-99 votes

Ron Paul and Calling Libertarians a Bunch of Delusional No-Hopers to their Face

I've written an article that aims to show people that Ron Paul should not be treated as a hero, nor electoral politics as a viable method for achieving freedom.

I invite all feedback.

http://consentient.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/calling-libertar...

[UPDATE: Here is part 2, an addendum to the first article]

http://consentient.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/internet-liberta...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great article

Well-written.

Ron Paul was a key part of awakening me to the philosophy of liberty, but a good point is a good point.

Your article points out not necessarily that Ron Paul is "evil" or "an asshole", but rather the basic facts that there are contradictions in how he lived his life (preaching against government, while living off of it partially), etc.

The fact that libertarians on this forums cannot acknowledge the basic philosophic shortcomings of Ron Paul, his views, and the life he has lived (which is a very honorable, decent, and influential life), just shows that there's a bit of cult-of-personality fever spreading around here.

Libertarianism is not about worshiping one man: it's about trusting yourself, and your own mind, and using that mind.

Take the Red Pill at www.redpillphilosophy.com New Videos, Articles, and More!

The reason images like that

The reason images like that get attention is because the internet is filled with information, and the best way to get anyone's attention is with something eye catching. Whereas, unless someone has a prior interest in your topic, they are not going to read a lengthy article. That's just the reality.

I'll try to go through point by point.

1. You weaken your argument by trying to make Ron Paul out to be a fraud. If you know anything about him, you know that he truly believes in his cause and has been very consistent throughout his career. I think that he realizes that many of his efforts in congress have been fruitless, but it did give him a platform, make him well known, and now that he is retiring, he has a huge fan-base that he can use to help spread his message. So, holding the government office may not have accomplished much in itself, but he did start a fairly cohesive liberty movement.

2. He admits that from the point of view of many others, he would be seen as a failure. He was NOT a failure though (see point 1 above).

3. I'll quote his speech here: "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." He recognizes the futility of working through the government system. So, what's your point? Should he beat himself up for having tried?

4. See quote above. You are arguing for something that Ron Paul himself is calling for.

5. Here, I think the answer to these questions is not "government", but that our government has strayed so far away from the constitution. None of the events listed in his questions would have happened if our federal government had stuck to the role laid out in the constitution.

You talk about Ron Paul being ineffectual by becoming a congressman, but isn't it a bit idealistic to think that our very entrenched system of government is suddenly going to break down and we'll all live in happy little anarchist communes? Ron Paul was trying to effect real change, and so he was working in the system that we have.

I think by asking the question "“Why are there not more individuals to intellectually influence others?”" he is not looking for an answer but is kind of saying "lets have more individuals doing this instead of getting into politics".

“Psychopathic authoritarians endorse government-initiated force to change the world” - This was definitely not aimed at himself as you say. Although he was a congressman, every vote he made was against authoritarians and for less government.

Your quote: "It would be difficult (though not impossible) to find more poetic and poignant words describing the heteronomous horrors of government, yet they are spoken by an agent of government." You agree with what Ron Paul is saying, yet because he is part of the government, you decide that you can write off anything he says? Ridiculous.

As for Ron Paul's call for "No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence", he specifically states the role he thinks government should have elsewhere in his speech. He isn't calling for anarchy, but limited government.

Your quote: "Maybe the truth, that no libertarian wants to admit, is that Ron Paul is just a paleoconservative that makes libertarian noises because it makes him feel better…". Paleoconservative, libertarian.. who cares about labels. He stands for limited government.

Being libertarian and wanting to see our government shrink in size is idealistic enough for me. We will never see an end to all government in the US. The government is too big, and the people WANT government. Anarchists are a tiny minority, even smaller than the 1% of libertarians. It's not going to happen.

If we are "delusional no-hopers", what does that make anarchists?

Part 2?

I haven't even wasted the time to read part 1 yet. Maybe later, my bunions need scrubbing.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

In his analysis number 4 says it all.

We should all stay home practice liberty in our own lives, and not try and influence the the election.

Truly a neocon that is scared that he and his buddies are losing control of the GOP.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Staying home is the last

Staying home is the last thing I'm suggesting, as you'd know if you had read the article. That way, you'd also know I'm just about the furthest thing possible from a neocon. I eat neocons for breakfast.

You and YOUR buddies are welcome to the GOP, which is NOT going libertarian. If you think that, you REALLY need to check your head.

