61 votes

The Astonishing Ron Paul

By Lew Rockwell | December 21, 2012

As 2012 draws to a close, it’s hard not to be reminded that 2013 will begin with Ron Paul retired from Congress. For all those years he was a fearless truth-teller, who exposed and denounced the horrors, domestic or foreign, of the regime. His farewell address – something practically unheard of for a congressman in the first place – will continue to be read years from now, as future Americans look back with astonishment that such a man actually served in the US Congress.

For most of his career, those speeches were delivered to a largely empty chamber and to audiences of modest size around the country. A man of Ron’s intelligence could have grown in stature and influence in no time at all had he been willing to play the game. He wasn’t. And he was perfectly at peace with the result: although he wasn’t a major political celebrity, he had done his moral duty.

Little did he know that those thankless years of pointing out the State’s lies and refusing to be absorbed into the Blob would in fact make him a hero one day. To see Ron speaking to many thousands of cheering kids, when all the while respectable opinion had been warning them to stay far away from this dangerous man, is more gratifying and encouraging than I can say. I was especially thrilled when a tempestuous Ron, responding to the Establishment’s description of his campaign as "dangerous," said, you’re darn right – I am dangerous, to them.

Some people used to tell Ron that if only he’d stop talking about foreign policy he might win more supporters. He knew it was all nonsense. Foreign policy was the issue that made Ron into a phenomenon. There would have been no Ron Paul movement in the first place had Ron not distinguished himself from the pack by refusing to accept the cartoonish narrative, peddled not only by Rudy Giuliani but also by the luminaries of both major political parties, accounting for the origins of 9/11.

How many bills did he pass, right-wing scoffers demand to know. A successful Republican politician, in between his usual activity of expanding government power, is supposed to have rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic five or six times, by means of bills with his name on them. At best, the bills these politicos boast about amounted to marginal changes of momentary significance, if even that. More commonly, even the bills they trumpeted turned out to be ambiguous or actually negative from a libertarian standpoint.

What is Ron’s legacy? Not some phony bill, of zero significance in the general avalanche of statism. For his legacy, look around you.

The Federal Reserve, an issue not discussed in American politics in a hundred years, is under greater scrutiny now than ever before. Austrian economics is enjoying a rebirth that dwarfs the attention it received when F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 – and when you ask people how they heard about the Austrian School, the universal answer is Ron Paul. One man brought about this intellectual revolution. How’s that for a legacy?

And that’s not to mention how many people Ron introduced to libertarian thought in general, or how many hawks reconsidered their position on war because of Ron’s arguments and example.

Even the mainstream media has to acknowledge the existence of a whole new category of thinker: one that is antiwar, anti-Fed, anti-police state, and pro-market. The libertarian view is even on the map of those who despise it. That, too, is Ron’s doing.

Young people are reading major treatises in economics and philosophy because Ron Paul recommended them. Who else in public life can come close to saying that?

How many bills did he get passed? Talk about missing the point.

Where are the hordes of students dying to learn from Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, or Mitt Romney?

Remember, too, that in politics there’s always some excuse for why the message of liberty can’t be delivered. I have to satisfy the party leadership. I have to keep the media off my back. The moment is inopportune. My constituents aren’t ready to hear it – so instead of explaining myself and persuading them, I’ll just keep my mouth shut, or minimize my position to the point where I sound like any old politician, except ten percent better.

And all the while, would-be donors are assured that this is all a facade, that the politician is really one of us and not what he appears to be. For the time being, you understand, he has to contradict his core beliefs in order to ingratiate himself into the favor of those whose support he will one day need.

Once elected, he still cannot really say what he thinks. Don’t you want him to get re-elected?

Ron never acted this way. At times he would explain the libertarian position in ways likely to resonate with a particular audience, but he never compromised or backed away.

