Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Yes. Read Robert LeFevre on the “withdrawal of sanction”

Ron Paul was recently chastised for accepting a “government benefit” in the form of Social Security – the implication being that he is a hypocrite.

Read what Robert LeFevre had to say about “withdrawal of sanction” and then you decide:

The victim of aggression is not, at the moment of aggression, providing his sanction. The sanction comes later when the victim, having already suffered because of some incursion against him, now goes to the government and says, in substance, “You have taken some of my resources and I want them back.” At this point, the government responds, “We don’t blame you. We really didn’t want to hurt you. But we had a project that simply had top priority so we took your resources in order to accomplish it. Now, if you will just file the correct papers, we will get some resources away from others and then turn them back to you.”

The victim sanctions the looting of others as a defensive or retaliatory move in order to get his own returned and in order for him to remove himself from the role of victim. But this is the sanction by which government grows. When you accept any kind of a handout, benefit, pension, social security, subsidy, or even police protection, government literature, advice, or whatever from the state, you are, in essence, justifying the government’s future incursions against others. Although you are probably making a mental note: “I’m just getting back some of what I’ve paid,” you are becoming a statistic the government can use to demonstrate that the program it has must be supported. “Mr. Smith (and others) is now depending on our handouts, benefits, pensions, social security, medicare, and other things, and would be lost without these goodies.” Thus, you sanction the state at the point where you voluntarily accept something from the state when a choice is open to you not to accept.

LeFevre goes on to say:

Make this distinction in your mind. When you have no choice and are forced, you are the victim and you are not sanctioning. When you have a choice and are not forced, but you accept a government “benefit” of any kind, then you are not a victim but you are sanctioning.

If you stop sanctioning governmental procedures, it will not be able to use you as a statistic to justify either future growth or present programs.

So, according to LeFevre, yes, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. How about you?


2 responses to “Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Yes. Read Robert LeFevre on the “withdrawal of sanction”

  1. “Now, if you will just file the correct papers, we will get some resources away from others and then turn them back to you.”

    From an ethical standpoint, you’re totally right.

    From a factual standpoint, the ethical judgement does not match what is actually happening de facto.

    Being employed, Paul still pays into the Social Security system. Paul stated that he pays more in to the system than he receives. Given that dollars are fungible and that he pays a greater amount each period into the pool than he draws from it, no resources are being taken from anyone else and given to Paul, he is only reducing the severity of the regular theft he suffers.

    There is an ethical argument to be made for accepting Social Security which is not addressed in your post. Since the state only uses the resources it’s stolen to coerce and a great deal of these funds are from the direct monetization of debt, an activity that plants the seed of it’s own demise, one can only help that demise come sooner by accepting the money and buying precious metal, spending it in a voluntary transaction, burning it, or doing virtually anything else with it. After all, the sooner the crooked state collapses under it’s own weight, the sooner all will be saved from it’s ongoing aggression.

  2. It’s interesting that I was linked to this site via a youtube presentation of one Carl Miller. Interesting because therein he repeatedly asserts one should claim damages and fees for time spent in court. When a judge spoke low of him, the same as you have of Ron Paul, he gleefully agreed that these funds would be acquired by issuing further tickets for the exact same thing he had had to defend himself of. He seemed to think this a necessary evil, as the more people subjected to these alleged injustices the sooner we would work–both individually and as groups–to institute a reversal of such alleged unjust enforcements.

    You also seem to be quoting the article in the context you need to support this LeFevre. Ron Paul states he has no desire to stop Social Security for those that have paid into it. His plan is to put an end to it for future generations, as it is unquestionably flawed in design. He has paid into it his whole life and has a right to claim it.

    You sound to me a muckraker.

    In conclusion, I don’t give two hoots if Ron Paul recovered some of his own money from those swine! Vote Ron Paul 2012!