[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E987-E988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PRINCIPLED WRITINGS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 20, 1997

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer into the Record two 
record examples of the fine writing often found in one of district 
newspapers, The Brazosport Facts. While many find it easy to deride the 
press as liberal and closed to the notions of liberty, free markets, 
and constitutional principles, I am pleased to report that The 
Brazosport Facts in general, and these two authors in specific, seek to 
bring a fair, even balance to the coverage of news and ideas.
  Today I enter into the Record an editorial written by Glenn Heath, a 
former executive editor of The Brazosport Facts and now a retired 
member of the community active yet active on the paper's editorial 
board. Also, I enter into the Record a column written by Bill 
Sturdevant, a frequent contributor to the Facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my fellow Members of Congress to 
read these principled writings. I offer my congratulations and thanks 
to these two men for supporting the ideas of liberty; and to the entire 
staff of The Brazosport Facts for their ongoing dedication to 
presenting fair coverage of events and ideas.

                            Freedom & Safety

       A larger principle than the bill itself is involved. The 
     principle applies to many human circumstances where a 
     mandated gain entails a substantial loss.
       For decades, a safety measure has been before the 
     Legislature, either asking the state to require motorcycle 
     riders to wear a protective helmet, or asking the state to 
     repeal such a law. Riders have been in the gallery in force 
     to oppose one or support the other.
       This time it's repeal. Sen. Jerry Patterson's bill would 
     relieve all motorcycle riders aged 21 or over of wearing the 
     helmet. Legislators deleted a provision that they must carry 
     added insurance if they did so.
       The Senate is expected to vote on Patterson's bill Thursday 
     or Friday.
       From a purely practical standpoint, the arguments for the 
     original bill had merit. In case of an accident, the helmet 
     would help protect against head injuries.
       Even most riders would admit that motorcycles can be 
     dangerous. In the best of road conditions, their speed 
     capability is often abused; and on slick surfaces or loose 
     surfacings they can be treacherous. In a crash with a four-
     wheel vehicle, the motorcycles always lose.
       But motorcycles are designed as much for fun as for 
     practical transportation. Even those who accept the helmet 
     for its safety would agree that using one diminishes the 
     pleasure of motorcycling.
       More important, the helmet protects no one but the one 
     wearing it. So the effect of the law is to force a person to 
     do something entirely for personal safety.
       That should be that person's choice. No government should 
     regulate an individual's right to accept risks, and in doing 
     so deprive that person of the freedom to enjoy a pleasure.
       That doesn't mean there should be no rules of highway 
     safety. Faulty brakes threaten not just the driver of an 
     auto, but every other vehicle on the road. Slick tires, 
     malfunctioning lights endanger others. These are concerns of 
     government.
       But not air bags. These don't prevent crashes and they 
     don't protect others on the road; they only tend to reduce 
     the injuries to a driver and possibly a passenger after a 
     crash.
       When air bags were a prospective federal mandate, the 
     estimated cost for each was about $300. Once they were in 
     place, they were said to have saved 1,600 lives. For this to 
     happen, tens of millions of motorists must pay the high cost 
     of the devices.
       And in a few cases, the air bags have actually killed 
     people. New proposals would soften the impact, and would 
     allow a motorist to have the air bag disabled. Then why 
     shouldn't the motorist be allowed to avoid the expense 
     altogether?
       These are only two examples. We need protection from the 
     negligence of others, but there should be limits on how much 
     government limits our freedom and pleasure in protecting us 
     from ourselves.
       Benjamin Franklin had words for it: ``Those who would give 
     up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, 
     deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.''
                                  ____



            When Politicians Say Entitlements, Think Robbery

                          (By Bill Sturdevant)

