I read most of the article, and it just seemed way too narrow-minded to me.
As far as I'm aware, Ron Paul never claimed that there should be no government in the terms that you're defining for him. He has simply called for a return of government to it's originally designed scope/authority. What he's done and how he has voted appears to be consistent with such a philosophy.
If you're going to have a government, and let's face it, there will always be a government, I would rather have Dr. Paul and his idea of government in place than to whine that there shouldn't be government at all. It's just part of human nature that a government on some level will exist, even a remote tribe that isn't ruled by a huge national behemoth like we have still has a some sort of system set up.
I personally like Chris Duane's approach of getting out of the system individually and adhering to a paradigm other than the one our nation , but I'm not going to fault Ron Paul for doing what he does. I'm glad he's in the system trying to change it, however futile the efforts. At least it gives him a stage with which to tell people about liberty. This does a lot for the movement. I don't know how many people you expect to reach or influence with your post, and maybe you don't care, but if you actually want to influence people you need a stage from which to be heard- and at least he can do that on some significant level.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators