In this episode of Live On Purpose Radio, Dr. Paul welcomes Ruel Haymond. Ruel is a teacher and student of constitutional law at George Wythe University. In a somewhat more-political-than-usual discussion, the proper role of government is the topic of conversation. Especially in this election season, it is important to acknowledge the various threats to our freedom and liberty, the greatest threat being our own ignorance.

5 comments on “Self Family Government, In That Order

  1. Excellent podcast! I left my comments here:

  2. I’m really choking on the example of Proposition 8–the amendment limiting marriage. This new amendment is a type of new legislation, new restriction, new limitation of freedom of conscience. I’m just not seeing how not passing new limitations of concience (prop 8), can limit the existing conscience of the “majority.” Sounds like rationalizing a smack down of a minority freedom of conscience to me. Bizarre that this can even be argued both ways–seems so obvious to me that government doesn’t belong in the marriage business at all.

  3. Greg S. Nov 29, 2008

    Lee, took you up on listening to this podcast. Interesting like you said. Had you not given it away, I would have thought the guest was leading up to a position against the passage of Prop 8, then somehow turned it all around. Made me think of those old newsreels we saw in school about the civil rights issues in the 60’s. The guest mentioned that government was like a fire that is good when contained and bad when not–to which I totally agree. He talks about how when one group is successful in limiting the freedom of conscience of another it is bound to come around and bite the other group in the butt (totally paraphrased). But I wonder that when a group has been denied their freedom of conscience (and a lot of other freedoms as well) for a very long time as in the case of the african-americans in the US. If the subsequent laws (like a lot of the civil rights legislation) that come as a reaction and clearly limit the freedom of conscience of others (like the hiring quotas etc.) are not the same kind of clear consequence to the prior limiting of African-America freedoms. Seems like the same thing is happening now with the gay agenda. Those who disagree with the agenda are finding their freedom of conscience limited, but doesn’t this come as a natural reaction to the gays having their freedoms limited for so long? Seems really obvious to me–but maybe I’m just missing something. I’m not a PHD student. The concept he taught seems totally sound, but wow–what a reversal on the application.

  4. Greg S. Nov 29, 2008

    P.S. Thanks Dr. Paul for bringing these podcasts. Thought you handled this fairly despite my obvious objections. I’ll be listening to more. Also BTW, I don’t agree that that what the gay agenda is doing is correct regarding it’s efforts to limit freedom of conscience of others any more than I agree that the majority has a right to limit the freedom of conscience of any minority including gays. Perhaps Lee is right that government doesn’t belong in the marriage business at all. Perhaps it should be the jobs of the churches or other private organizations to marry or refuse to marry as their conscience dictates.