YouTube Update: Ron Paul's Farewell Address
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Wed, 11/14/2012 - 17:56Friends,
Dr. Paul gave his "Farewell to Congress" speech on the House floor/CSPAN today. The speech is over, but it is now archived on CSPAN.
Thanks to DPers RP_nexus and Katniss Everdeen for the C-Span video clip. Thanks to eduardo89 for the YouTube:
See here for the Full Text of Ron Paul's Farewell Address
Also, thanks to DPer Katniss Everdeen for the information that #ThankYouRonPaul is Trending on Twitter in the United States
»
- Login to post comments
rejected by the voting machines first
and then the masses followed. We've all been duped. This is bar non one of the greatest men I have ever seen.
Also my opinion, very well
Also my opinion, very well said.
Ventura 2012
I fear...
...you're right. As Ron Paul said in his speech, "A society that boos the Golden Rule is not moral."
America has lost its sense of morality. What's really sad to me is that so many professing Christians are so caught up in futurism, they'll vote for statist neocons in the hopes of, supposedly, "ushering in Armageddon."
Thank You....
Dr. Paul for all you have done in service to our country.
Astounding highlights for short attention span
"We Need an Intellectual Awakening!
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.
If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish. The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgemental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land."
Thank you Ron Paul!!!
Money Bomb
for the building of "Ron Paul University"
Thank you Dr. Paul.
Thank you Dr. Paul.
Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.
Epic.
Epic.
We should record this on a gold record
and launch it into space
For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.
Great speech
Here's some commentary from our site
http://www.dailypaul.com/263133/ron-paul-s-final-bow-governm...
http://lionsofliberty.com/
Urgent Request
someone please make a video of just the end "In Conclusion" remarks for those with short attention spans ... some of them won't make it to
41:23 - 48:50
great substance.
hope someone will jump on this and please post it here - I am guessing many know what I am talking about.
today is a great day in history having heard this speech
(now listening for the third time)
I SECOND THAT!
Was just thinking the same thing! Need to listen to that again.
I don't know about anyone else but that was a speech of Presidential Proportion.
Here's a link to a YT with that start time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqi6paX3ong&t=41m23s
“The lips of Wisdom are closed except to the ears of Understanding.”—The Kybalion
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
wow that was fast
thank you!
We're
going to win!!
We HAVE Won!
Some people have yet to take the hint... awkward...
“The lips of Wisdom are closed except to the ears of Understanding.”—The Kybalion
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Absolutely love the dig about the golden rule
This was a reference to one of the primary debates this cycle and I think that's about as feisty as I've seen Dr. Paul get.
agree
he was like South Carolina - are you listening?
This wonderful speech is a
This wonderful speech is a template for all future politicians...
Future generations will watch this speech and wonder why we didn't listen to him earlier.
Thanks for waking me up, Dr. Paul.
Spread It
throughout the land
a true hero
Epic
Indeed, he is the Champion.
What an incredible man !!!!
donvino
I thank God for Dr. Paul. He
I thank God for Dr. Paul. He changed my life.
It's as if you can feel the momentum suddenly start to shift
in the favor of liberty and morality. This is monumental.
Caphamer
The Problem of the Golden Rule
Ron Paul said in his speech: "A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt."
But there is a problem with the Golden Rule which many might not have thought of. The Golden Rule is presented in a positive and in a negative form. The positive states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." And the negative form says: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." So what is the problem with these formulations? Both of these formulations are good practical maxims, but in a deep sense they both have a flaw. This flaw is that they believe that the Other wants to be treated the same way as the one who makes the moral judgment. How can one know that others want the same as myself or that they don't want what I do not want? Maybe the Other wants to be treated in a different manner than myself.
The source of the Golden Rule is not the Other, but myself, not the mysterious infinity of the Other, the true otherness of the Other, but an idea that I would know how the others want to be treated or not treated. In this sense I would say that even more fundamental ethical principle should be constant openness to the mystery of the Other which is certain kind of astonishment in the face of the Other. This openness would be perpetual sensitivity and listening of the difference of the Other as the Other is always infinitely more than I can ever understand.