I read until number 4

thats all I needed to read. I tried to double check what I read but seems the story has been pulled.

I should be welcome in the GOP I voted Republican for the last 40 years and most likely will continue. I could not vote for Romney though. Obama stole my vote in 2010 when he started Obamacare. I started to buy silver as a hedge against the dollar and that introduced a hard core Republican neocon like myself to RON PAUL. I got real answers to questions I had for years.

I am someone that has been changed for life by the 2012 Ron Paul movement, and plan on being part of the GOP in the future. If the GOP is so stupid to lockout the liberty movement for another 4 years, they should just dissolve the party now.

BTW the GOP always referred to themselves as the big tent party. What the hell happened in Tampa? Sure looked like Romney's own personal tent party to me.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Ron Paul IS a Hero

He changed my life, and I will forever praise his name. Your article is whiny in tone, and shite in content.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

You can't have freedom without the rule of law.

That's what the problem is. If the government would just do that, we would be ok. The FED, US government borrowing money, Bailouts, unconstitutional wars, ndaa, wall street fraud, states rights, income tax, etc. are not legal under our constitution. If these would be prosecuted and not allowed, we will get our freedoms back. It's all about the law.

Cyril's picture

Exactly. It's all about the law

Exactly. It's all about the law

-OR-

about the law perverted.

Nothing wrong with enforcing the first, everything wrong with even ONLY voting for the second out of ignorance or inattention.

See the Patriot Act, NDAA, Obamacare for recent examples. See the 16th amendment or the Federal Reserve Act for less recent ones.

TOO LATE.

Congress BETRAYED their people.

That's the lesson for the future.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

just a TROLL - do not pay attention

Just a guy who writes a blog nobody is interested in

So then he does "viral" marketing,
or "guerilla" marketing
by writing purely provocative statements.

These statements are just a tid short of being openly
insulting.

And then he harvests attention.

There are always people with narcissist sociopathic tendencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

Recognize them quickly.
Expose them.
And do not take their provocative arguments seriously.
Just call them out.

Peter Buchmann

Brilliantly said. This is

Brilliantly said. This is certainly a recurring theme on the net.

Ventura 2012

just a CENSOR - watch him closely

Just a guy who is unhappy that messages contrary to his own are being put out there on his favourite website.

So then he finds these contrary voices
calls them names
accuses them (for the act of posting on a website) of wanting attention, by means of the same activity (posting on a website)

Even goes so far as to accuse them of mental illness.

Talks in fascistic imperatives to persuade others to help him bully this contrary voice.

Recognized by anyone respecting free speech.
Exposed by their own bravado.
Talks of provocative arguments as if they are a bad thing, whilst accusing people of mental illness and calling them names.

I, sir*, am calling you out.

* = 0% chance you are female. Far too hostile.

You had literally NOTHING to say of the ideas I expressed. You simply launched into a personal attack. Shame on you.

Often misused

Often, the word troll is applied incorrectly. But if I have ever seen a clear cut troll, here is one at the DailyPAUL, bashing Paul. Oh surprise.

Do you have anything to say

Do you have anything to say about the IDEAS I expressed?

Cyril's picture

Hero ? To Be Or Not To Be ?

"that aims to show people that Ron Paul should not be treated as a hero"

Hero ?

Well, (almost) everything is relative of course.

"When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." -- Albert Einstein

So... Hero ? Of course, if one thinks of Ron Paul as a "hero" a la Superman, that'd be a rather silly stretch.

Now, if one thinks of Ron Paul as a Constitutional hero who is maybe ("god knows") the sole reason you(?) and I are still able to speak freely about the Constitution without being thrown in jail, especially ever since the Patriot Act or the NDAA inception ...

... I beg you : name to me WHO ELSE would better deserve the title than Ron Paul, I'm very interested.

I hope you're not ignorant of the fact Ron Paul stated publicly many times, and even wrote in his book, End The Fed, that he does NOT enjoy politics ... AT ALL.

Don't know about you, but do I enjoy paying my income tax ? Hell, no.

Do I pay it ? Hell yes... for I have a six-members family to sustain, ALONE. I'm not going to gamble with that / put it at stakes any time soon.

