The reason images like that get attention is because the internet is filled with information, and the best way to get anyone's attention is with something eye catching. Whereas, unless someone has a prior interest in your topic, they are not going to read a lengthy article. That's just the reality.
I'll try to go through point by point.
1. You weaken your argument by trying to make Ron Paul out to be a fraud. If you know anything about him, you know that he truly believes in his cause and has been very consistent throughout his career. I think that he realizes that many of his efforts in congress have been fruitless, but it did give him a platform, make him well known, and now that he is retiring, he has a huge fan-base that he can use to help spread his message. So, holding the government office may not have accomplished much in itself, but he did start a fairly cohesive liberty movement.
2. He admits that from the point of view of many others, he would be seen as a failure. He was NOT a failure though (see point 1 above).
3. I'll quote his speech here: "The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change." He recognizes the futility of working through the government system. So, what's your point? Should he beat himself up for having tried?
4. See quote above. You are arguing for something that Ron Paul himself is calling for.
5. Here, I think the answer to these questions is not "government", but that our government has strayed so far away from the constitution. None of the events listed in his questions would have happened if our federal government had stuck to the role laid out in the constitution.
You talk about Ron Paul being ineffectual by becoming a congressman, but isn't it a bit idealistic to think that our very entrenched system of government is suddenly going to break down and we'll all live in happy little anarchist communes? Ron Paul was trying to effect real change, and so he was working in the system that we have.
I think by asking the question "“Why are there not more individuals to intellectually influence others?”" he is not looking for an answer but is kind of saying "lets have more individuals doing this instead of getting into politics".
“Psychopathic authoritarians endorse government-initiated force to change the world” - This was definitely not aimed at himself as you say. Although he was a congressman, every vote he made was against authoritarians and for less government.
Your quote: "It would be difficult (though not impossible) to find more poetic and poignant words describing the heteronomous horrors of government, yet they are spoken by an agent of government." You agree with what Ron Paul is saying, yet because he is part of the government, you decide that you can write off anything he says? Ridiculous.
As for Ron Paul's call for "No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence", he specifically states the role he thinks government should have elsewhere in his speech. He isn't calling for anarchy, but limited government.
Your quote: "Maybe the truth, that no libertarian wants to admit, is that Ron Paul is just a paleoconservative that makes libertarian noises because it makes him feel better…". Paleoconservative, libertarian.. who cares about labels. He stands for limited government.
Being libertarian and wanting to see our government shrink in size is idealistic enough for me. We will never see an end to all government in the US. The government is too big, and the people WANT government. Anarchists are a tiny minority, even smaller than the 1% of libertarians. It's not going to happen.
If we are "delusional no-hopers", what does that make anarchists?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: