
Anyone, it seems, with a grievance against the vicissitude of life in American society was suddenly a victim who was eligible, not just for government assistance, but for “protection” from oppression -- which might include the use of government force against the alleged “oppressor.”
In order to gain politically by constantly finding new “oppressed” minorities to liberate (as Rush Limbaugh observed during a recent broadcast), the Democratic Party, and especially Obama and his secular liberal allies, have redefined freedom to mean “Freedom is hedonism. Freedom is your sybaritic pursuits. You do whatever you want, and as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, there's nothing wrong with it.”
We agree wholeheartedly with Rush on that one, and on his further point that, “…many people think that it's so that they [Democrats] can provide benefits and grow the welfare state -- and that's, in part, true. But there's another hideous reason for trying to put so many people into different groups of victims, and it is that those groups need protection. From whom? Mean-spirited, extremist, radical, right-wingers!”
In other words, they need protection from Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or anyone else who advocates self-reliance, responsibility, taking control of your own life and making the most of it, and have a moral code, as Limbaugh put it.
As a result of the left’s redefinition of freedom, Rush offered a quote from “A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future” by Os Guinness, to make the point that, "Americans today are heedlessly pursuing a vision of freedom that is short-lived and suicidal. Once again, freedom without virtue, leadership without character, business without trust, law without customs, education without meaning and medicine, science and technology without human considerations can end only in disaster."
And here’s where the messages of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Ron Paul converge – and why they are each seen as such a danger to the radical secular liberal agenda and to establishment Republicans who want to “rebrand” the Party to be more like the Democrats.
Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and of course Rush Limbaugh, have each been able to activate millions of Americans who believe that freedom without personal responsibility isn’t freedom and to rally millions more to fight the idea of giving up a little freedom in order to be liberated by the left.
CHQ editor George Rasley served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Congressman Paul answered that question at length in his speech (which you can read here),but in summary, he said that in the early part of the 20th Century, “The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable… They failed to recognize that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.”
One of the “progressive” ideas that seemed so right and “fair” was the notion that there were certain groups in American society that were “oppressed” and needed government protection and “benefits” to advance and gain equal status with their non-oppressed fellow citizens.
The list began with African-Americans, former slaves who were indeed oppressed. However, it soon began to expand to include the poor in general -- any minority ethnic group, homosexuals demanding to be accepted, even women, who constitute more than half the population of the country.
Anyone, it seems, with a grievance against the vicissitude of life in American society was suddenly a victim who was eligible, not just for government assistance, but for “protection” from oppression -- which might include the use of government force against the alleged “oppressor.”
In order to gain politically by constantly finding new “oppressed” minorities to liberate (as Rush Limbaugh observed during a recent broadcast), the Democratic Party, and especially Obama and his secular liberal allies, have redefined freedom to mean “Freedom is hedonism. Freedom is your sybaritic pursuits. You do whatever you want, and as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, there's nothing wrong with it.”
We agree wholeheartedly with Rush on that one, and on his further point that, “…many people think that it's so that they [Democrats] can provide benefits and grow the welfare state -- and that's, in part, true. But there's another hideous reason for trying to put so many people into different groups of victims, and it is that those groups need protection. From whom? Mean-spirited, extremist, radical, right-wingers!”
In other words, they need protection from Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or anyone else who advocates self-reliance, responsibility, taking control of your own life and making the most of it, and have a moral code, as Limbaugh put it.
As a result of the left’s redefinition of freedom, Rush offered a quote from “A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future” by Os Guinness, to make the point that, "Americans today are heedlessly pursuing a vision of freedom that is short-lived and suicidal. Once again, freedom without virtue, leadership without character, business without trust, law without customs, education without meaning and medicine, science and technology without human considerations can end only in disaster."
And here’s where the messages of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Ron Paul converge – and why they are each seen as such a danger to the radical secular liberal agenda and to establishment Republicans who want to “rebrand” the Party to be more like the Democrats.
Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and of course Rush Limbaugh, have each been able to activate millions of Americans who believe that freedom without personal responsibility isn’t freedom and to rally millions more to fight the idea of giving up a little freedom in order to be liberated by the left.
CHQ editor George Rasley served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.
.jpg)
"Protection"?
But listening to Limbaugh at the time, that wasn't the thrust or context of his "message".
Here is the salient part of the Rush quote: "But I think something else dangerous, in a sense, is happening, and that is the definition of freedom that is bastardizing the concept. Freedom is (sic) come to mean hedonism to a lot of people -- just do whatever you want, as long as you're not hitting anybody, as long as you're not harming anybody, as long as you're not offending anybody -- just whatever you want. Nobody's right to tell you what you can't do. And that's not what freedom is. But without understanding American history, you may not understand that."
That's NOT what Freedom is?
How can that not be the absolute epitome of Freedom? Or would Limbaugh et al deny the individual Freedom to Choose - unless the choice is the one Conservatives have defined for all of us? Do Conservatives not endorse Free Choice? Do Conservatives believe Free Choice and Free Will necessarily constitute aggression to others? Isn't that what Laws are for: to punish transgressions against otherwise free individuals? Are we to understand that individual comportment, conduct, any activity that does not involve personal assault or trespass theft or any violation of private property is "hedonism", not Freedom, if it doesn't conform to a certain "moral code" which, of necessity, originates from somewhere or someone other than the individual? If that moral code isn't freely adopted but required, isn't that an act of Force in itself? If Conservatives eschew the imposition of Govt force, how can one explain the imposition of Conservative force over peaceful, voluntary cooperation among Free people?
Webster's defines "hedonism": "the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life". If I freely chose that "doctrine", why would Conservatives be compelled to not only disdain it - which is their right to do - but attempt to harness the power and force of Government to impose laws upon me that conform to their spiritual belief and choice - which is not their right in a Free society.
Limbaugh's condescending "message" (an intro to a Hillsdale College commercial is insulting to any individual - like Ron Paul - who advocates self-governance in lieu of unconstitutional government imposition. Considering Mr. Limbaugh's Oxycontin addiction wherein he approved his own conduct apart from the law, to actually "self-govern" his own life and body, it seems a tad hypocritical for him to be lecturing anyone on "hedonism". And I say that with all due respect.