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."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original po