This above comment is connected to my previous comment titled "The Mystery of the Face of the Other" in which I write about the thought of a great ethical thinker Emmanuel Levinas:
http://www.dailypaul.com/262878/have-a-good-day#comment-2832378
"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--
Natural Law
The premise of The Golden Rule, if there is one, is what used to be called Natural Law, or now sometimes Moral Law. The beginning of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis explains this far better than I ever could (a good read, whether you are Christian or not, at least for the first five chapters or so). Basically it states that all humans share the same inner moral code. Every culture, everywhere. There has never been a culture where murdering of innocents is a good thing, or extreme selfishness, etc. Yes, things diverge quickly, but the core is there.
What I wrote about the
What I wrote about the otherness of the Other is according to Emmanuel Levinas even more primordial than any talk about human beings sharing "the SAME inner moral code". This self-sameness is exactly the problem for Levinas as in it oneself thinks that in the primordial level we are the SAME. This sameness is only a presupposition. Maybe a very useful presupposition, but still a presupposition. It might very well be that a common life is good to built upon this idea, but in a personal level of encountering the Other it already has a seed of totalitarianism in it if I think that "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" as the oneself is the one who defines others.
Your statement about "Every culture, everywhere" is not by the way true at all. For example, there has been cultures were killing a new born baby before it has taken its first breath is not seen as wrong action as killing it after the first breath. Also killing a child before it was baptized was not at all same kind of crime as killing it after the baptism. There has also been cultures that have understood that killing the old people of the community is not bad thing in certain kind of extreme conditions. I do not defend in any way of these practices, but to argue that "Every culture, everywhere" is just not truthful.
And if "extreme selfishness" is not understood as an good idea according to you universally, then one could say that the Golden Rule is actually in a sense based on extreme selfishness as it makes the oneSELF the judge of how to treat others.
"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--
I understand
I understand the gist of what you are saying, that we are imposing our version of "right" on someone when we say we should treat others the way we want to be treated. Got it, and I can see your point. the exceptions to Natural Law that you bring up though, as I see it, occur because people have convinced themselves that those they are murdering are not, indeed, human. There is no end to how the human heart and mind can deceive itself and come up with all kinds of rationalizations in order for us to do as we please
Are you suggesting that we ask each person if they would like to be killed before doing it? Since the fact that I would NOT like to be killed has no bearing on whether they would like to be killed or not? From a certain perspective you seem to be trying to dismantle the entire anti-war philosophy. I'm not trying to sound snarky, and I understand your point, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to apply it in a practical way. We have to treat each other in SOME way every day, how do we decide the "how" of that following your "otherness of the Other" thought process?
Ethical Consciousness
Of course I am not 'trying to dismantle the entire anti-war philosophy.' Why would I want to do that? You also write that you have 'trouble figuring out how to apply it in a practical way. We have to treat each other in SOME way every day, how do we decide the "how" of that following your "otherness of the Other" thought process?'
Well, our everyday encounters with Others according to the idea of 'the otherness of the Other' is that every face to face relationship with the Other is a new beginning, new opening in which a true encounter could take place. In this new beginning I am always according to Levinas responsible for the Other. For Levinas, the essence of human existence is not freedom (as free will) in the first place, but responsibility in its etymological meaning. Freedom is only possible after responsibility. Responsibility could be said to be one's ability to respond. Every situation of life, every encounter with the Other is for myself a kind of ethical question or ethical challenge to which I have to respond, to give a response in some way or the other. These questions do not have to be vocal, they can also be tacit/mute. Do I respond to these ethical questions of the Other always according to some ready-made answer or presupposed principle or am I open to respond to the infinite mystery of the Other somehow depending the current situation with spontaneity. For example, children do not have any ready-made answers and for this reason they respond to the moment spontaneously depending on what kind of ethical questions the encounters with Others brings up. Maybe for this reason Jesus for example said that "Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter into it." (Mark 10:15) The Kingdom of God in this context is within us and among us now as a perpetual possibility. (Luke 17:21) So we are always in this dilemma of how should we respond to the Other and the question of how to treat the others is a dimension of this constant responding. In this ethical situation of face to face relationship we also need to ask if our response is based on the Other or ourself. Am I full of answers before-hand which I use to respond to the Other or is my response inspired by the presence of the Other and for this reason could not exists before the Other's ethical question to myself?
