Friday, September 19, 2008

An Open Letter To Ron Paul

The Honorable Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Representative Ron Paul,

Congratulations on your run to seek the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States. I believe that you have stoked the desire for true liberty in perhaps 5% of the population.

But, now, I am thinking beyond the November elections. As you have pointed out, neither Senator John McCain nor Senator Barack Obama will attempt to advance the cause of liberty as President. But, it is indeed a near virtual certainty that one of them will become the next President of the United States. What is a freedom lover to do?

I believe a freedom lover must demand liberty, and in doing so throw sand in the gears of ever growing government. I believe you, sir, have the ability to recharge the troops like no one else can in the battle for freedom, and lead freedom lovers in carrying the buckets of sand to the gears of growing government. Yes, you have lost the nomination battle, but, sir, you have gained an army.

I believe it is time to deploy that army in the fight for freedom.

I believe it will be a long time, if ever, before the country demands a principled man of liberty as president. Liberty is too cerebral of a concept for the average person to grasp. Indeed, the 5% that is your army may be the ceiling on the number of those who can comprehend the concept of liberty on a theoretical level, and all the many nuances the concept implies. But, at the same time that the concept of liberty may forever be an elusive concept to grasp for the many, I believe concrete examples of liberty can be made understandable and important to the average person.

It is no different for most other situations. It is part of the division of labor. Many desire homes and will pay good money to acquire them, but there are far fewer that know how to work in constructing a house. And, there are even fewer architects.

It is the same with liberty. Many desire liberty but really don't know what it means. Your army, on the other hand, is (please forgive the mixed metaphor)composed of the construction workers and architects of liberty. They need to be deployed to build and advance real world tangible notions of liberty that the public at large can understand.

Thus, I suggest that the fight for liberty be brought to the general public one concrete step at a time, using your the army as the agents of promotion to bring these demands for liberty.

Specifically, here's what I am thinking.

Bills should be introduced in Congress, through you, that are "Liberty Bills". Bills that your army can get behind to promote and that any reasonable person would conclude is a "good" bill. Thus, introduced bills are not introduced simply on principle, but to have real world impact in the advance of liberty. liberty.

Here are examples of the types of bills I am thinking of. I do not in any sense see these bills as comprehensive of the many "Liberty Bills" that could be introduced in Congress, but simply as examples of what might be done.

THE IDENTITY PROTECTION ACT- While most are alarmed at the proliferation of "Identity Theft", I believe in many ways that for the most part it is "Social Security Number" theft. If my credit card is stolen, I call my bank and they issue me a new card with a new number. A thief is limited to perhaps hours of an active card.A thief of my social security number has stolen my number, in almost all cases, for life.

Thus, I propose that a bill be introduced into Congress, The Identity Protection Act which makes it illegal for the social security number to be used by anyone other than the Social Security Administration. It should be made illegal to employ the number in conjunction with bank accounts, drivers licenses, credit services etc. It should be illegal for anyone ever to ask for a social security number, outside of the SSA.

THE MILITARY FREEDOM TO RESIGN ACT- The United States has military deployed around the world, some in armed conflict. Yet, no declarations of war have been made. I propose that these good men, who for the most part likely signed up to protect America, may now believe they have been misled in their mission. I, therefore, propose a Bill be introduced into Congress that gives the right for any military man to lay down his weapons and come home if he is deployed outside the United States and Congress has not specifically by roll call vote declared war in the area of his deployment outside the United States. Such person should receive an Honorable Discharge.

THE INNOCENT PERSON'S ACT- If someone is charged with a crime in the United States, they are generally photographed, fingerprinted, and in some cases their DNA is taken. I contend that the state has no right to such tracking material if a person is found innocent in a court of law or the charges against him are dismissed. Thus, I urge the introduction of The Innocent Person's Act, which would require the destruction, within 24 hours, of all tracking material such as photographs, DNA and fingerprints, if a person is found innocent or charges against him or if such charges are dismissed.

THE RELIEF FROM WHISPERING ACT- Quite simply private correspondence is at the heart of freedom, no one should have to think twice about whether some government authority will at some future date demand copies of a person's emails. Correspondence is an extension of our minds and our souls, to others. If we are not free to correspond without the threat that some regulatory body may look at such emails in the future, people will start hedging on what they write. They will fear an email getting into the wrong hands. How are we to know what others really think, unless we meet them in some dark ally and whisper? I propose that The Right to Email Privacy Act ban the ability of government agencies to use and acquire emails for any reason at any time..

The only people I believe more restrictions should be put on are politicians. If they believe regulations are so great, why then, let's regulate them. Thus, I propose one more bill, THE TRUTH IN CAMPAIGNING ACT. As we all know, it is impossible to know what a politician will do once in office, since they outright lie to us during their campaigns. The father and son Bush are perfect examples. The father, of course, campaigned with the slogan "Read My Lips No New Taxes" and then raised taxes. Bush the son ran a "Humble Foreign Policy" campaign, only to announce once in office that he wants to bring "democracy to the world." I propose that The Truth In Campaigning Act make it illegal for politicians to lie about what they plan to do if elected. If they break a campaign promise, i.e. lie, The Truth In Campaign Act should call for jail time for them equal to twice the length of the term a politician was seeking in office at the time of his lie. Thus, a president who lied during his campaign would receive a sentence of eight years. The trial should be in public, available on television and the Internet, and the jury should be the people of the United States (or appropriate electoral jurisdiction, e.g. the people of a state for a lying Senator) who vote on guilt or innocence within 72 hours of the end of the trial.

These are my proposals. Again they are not intended to be comprehensive in anyway. They are merely illustrative of the Liberty campaigns that can be built to attract the attention of the populous at large. Further, I understand that these proposed Acts may need amplification and refinement. It is my general thought that I am attempting to present here.

I have one more strategic recommendation. I believe that these type Liberty Bills should be pursued one at a time, so that, sir, your complete army of architects and construction workers for Liberty are all focused on the same point to create the greatest amount of intensity in getting liberty ideas before the public at large, and, thus, passed in Congress.


Robert Wenzel

Robert Wenzel is an economic consultant and Editor & Publisher of He can be reached at


  1. I like all of it except the truth in campaigning act.
    A President couldn't make a needed change in policy.

  2. Yes, he could. Like a true statesman--he could do what was right for the people and make the change in policy, and then do time for breaking his word to the people.

    That would be a sacrifice for the people. Only a true statesman would make changes.

  3. I like the ideas, conceptually speaking. Unfortunately, none of them fall within the purview of the U.S. Constitution and in the absence of a Constitutional amendment, would need to be introduced and enacted at the state level.

  4. I'm not sure they all require a constitutional ammendment, but whatever the case let's get a move on these are great ideas.

  5. Robert

    A great short list of pro-Liberty proposals that may indeed even be politically practicable. Here is another one I would suggest.

    The "Citizens Surveillance Protection Act".

    If we cannot repeal domestic surveillance legislation in an era of apparently global terrorism, we should at least be informed when it has happened.

    My proposal is that citizens who have had their private communications intercepted, and who have not subsequently been prosecuted should receive full and frank advice from the federal authorities within 3 years.

    All "false positives" in the "war on terror" are obvious violations of citizens' liberties and the extent and nature of false positives needs to be a matter of public and indeed personal record.

    Tyranny grows in the dark. If "law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about" living under the new domestic surveillance regime, we can counter that "law abiding security agencies have nothing to worry about" with full disclosure legislation of this type.

  6. This is brilliant stuff.

  7. How about a 'Comply with the Constitution ' Act? It should include text clarifying the original intent of the 'interstate commerce' and 'general welfare clause'.

  8. THE TRUTH IN CAMPAIGNING ACT is an awful idea!

    I understand where you're coming from: all those political campaign promises to protect or increase the level of liberty that are so shamelessly betrayed once office is achieved.

    You are forgetting, though, that most political campaign promises are truly nightmarish threats to loot, enslave, scapegoat or even kill some other racial or ethnic group or class of people: the rich, aliens, foreigners, drug users/sellers,... etc.

    Do you really want to hold the holders of public office to all promises?