Monday night, at the debate in Tampa, Ron Paul was all but booed off the stage for blaming America for 9/11. Ron Paul is nuts but under the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day, he did get something right.
What was it?
During the debate, Paul was asked a hypothetical question by moderator Wolf Blitzer about a 30 year old man who decided not to pay for health insurance, even though he could afford ito buy health insurance, then had a major catastrophe, requiring months of intensive care. In what may have been his only sane moment came when he first said he would advise the young man to have major medical, then he said, “liberty means allowing people to take risks.”
For once, Ron Paul is right about something. Liberty does mean allowing people to take risks. There are consequences to risks. That is life and that is liberty. The founding fathers had it right when they told us we had the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They never said we would have happiness. We only have the right to go after it and the government stays out of our way.
The role of the government is not to guarantee a specific outcome. That is not liberty. Only in tyranny can a specific outcome be guaranteed and even then that is not a certainty.
Liberty allows both success and failure. Liberty allows the greatness that man is capable of. Liberty allows success and charity. Liberty allows the frontiers of science and knowledge to be expanded.
Liberty also brings with it responsibility and consequences.
The man in Wolf Blizter’s hypothetical has choices and there will be consequences to his choices. Either he buys health insurance or he does not. If he does, health insurance covers a majority of the bills. If not, he must either figure out a way to pay those bills or choose bankruptcy. In years past, there was a huge social stigma attached to those who filed bankruptcy. The Constitution makes provision for bankruptcy courts, which were a significant improvement over debtor’s prisons. Filing bankruptcy has its consequences as well.
Liberty allows a man or a woman to choose their path and choose their consequences. With few exceptions, it is not the government’s place to choose those consequences for a man or a woman.
The message of the Tea Party is about liberty. It is not the place for the government to pick winners and losers in life. That is the antithesis of liberty and destroys liberty. The role of the government is to guarantee to all that pursuit of happiness. You may or may not achieve that goal but liberty lets you try.
Theodore Roosevelt understood this in 1910 when he gave one of the most famous speeches of his career in Paris France.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Liberty means allowing the man or woman to get into the arena and whether he or she wins or loses in the arena, they have made their pursuit of happiness. The pursuit is granted by liberty. This is what our country needs to return to. We need the return to liberty that allows us to pursue our happiness without an overbearing government picking winners and losers.
The man or the woman in the arena, whether successful or not, knows liberty.
Permalink Reply by Asa Simmons on That was Teddy Roosevelt! One of your writers said that
the Tea Parties would be infiltrated by neocon and other new world order types
and I want to say that person was right and so was Alex Jones. Another person that peole who have not taken time to listen to, call him a crack pot. Or it's the new world order media.
Knowing the facts about the "other" candidates and yet a person or group of person
still back that candidate ought to raise eye brows with the Tea Party movement. If I were running the tea party movement and I saw this I would ask that person or persons to leave the movement, because franky they are traitors(in my opimion).
They are trying to sabatage the movement and help their new world order friends.
Permalink Reply by John Gearhart on Seems to me that Teddy R was the politician who, as Gov. of NY was battling the unions.
Permalink Reply by Patrick McPherson on Permalink Reply by Steven R Sulko on Permalink Reply by Asa Simmons on I agree with Mr.McPherson. How would we like it if foreign
troops ocupide our nation.
I would remind people that ecery agressor nation has all ways
come up with excuses for invading other countries. Just
look at what the Nazi and Japaneese did.
Permalink Reply by Steven R Sulko on Gene,
How much do you know about what our government does in other countries?
While we are being miss-lead they sneak in an illegal president. View the video on you tube titled "Damning Revealation" all based on facts and backed by documents from the Library of Congress.
Research his run for the Senate in Illinois where he is quoted responding to an inquiry of his citizenship by saying "so what, I'm not running for President."
Permalink Reply by Shirley Eliakis on Permalink Reply by usfrog on Permalink Reply by Tyler Tea Party on Permalink Reply by Ronald Pipich on 
Permalink Reply by David Thrush on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
