I mean direct citation. It is interesting for me what exactly Ron Paul said.
Although I definitely agree with you that interventionism is what hinders the markets, I object that this interventionism is usually concerted and has supranational character, national governments are just one of the factors, but principals reside somewhere else than in national governments (that's why changes at the level of one nation wouldn't be sufficient, although arguably if made in USA they could be inspirational for the rest of the world also because USA is the far biggest resources consumer).
Nothing like free-trade exists with strategic "energy source" commodities as oil, gas, coal - all major interventionist wars last two decades were fought for control of this resources - from Gulf (to prevent Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) through Kosovo (order of >5% of world's black coal there) to 2003 Iraq war (to control Iraqi and by military presence also Saudi, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar oil - >50% world's oil) or Lybia (to control the best oil and not allow it to be traded in gold instead of dollar) - and especially not with nuclear fuel resources - uranium and thorium + R&D resources of their peaceful application - which are extremely heavily regulated both on national and supranational level.
Not only markets are manipulated, but the consumer too - for example if there wouldn't be both domestic and international interventionism into nuclear energy market - well since 60's - and there wouldn't be the artificially supported anti-nuclear sentiments finding fertile soil among gullible dumbed public prone to irrational fears then we would have the 4th generation nuclear technologies commercionalized realistically at the end of 1980's, the energy resource for technological civilization would be secured for at least thousands of years allowing global social justice and elimination of poverty, no interventionism for fossil energy resource control would be needed and of course no 2008 and on financial crisis could develop (although I really doubt the guns would become museum pieces).
Consumer sovereignity manifestly doesn't authomatically mean wise policies, you need mindfull consumers for it.
It is documented and by reality well illustrated fact that it is dumbed down consumers who were the major factor of all the very major setbacks in western economy throughout last two generations - from peaceful nuclear energy development stall to biofuels, destructing not only the rainforests but global food market.
The nuclear technologies quickly developed in USA in 60's from military projects (NEPA, ANP ->ORNL MSRE project) into the functional 4th generation (fuel bred by fast neutron transmutation of abundant unfissile isotopes into fissile ones) reactors for civilian use level with quallitative upshift in safety were killed not only by government under the pressure of international fossil lobby, but also by massive public protests and opinion shift concerted by the same fossil resources controling international oligarchy - which effectively stopped not only the 4th generation nuclear power R&D, but effectively also the 3rd generation deployment - and there was NO nuclear powerplant projected after 1979 (the year of TMI accident with literally no casualties, but resulting in major shift in consumer attitude towards nuclear energy) built and put into operation in USA! -Even the first pro-nuclear president since Nixon (Obama) supported even by leading environmentalists (as NASA-GISS head J. Hansen) was quickly stopped with his energy independence plans to rapidly revive the peaceful nuclear industry and further its R&D in USA towards 4th generation. (I'm not a fan of Obama but in his case it is literally true that the things are not "black or white". Unfortunately even the US president is too small against both internationalist lobby and by it manipulated mass consumer opinion).
All suffering stems from greed, hate and ignorance.
If somebody - led by own greed and hatred - is succesful to manipulate consumers into ignorance (and hate and greed) on major issues we end where we are - on the brink of the global collapse.
You're absolutely right that the key are the conscious-consumers - thank you! - who are mindful enough to be able discern what is good or bad for them and effectively demand it - at least concerning the very key issues as energetics.
(Unfortunately for the consumer it is hard to discern the electricity from a nuclear powerplant from the electricity from a coal poweplant or even wind or solar, because it is distributed by the monopolistic grid and so the consumer has no chance to decide according to price - which would be very different for the stated types of source (also due to major externalities of otherwise relatively cheap coal electricity), where the nuclear would be from experience the unbeatably cheapest one even with the 3rd generation technologies with all costs for powerplant decommission and spent fuel handling included. It is rougly estimated, that the 4th generation MSR generated electricity would be in the time of its first possible deployment 3 times cheaper than the coal electricity (even without the major externalities as environment dammage included in price) and at the time of major deployment in order of tens of times cheaper, consuming >99.7% of the fuel - not like 3rd generation ~0.3% - and leaving almost no long half-time nuclear waste dangerous over ~300 years span.)
It is well known basic law of physics called 2nd law of thermodynamics which inevitably implies that if the fossil energy resources we use will peak without being in time substituted by something else (and only what we realistically have which is really cappable of substituting extremely rapidly depleting fossil energy resources for civilization vitally dependent on it in time -before ~2035 general fossil peak- is the 4th generation nuclear power - both U238->Pu239 and Th232->U233 preferably Fluoride based MSR breeding) then the entropy of the highly energy-dependent system of human technological civilization will inevitably rise exponentially, which directly means there would be no human technological civilization as we know it after ~2050, because it would perish in unprecedented social/economic catastrophe in then less than one generation and possibly even much quicker - if total global war for last resources intervenes, then inevitable without extremely tough totalitarian regime. -And this is not an end-of-the-world prophecy of a crazy internet conspiracy theorist, but tacitly admitted facts in the expert circles including the rough dates estimates.
We have ~20 years to point of no return. During this time we must achieve major global shift in consumers cosciousness, make major decisions, prioritize major R&D and profoundly restructuralize global energetics doctrine and market. Otherwise the humankind will die-out in order of billions per decade after ~2040. It seems only countries which take this threat really seriously now are China and Czech Republic - only countries prioritizing Thorium based 4th generation MSR technology commercialization with sufficient both public support and R&D resources for peaceful nuclear energy use (and only China is enough politically independent from the supranational interventionist lobby that it can afford to prioritize it openly).
That's why I believe you're on very right track when emphasizing the conscious-consumer - it is a vital condition for our civilization survival in the immediate future.
This my reply is obviously not about the war we talked about before, but I felt it would be good to support your opinion and demonstrate why your conscious-consumer is really important if we want successfully face the challenge of the most serious threat the humankind ever faced - the rapid depletion of its energy resources in times of 7+ billion population, everrising energy demand and unwillingness of consumers to wake up and vocally demand what needs to be done and instead sleepily into oblivion repeating the demagogical arguments suggested to them by the fossil lobby (- the single most powerfull entity in this world) or being completely unconcerned. -The elite obviously will not tend to do it for them, because the major population reduction is their goal ever since they started with the epically failed "sustainable development" ideology advanced by the Club of Rome - which demonstrably had the nuclear phaseout in its platform from the very beginning back in 1972.