-18 votes

Does Ron Pauls subscription TV channel leave a bad taste in your mouth?

I think he's burning the good faith and credit earned with his fans during the election by asking for subscriptions.

I keep getting calls to action, and the only action is to subscribe. I hate to be rude and unsubscribe from his mailing, but I think that's tacky.

Can't believe he's asking for subscriptions when, a) he's got more money than most his supporters, and b) in today's world who subscribes for anything? Time Magazine - not!

It's probably a dead-end concept in today's facebook, youtube, advertising driven world.

What do you think?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
DJP333's picture

Give the man a break

He just retired, he refused to participate in the congressional pension, he didn't siphon money from special interests and is trying to make some money in the free market. If people are interested in Ron Paul, they can see a crap ton of his videos on youtube, and if they are nuts about the guy, like me, they will pay for his channel ($0.33 a day). Sheesh, we seems to have a silly thread on this subject every month.

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW


I agree, it's annoying.

Its old school and bad advise if you ask me.

I dont pay for the service. It is short sited to make it a subscription site instead of a free site that can advertize and promote. If he is advertizing and promting in addition to recieving subscriptions its a mistake. Short sited. Ill advised.

The amount of people who would visit, traffic, his site would increase with no subscription, Hits. The amount brought in from subscriptionos compared to the increased revenue from increased traffic/hits.

Ron Paul is a top messenger and a credit to humself.


You have to ask...

Who will subscribe and who will this message go to? No poor kid developing his political opinions online is going to spend $10 a month when he can go everywhere else for free while turning on Adblock. Ron needs to get his message disseminated to the most people possible, that requires a very accessible and appealing media outlet. He's running it like a newsletter to his base, not a media channel for a nation.

No train to Stockholm.

I look at it this way

If Ron Paul can provide a product that people will pay for in significant numbers, this puts pressure on other media outlets to start servicing this market too.

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

its worth my 10 bucks

In some states the price of a pack of smokes


10 smackers a month

for, in my opinion the best internet channel going? i find it a very sweet deal, and so far
have enjoyed every episode.

what leaves a bad taste in my mouth is typical MSM lies, when i happen to see a clip online..

If you think it cost too much, don't buy it.

Simple as that. That's life. Get use to it.

JustLiberty4US's picture

I subscribe to both the RP

I subscribe to both the RP Channel and the Daily Paul. I like that I don't have to pay for advertising, and immensely enjoy the content.

The way I look at it, is that if I was willing to pay for a newspaper such as the WSJ, why wouldn't I pay for a valuable service such as the RP Channel and the Daily Paul? Both cost the operators money. Besides, the general public can also watch the shows on YouTube.

I think libertarians need to support libertarian businesses.


I would rather these projects be self sustaining, that is the object is to find things that are viable and can grow and continue and fuel the liberty movement.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

He should have made more content free

I think it is a lack of understanding of the reality of our situation on his part. In my opinion he should have made most content available free of charge, and then bonus, in-depth content for paying subscribers.

Just my 2 cents... even just a free video once in a while. I get really annoyed when I get an email with a video link and then the video only contains short blurbs and an advertisement to pay...



I agree with the poster

I'm a fan of Dr. Paul and generally agree with his views, but a subscription-only service means we just have a bunch of people who already agree on something stroking each other's egos and validating shared opinions.

if the goal is to provide an alternative to MSM there needs to be a way to share the videos with non-subscribers. Those are the people who need to hear the message, not the folks who already understand libertarian principles.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

We be strokin

Clarence Carter - Strokin



There's plenty of the freebies out there to keep 'em busy.

I have no doubt that Dr. Paul is doing many good things to promote libertarian principles with the money he gets from his supporters--the money that he works for.

tasmlab's picture

Nah, I don't think so

I personally subscribe to DailyPaul, SchiffRadio and FreeDomainRadio and think it is money well spent.

Different strokes for different folks, but good libertarians understand not to expect things for free, that voluntary exchange is good, and that people will always eagerly give to the causes they support voluntarily and joyfully.

If you subscribe to the DailyPaul, BTW, you can have a custom picture next to your posts. Neat!

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Are you for or against free

Are you for or against free markets? Free markets does not mean "free content".

Yes it does.

It works for every major media outlet on the planet, especially to get the info to poor people. I subscribe, but I have the extra $10. Free market doesn't mean you sit back and go "I won't criticize this product or make a recommendation on how to make it better". Criticism and reputation are what make the free market work.

No train to Stockholm.

Nor does it necessitate a

Nor does it necessitate a subscription fee. ;)

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

RP didn't invent the idea of

RP didn't invent the idea of a paid internet channel. Tom Woods and Peter Schiff do the same. It apparently works for them. Alex does it too, although you can view most of his on youtube.


It costs less than two packs of cigarettes month and I do not know any smoker that only smokes two packs a month. But I must be rich because I support liberty endeavors. On the brighter side, porn is free. Or is it? NSA tracking software.

The channel seems pointless.

Sorry, Ron, I've loved you for years, but if the object is to reach the masses, this won't cut it. Look, even Alex Jones has some free content, including rebroadcast of the day's show. I understand the need for funds, but this isn't reaching anyone. It's got great content for the already faithful, that's about the best you can say. Someone needs to re-think this.

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

fireant's picture

Not at all.

I have no problem with efforts in the name of liberty being operated on a business level. It does, however, limit his audience and removes him from the view of the young followers he managed to excite. I hope he is doing the college speaking circuit in order to keep that constituency alive.

Undo what Wilson did

a 10 dollar

payment to most college students is like buying a fancy coffee.
some must think ron is living back in the fifties and laugh at the low amount as they read mises, the stoics, rothbard, rockwell etc,
oh the message. the message is being spread by many means now. and the establishment is nervous and some of these naysayers could be paid trolls complaining about the subscription being SO high, and should be free. like what welfare? when obama was giving out checks in detroit, one interviewer asked an obama supporter in line for where did she think the money was coming from . she looked confused for a few second then she replied : i dunno, his stash?


Yes, it limits his audience. That's certainly his prerogative. But I can't get excited about it since it's not going to reach anyone other than those already committed to some degree.

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

So he should spend out of his pocket

to setup studios, hire workers, put in his time for free? Not really seeing where you're coming from. Running a channel costs money!

Ron Paul 2012

I have a strong feeling the

I have a strong feeling the subscription revenue is never going to start rolling in.

a) he's got more money than most his supporters,

If he demands a price for a service I want, then so be it.
For me, I don't take into consideration the wealth of my trading partner, so long as that wealth (or lack there of) won't inhibit his ability to hold up his end of the bargain. And in this case, it doesn't appear to be relevant.

Value for Value

I think $10 is absolutely fair.

Free TV isn't FREE.

But it's just not fair!

He has more money than most of us!