-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.


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


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You are conflating...

syndicalist anarchy with libertarian anarcho-capitalism which is not correct.

Syndicalist anarchists believe the local people should take control of local businesses, violently if required, and set up governance of local society through the workplace. Basically it is "unions on steroids".

Anarcho-capitalists (ancaps) strongly adhere to the libertarian "non-aggression principle" and detest violence of all sorts except in defense. The "danger" from ancaps is they will withdraw from the political process altogether and/or they will form black markets outside the tax system.

Again, you are confusing two completely different and separate groups of people.

Having said that, benettfreeman seems to be an unhinged sociopath with no social graces or persuasion skills. Either that or he's just merely trolling... :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

That doesn't sound like Libertarianism to me.

"Syndicalist anarchists believe the local people should take control of local businesses, violently if required, and set up governance of local society through the workplace. Basically it is unions on steroids." - Marxist revolution OWS Pseudo-Libertarians

These are the ones who go hide inside OWS camps, the ones who love fiat money and central banking.

Syndicalist anarchists - A syndicate of Socialists calling themselves Anarchists, but acting as government on steroids. Sounds like looter government to me. No thanks.

syn·di·cal·ism [sin-di-kuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

1.a form or development of trade unionism, originating in France, that aims at the possession of the means of production and distribution, and ultimately at the control of society, by federated bodies of industrial workers, and that seeks to realize its purposes through general strikes, terrorism, sabotage, etc.

2.an economic system in which workers own and manage industry.

This is one group that tries to call themselves Libertarians while they throw rocks through windows and scream: "I'm an enemy of the state!"

Anarcho-capitalists - Goon Squad misery merchants selling violence in a free market.

Anarchists are WORTHLESS in the defense of liberty.

They're Judas Goats and liars. These ones know very well what wins in the free market, and it sure isn't liberty. Meanwhile they attack government in all forms.

Like I said, Communists, Judas Goats, liars, and agents of chaos throwing rocks through windows hiding inside the liberty movement.

facepalm. I seriously wish

facepalm. I seriously wish people would read more than wikipedia entries and comments on the daily paul.

Dude (or dudette)...

Ron Paul hangs out with ancaps and is good friends with them. Both political and personal friends. I am referring to Tom Woods, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, et al..

I myself am a minarchist and frequently have squabbles with ancaps but they are certainly not anything like you are portraying them. They are just much more critical of government in general.

You are being hyperbolic...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Do you think I'm a Ron Paul sycophant?

I don't care who Ron Paul hangs out with.

He quit on us, and ran a self defeating campaign from beginning to end. His campaign told Libertarians to hide their buttons and shows of support, to parrot Ron Paul talking points, to hide in the Romney crowd, and to EVEN PRETEND TO BE ROMNEY SUPPORTERS!!! His son endorsed a fricken puppet while he was still collecting money for his fake campaign.

You can hang out with whoever you want, I'm a Libertarian, but tell them to come here and explain themselves. I'll bet they can't.

I'll bet they're like every other Anarchist I've had the misfortune of speaking to. I'll bet they preach to me about the principle of self interest while ignoring mans covetous nature. I'll bet they try to blame the worlds evils on government force, and call me every foul name they can think of once they realize their BS breaks down when challenged in the real world.

I'll bet they're idealists who can't defend themselves in a fair debate with a Libertarian.

I'll bet they're Atheists who've ran their mouths for 4 years calling people retards and sheep.

Ron Paul "quit on" you? You

Ron Paul "quit on" you?

You quit on yourself when you decided to allow yourself to slide into ignorance and abandon what should be one of the most important tasks you set yourself - inform yourself about your environment.

If you read my article, you'll see that I argue against putting one's hopes into others. If you do that, they will always 'quit on you'.

Do for yourself what you expect idols to do for you.

"Listen, Stefan Molyneux has

"Listen, Stefan Molyneux has probably reached a comparable number of people..."

You're wildly psychotic for believing and saying this

Ventura 2012

It would seem...

...that there's plenty of wild psychosis to go around at FDR,


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

A disgusting and dishonest

A disgusting and dishonest hit piece! But you probably know that and are just being spiteful, right?

Anyone can make a website attacking a given individual or group.

The claims are completely false, and whoever made the site should be ashamed. They need help.

I'm not the biggest fan of Molyneux or FDR, but he does do a fair bit of good work. He contributed an article to my magazine, but I know he and I would disagree on a number of things, and would probably reside in different consentient communities, if such things came to fruition.

No, I'm not being spiteful

I have no personal interest, involvement, or history with FDR or Molyneux. I became aware of him through his youtube videos on libertarian subjects years ago. At the time, I didn't think they were especially good or especially bad. Altogether I had a disintersted favorable opinion: i.e. "O look, another libertarian guy, good." I forgot all about him. Then, several months ago, I stumbled across the "FDR Liberated" website, started reading, and was totally disgusted with what I saw. You say that Molyneux has been misrepresented, but the articles are FDR are full of direct quotes from Molynuex's writings and videos, and those of his associates, along with other verifiable facts.

I cannot personally vouch for anything said at FDR Liberated, as I have no personal experience with FDR, but I find the arguments and facts presented in articles at FDR Liberated rather compelling. I think everyone currently involved with Molyneux or considering involvement with him would do well to read those articles, and ask themselves what exactly they're getting into.

If you object to any particular claims made at FDR Liberated, then please identify them, and explain why they are incorrect.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

If you disagree with a

If you disagree with a proposition, you should at least say why. Do you have data? How many people voted for Ron Paul in the 2012 GOP Primaries? More or less than the number of unique visitors to FDR? By what margin?

I'll ignore the 'wildly psychotic' thing.


with a proposition from a TROLL is a waste of time.

I heed the wise ancient chinese saying, "Don't feed the trolls!"

Having said that, and extending the benefit-of-the-doubt that you don't intend to be a troll, your "style" is to form your assertions and arguments as insults. You are never going to win many converts to your philosophies that way. You will only continue to provoke tangential squabbling and personal resentment. Which is the same result as trolling...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Couldn't help but notice the

Couldn't help but notice the down vote blitzkrieg to your post and subsequent comments.

If your purpose is to suggest to others here that the political sphere may not be the most productive place to further the goal of a more free society, (and I tend to agree with you on that), it seems to me you could have done so (with likely greater success) without deprecating the efforts of another supporter of voluntarism.

Just putting that thought out there for your consideration.


I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Are you suggesting that

Are you suggesting that someone happy to be a government agent for 23 years is a supporter of voluntarism?

Just because someone pumps their farewell speech full of voluntaryist rhetoric does not a voluntaryist-supporter make. Actions. Words. Hats. etc.

Lew Rockwell thinks RP will do more for the cause of freedom outside of government than inside it.

I sincerely hope so.

Are you figuring it out yet?

Ron Paul isn't an Anarchist, and neither are Libertarians.

Don't blame us when you find yourself throwing rocks through windows all by yourself and nobody listens to you when you call yourself a Libertarian.

Seriously, just go away. You

Seriously, just go away. You have nothing to offer any reader of this thread.

I'm not going anywhere Anarchist.

Libertarians just get louder and louder until the message of liberty is exploding in your ears.

Go back to whatever euro-trash slum you crawled out of. Stop trying to connect Ron Paul to your Anarchist agenda, because as you can now see, he has nothing to do with the BS you peddle.

Dr. Paul was NOT happy being a government "Agent"

He thought it was his duty to humanity to find a forum to advance the cause of liberty. He may have been wrong but look at the brushfires lighted by his efforts.

A very similar historical figure, MK Gandhi, did not enter government and had quite an impact yet the two are so very alike in their own humanity.



You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

UPDATE: Here is part 2, an

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


Here's your feedback friend

It is inarguable that there ARE far, far better ways of championing freedom than holding government offices.

Is it? Inarguable? Really? Alright then, show me your data or a priori reasoning proving the superiority of [?] over the political method.

