Dr. Paul once again handles himself admirably in the face of a combative interviewer. So much for the “fair and balanced” mantra of Fox News.

It is unfortunate that resistance to being kidnapped (and possibly tortured) is so acceptably portrayed in a negative light.

Ron Paul never advocates violence, so he didn’t call the Browns specifically Gandhi or MLK. But he did say people that practice peacefull civil disobedience are to be admired.

Tracy

I tend to think that the Browns have a right to defend their property and their lives from the criminal aggressors of the state.

The best part was Ron pointing out that the building behind him was NOT funded by the income tax.

Still Mr. Paul is a statist fundamentally (although much less of one than Cavuto)and as such he had to be slippery on his opposition to taxes. He would not call taxation unjust, merely most of it and the income tax in particular.

Also non-violent resistance is poinltless as it still means surrender to the state ultimately. Acting like a rag doll in the process of being dragged away means nothing. You are surrendering and therefore legitimizing the states claim on your person for disobeying its laws. Either obey the laws out of value for your own life if for no other reason or disobey them with the intention of doing so to the last. Anything else is just grandstanding really.

If the Browns shoot (others in self defense or themselves) then they will have my respect. If they let themselves be dragged off, nothing they said before really has any value.

“Still Mr. Paul is a statist fundamentally (although much less of one than Cavuto)and as such he had to be slippery on his opposition to taxes. He would not call taxation unjust, merely most of it and the income tax in particular.”

He’d need to use round-about reasoning such as that employed by Nozick in ASU. And even then, this does not stand up to scrutiny.

“Worked for Gandhi, the Christian martyrs and it also worked for the Soviet dissidents”

That depends on how broadly you define non violent resistance. Gandhi’s call for civil disobedience embodied total denial of self defense, but its success (the Lord Irwin pact) was due to mass defiance of laws, not non-resistance per se. It’s vital to note that his Quit India campaign saw a great deal of violence and he thought that this violence under his banner was better than uncontrolled mob response.

Christian Martyrdom was never intentionally political and it has never accomplished political change. Constantine declared toleration because the majority of the Empire (at least in the east) was Christian and he thought it wise to have their support, not as a response to any sort of complaints about past persecutions. Luther did not speak of the Inquisition’s violence in his 95 theses and Mary was not ousted for killing Protestants. The Martyrs stories alternately embolden us in, or make us feel ashamed of, our own faithfulness but have these ever changed a law anywhere? Christianity is illegal in many countries including some allied with the US – Matryrs of the past and present seem to have little impact the policy of arguably the most Christian nation on earth.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it was rotten and the people finally realized it. Yeltsin’s march was hardly in the spirit of Gandhi. Their was no call for non-violent resistance at that time. To be sure, dissidents shed light on much of the oppression prior to the fall, but folks in the West either believed them or not (think of the NY Times and Walter Duranty).