Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/16/ron-pauls-farewell-address-the-internet-can-stop-big-government/

by relampago • 14 years ago

159 226 14 years ago

techcrunch.com

mixmastamyk2• 14 years ago

The real thing:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-...

Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot.

wyclif6• 14 years ago

Keep in mind this was his Farewell Address. He was going to get his licks in, esp. that bit about "psychopathic authoritarians" (which I took to include the other members of Congress). There was absolutely no reason or incentive for him to make it shorter than the allotted time he had.

Ron Paul is the only US politician I've ever wanted to cross the street for. I'm hoping his youth movement produces more leaders who value freedom and liberty as much as he does.

thesagan• 14 years ago

He's one of the few politicians of that caliber where I think he's both batshit crazy while being a force for good (?) in the public sphere. I don't really know what to make of the man.

mtgx• 14 years ago

Hopefully the Republicans let the libertarians take over the party by the next election, as that would probably be the only thing to make the Republican look good again. Otherwise, good riddance for the Republican party.

mixmastamyk2• 14 years ago

The reason would be the message would be communicated better. I got lost in a few places down the page. This length might be better as the first few chapters of a book.

ataggart• 14 years ago

He's certainly letting his voluntarist-anarchist flag fly:

"What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do."

rayiner11• 14 years ago

These days, the most profitable ways to violate other people don't involve physical aggression. But as someone who makes a living based on people trying to screw other people over, I don't think the need for government to reign in such behavior is any less now than it ever was.

eli_gottlieb2• 14 years ago

No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but I am a believer in the Enlightenment and the social contract. When a regime of property has grown unbearable to the people, it is the right of the people together to abolish it and free themselves of its burden.

Whereas Ron Paul would say that anyone wishing for even the slightest alteration of existing property arrangements is exercising the "offensive use of force." No, we are simply withdrawing force once exercised because we no longer approve its usage.

You are not entitled to a police force that defends your plantations, factories, mines and, yes, server farms and retail outlets from the angry, starving masses. You receive that defense because you're part of a society that works together and must work for everyone.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is in no way anarchist: without hierarchies.

slurgfest2• 14 years ago

It is an oversimplification to think that Ron Paul's politics have been anti-governmental, because he has consistently stood up for states' rights, and state governments are governments.

Granting monopoly power to state governments to use aggression against the people would have resulted in the continued application of that aggression against slaves.

larsberg• 14 years ago

> Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot.

If the "John Galt speech" is your baseline, that was brief for a libertarian/objectivist.

pjriot• 14 years ago

"The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation."

What bothers me about this statement is that either side of the net neutrality debate could claim it was meant to support their position. Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.

chimeracoder• 14 years ago

> What bothers me about this statement is that either side of the net neutrality debate could claim it was meant to support their position. Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.

On the other hand, the government is also responsible for the existing monopolies that are the biggest threat to net neutrality.

So at the end of the day, it goes both ways: both corporations and government can act either in defense of neutrality or to its detriment. No easy answer.

Gormo3• 14 years ago

> Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to.

Or accelerate it. Don't confuse the ostensible intent of regulation with the actual likely outcome. Stable regulatory regimes are often the most effective venues for collusion in existence.

kroger• 14 years ago

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E

eli_gottlieb2• 14 years ago

Way to pander to Reddit.

wyclif6• 14 years ago

Sorry, that's not very compelling. Would you call the thousands of other TechCrunch posts that are auto-submitted to HN "pandering to Reddit"?

I regret to inform you that my nerdy Ron Paul advocacy will continue unabated. Reddit has nothing to do with it.

saraid2166• 14 years ago

Maybe he's saying Ron Paul was pandering to Reddit. I really can't tell.

jlgreco2• 14 years ago

Been there recently? Reddit, as far as you can say it "likes" or "dislikes" anything, does not like Paul.

smokeyj• 14 years ago

Everyone hates him. He's too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservatives.

herdrick2• 14 years ago

Right, which is worrisome. The reddit trajectory was: "intellectual and polite" -> "smart and combative" -> "kinda dumb and hive-minded" -> "lolcats". Simultaneously its median opinion towards Ron Paul seemed to go: "interesting" -> "savior" -> "devil" -> "who?". So it'd be another indicator that HN is sliding if we're becoming more enthused by Ron Paul. (I voted for him, btw.)