He then tells us that his “goals in 1976 were the same as they are today”. Though he touches on it in passing, and then from a third-person, some-might-say perspective, he does not explicity admit he has failed. His methods were wrong.

That he has failed to pass legislation does not mean he has failed in general. Part of the effort (the entire purpose of RP's efforts from the start) is to educate people: preparation for future electoral success. In any case, suppose it has been a complete failure...what is the proposed alternative, and why should we suppose it would be more effective?

But if freedom was his aim then his chosen method is just about the worse he could have picked. It does not support the argument for liberty to be part of an institution which, for the quarter of a century he was part of it, did everything it could to erode liberty – and not only to be a part of that institution, but to call upon others in America to embrace it.

You think Ron Paul's message has not been successful because it wasn't sufficiently radically anti-state? Really? You think there are millions of people thinking "Gee whiz, if only Ron Paul would be in favor of complete abolition of the State I'd vote fr him." I don't know how to be polite on this....

Paul then tells us that there is “good news” in the form of grassroots movements. Are we supposed to believe that these movements are any different to those that built up around Goldwater or Reagan?...These ‘movements’ are almost entirely focused on the electoral process, not on liberty.

I see, liberty would be better served by....what? It would surely be a disaster to try to win elections, we should instead be working on...what?

In any speech on freedom I think it’s OK to provide a few examples of how liberty is being violated, but why does he go to such length in his farewell address, given that these speeches have had no noticeable effect in 23 years?

Yea, I guess you're right, he should give up and leave politics and...what? Surely people outside of politics talking to their neighbors have more influence on the masses than politicians who appear on tv before millions of people. Surely, the liberty movement was better off before the Libertarian Party and then Ron Paul's move into the GOP...these ideas were so much more widespread at that time, eh? The 70's were practically a golden age compared to now?

At one stage, Paul asks (paraphrased) “why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?”. The answer of course is government, and not just the particular ‘kind’ of government, but the institution itself. It’s simple...

Ah, now I understand. You think you know this and Paul doesn't? You're a chimp trying to make fire criticizing the man selling oil furnaces.

....I've just know realized the level of human being I'm dealing with (says something about me, should have realized sooner, I'm embarrassed), night.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

In addition, I'll give you

In addition, I'll give you one example of a time where a social movement worked well where politics never could: Czechoslovakia, power of the powerless, parallel polis, Civic Forum, Charter 77. Very important stuff to know :)

Most of your response is just

Most of your response is just a rant, so I'll zero in on what I consider to be the most important question - WHAT should take the place of the Ron Paul 'revolution' and electoral politics.

A: Mass proselytisation by means of a real social movement propagating voluntary cooperation and non-violence.

I've written about this in other comments here and in droves on my website. I invite you to read this work.


Mass proselytisation by means of a real social movement propagating voluntary cooperation and non-violence.

What is a "real social movement" and how does one achieve such a thing?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I think...

that he's missing the point that before we can have a "real social movement", we first have to educate to get there.

We are using politics as a platform to educate, so that we can someday have enough people to begin mass individual secession from the State.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

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

And I think...

that YOU are missing the point.

Educating people towards a real social movement is precisely my aim. You just seem to be blinkered at considering any other method of spreading ideas other than politics. It can be done in your own life, by talking to the people around you. If repeated as a pattern and method by enough people, the social movement will grow organically quite swiftly.

Using politics as a platform to educate raises the following points:

1. You are presenting the 'gang of thieves writ large' as legitimate. It is not.
2. You are indicating to people that involvement in politics is better for them than the alternative - word of mouth, social movements, and free association.
3. You are taking part in system that requires theft to continue. So all the good the education through the government does (minimal) is counteracted by all the bad the theft and the violence does. The ends do NOT justify the means.
4. What if you win a few constituencies? Then you are actively IN the process of perpetrating violence, fully complicity, not just condoning it by your using the platform for education, but actually INITIATING it. If Johnson had won the Presidency, he is not going to ignore his POTUS duties while educating the masses. He is gonna be a goddamn agent of heteronomous violence, same as Ron Paul would.
5. Bottom line: I agree that isolated 'secessions', as you call it, are not gonna work from this start point. But by networking, spreading ideas and forming the social movement that will lead towards a mass secession in the future, you are taking the first steps. If you support government, you take steps in the wrong direction.