Point is ... doing something you REALLY DO NOT enjoy doing, but you do nevertheless CONSTRAINED BY FORCE (e.g., I, and paying my taxes) OR BY MORAL, GENUINE PATRIOTIC DUTY (e.g., Ron Paul and entering politics he DESPISES, if only for his 40 YEAR-LONG STAND for THIS country, for you and I) ... precisely implies you ACKNOWLEDGED somehow you have NO OTHER CHOICE but do it, still.

Another word, maybe a bit too strong, maybe not, for that, is : (SELF-)SACRIFICE.

So, in the Constitutional sense, at least :

my goodness, yes, I have the weakness to believe that Ron Paul is a hero. Or I have no clue WHO ELSE could ever be.

If not read yet, End The Fed is a really good read I strongly recommend you on how and why exactly, what motivated the good doctor to enter that other sort office, back in the 70s.

'Hope it helps,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Thank you for your points. I

Thank you for your points.

I have one thing to say to you at this point, and it is in response to when you said:-

"entering politics he DESPISES, if only for his 40 YEAR-LONG STAND for THIS country, for you and I)"

There 'is' no country.

Have a think about that.

http://consentient.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/weberian-states-...

PS I'm not in the USA.

Cyril's picture

Ron Paul's actual decades-long focus

I'm not sure where you want to get at by this "there is no country" remark, but assuming you're alluding to regarding the world's people as a whole ... okay, but even that would be barely relevant, in fact.

Let alone the Constitution, it wasn't, for Ron Paul, so much about this or that theoretical view of the world to favor, than about fighting against A SPECIFIC (UGLY) DEVICE which supports and feeds the status-quo FORCED ONTO the world's peoples, AND SHOVED DOWN their throats for more than a century.

Here's an informed person who explains WHAT Ron Paul has really been up against, while defending the Constitution at the same time, all these years, more than just doing politics in office like most of his colleagues in Congress :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkhIZOO5ifw

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

It's obvious this person

doesn't know much about Ron Paul. I read the blog and was became very tired of Dr. Paul being called a hypocrite, in so many words.

The 3rd question "3. Why does a quickly made JPEG of Ron Paul’s face with the claim attached get such enormous publicity, especially when compared to the carefully-thought out and well-researched articles that writers such as myself produce?" and I think probably the whole reason behind the article, sets up the the rest of the self indulging blog post.

Let me answer this question for you. Ron Paul has earned the respect of millions. Like him or not, you have to respect his unwavering adherence to his principles.

As for the rest of the article the theme seems to revolve around this statement "It is inarguable that there ARE far, far better ways of championing freedom than holding government offices." And I think with just a touch of research you will find that Dr. Paul has not only explored many of these avenues but fully exhausted them. You may have written a some blog posts maybe even hundreds. You may have written a book and got it published. But if you start digging into the shear volume of writings, books, public speeches, interviews, TV appearances, etc. you will realize that most people will never scratched the surface of the efforts Ron Paul has put toward changing public opinion.

Even with Ron Paul's prolific writings I don't think that he ever reached as many people as when he ran for President and people got to see him (briefly) in the debates. And that was still enough to spark a movement.

As far as continuously calling him a politician... I guess if by politician you mean holding a public office then he meets your requirement. If you are implying that he is wheeling and dealing making backroom deals, well... just do some research.

Are you not prepared to

Are you not prepared to confront the fact that 'holding public office' tarnishes the record of a man ostensibly concerned with freedom?

I'm getting a little tired of this "he's just a messenger" defense. It's not just about reaching as many people as possible, if one has to dilute and alter one's message in order to reach more of them.

What if Ron Paul could have reached 10x more people if he had taken out some of his more unpopular rhetoric and principles, would you sanction that? If so, which ones? Attacking the Fed? Do you see my point? I don't want anyone to tell me they want freedom and spend 23 years inside the government, regardless of how many people they reach. I'd prefer they try just as hard, together with many others, to reach as many people as possible, and having nothing to do with government.

And DON'T tell me that only by going into government can you get a real social movement going. History, as I have written below and elsewhere, proves otherwise.

I don't see your point.

Unless you are saying that the only way to have true freedom is without any type of government. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. I don't think I've ever heard him say lets get rid of government. So I don't see how he diluted his message in any way by being a congressman. There is no better way to affect the US government than to take part in it.

I don't know if you yourself are concerned with liberty or not. But here is the point you are missing: There is nobody better! You can tear down Ron Paul all day long but the fact remains there is not a better more recognizable person in the liberty movement. For all I know you are a socialist just trying to weaken an opposing ideal. But if you are of the libertarian-esque type, I think you are insane for taking aim at the only real leader the movement has. I mean you would have to had asked yourself what is the most counterproductive thing for liberty I can do today, and then you wrote that blog.