It’s been said that if you ask Ron Paul a question, he gives you a straight answer. That’s an understatement. All through his presidential campaigns he sent the guardians of opinion into hysterics. Why, he can’t say that! That wasn’t even one of the choices! To the gatekeepers’ astonishment, his numbers kept on growing.

No politician is going to trick the public into embracing liberty, even if liberty were his true goal and not just a word he uses in fundraising letters. For liberty to advance, a critical mass of the public has to understand and support it. That doesn’t have to mean a majority, or even anywhere near it. But some baseline of support has to exist.

That is why Ron Paul’s work is so important and so lasting.

Ten years from now, no one will remember the men who opposed Ron in the GOP primaries. Half of them are forgotten already. But fifty years from now (and longer), young kids will still be learning from Ron: reading his books, following his recommendations for further study, and taking inspiration from his courage and principle.

With Ron’s Congressional career drawing to a close, we should remember that we have witnessed something highly unusual, and exceedingly unlikely to be repeated. And we should also remember Ron’s parting advice: the real revolution is not in Washington, DC. It’s in the world of ideas.

That’s what Ron is devoting the rest of his life to, and it’s one more thing he has to teach us. So watch for news of Ron's new work for peace, his new homepage, and his new TV extravaganza. Far from retiring, he is stepping up his work for liberty. And there is a place for all of us.

- - -

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.




Comment viewing options

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

Anyone Know Something About Dr. Paul's "New TV Extravaganza"?

God bless Dr. Paul and Carol for continuing their efforts to restore liberty.

I'd like some details on that as well. A while back there was a

twitter rumor that Ron had an announcement coming in January when he was no longer in Congress (this session runs through Jan 2 and the House is coming back after Christmas, per Cantor).

Maybe it is about that.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

I like the write up BUT not the title.

Sorry Lew but- "Astonishing" - to me is just not the correct word.

How "Magnificent" or "Most Honorable" or something that implies how he is set apart from the rest of CONgress - as the one and only Statesman of our time or century?

The word "Astonishing" conjures up images to me as perhaps a magician or a circus act or
something like that.

Ron Paul is My President

ytc's picture

The word "astonishment" has an element of surprise to me.

Like the time when you find a rare gem in an unexpected place. The way we were jolted into action, when we heard that this man of common sense & peace is running for the presidency in 2007 & 2011.

Ron Paul will continue to have that ability to "astonish" thousands & millions more of unsuspecting ordinary americans and people around the world. His principled writings and speeches will continue to be "discovered" with delight. And, as Lew writes, THAT eternal freshness is his legacy.

Great piece

lol, You know Dr Paul would never pat himself on the back like this, so Lew has to do it for him.

Articles such as these are written

Articles such as these are written to provide lessons or morals to a story, and to preserve what is.

We must never forget what Ron Paul stands for, what r3VOLution fights long and hard for.

We must never sacrifice our principles. Not to compromise. Not just to try to 'win' elections. Not out of embarrassment. We must charge ahead, in Liberty, til death do us part, amen.

r3VOLution continues.

Stick one of these on your car to spread the message:

http://revolutioncarbadges.com

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

:)

Thanks for the plug Frank!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Excellent article.

Beautifully stated, and something all of us here know. Still nice to hear it said.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

"executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard"

Lew Rockwell: "executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard"

I didn't know that... Interesting. I'm surprised he made it through that without mentioning Murray Rothbard. I wonder if Lew Rockwell is figuring out he needs to distance himself from the emperor who's wearing no clothes?

Ron Paul knows the role of government, to defend liberty, Murray Rothbard didn't. He was a one trick pony who had no idea where injustice comes from, or why the free market would have no problem serving the same evil. Truthfully, it's kinda foolish to believe Murray Rothbard EVER believed his own tripe concerning a free market of violence.

I bet the number of Rothbard articles and books

you've read can be counted on less than one finger.

Rothbard is the father of modern libertarianism, idiot.

Charity and generosity

I would venture to say, as a long-time student of Anarchism, and as a Rothbard enthusiast, that Freedomreigning has read nothing by or about Rothbard, or anyone else!

Nobody who has would fail to observe that "anarchists", e.g. Tolstoy, Kropotkin, DeClayre, H.D. Thoreau,Tucker, Spooner,or, moving on to the unspeakably statist and violent XX century, A. J. Nock, Mencken (okay, they weren't self-declared "anarchist" anarchists, but they were both powerful influences on our hero Rothbard, and they would do until someone better came along), and more recently, Walter Block, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, Ivan Illich, Murray Bookchin, Harry Browne, Doug Casey,and Carl Watner, for a short list, contrary to FreedomReigns baseless assertion, were and are MORE decent, civilized, and well-mannered than most statists are!

Any of these scholarly and perceptive people could be called "anarchists", and each of them, I daresay, has both better manners, and had reflected with far more intelligence and civility on the problems of human society, with or without the State, than Freedomreigns ever had. I think that a fairminded observer would have to note that far from being libertine or nihilist, their outward behavior met rather higher standards than were the norms among their (statist) contemporaries. I think that we can also say that they were more "law-abiding", as anarchists go, than their statist and authoritarian neighbors.

Freedomreigning's post is a repellent and disagreeable collection of ignorant and misinformed billingsgate which really belongs on a "red State" website with other such material from likeminded "dittoheads" of Rush Limbough, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Glen Beck, and such neocons. While we are on the subject of Ron Paul, I wonder how familiar he is even with contemporary MINARCHIST scholarship?

"FreedomReigning" shows no familiarity with the arguments of, for starters, Hayek, von Mises, Machan, John Grey, Bruno Leoni, Siegan, Nozick, Nisbet, Melvin Bradford, Sam Francis or Pat Buchanan, where the case for "limited government" is argued cogently and persuasively.

The decision is of course Mr.Nystrom's, but I think that trolls like FreedomReigning may be happier on another website than our DP!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

"Idiot" aye?

Another Anarchist "blesses me" with his wisdom and enlightenment.

Murray Rothbard is an Anarchist and Anarchists aren't Libertarians. Anarchists are LESS than worthless to liberty, and I've explained WHY over and over again. I don't believe that even Murray Rothbard buys his own crap.

Justice from a free market of violence serving the principle of self interest? Goon squads sold to the highest bidder providing for our security? Come on... You don't honestly believe that crap ends in justice do you? Is this what you call "smart"? I'm the "idiot"? Anarchism isn't Libertarianism. It's Judas Goat garbage.

An Anarchist doesn't know what threatens our liberty, nor will they serve justice; defend liberty with force. They can't explain themselves because their position is INDEFENSIBLE. Anarchy is at best a transitory state while warlords decide who can buy the biggest goon squad in a free market of violence.

An Anarchists only option is to do what you do did, run your foul mouth, and why should I believe that somebody like you gives a damn about ME? You clearly can't explain yourself. Why should I not just stomp you Anarchists anytime you open your mouth at me? It's not like you ever make a cogent argument. All you ever do is what you did, call people names.

Go back to the drawing board with your beliefs, statist.

A completely voluntary(anarchist) society is THE ONLY way that a truly just society can exist. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY! Of course, to not devolve into the mess that you're describing, we'll have to have a moral and righteous people to inhabit this free society. The founders knew this, as well.

Therein lies the problem. You, for whatever reason, have equated the idea of anarchy with an immoral people. That is your mistake.

THIS is the reason for teaching libertarian philosophy to all people!

The Non-aggression priciple: So we may have a true moral compass, and respect for each other.

Austrian economics: So we undertand the relationship between our money and our liberty, and so we don't get taken advantage of by another central bank.

The proper role of government: So we may recognize when a perversion of government is taking place. Like in the idiot examples that you've used against anarchy.

/rasberry

Like I've said many times; Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty. They seem to think they can make mans covetous nature disappear by chanting their mantra: "voluntarism, voluntarism, voluntarism."

Somebody that chooses to take your liberty with force doesn't give a damn about what you think. They choose violence to take what they covet. They crap on your idea of a just society, because your liberty is their enemy. They don't want justice for YOU. They want plunder, slaves, and dominion.

Government is not the cause of injustice. It's mankind's response to it, and any government men create eventually gets destroyed by the same thing that destroys your Anarchist utopia; mans covetous nature.

"we'll have to have a moral and righteous people to inhabit this free society."

Anarchists are the least morally righteous people I can think of. They're nihilists, hedonists, and Judas Goats who run their foul mouths denigrating people who disagree with their broken and worthless ideas.

"You, for whatever reason, have equated the idea of anarchy with an immoral people."

Anarchists ARE immoral people; nihilists, hedonists, and libertines. Look at all these thumbs up... Sad.

http://www.dailypaul.com/267090/ni-hil-ism#comment-2873543

"THIS is the reason for teaching libertarian philosophy to all people!"

Anarchists aren't Libertarians. Sorry, go start your own party, this time call yourself what you are, and don't bother talking about the principle of self ownership because you're worthless in it's defense, and nobody knows that better than an Anarchist. All an Anarchist wants to do is destroy, and they can't explain what it is they want to build because it doesn't make any sense, and they need to imagine they're going serve justice in a free market of violence.

"The Non-aggression principle: So we may have a true moral compass, and respect for each other."

Anarchists don't have respect for people, and those who decide to use violence to take what they covet don't respect you. How long have I had to listen to Anarchists calling people sheep, retards, and idiots. People CHOOSE to use violence to take what they covet, and an Anarchist wants to sell that violence to the highest bidder in a free market serving the principle of self interest.

"Austrian economics: So we undertand the relationship between our money and our liberty, and so we don't get taken advantage of by another central bank."

Great. Sound money. I'm all for it. When did you get the impression that I wasn't?

"The proper role of government: So we may recognize when a perversion of government is taking place. Like in the idiot examples that you've used against anarchy."

Didn't you just call me a statist and an idiot? Now you want to talk to me about respect, moral righteousness, and the proper role of government when you want NO GOVERNMENT?

Oh the irony!

Concerning the content of the argument that you put forward, your name being FreedomsReigning, is quite oxymoronic don't you think?

The Irony:
To sum up your argument, in order to prevent injustice, we must create, and have, big centralized vehicles of government, of which can be, and are being, used AGAINST us by these same people that you fear so much. You unwittingly would ensure the expediency of the injustice happening, and the almost permanent surety of its survival. GOOD JOB!

You WANT the legalized use of force, whether people dissent to it or not ...Hence the completely warranted accusation of STATIST!

The object of your desire is your destruction ...hence the deserved accusation of idiotic argument.

I did not however say that you were an idiot. It is aparent from your skill in writing that you are, in fact, intelligent. It is solely a matter of the content of your words as to where you have been errant.

Is it not better to have complete competition and decentralization of all things?

And just so you know, the heart of conservatism is libertariansim, and the heart of libertarianism is voluntaryism.

AGAIN, NO FORM OF GOVERNMENT WILL WORK WITHOUT GOOD MORALITY OF THE PEOPLE, EVEN THE KIND THAT YOU WANT(WITH ITS COERCION, AND ALL). THIS IS WHY THE NAP IS SO CRUCIAL.

Like I said. Anarchists are LIARS and immoral.

"To sum up your argument, in order to prevent injustice, we must create, and have, big centralized vehicles of government"

Like I said. Anarchists are liars. Where did I say anything about "a big centralized vehicle of government"? Do you ever get tired of spreading bad fruit liar?

"You unwittingly would ensure the expediency of the injustice happening, and the almost permanent surety of its survival. GOOD JOB!"