I'll say this much

I give you credit for not being afraid to speak your mind, and for your responses to the negative comments (many of which were purely emotional).

One thing that never seems to change is the fact that people, no matter the "group", will always hold some sort of double standard when it comes to any issue that hits too close to home.

I believe that having zero 'government' would be the most logical for humanity...however we have proven time and again that we are NOT a fully logical species. The sad truth is that most people feel the need to lead and to be lead, individualists and the like have always been in the extreme minority.

As far as calling Dr. Paul a hypocrite, I can see validity in several viewpoints, pro and con, but I'm going to keep it to myself because the more I factor in violence, logic, morality, history and human nature, the more I realize that I'd just end up arguing with myself as I often tend to.

I'll close by saying that even though I think that Dr. Paul could've been more effective outside of the system, that's not my choice to make. I respect what he has done, even if I don't fully agree with the methods at times.

A signature used to be here!

Thank you for your

Thank you for your thoughts.

All I can say is that I encourage you to view the desire to be led as a tendency, rather than an inherent 'nature'.

There really is no human nature. This has been debunked ad infinitum.

No human nature? I thought we were all just animals?

"There really is no human nature."

Like I said. Anarchists are worthless in the defense of liberty. They have no idea what it is that threatens liberty, and need to believe that they can just snap their fingers and mans covetous nature disappears along with Satan Claus.

Somehow they pull this off while surrounded by a nation of people who vote for nothing but plunder, slaves and injustice.

Anarchists aren't as stupid as they pretend to be. They just think the rest of us are and it comes out when they call people statists, retards, and stupid animals.

They're now on their best behavior, but I shouldn't have to pull up the examples of this. I'm sure you've read a thousand of their posts. Only now do they realize calling everyone sheep isn't going to work.


Sorry, but I have to laugh when you say "there is no human nature", from what I've read/discussed with others, it always seems to boil down to semantics. Would you argue that human beings are not creatures of instinct? Despite all the available information today, many still choose to act based on 'feelings' rather than cold logic.

Our nature/ways/desires/evolutionary path-- whatever you wish to call it, has always placed us as a tribal, clan-like species. Point is that people aren't going to make the change from being largely dependent to rugged individualists overnight, because humanity as a whole has been repeating the cycle of leaders/kings/governments for thousands of years. It has become our 'nature'.

A signature used to be here!

"many still choose to act

"many still choose to act based on 'feelings' rather than cold logic."

Many, not all.

Nature implies something inherent, unavoidable.

Like I said, call it a tendency, but don't call it a nature.

Of course the change is not going to be overnight, but that's not for reasons of 'nature' but reasons of agency, complex ethological feedbacks, psychology, and reinforcement.

The fact that (all) people have the capacity for change invalidates nature.

By the way, when you say things 'boil down to semantics' you imply a negative tone. Getting to the real meaning of things is what semantics is about.

Semantics is one of those words that has been completely stigmatised and reversed of its meaning. Semantics has become a common synonym for 'trivalities', because peope want to suggest that searching for meaning is meaningless, whereas the truth is that nothing could be more meaningful.

'Moot' is another example. It has been twisted to mean 'irrelevant or already decided', when it actually means 'up for discussion'.

And the word 'idiot' used to mean 'one who thinks for his self'.

Linguistics has many important insights to offer anyone searching for individual freedom.

But ethology has even more to offer, since in many ways language is a subset of behaviour. Bottom line: everything about a person's personality can be changed. If one employs non-consentient means, the change can be startlingly quick. If they allowed fly-on-the-wall documentaries in boot camps, cult initiations, etc, you'd never think about human nature for longer than a second. Think about Patty Hearst etc.

For anyone wanting to fully realise how much the nurture-nature argument is misrepresented, look at Molyneux's excellent work on human nature, or Robert Anton Wilson's psychology work on the absence of a single, persistent 'self'.