SpikeDad• 14 years ago

The Internet was vital in exposing his naive and harmful behavior. His hypocritical pronouncements and racist background would never have come to the public without it.

Don't let Washington hit your ass on the way out.

hypersoar• 14 years ago

Can you elaborate? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just haven't followed him enough to know what you're talking about.

bithive1232• 14 years ago

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764)

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was...), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)

scarmig9• 14 years ago

As far as the racist background, the Ron Paul newsletters certainly have explicit racism (and sexism, and homophobia) in them (as opposed to implied racism, such as opposing the civil rights legislation of the 60s). Most Ron Paul fans argue that it was actually Lew Rockwell who wrote most of that, under Ron Paul's name, and Ron Paul never read or approved of them.

Take that for what it's worth--I personally suspect it's somewhere between "Ron Paul wrote all the virulently racist stuff in his newsletter" and "Ron Paul had no idea of anything going on in his newsletter."

dubfan• 14 years ago

Don't you know? Ron Paul is supposed to be the darling politician of hackers and nerds. You aren't allowed to say anything bad about him here.

shitlord2• 14 years ago

It's kind of funny you mention that, because RP supporters literally kept track of people who spoke ill of their prophet. There was a giant controversy on reddit about them spamming every major sub with off-topic political garbage and manipulating the vote system.

slurgfest2• 14 years ago

"The Internet" is not democratically elected. Why should it have a mandate to defeat what is decided democratically?

marshray• 14 years ago

The internet as an institution is far more democratic than the current US election system.

Anyone can exchange ideas online, and better yet, most people do!

camus2• 14 years ago

the internet is a medium ,not an institution.

snitko16• 14 years ago

What makes me sad is that a lot of people, even here, discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says. In comments to this post "thesagan" wrote that some of his ideas are "batshit crazy" as if his ideology is composed of many different unrelated parts. Not true, Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework. Which is actually the point: it is a framework which has logical structure to it. Unlike both parties' ideologies, which are, indeed, crafted out of many different unrelated parts serving special interests.

astrodust9• 14 years ago

The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions.

I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too easily corrupted to serve the interests of those with power.

Ron Paul either lives in some kind of puppies and rainbows small-town world where corporate interests never trump personal liberties, where money doesn't equate to power and relative immunity from prosecution, or he's willing to overlook all that and hold out faith that Libertarianism will somehow change how people iteract.

Basically he's the Richard M. Stallman of politicians. Blinded by ideology and ultimately dragging things in the wrong direction.

snitko16• 14 years ago

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

jpadkins2011• 14 years ago

> where corporate interests never trump personal liberties

Corporations are a construct of government. So yes, if we limit the power of government, corporate power will be limited too.

geoka9• 14 years ago

OK, I'll grant you that, barring the last paragraph which is flame-baity and I'm not about to take the bait.

Suppose Ron Paul is not willing to compromise on his libertarian principles. Wouldn't he still make a good president considering that there are "checks and balances" and he wouldn't have dictatorial power? I mean there are so many politicians of various denominations out there and none of them that are of any significant power are libertarians - all of them are essentially "compromisers".

Having a diehard libertarian of influence in such an environment can't be bad for the country. Somebody to look after the liberties. To raise hell every time some commercial interests try to impinge on yet another one, you know.

relampago• 14 years ago

We have a lobby system in place. Why would the world be any other place than upside down? You've got a tobacco vote in the House and John Boehner is handing out checks from the tobacco lobby. Really?

mbetter8• 14 years ago

A logical framework is worth exactly as much as the underlying assumptions. In Ron Paul's case, the soundness of those assumptions ranges from "obviously true" to "questionable" to "provably false" to "batshit crazy".

timr2• 14 years ago

"Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism and if you study them diligent enough, you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework"

I'm trying not to violate rule #1 of the internet ("never argue with an internet libertarian"), but you're making a classic Nerd Error: if you have to say the words "you'll eventually be used to thinking in this framework", you've already lost the war.

Politics are not about logically consistent philosophical frameworks, and even if they were, there's certainly no inherent reason that "liberty" has to be your guiding value for establishing such a framework (you could just as easily chose "safety" or "health" or, for that matter, "happiness"). There are a number of practical situations where people will happily, sanely support reductions in liberty to gain other benefits. People who do not recognize this reality are doomed to marginalization.

snitko16• 14 years ago

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all.

Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a lot of people will, I'm sure, continue thinking that is the way to go.

Update: also, let me ask you, cos I'm not sure, why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian?

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

Yeah, the problem is that "study it out" is not a valid response, in practical terms, to someone saying your political ideas are stupid. Most people will never bother. Being able to understand this and be "flexible" (read: inconsistent) is what makes a person a good politician.

ericHosick4• 14 years ago

Most people seem to have good intentions but good intentions don't always lead to good results.

The intentions of laws with compulsory fees (taxation) and compulsory who marries who are based on good intentions (in the minds of those who create them).

In both cases, these good intentions are based on theft of basic rights. But, in the long term, how can you make society better off when your core beliefs are based on theft? ("Unlike both parties' ideologies, which are, indeed, crafted out of many different unrelated parts serving special interests.")

The "batshit crazy" ideals of libertarians is to base your good intentions on non-aggression: not theft.

snitko16• 14 years ago

Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it cannot be a good solution. It is inconceivable how people hate monopolies when it comes to things like smartphones, airlines or even shoes, but when it comes to their own protection the monopoly is taken for granted.

mbetter8• 14 years ago

If taxation is theft, property is theft. Or in other words: what gives you the right to compel me to defend your property?

fredBuddemeyer• 14 years ago

if a politician can be described in such terms at the end of a career (in no less a house of "compromise" than the us congress) his accomplishments are not over.

rayiner11• 14 years ago

Libertarianism is just as much a patch-work of different beliefs as any of the party ideologies. There is a huge internal inconsistency, for example, between it's reliance on economic theories with its embrace of "natural rights" approaches to freedom of action.

Libertarians deeply want to believe that we live in a world where you can leave people free to transact freely in a free market, and that will maximize total value. And economic theory tells us that isn't true.

Once that ideological purity is lost to brutal reality, libertarians are stuck fighting in the mud like the rest of us: arguing over which particular bits of government intervention maximize value without much in the way of theoretical projections or empirical proof.

philwelch4• 14 years ago

> Libertarians deeply want to believe that we live in a world where you can leave people free to transact freely in a free market, and that will maximize total value. And economic theory tells us that isn't true.

Libertarianism isn't about maximizing total value; not if you're intellectually consistent about it. Most libertarians see libertarianism as a moral imperative and respond to arguments about "maximizing total value" with "the ends don't justify the means".

philwelch4• 14 years ago

And after that, if you keep thinking critically about it instead of taking comfort in having a seemingly logically coherent ideology, you start realizing that the entire framework of libertarianism is batshit crazy and your initial intuitions were not actually that far off. This leads to a healthy distrust of ideologies in general, which is only a win.

Steko6• 14 years ago

"discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says"

Or they read enough of what he has said and found it abhorrent.

"composed of many different unrelated parts. Not true, Ron Paul ideas are ideas of libertarianism"

Libertarianism and the coming race war.

jacobsimeon3• 14 years ago

This comment is well intentioned but fails to compel any non-libertarian to consider Paul's opinion. It is true that Paul is unfairly (perhaps unjustly) portrayed by the media as, to put it plainly, crazy but whining about how unfair it is won't help matters.

Ron Paul's message places personal, financial and social liberty at esteem and condemns government encroachment on these liberties. His career as a congressman is consistent with his message which is saying more than can be said of any other politician. For these reasons, the man deserves to be heard and he deserves your respect.

The least anyone could do is read the actual transcript of the address--techcrunch doesn't do it justice.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewel...

danmaz742• 14 years ago

George E.P. Box's law: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The problem with libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, marxism/communism, etc. is that they don't acknowledge that truth and want to extend their models of human behavior well beyond the scope of their usefulness, as if human societies were simple, linear phenomena.

MaysonL• 14 years ago

And even more people disparage him as a nutcase after listening to him.

tzs5• 14 years ago

Let's listen to some things Paul says and does:

• Has no clue how the banking system works. Even the Cato Institute called him "incoherent". http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/...

• To lower the cost of health care he says we need to increase competition by increasing the availability of quack medicine (specifically homeopathic medicine) over science-based medicine. http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-24/ron-paul-we-need-true-comp...

• Has repeatedly introduced legislation to reduce the scope of the First Amendment's establishment clause so that it would not apply to state and local government, and to remove Federal recognition of a right to privacy. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.539:

• His budget plan proposed immediate massive cuts in research in science and medicine, and didn't have anything allocated for the National Science Foundation or NASA. Also immediately eliminated programs for the poor (specifically the woman, infant, and children supplemental nutrition program and the low income home energy assistance program). (No cite, because his site appears to have taken down the page that had the budget plan).

• Voted to block the USDA from even considering the possibility that there might be climate change and trying to figure out what impact that could have on the US food supply and the mission of the USDA. http://tinyurl.com/albm229 Here is what Paul wanted to stop: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DR1070-001.pdf

Sounds like a crazy guy to me.

snitko16• 14 years ago

So, he's crazy because he doesn't want to regulate things. You believe homeopathy is bullshit - fine, I agree with you. We can campaign against it and inform people it's bullshit. But you and I have no rights to tell people what to believe and how to spend their money.

I would like to specifically talk about climate change, though. I don't want to question the legitimacy of the claims that it's happening - to the best of my knowledge it is. However, people somehow assume it's definitely a bad thing, which is simply not true. Climate may indeed change in one place and make life of people more difficult, while it may also change in another place and make life more prosperous there. No scientists I know of can predict what effects exactly and on which places climate change is going to have. It seems to me, people who are afraid of climate change simply want to preserve the status quo. Not a bad thing - everybody wants to protect their life and assets. But we must recognize it for that - an attempt to preserve the status quo, not save the planet for the greater good.

Back to Ron Paul: he may not be the guy I can agree 100% of the time on everything, but then you can never do that with anyone. Before trying to assess why he voted for this or that, one should understand the reasons why he did so. For instance, he voted against net neutrality, but not because he believed internet shouldn't be free - he believed the government itself cannot make it free, but competition can.

1123581321• 14 years ago

As can be seen in these comments, people are penny-wise and pound foolish. They would rather support one of two presidents who enjoy inflicting trillion-dollar wars on other ethnicities than concede an inch of ground to a man who wrote a couple racist newsletters. The behavior of people towards a threat to the status quo, no matter how good and helpful the threat, is insanity.

Steko6• 14 years ago

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”"

-- Lee Atwater's Secret Decoder Ring for Conservative Doubletalk

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...

devb0x• 14 years ago

"...why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation"

The internet just gets switched off or blocked in some instances, we've all seen it before. China, Iran, Egypt.

You don't control the infrastructure or the pipe in, the government does.

Even here in South Africa, I wonder at which point they will switch it off. It's not ours.

jacobsimeon3• 14 years ago

He also says something of a little more substance that, maybe, lines up with the deeper HN sentiment:

"Our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents."

I would argue that no other politician could state such a clear and meaningful fact. The guy is as sincere and level headed as they come, which is what makes the media's portrayal of him so tragic.

curt• 14 years ago

The libertarian viewpoint is very simple and not the dog eat dog world people here are making it out to be. Libertarians such as myself believe that people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live with the consequences, except that you need laws to stop one person from hurting another. Does that mean everybody for themselves? No. Before the creation of the welfare state we had mutual aid groups where communities would help each other. The groups could be based on religion, ethnicity, occupations, etc... People naturally took care of each other.

Would a simple world like this work today? No. But you can still use the guiding principles to form a freer world. That's where Ron Paul went wrong, he lived in an idealistic world. We have legacy costs and promises that must be kept.

rpm4321• 14 years ago

Well put. It seems to me that there is a lot of room for a moderate libertarian party, which could sit between the two major parties as a reform-oriented 3rd party. The majority of the electorate is uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating their bedroom activities, and is highly alarmed with the profligate spending and clearly unsustainable entitlement obligations, and is very skeptical of overseas adventurism. If this 3rd party simply co-opted the Democrats social policies and the Republicans fiscal policies, but with a reformist, common sense, moderate-libertarian bent, it could probably win enough seats in Congress to become legislative kingmakers - especially with an electorate as disgruntled as in the last two cycles.

jakeonthemove• 14 years ago

Why the hell doers everyone think a libertarian government would be pushing the ideology to the extreme? It doesn't happen with the other two parties, and it definitely wouldn't happen with libertarians at the helm.

They would compromise because it's just impossible to do otherwise.

IMO, they have a lot of great ideas that Reps and Dems don't even consider (which is why they probably label Libs "crazy").

wordplay• 14 years ago

Would a true libertarian society view nations as pseudo corporations and citizens as shareholders? Would the more highly compensated individuals be considered to have a larger stake in the state?

Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

Related Stories