Skip to content

Einstein, Conscience & Rand Paul

January 6, 2014

“Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it”
Albert Einstein


the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts

the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego


conformity to what one considers to be correct, right, or morally good :  conscientiousness

sensitive regard for fairness or justice :  scruple



an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power

desire to achieve a particular end

a desire for activity or exertion


What did Einstein know and what was the lesson he was trying to convey in his point?

Conscience is characterized here as: “the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation (conformity) to do right or be good…”

How does ambition affect one’s conscience? Could a “desire to achieve a particular end” motivated by “an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power” conflict an individual into serve more than just their moral center, their concept of right and wrong, and worst of all, take leaps to justify their actions that stretch the truth and punish those with nothing but allegiance to it?

Take Sen. Rand Paul.

Now his father built up a reputation for standing up for the little guy, and upholding the belief that the government exists to protect the liberty OF the people, and NOT to take liberties FROM the people or at the expen$e OF the people…

At the heart of the matter is pragmatism:

a practical approach to problems and affairs

an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

Where Ron Paul would act on principle on issues such as the Income Tax being unconstitutional and therefore, unlawful; Rand advocates the “Fair Tax” that calls on all Americans to not only pay the Income Tax, but pay the same 17%, be they rich or poor. Justifying the principle that the middle class and the working class, have to give up disproportionately more of their hard-earned income, than those who have the most. And the advantages of investments and capital gains, and dividends, and other wealth creation and accumulation schemes that the middle and lower classes are incapable of attaining. In effect choosing to rob the middle class and the working class in favor of preservation of the wealth of the top classes.

Despite the predatory nature and inherent racism of national drug policy, incarcerating first time non-violent offenders, while those who often are members of the top-tier, get lite sentences to luxury resorts for “rehab,” no matter how many times they re offend…  Rand sees young adult Libertarians… or young adults in general as drug obsessed “low I.Q.” and bottom line “unhealthy” in body or mind, individuals.

Where Ron Paul saw sanctions as an “act of war”

Pragmatic Rand sees sanctions of Iran as noble

According to Rand, sanctions are a means to an end. A way to prevent war. But as Mr. Glaser asks in the article, why should the citizens of Iran be made to suffer for the actions of the government?

Is it fair to say that 911 was justified upon the American people because of the consequences of our foreign policy decisions pertaining to the Middle East, and Israel at expense of the Middle East?

Of course not.

Ron would call sanctions an act of war, because the citizens of a nation are unfairly held accountable for the actions of those who act in their name. Even if they disagree with the policy.

Rand’s blanket support for Israel in foreign policy is not even popular with some Israeli’s.

On the subject of Civil Liberties, Ron Paul was uncompromising in his opposition to unconstitutional bills like the USA Patriot Act.

Rand on the other hand, uses such occasions to promote…

Take the NDAA.

Ron voted against the NDAA:

Rand had his famous filibuster…

Willing to settle for taking the administration at its word. No legally binding constraint. Just their word. That they will keep his opinion in mind, as they continue the very same policy.

While Rand rails against Obamacare, out the other side of his mouth he talks up the “success” of it in his state of Kentucky.

Forget about the corruption of the insurance industry writing the bill

Basically the principle of “liberty” justifies subsides and all of the abuses that come with them, including the data mining and theft of citizens health records and bank records as long as one state out there, can do it well.

These “incompatibilities” and differences from the son to the father have not gone unnoticed by all… Robert Wenzel has extensive knowledge and analysis of this rift on his blog, an example right HERE:

What is it that people like Wenzel have in common with the Einstein quote? Namely that no matter ones personal ambition, that should never replace or be substituted at the expense of one’s own conscience.

This is what separated Ron Paul from his detractors, and his political opponents. It is something that is sacred to his supporters, and why they spent SO MUCH time, effort, and money they may well NEVER have again to support Ron Paul in his Presidential Campaigns. No matter the odds or likelihood of his winning. It was the promise and Hope that somewhere, someone was out there and willing to speak UP for the people and DEFEND not only them, but the protections guaranteed to them, under, and despite of,  the established social and political order.

Ron Paul ran and the effect of Ron Paul running, was to prove that these things MATTERED… Be all, end all… The bottom line of Ron Paul’s effort was securing the maximum amount of freedom and liberty and autonomy for the American people, and jealously guard it against the power-hungry zealots of the state.

Rand Paul seems to be running out of the opportunity laid before him. The in he has with his father’s supporters, and the in he would have with the establishment, if he can keep them, as he purges one idea, ideal, and idealist from his ranks, until he is viable and credible to be their errand boy.

Can this tightrope be straddled, let alone conquered? That is the enigma that IS Rand Paul, frankly.

An individual who has the opportunity thrust upon him, and wants to achieve what his father never could. While still preserving something of his father’s essence and insight and dignity. The only question is what will the final amount of pragmatism vs. idealism be in what becomes the finished product of Rand Paul?

Rand has already called out the uncompromising true believer libertarians like Wenzel, referring to people like them as “an albatross across my neck…”,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1yjNZ8V8Q

And looked on as paid members of his father’s own campaign, purge the Ron Paul grassroots from ” Brand Paul 2016…”

That Ron Paul will not be president is of little concern to me. I fought as hard as anyone on the campaign to make this happen, but from the very beginning I’ve never considered it the be-all-end-all goal of this campaign and this movement.” –Jack Hunter.