That's what Anarchists do because they're WORTHLESS to liberty because they ignore the role of justice, and think a self interested free market of violence will serve justice, that it will protect us, when all it does is create a system where might makes right. You're the one who "unwittingly insures" that the only thing you'll get is injustice.

"You WANT the legalized use of force, whether people dissent to it or not"

That's right. I have no problem serving justice defending liberty. Why do you? Have you resigned yourself to the fact that you're worthless to liberty; that you'll neither defend liberty or recognize what threatens it? So libertarians are now "statists" and idiots? Ron Paul is a Statist and an idiot pushing for a large centralized vehicle for government?

"I did not however say that you were an idiot."

Sure you did, me and my idiot ideas. Remember that smart guy? And you did it while claiming you're a morally righteous man. You're a liar, and worthless to liberty.

"The object of your desire is your destruction"

Oh really? Is it destructive to defend liberty, to serve justice? Is it unjust to serve justice now, destructive? You must be an Anarchist. Only an Anarchist could come up with that kind of logic.

"Is it not better to have complete competition and decentralization of all things?"

No. It's not better when it comes to justice to compete in a free market of self interested violence, because the free market does not create justice. The free market serves value, and the only "competing" which will occur is deciding who can buy the most muscle. Might will make right.

What you'll create is a free market of warlord wannabees and despots all promising people what they unjustly want, serving their self interest, and nothing creates more value or is more self interested than slavery.

If you wanna see what the free market creates, go down to Walmart and look around; slave goods.

"THIS IS WHY THE NAP IS SO CRUCIAL."

Am I now supposed to argue against the golden rule? Give it up. I have a problem with ANARCHISTS who think they can solve the worlds problems by running their foul mouths and getting rid of government, and as you've shown, you have no business talking about the nonaggression principle or moral righteousness.

Your rhetoric was inflamatory before I even engaged you...

Since you were exaggerating the truth, and lying, I thought I may take the liberty to do so myself, as well.

For the record, my "lie" wouldn't have been a lie if I had abstained from using the word "BIG" in the statement: "To sum up your argument, in order to prevent injustice, we must create, and have, big centralized vehicles of government, of which can be, and are being used AGAINST us by these same people that you fear so much."

BUT, here are some examples of your exaggerations, and lies:

You- "Government is not the cause of injustice." <-OH REALLY!!!!!

You- "That's what Anarchists do because they're WORTHLESS to liberty because they ignore the role of justice"

You- "Like I've said many times; Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty. They seem to think they can make mans covetous nature disappear by chanting their mantra: "voluntarism, voluntarism, voluntarism." <- BTW, The "mantra" should be, "NAP, NAP, NAP"

You- "Anarchists are the least morally righteous people I can think of. They're nihilists, hedonists, and Judas Goats"

You- "Anarchists aren't Libertarians"

You- "Anarchists don't have respect for people"

You- "An Anarchist doesn't know what threatens our liberty, nor will they serve justice; defend liberty with force. They can't explain themselves because their position is INDEFENSIBLE. Anarchy is at best a transitory state while warlords decide who can buy the biggest goon squad in a free market of violence." <-DID YOU FORGET THE PURPOSE, AND INTENTION OF THE SECOND AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION?

You- Insinuating that I believe that, "libertarians are now "statists" and idiots? Ron Paul is a Statist and an idiot pushing for a large centralized vehicle for government?" ...which is false, and not a belief that I hold. I have great respect for Dr. Paul.

You- "What you'll create is a free market of warlord wannabees and despots all promising people what they unjustly want, serving their self interest, and nothing creates more value or is more self interested than slavery"

...I suppose that's enough examples of exaggeration and lies.
You should really train your strawmen to talk for themselves.

Now, moving forward, you said, "Justice from a free market of violence serving the principle of self interest? Goon squads sold to the highest bidder providing for our security?" ...And in response to this, I say, is this not what the current justice system is SUPPOSED to be, and do? Isn't the description of justice- using violence as a means of redress to serve people's self-interest?

...with a very large exception being, that in its' current form, our system of law is too often serving injustice, because it has stepped outside of common law, is compulsory, and has imposed admiralty law onto the people. It is no longer just, and righteous. It has been utilized for injustice.

Are police not hired goons? Are private security firms not also hired for the same? ...to protect life, liberty, and property. The difference being is that one has a legalized monopoly on the use of force, and has stepped outside of its purpose.

Let's get one thing clear, I also have no problem serving justice to defend liberty. There CAN exist a private system of justice(for hire) based on common law. It could be hired for a redress of grievences. It would be kept in check by competition. We would still have a system of justice, courts, law enforcement, and protection of our lives, liberty, and property.

Like I said; a liar. Big centralized government? Still waiting.

"You- "Government is not the cause of injustice." <-OH REALLY!!!!!"

Yes, really. Like I've said many times, Anarchists don't know where injustice comes from, why one person decides to use force to take another persons liberty. Government is a man made and imperfect response to the injustice created by our covetous nature, and like I said, Anarchist are worthless to justice, and thus liberty, because they think they can get rid of injustice by getting rid of government.

We've already tried Anarchy, over and over again. It doesn't work. You'll be screaming for justice once you see what you unleash, because a free market of violence will not serve justice or defend liberty. The free market rewards VALUE. People want to get the most value they can for their money, and there's no better way to create value than through injustice, through SLAVERY because productive labor is where value is born.

All you'll create is a system where "might makes right" in a free market of muscle, goon squads, serving mans covetous nature.

I really wish you DID know. Maybe we would have a chance, but we don't...

As for all the rest of those quotes, I stand by them, and it all stems from the fact that you think injustice is born in government, when it's born from the evil inside us, and the free market has NO PROBLEM serving that evil.

Your arrogance is astonishing.

Your arrogance is astonishing.

Lie- "Anarchists don't know where injustice comes from"
Lie- "they think they can get rid of injustice by getting rid of government"

Let us get one thing straight, I know where evil originates from. Government would not exist but for the people that inhabit it. GOVERNMENT IS PEOPLE, but unfortunately it is also a more perfect vehicle for man's covetous nature to exploit its fellow man. Search throughout all of history and you'll see that what I say is true! No better vehicle has ever existed for inequality and injustice than government.

The greatest evils have been the arbitrary dictates of men who have the cover label of "law", and law enforcement. Might makes right is right!!! People willingly follow; a lamb to slaughter.

Hey, we just need wiser people to run it, right?

Truth- "Government is a man made and imperfect response to the injustice created by our covetous nature" <- IMPERFECT BEING KEY!

I've already given you an alternative free market oriented solution.
STOP ignoring the things that don't suit your narrative.
You have constructed falsehoods in your mind, because you don't seem to understand how a free market system of justice would work, and have some pretty heinous beliefs about what YOU THINK goes through an anarchists mind.

You may now let go of the belief that "they can't explain themselves because their position is INDEFENSIBLE", because I have smashed your illusion.

"No better vehicle has ever

"No better vehicle has ever existed for inequality and injustice than government."

One thing is worse; Anarchy.

"The greatest evils have been the arbitrary dictates of men who have the cover label of "law", and law enforcement."

In Anarchy, money will decide who controls force, how much you can wield and how it's used, thus whoever has the most money is deemed as right. The group with the most money buys the most might, and before you know it, you're right back where ya started, and it all happened under the table, without representation, elections, debate, or the consent of those who you intend to use force on.

If you DID want people to have any of that (representation, debate, elections, and consent) you wouldn't be an Anarchist, and you'd have to start talking about what kind of government you want to build after you destroy the current one.

Anarchy is at best a transitory state while you figure out why Governments are created to begin with.

"Hey, we just need wiser people to run it, right?"

Yep. That's why we're supposed to have elections and an informed and educated population. Good luck with that, but yes, for as long as the people can maintain it.

"I've already given you an alternative free market oriented solution."

I told you why they need to be rejected. Your ideas are undesirable, impossible, and indefensible; DEAD. I'm not ignoring ANYTHING, nor have I constructed any falsehoods Anarchist. In fact, just the opposite. You've ran your lying mouth calling me a statist, saying I support a big centralized government, when you know damn well that's not what a Libertarian supports.

Anarchists are no better than gun grabbers to me. Government is force, and they both use the same broken logic; blame the gun.

Remember this one?

"You- "Government is not the cause of injustice." <-OH REALLY!!!!!"

Is that 5 exclamation points? Wow! You must REALLY feel strongly that Government is the cause of injustice? At least you're starting to change your tune a little. Still rude and without value to liberty, but it's a start.

That's ALWAYS the case on here.

For some reason, there are a handful of people who've never read Rothbard but who feel the need to post negative comments about him, usually as a non sequitir (as here). It's the oddest thing. . . . . One little point about Rothbard -- anyone who's familiar with his writing can easily see the heavy influence on Ron Paul's book "The Case for Gold." Large sections were obviously influenced (ghostwritten?) by Murray.

Incidentally, just finished re-reading Rothbard's "A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II." An outstanding economic history, and I enjoyed it more the second time.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Why isn't Ron Paul calling for Secession?

Oh that's right... He's not an Anarchist. Ron Paul knows the proper role of government, Murray Rothbard doesn't.

Am I NOT a supporter of sound money, liberty, and the free market? Yes, I am, but where I; a Libertarian, and an Anarchist like Murray Rothbard part ways is when it comes to justice, and the proper role of government.

Murray Rothbard twists a whole lot of good ideas with one fatally bad idea, and sorry, I can't ignore it. He's too intelligent to pretend he doesn't understand that what he's peddeling is poison. All he wants to do is destroy, and I can't stand destroyers. They make my skin crawl. They make me want to serve justice.

Ron Paul on secession

"You're not free if you can't secede."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8RrBCT_NXI

Ron Paul on secession

"It's something we should talk about and a principle we should institutionalize..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s6dqXMQdQE

I suggest you go lie down for

I suggest you go lie down for awhile, you seem to be feverish. And you still know nothing about Rothbard. Your obsession is puzzling.

But thanks for this opportunity -- I recently read Rothbard's "The Panic of 1819," still the only scholarly treatise on this critical period in American history. What did you think of it? Just curious.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Nice!

Thanks for sharing that Lew Rockwell article. Kind of made me think maybe that's what all the fuss about 12/21/12 is really all about. The R3VOLution lives on in the new age.

"The R3VOLution lives on in the new age."

True dat. I have one of these on my car to prove it :-)

http://revolutioncarbadges.com

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Bump.

.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I'm done with Lew Rockwell.

Lew Rockwell: "It would be a great thing to break up the US"

Pick up a gun then tin soldier. Secessionists don't even matter in the debate anymore. They've made it clear what they want; to destroy. Ideas are a living thing and the idea of Anarchism is dead. It's neither possible, desirable, or defensible. Anarchists don't understand what it is that threatens our liberty, mans covetous nature, nor will they serve justice, defend liberty with force.

They're nihilists and hedonists, libertines, not Libertarians and they're less than WORTHLESS to liberty. They're Judas and liars, and now we can see Lew Rockwell for what he really is, somebody that wants to break up (destroy) our Republic.

Why would I give a damn what he thinks or wants? If he picks up a gun, we'll deal with him. Until then, he can just keep screaming about how he wants to destroy my country.

What a surprise

Another loudmouth ignoramus talking out of his ass. It's bad enough to see people like you filling the comment sections of Mainstream sites, but to see it here is downright disgusting. Congratulations, you're a typical brainwashed, mainstream thinker.

I don't suppose you care that Ron Paul has been Lew's friend for nearly 40 years, and that his site is the first thing he reads every day. But what the hell does Ron know, right?