Comment: He's saying private institutions should acquiesce to the public

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Isn't he basically just (see in situ)

He's saying private institutions should acquiesce to the public

Ron Paul wants to allow individuals the freedom of association just as long as they don't run to a centralized power to seek special privileges or to redistribute honestly obtained wealth from others to their cause. Freedom of association means people being able to form companies or in this case churches and to freely determine the terms of association and action.

Obama, on the other hand, wants what has been determined acceptable or politically correct (read: government knows best) to be the standard that will be propagated to everyone. In other words, incompatible educational models such as or or should be seen as divisive and should fold into preexisting education institutions and follow the approved programs of indoctrination. Here's the difference between Ron Paul and Obama in a nutshell: Dr Paul wants to meet and work with each individual to help them help themselves whereas Obama wants to meet with the lobbyist that represents the interests of some group that wants a grant of some privilege derived from the loss of privilege natural rights of another.

My understanding is that most ideologies are open to seeking and adding new members to their ranks to the end that everyone views the world as they do. Presumably, that his been the justification of American foreign policy; that is, to bring America's goodness and system of democracy to the world (often at the point of a gun). Of course guns don't lend themselves to progress. Ideas do. Individuals and those that gather to form private institutions, that is those that have freely associated to seek what they perceive as the truth, these are the ones that give us progress. Early America was built by these private institutions.