Ron Paul: Government Isn't There 'To Make Us Safe'...

[paulitician]

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul appeared on “The Independents” on the Fox Business Network Tuesday night, where he discussed a variety of subjects, including the government response to April’s Boston Marathon bombing.

Kennedy, host of “The Independents”: Welcome back to “The Independents” as we ponder over the failures and triumphs in the state and culture in 2013. And now a story that has people somewhat split: the police response to the Boston Marathon Bombings. 86% of Boston residents approved of the police response and lockdown after the attack. But congressman, you have said that when the government makes us feel safe, they can take our liberties away. Why do you disagree with the overwhelming respondents in Boston?

Video:
Ron Paul: Government isn't there 'to make us safe' | The Daily Caller

Ron Paul: Well, there are still powerful individuals promoting the PR — you know, scare everybody in order to get people to go along either with the war or giving up their liberties. But obviously if they had the facts they would not feel this way and maybe in time they will realize that it didn’t do any good. They had martial law imposed on the city really for the first time under the circumstances. Couple people were killed, that is true and it was terrible, but it was a police action. There are some weekends 10 or 15 people get murdered in one city but they don’t turn it into, you know, turn martial law on the whole city and lock it down. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until they got rid of the martial law and the lockdown, that information came out that private citizens gave information and private cameras found out who the bad guy was. And so it actually proves our point. At the same time, the people in Boston may have supported it but I think it is some of the stuff that contributed to those 72% of the people who are sick and tired of the big government because they always make these promises and I think that was overkill. I think it was way too much. And I do not believe for a minute that the responsibility of the government is to make us safe. The responsibility of government, if anything, is to protect our liberties.”

Read more: Ron Paul: Government isn't there 'to make us safe' | The Daily Caller

 

[occupied]

The government is there to make sure the aristocratic elite is safe from us. Always has been, always will be.

 

[aaronleland]

While I disagree with some of the police's actions after the Boston bombing, Ron Paul is wrong in one regard. One of government's only responsibilities is to keep us safe. The federal government is in charge of defense and immigration. It's well within their responsibilities to track down a terrorist hiding out in an American city.

 

[JakeStarkey]

aaronleland is 100% right.

 

[Clementine]

While I disagree with some of the police's actions after the Boston bombing, Ron Paul is wrong in one regard. One of government's only responsibilities is to keep us safe. The federal government is in charge of defense and immigration. It's well within their responsibilities to track down a terrorist hiding out in an American city.

They should handle national security and border security. They suck at the latter for complete lack of effort. I question the approach to national security. They are more reactionary than proactive and that hasn't really changed. Spying on everyone isn't being proactive and it's impossible to find the few terrorists by randomly spying on all the people.

Local agencies should be focused on local emergencies, like natural disasters, etc. The feds only help if requested.

Police cannot protect the entire communities from crime, so it is up to the individual.

For most emergencies, it starts with individuals, then local police, then the state and, finally, the feds as a last resort. N.O. fucked up and the sole responsibility was put to the feds even after the authorities claimed the day before that they were ready.

It's wrong for the feds to think they can micromanage everything and they should never try. Individuals and local authorities need to have their shit together or all the government agencies in the world can't do anything.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

While I disagree with some of the police's actions after the Boston bombing, Ron Paul is wrong in one regard. One of government's only responsibilities is to keep us safe. The federal government is in charge of defense and immigration. It's well within their responsibilities to track down a terrorist hiding out in an American city.

They should handle national security and border security. They suck at the latter for complete lack of effort. I question the approach to national security. They are more reactionary than proactive and that hasn't really changed. Spying on everyone isn't being proactive and it's impossible to find the few terrorists by randomly spying on all the people.

Local agencies should be focused on local emergencies, like natural disasters, etc. The feds only help if requested.

Police cannot protect the entire communities from crime, so it is up to the individual.

For most emergencies, it starts with individuals, then local police, then the state and, finally, the feds as a last resort. N.O. fucked up and the sole responsibility was put to the feds even after the authorities claimed the day before that they were ready.

It's wrong for the feds to think they can micromanage everything and they should never try. Individuals and local authorities need to have their shit together or all the government agencies in the world can't do anything.

I agree. Amazingly, liberals act like they're small government patriots when it comes to stuff that the feds actually should do, like lock people up and enforce the laws. Of course, when they actually come to power, their despotic nature is revealed when they spy on Americans' telephone/e-mails after campaigning against their predecessor for doing something nowhere near as bad.