Anarchists do what Anarchists do.

They're worthless to liberty because they don;t know what threatens it, and won't meet injustice with collective force. They're a cancer within the liberty movement.

They're liars and Judas Goats standing next to a Libertarian holding a black flag screaming: "I'm an enemy of the state!" They can't explain what it is they want to create to meet injustice with force because it starts sounding like what they claim to hate: Government.

They need to be called out and removed from the liberty movement before they try and "break the monopoly on violence" and start throwing rocks through windows while screaming: "I'm a Libertarian!!!" Or even worse.

There's a reason they can't explain what it is they want, and why they can't acknowledge what it is that causes one man to take an others liberty by force; our covetous nature.

They believe with all their heart that the principle of self interest will free society from injustice.

Self interest is what DRIVES a mans covetous nature, and they want to set that nature loose in a free market of violence. Liberty doesn't sell when you're dealing with covetous people. Covetous people want slaves and plunder. There's NOTHING the principle of self interest can do against Satan Clause because he serves a covetous persons SELF INTEREST.

Call these Anarchists out before they destroy the entire liberty movement.

"Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."

I recommend that you seek

I recommend that you seek professional help with your delusions. You have no idea about that which you speak. Anarchists throwing rocks and screaming? Puh-lease.

http://entitosovrano.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/the-archetype-...

As for Satan and coveting and slaves and plunder, well you just betray how unsettled your mind is, having been polluted with Yahweh nonsense.

Seriously, spend a few hundred dollars/pounds/whatever and get yourself deprogrammed. You'll thank yourself for it later.

Your rant is a

Your rant is a misunderstanding of anarchism not even worth a lengthy reply, but for the record: It's ALL authority which anarchists "hate". Anarchism is not the popular high school textbook intepretation of anarchism- 'without government'.

Actually, there is no single

Actually, there is no single agreed-upon definition for anarchism, and the word means completely different things to different so-called 'anarchists', many of whom are against private property, and some who think that property is very important.

Since they can't agree on anything EXCEPT removal of the state, I'd say I am perfectly justified in taking that as the sole definition of the word. I didn't say anything about hierarchy etc because not all anarchists care so much about that. Many of our ancap friends, however, are very happy to see natural elites and hierarchies develop in the wake of a state. :(

"there is no single agreed-upon definition for anarchism"

"Since they can't agree on anything EXCEPT removal of the state"

"Anarchy": 1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3. anarchism ( def. 1 ) .
4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5. confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

"Anarchism": 1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.
3. anarchy.

"Anarchist": 1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

--- Like I said, the first books an Anarchist will burn are the dictionaries. They're Judas Goats and liars trying to masquerade as Libertarians because they know nobody can stand them. There's a reason you can't get your social movement going, because the only place an Anarchists (bowel) movement belongs is the toilet.

I have no problem with these definitions. You're the walking embodiment of those definitions. That definition describes every Anarchist who's ever tried to open their mouth at me and call themselves a Libertarian.

THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THEMSELVES FOR A REASON.

I'm going to reply to my own

I'm going to reply to my own comment: I'm not an anarchist. I just enjoy intellectual honesty, while not entertaining hysteria.

I know you hate.

"Your rant is a misunderstanding of anarchism not even worth a lengthy reply"

That's because you CAN'T explain yourself, and the last thing you want is to puke out some lengthy Anarchist reply for me to dissect.

Since you hate authority so much, where are you going to get your Justice from Anarchist?

Don't just throw out some insult and run off. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!

Talk yourself into the corner ALL ANARCHISTS TALK THEMSELVES INTO.

You embarrass yourself. You

You embarrass yourself. You should stop posting nonsense on the internet and try learning a thing or too.

(Or, if you are a COINTELPRO agent, you should turn yourself in to Wikileaks or top yourself)

*waves fist in the air,

*waves fist in the air, crushes can over head, does a few push ups, talks himself into a corner*

Clearly....

you have no idea what Anarcho-capitalism is, and are completely ignorant of the difference between it and other anarchist ideologies.

Nor do you understand the history of libertarianism and the importance of Murray Rothbard (commonly referred to as the father of libertarianism) in the creation of the libertarian philosophy.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard