Ron Paul is interesting. In some ways, Ron Paul is an advocate for freedom. In some ways, Ron Paul is a pro-State troll.
Ron Paul is the only mainstream politician that explicitly criticizes the Federal Reserve and income tax. However, Ron Paul says "The Federal Reserve and income tax are unconstitutional!", which is a weak criticism. Ron Paul does not explicitly say "The Federal Reserve and income tax are immoral!"
Ron Paul has done a good job of raising awareness for the evils of the Federal Reserve and income tax. Before I started researching Ron Paul, I had a vague sense that something was really wrong but wasn't sure where to focus. When I saw a debate clip of Ron Paul criticizing the Federal Reserve and IRS, I decided to focus on that. I wrote some articles on the Ron Paul wiki and became active on the Ron Paul Forum. I very rapidly realized "There's no way Ron Paul will get elected. Elections are fixed. The system is broken." I also got very frustrated with pro-State trolls on the Ron Paul Forum, and I had a problem with wiki vandals. I decided it would be easier to get my own blog, so I wouldn't be repeating the same arguments over and over again. Plus, on my own blog, I wouldn't have the "get shouted down by pro-State trolls" problem.
There is a "debate ceiling". Ideas more radical than those of the "debate ceiling" are not publicly discussed. Ron Paul represents the limit of (L)libertarian/minarchist thinking. Ron Paul does not explicitly say "Who needs a government anyway?" Ron Paul holds out the false hope that the system can be reformed. In this manner, Ron Paul is a shill for the establishment. Ron Paul is advocating for the usual libertarian/minarchist intellectual trap, rather than advocating for true free markets.
Via the Internet, Ron Paul has successfully led some people to the philosophy of true free markets. For example, some people found my blog via posts on the Ron Paul forums. Once you realize that Ron Paul is a promising candidate with no chance of getting elected, you realize "The system is completely broken!" and that leads to "Who needs a government anyway?" The Ron Paul Internet forums are still active. However, only a minority of Ron Paul supporters have been converted to agorism.
Ron Paul is good, because he helps raise awareness for "The Federal Reserve is evil!", "The income tax is evil!", and "Big government is evil!" However, he is part of the problem because he does not say "Who needs a government anyway?" By giving a weak criticism of the State, Ron Paul can seem to be endorsing the State.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Is Ron Paul Good or Evil?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Right now, Ron Paul is all we have.
In raising awareness, we need people in high places speaking out, so overall Ron Paul is good.
Hopefully Rand Paul and Peter Schiff will also enter the political arena and win.
Anyone who identifies themselves on the basis of a nation-state, ie., "I'm an American", is not taking aim at the real problem: the system of nation-states. I'm not an American. How does Ron Paul's obsession with 'The Constitution' help me? He is taking aim at the bird's feathers, not the heart. The desire for liberty should be universal, and the movement would be much stronger if it was not divided up into regional fiefdoms. These divisions play directly into the hands of the statists. It would be illegal for me to send money to Ron Paul. The system has to be subverted, outside of the existing political processes. Consent for the legitimacy of all states has to be withdrawn. Just tinkering, as Ron Paul advocates, is a false solution. Let's say he became President. His successor would just go back to the conventional statist ways. In a term or two, it would be like he had never existed. The followers of Alexander Hamilton will always continue to work tirelessly. The mechanism by which they commit their evil deeds has to be dismantled, not simply adjusted.
Ron Paul is good at raising awareness. But I think his fundraising prowess ( which is nothing new, as he's been generating millions for his business partners for decades)and relative political success is probably bad for freedom.
You have a couple million ( I guess?) people who really believe that politics and voting are worthwhile who are also willing to donate millions of dollars to a political candidate with no chance of success. Not to mention those who support pro-state "libertarian" think-tanks and other "educational" organizations.
Imagine if these people embraced agorism on any level.
Obviously you can't run for office AND say you want no government. Paul never said he's against the State, he's for the Constitution.
But in my standards, anybody who doesn't believe the government should face violence can be categorized as pro-State based on the 'silence is consent' doctrine.
But hey, talk is cheap, might makes right, at least I admit it.
Put it like this, if Ron Paul was to openly say "who needs a government" he wouldn't be able to raise awareness from the get because media everywhere would label him as "nuts, crazy, secessionist etc.". He has to play by their rules to get this message out the best way that he can. He can't just come outright and say the constitution is a load of shit. I can imagine that he understands that (as most politicians do but don't say outright). At the same time I don't think you can honestly call any politician good. They're all evil conceited liars and manipulators (parasites) as far as i'm concerned. Look at what happened to Peter Schiff's Dad, He's f*cked pretty badly right now. When your locked in prison you can't get any message out.
Well, there is talk he is a Free Mason, which wouldn't be surprising. That said, he dodges some VERY large gaps by hopping onto the (already running) "Kill the Fed Reserve" bandwagon. Remember what he is in reality...powerless. Talks much, does little.
The gaps he jumps past is simple (and was slightly pointed out)-
The states lost the civil war, and became extensions of the Fed. The Feds did not (Reconstruction was pretty much die hard proof). Everyone can push for pro-corporation-states all they want...since they lack the base understanding of the Republic and the Law.
The Law. He really MUST not know nearly as much about what happened in the years between 1913-1937. Especially concerning the role the of the law, and what it was prior to the Great Crash, and what it became immediately thereafter.
All I can say is, for a guy who touts "Liberty"...he definitely has never read what the Constitution actually says....or the Law it was based upon.
Post a Comment