       Rights are counterbalanced with responsibility; juxtaposed 
     and eternally linked. In the United States of America, we 
     have a government created by a group of individuals 
     collectively called ``the people,'' who are not only 
     ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,'' 
     those being ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' 
     but also have the ``equal right to the use of our own 
     faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry,'' and 
     ``to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting 
     not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of 
     them.'' (Thomas Jefferson).
       In short, we have the right to choose what is best for us. 
     We have the right to pursue happiness as we define it, we 
     have the right to keep the fruits of our labor that we earn 
     in that pursuit, and we have the right to decide how to 
     dispose of those rewards. At the same time, we must reconcile 
     these rights with the responsibility of respecting the rights 
     of others, and living with the consequences of our decisions 
     and actions. If our country's founding fathers had written a 
     golden rule for our citizens, it would have read ``Respect 
     the God-given rights of others, while at the same time 
     protecting your own rights.''
       What bothers me is that there seem to be fewer and fewer 
     people who understand and live by this golden rule. More and 
     more

[[Page E988]]

     often, people are turning to the federal government to secure 
     the force necessary to take from others something that they 
     are not by right entitled to. I may have the right to eat, 
     but I don't have the right to steal someone else's food. I 
     have the right to have children, but I don't have the right 
     to force someone else to pay for my child's food, house, 
     clothes or education. The decision is mine; it therefore 
     follows that the responsibility is also mine. Many federal 
     ``entitlement'' programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and 
     Social Security, are morally wrong because they require, by 
     threat of force, that people give up part of what they earn 
     so that it can be redistributed to someone who did not earn 
     it.
       But wait a minute, you say. All of the above mentioned 
     federal programs were created by the will of the majority of 
     Americans, and it is therefore our civic duty to contribute. 
     My response to that is, ``So what?'' My rights are not 
     bestowed to me by government or by a majority of the 
     electorate. They do not have the legitimate authority to 
     force me to contribute to programs that are not enumerated in 
     the Constitution. In too many cases in the history of 
     mankind, the majority has used the power of government to 
     enslave the minority, or at least create an unfair advantage 
     for themselves.
       Say that a congressman and a police officer were riding in 
     a bus that was full of other passengers. On the bus was a 
     ``rich'' man, who had one dollar more than the others. The 
     Congressman announced: ``If you vote for me, I will use the 
     government's police power to take the dollar from the rich 
     man, and redistribute it to you.'' A vote was held, and the 
     majority of those on the bus decided the rich man should 
     contribute his dollar for the good of all the rest. The 
     policeman seized the dollar, and the congressman divided it 
     up. He gave 25 cents to the policeman, 25 cents was given to 
     the people on the bus, (which they immediately started 
     fighting over), and he kept 50 cents for himself. It seemed 
     that everyone, except the rich man, was happy, but were they 
     right?
       In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said of 
     the ``sacred principle'' of our federal government, ``that 
     though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, 
     that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the 
     minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must 
     protect, and to violate would be oppression.'' It could be 
     argued that it was wrong to take the dollar from the rich man 
     because he could have used it to build a factory, employ 
     everyone on the bus, and thus create wealth for all.
       My point is that it doesn't matter what you or I may think, 
     the person who earns the money is the only one with the right 
     to decide how to spend it, so long as doing so does not 
     infringe on your or my legitimate rights. Jefferson continued 
     by defining the ``good government'' as being ``wise and 
     frugal, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, 
     shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own 
     pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from 
     the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.''
       The next time a politician promises you an ``entitlement,'' 
     think about who he is going to rob to pay for it. Ask 
     yourself if, by accepting it, you would have to abdicate your 
     personal responsibility and therefore your freedom. Ask 
     yourself if you are legitimately entitled to it because you 
     earned it. If the government has the power to ``take from 
     Peter to pay Paul,'' what is to stop it from taking from 
     both? Ask yourself why the politician isn't battling to 
     restore your lost liberty.
       Please understand that I am not against charity. There are 
     people who, through no fault of their own, need temporary 
     assistance, and I believe we have a moral obligation to help 
     them if we can. But to lose our freedom, in the name of 
     ``charity,'' by allowing confiscatory taxation of our money, 
     really only benefits politicians and bureaucrats. This is not 
     only dangerous, it is absurd.
       Only by accepting our responsibility to honor the rights of 
     others can we hope to protect our own rights. As Jefferson 
     said, only by protecting our rights can we hope to ``regain 
     the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.''

     

                          ____________________