We are faced with this question all the time at least latently. Awakening to an ethical consciousness would mean to become aware of this dilemma perpetually.
"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--
Thank you for the responses
Thank you for the responses though, I'm trying to read them carefully in the hopes of not making you repeat yourself too much.
In being anti-war are we not assuming something about how others want to be treated, or do NOT want to be treated in this case?
I think I understand the point about approaching each situation with an attempt at ridding ourselves of our presuppositions, not having our "ready-made answers" quite so ready. I think you have a lot of good things to say and good points to make, but your language is so esoteric it becomes somewhat difficult to understand. The bottom line that I read in your posts so far is that we all really should just shut up and REALLY listen. Not formulating our response while listening, but just shut up and listen. Did I read you wrong?
Anti-War Philosophy and the Question of Murder
If one does not listen how can one respond? For example, Ron Paul said in the '08 debates that we should listen to bin Laden and al-Qaeda before we response. And if one is full of ready-made answers in one's mind true listening will become very difficult or even impossible as there is no room to receive the speech of the Other. Maybe the Other can surprise us and put our truths, principles and beliefs in question. So indeed silencing oneself in order to create open-space for listening is very important if one wants to hear and become sensitive and receptive for the otherness/strangeness of the Other. The face of the Other already speaks in the voices of silence to us placing to us these constant ethical questions/challenges. So yes, you understood the bottom line of what I wrote.
But then the question of being anti-war. You wrote in your first response to me that "all humans share the same inner moral code." But this is the ultimate problem of our whole discussion in my opinion. Levinas, if I have understood him right, argues that there is not any a priori 'inner moral code' which all humans share. This would mean that a person has this moral code without others, even if he would have been raised by wolfs. But this is not the case. Sense of morals can only be born in relation to Others as we only become human beings with other human beings. The talk about 'inner moral code' emphasizes the self and not the Other, that is, the bases of ethics can be found from oneself, for example in the Golden Rule: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" which bases the Other under the rule of myself and in this it has already a seed of totalitarianism hidden in it or at least it has a potentiality for it.
For Levinas, it is not the self, but the Other who is emphasized in face to face relation. For Levinas, the question of killing or the Murder is highly important. And according to him the biblical commandment 'Thou shalt not kill/murder' originally arises from the face of the Other. Levinas writes in his book "Totality and Infinity": "This infinity [of the Other], stronger than murder, already resists us in his face, is his face, is the primordial EXPRESSION, is the first word: 'you shall not commit murder.' The infinite paralyses power by its infinite resistance to murder, which, firm and insurmountable, gleams in the face of the Other, in the total nudity of his defenceless eyes, in the nudity of the absolute openness of the Transcendent." (p. 199) This is also a response to your first comment why murdering innocents is not seen as a good way. This idea does not originally arise from some 'inner moral code', but from the nudity and defenceless of the face of the Other. But how often we avoid ourselves to really open ourselves to the mystery of the Other and just keep ourselves in our own bubble of ideas and beliefs even if we are supposingly with the Others?!?
What is murder? In murder one wants to negate totally the Other, that is, the otherness of the Other. Who do we want to murder? Those who do not share with us the SAME values, ideas, customs, belief-systems, knowledge, conceptual systems, etc, that is, those who have OTHER values and ideas than us. And those Others are seen as a threat to our totality of way of life. Even in Daily Paul this can be seen as between DPers there is some times a lot of hate between people; even if we are suppose to be ideally so peaceful and loving. Peace and love are not so easy to achieve.
I would say that the thinking of Levinas would inspire the 'anti-war philosophy' very much as you write in a form of a question: "In being anti-war are we not assuming something about how others want to be treated, or do NOT want to be treated in this case?" This question should resonate within us all the time.
I hope I did clarify myself at least a bit.
"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--
It's not about knowing what others want.
It's about knowing yourself and how you would want to be treated. It's about realizing that you can only change yourself and people can only know you by the way you treat them. How you treat others is a reflection of yourself. Its not about what someone else wants its about what you need. As you get older you start to figure out that all living creatures need the same thing "love".
1 Cor 13:11-13
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.