And here’s his buddy Austin Petersen: ““Not all conspiracy theorists are Nazis, but all Nazis tend to be conspiracy theorists.” — Austin Petersen

Isn’t it nice to know that Jack Hunter got PAID to attack “conspiracy theorists” who supported Ron Paul’s campaign

Now what is the CAUSE behind such acts and actions?

Why would somebody support sanctions as an act of war, in the name of opposing war?

Why would somebody who’s father and mentor opposed the Income Tax on Constitutional grounds, come out for a “Fair Tax” that benefits Steve Forbes and Wall St. bankers, and disproportionately penalizes the common man?

Why would somebody celebrate “freedom of choice” from government, and yet disparage users of one drug (apparently even he used while in higher education) while saying nothing about the dangers of alcohol abuse or prescription drug abuse, or the many other means that individuals can be harmed by their respective “legal” choices.

How can Rand preach liberty and accountability and continue to endorse American support for foreign policy and the illegal actions of the state of Israel?

How can Rand refuse to meet with Palestinians, and when he does, choose to admonish them on Israel’s behalf, and be considered a “fair broker for peace in the Middle East?”

How can Rand hold a televised filibuster against the NDAA and demand that changes be made in writing to secure and preserve liberties to the citizens listed in the US Constitution, and then settle for the Attorney General’s word that he will interpret the law, with NO binding agreement, to see that America does NOT kill American citizens without due process… even though citizens are being convicted on the basis of evidence provided through illegal drone surveillance? Is it really a leap to add hellfire missiles to such drones, and allow the President to conduct assassinations against American citizens inside the US, after the precedent has been set to do so overseas with the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens Anwar al-Alwaki and his son?

If you can be detained without a trial. And convicted in a military tribunal, without access to an attorney, or be seen before a judge,  unable to defend yourself beyond a reasonable doubt, AND can be incarcerated on the basis of warrant-less surveillance…

What the HELL was the point of the filibuster of the NDAA BY Rand Paul…

AND WHY IN THE HELL… Is this FAILURE of Congress to enact its role to preserve and protect, and uphold the Constitution, and the rights granted from it, to THE PEOPLE… Seen as a “victory” and chief accomplishment OF Rand Paul!?!

If this is “success,” I’d hate to see what failure looks like for the freedoms and liberties of the American people.

Now, I want to like Rand Paul.

I want to believe that his father’s efforts were NOT in vain, and all of the time and money given, taken, and lost, some by effort and some by fraud, was all going to create the opportunity for someone to come along, and join the people and push back against those eviscerating our freedoms, and stand up for the freedom and liberty for all men. With NO exceptions…

Except now with Rand, it seems all there is, is and endless series of exceptions.

Exceptions made for Jack Hunter, until it cost Rand and damaged his father’s movement.

Exceptions made for Rand taking on his father’s supporters in the hope of appealing to enough of his enemies, to be considered “one of them” and achieve such a moment as this:

Except instead of rejecting the offer to feed at the crumbs from the masters table, Rand would plea for more…

While we would be left with none at all….

That is the purpose of the power structure.

It is something his father knew well, and had no intention of serving.

Rand’s ambition seems to counter this knowledge and disregard it, in testament to the ultimate folly that he can control enough of his ambition to compromise enough to be granted the Ring of Power, and the delusion that he, and he alone, gets to decide for himself what the repercussions are for himself, and for all the world, and that the people are free to believe that he works for them, as he struggles to serve them, his masters, and himself.

For all of what Obama was presumed to have the audacity to accomplish, he was timid by comparison.

He was wise enough to use the Hopes and Dreams of the people, to grant himself absolute power, which he distributed to those who protected him, enabled him, and still do, so that he can be the head servant to the ultimate master.

Rand is much, much more ambitious than that. He has the audacity to run on his father’s name, dispose of those who upheld what his father stood for, embrace his father’s enemies, defend those who work to isolate and marginalize him from his friends and would be friends, and somewhere in the middle of all of that reconcile the hopes and dreams of the common man, of reform to where they have a chance in society and the maximum amount of liberty and opportunity, while at the same time serving those diligently working night and day to eliminate such opportunities and even the slightest hope for all,  of reform, to restore the (seemingly now, lost and forgotten) cause OF liberty.

No, I sure as hell would NOT want to be Rand Paul… right now… in 2016… or ever!

And you have the audacity to ask me, if I would support someone like him, with absolute power???

What do you expect me to say?

Pragmatism and Idealism, and the folly of pursuing both at the same time…

Can you truly be idealist, while enforcing and imposing the contrariness and arbitrariness of pragmatism?

Can you be uncompromisable AT compromising and turn that into a virtue?

Can we redefine spectacular defeats into noble, pragmatic, ideal, masterful “victories?”

Are these terms not, contradictory? Even schizophrenic?

Einstein reminds us: “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it…”

The question before us and Mr. Paul IS: Does his ambition and absolute will to be Head of the State, crush his personal conscience? And worse of all, does he even have enough of a conscience to be ABLE to entertain the concept OF standing up for his conscience, and for the People, and for the liberties, inalienable natural human rights, and freedoms, and unlimited opportunities by of and FOR the people, at the expense OF the state?

THAT is the penultimate question before him, and the people who would vote for him.

Evidence so far suggest he still has a long way to go, before he is worthy of such an honor…

Notes: Just as I write this, others are doing even more…

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: