Did Ron Paul Actually Do Anything?

Okie RP fan

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
3,695
Full disclaimer, the guy is my hero. I do feel like his 2012 campaign and his followers woke me up, truly. My entire paradigm on life changed whenever I learned about this guy and the liberty movement. I am thankful for that.

So, I want to pose this question: did he really do anything? The reason I'm bringing it up is there's increasing chatter within some libertarian spheres (starting with Matt Erickson who is starting up his "Kingpilled" podcast and is encouraging libertarians to put politics down and focus on becoming wealthy instead. This, he argues, will then make us more powerful and influential) that Ron Paul really didn't do much in the grand scheme. Liberty, for all intents and purposes, hasn't advanced (at least not nationally). Ron Paul himself never had any legislation passed, and what was the point in waking millions up only for them to become so disenfranchised with the system that they may as well be asleep again?

When I first hear this premise, I of course yelled blasphemy. But, I thought about it. And I'm honestly not sure the premise itself is wrong when examined from "look at how far liberty has eroded since 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. What did he truly do that has had consequence?

And to be fair, I don't think it's a direct indictment against him as much as it is some of us followers who put him and others on pedestals.

Just curious to hear what others think of this.
 
Full disclaimer, the guy is my hero. I do feel like his 2012 campaign and his followers woke me up, truly. My entire paradigm on life changed whenever I learned about this guy and the liberty movement. I am thankful for that.

So, I want to pose this question: did he really do anything? The reason I'm bringing it up is there's increasing chatter within some libertarian spheres (starting with Matt Erickson who is starting up his "Kingpilled" podcast and is encouraging libertarians to put politics down and focus on becoming wealthy instead. This, he argues, will then make us more powerful and influential) that Ron Paul really didn't do much in the grand scheme. Liberty, for all intents and purposes, hasn't advanced (at least not nationally). Ron Paul himself never had any legislation passed, and what was the point in waking millions up only for them to become so disenfranchised with the system that they may as well be asleep again?

When I first hear this premise, I of course yelled blasphemy. But, I thought about it. And I'm honestly not sure the premise itself is wrong when examined from "look at how far liberty has eroded since 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. What did he truly do that has had consequence?

And to be fair, I don't think it's a direct indictment against him as much as it is some of us followers who put him and others on pedestals.

Just curious to hear what others think of this.

It's not about what Ron Paul DIDN'T do, it is about what Americans failed to do. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Deep state oligarchs knee-capped him. What you gonna do?

He served his time in Congress and served it well. He elevated his ideals during the 2008/2012 POTUS run.

He's always in my thoughts. So there is that. Other than that I can't say.

Shits going to Fuck real quick and it ain't got time for Ron Paul. It seems.
 
You don't think the conservative movement has moved in a more libertarian direction in some ways?
 
You don't think the conservative movement has moved in a more libertarian direction in some ways?

I listen to the Limbaugh replacements. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. They mentioned Ron today. Talked bout even Ron supported going into Afghanistan after Osama. So he who is not to be mentioned was mentioned. They didn't say he was calling for removal as early as 2011. But, it is what it is. And the duo was asking for vets to call with what they thought. The majority said troops should have been home long ago. A few said we needed to stay longer. At least just to have a developed drawdown. Most that agreed with removal said Biden didn't run it right. Like a major munitions depot falling into Taliban hands. Most said Trump had it right and would have withdrawn in a positive manner. Under Biden it is coming out like the fall of Saigon.
 
Fuck, my sweet cheeks had to come up with $2k for her son, on his return, for "missing equipment." It was either pay it or re-enlist. All the trivial "missing equipment" was stolen by Iraqis. We're not talking guns and munitions here. Trivial shit at inflated Fed. Gov. value.
Thanks for your service, son, and fuck you!
 
Yes.

Of course he did. He kept an idea alive, spread it far and wide. He inspired, educated and caused people to hope. As bad as things are, without him, the country would be in even worse shape and the world an uglier place.
 
If it weren't for Ron Paul, things would be much worse right now.

That doesn't even get into the fact that he helped launch his son's Senate campaign.. Rand has done quite a bit. He is the one grilling Fauci on the lab leak, masks, immunity, etc.. The full list of what he accomplished is pretty long.
 
You don't think the conservative movement has moved in a more libertarian direction in some ways?

I'm honestly not sure.

Of course he did. He kept an idea alive, spread it far and wide. He inspired, educated and caused people to hope. As bad as things are, without him, the country would be in even worse shape and the world an uglier place.

If it weren't for Ron Paul, things would be much worse right now.

That doesn't even get into the fact that he helped launch his son's Senate campaign.. Rand has done quite a bit. He is the one grilling Fauci on the lab leak, masks, immunity, etc.. The full list of what he accomplished is pretty long.

How do we know this? How do we know things would be worse than they already are?
What Rand really done, though? What has grilling Fauci done? Fauci is still in his position of power and has a cult following that contains half of the country...

I'm just trying to pick these things apart so I can fully understand everything around it.
 
How do we know this? How do we know things would be worse than they already are?
What Rand really done, though? What has grilling Fauci done? Fauci is still in his position of power and has a cult following that contains half of the country...

I'm just trying to pick these things apart so I can fully understand everything around it.

Your idea of "making things better" seems to be conditioned on winning.

There are people in this country who are disenfranchised, and they are being represented by a small minority of people who have the power to affect change.

Ron Paul is the reason why there are so many disaffected, disenfranchised citizens and also a big part of the reason why there are a small minority of people who have the power to affect change.

That doesn't mean we win, but at least it means we get to fight.
 
Ron Paul is the reason why there are so many disaffected, disenfranchised citizens and also a big part of the reason why there are a small minority of people who have the power to affect change.

Ha! I'd be inclined to blame those things on people like Soros, the Clintons, Rupert Murdoch. Ron Paul didn't disenfranchise anyone, nor did he limit the power of the populace. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you?

Somebody laughed at the emperor and said, "You're buck naked!" The press ignored him but word got around anyway. Ron Paul not only set brush fires, but showed us what healthy crops we can grow once the weeds are burned away.

Was that helpful? Will it be helpful? Time will tell. Yamamoto's sleeping giant hasn't even finished its coffee yet.
 
Ha! I'd be inclined to blame those things on people like Soros, the Clintons, Rupert Murdoch. Ron Paul didn't disenfranchise anyone, nor did he limit the power of the populace. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you?

Ron Paul educated and exposed more people to these ideas and these people, he was trying to create disenfranchised people against the system. It worked.

Somebody laughed at the emperor and said, "You're buck naked!" The press ignored him but word got around anyway. Ron Paul not only set brush fires, but showed us what healthy crops we can grow once the weeds are burned away.

Was that helpful? Will it be helpful? Time will tell. Yamamoto's sleeping giant hasn't even finished its coffee yet.

Pretty much what I said.
 
Yes and no....

Ron energized and inspired hundreds of thousand of people across the country. Out of that many political careers were launched including members of Congress like Amash, Thomas Massie, and even Rand. Not to mention the countless Ron Paul supporters who either ran for or now occupy state and local offices that we don't even know about. Or the people who joined the GOP and put it on a different trajectory than it was previously on prior to the Bush years.

Unfortunately Ron only wanted to "educate" people and that does not directly change much. Educators and people who inspire are a necessary part of any political movement, but without political power education is pointless. Knowing how bad the Fed is doesn't mean anything if we are unable or unwilling to do anything to change it. And on the other side of that gaining political power just for the sake of gaining political power is pointless too. In addition to a political effort there has to be an intellectual and/or philosophical foundation and that is what Ron brought to the forefront.

Legislatively, since Ron was unwilling to organize politically, he was never able to get anything done until the very end when he got some people on board who were willing to, and knew how to, organize politically on his behalf. Thus Campaign for Liberty. And for the first time Audit the Fed passed the House and came very near to passing the Senate too.

I suspect that a similar effort may be happening again in the next few years due to the inflation that is happening and will continue for the foreseeable future.

So yes, Ron did accomplish some things, and a lot of ancillary benefits resulted from his efforts. However if he had been willing to politically organize much sooner, he would have gotten a lot farther.

Just my observation from a guy who has had a front row seat to this and been involved hands on with it for much of the last 14 years.
 
Last edited:
Without Ron Paul we would not have forums like this where his supporters come together and argue about where he stands on different issues.

On a little more serious note, I agree with Phil. It's more on the American people. The only critique I can give Ron Paul is that he was wrong when he said that freedom is popular
 
Of course he did. He kept an idea alive, spread it far and wide. He inspired, educated and caused people to hope. As bad as things are, without him, the country would be in even worse shape and the world an uglier place.

ron-paul-ideas.png
 
Your idea of "making things better" seems to be conditioned on winning.

There are people in this country who are disenfranchised, and they are being represented by a small minority of people who have the power to affect change.

Ron Paul is the reason why there are so many disaffected, disenfranchised citizens and also a big part of the reason why there are a small minority of people who have the power to affect change.

That doesn't mean we win, but at least it means we get to fight.

In the scheme of politics, winning is everything. So yes, under that lens, having one Rand, one Amash, and one Massie in a [Federal] Congress of 435+ over the last 10+ years doesn't do much in that realm.
Yes, there are people who are disenfranchised and I'd argue half of them went back to that slumber after 2012. So... what good are they doing besides being disenfranchised? To me, this is not a thing to celebrate, per se. I think I understand your point that there were these millions of folks who woke up for Ron, saw the system for what it is (like I did after 2012) and walked away. But these people (like me) aren't doing anything, aren't in positions to effect change beyond our homes (and perhaps that's honestly the best place for all of us to start anyway), and we all continue to be ruled by the mob and deep state.

Without Ron Paul we would not have forums like this where his supporters come together and argue about where he stands on different issues.

On a little more serious note, I agree with Phil. It's more on the American people. The only critique I can give Ron Paul is that he was wrong when he said that freedom is popular

Ok, I get that. So here's my next question: what good does this forum do? How many active people are there anymore? 200? What does this forum do to advance liberty? To me, this forum is like the local bar - I come here to drown away my sorrows with like minded individuals. There's not enough of us left (it seems to me) for us to mount campaigns (political or educational) and get our ideas not only out there for the people (and as you said, freedom is NOT popular), but enacted to benefit people like us.



So far, thanks to all of the responses. To reiterate, these ideas were not originally mine and they were setting off some storms on the Interwebs within our spheres. I understand both camps on this debate and to be honest, the responses here (so far) kind of reinforce the points Matt Erickson is making: moral victories ultimately mean nothing and we need to stop worshiping idols like Ron Paul, who at the end of the day, didn't actual do much that was measurable. And that's not necessarily Ron's fault - that's our fault; the people's fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Ok, I get that. So here's my next question: what good does this forum do? How many active people are there anymore? 200? What does this forum do to advance liberty? To me, this forum is like the local bar - I come here to drown away my sorrows with like minded individuals. There's not enough of us left (it seems to me) for us to mount campaigns (political or educational) and get our ideas not only out there for the people (and as you said, freedom is NOT popular), but enacted to benefit people like us.
I said that with cynical (old man) humor. But seriously, one man can't save a country. He can inspire it. Ron Paul inspired a portion of our country. His message has bled from us into neocons and Bernie bro groups. Whether that's enough to save this country from what's around the corner, that remains to be seen. At this point its off of Ron's shoulders and on ours.
 
Full disclaimer, the guy is my hero. I do feel like his 2012 campaign and his followers woke me up, truly. My entire paradigm on life changed whenever I learned about this guy and the liberty movement. I am thankful for that.

So, I want to pose this question: did he really do anything? The reason I'm bringing it up is there's increasing chatter within some libertarian spheres (starting with Matt Erickson who is starting up his "Kingpilled" podcast and is encouraging libertarians to put politics down and focus on becoming wealthy instead. This, he argues, will then make us more powerful and influential) that Ron Paul really didn't do much in the grand scheme. Liberty, for all intents and purposes, hasn't advanced (at least not nationally). Ron Paul himself never had any legislation passed, and what was the point in waking millions up only for them to become so disenfranchised with the system that they may as well be asleep again?

When I first hear this premise, I of course yelled blasphemy. But, I thought about it. And I'm honestly not sure the premise itself is wrong when examined from "look at how far liberty has eroded since 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. What did he truly do that has had consequence?

And to be fair, I don't think it's a direct indictment against him as much as it is some of us followers who put him and others on pedestals.

Just curious to hear what others think of this.

Actually, Ron Paul did get a piece of legislation passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/459/actions

Ok, that's not much. But it's not nothing. IIRC it's more than can be said of Hillary Clinton, who actually never did introduce a single piece of legislation that got passed, and somehow that fact didn't stop her from getting her party's nomination for president and almost winning the election, and it doesn't seem to have relegated her to a status of historical irrelevance in anyone's eyes that I've heard of.

But actually, let's go with your friend's approach. Let's say libertarians should take up a strategy that's entirely outside of politics for now. Honestly, that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. But I would still say that if we do that, we'll owe whatever measure of success that strategy brings us more to Ron Paul and the difference he made in the lives and outlooks of all those foot soldiers taking up that new cause, than to any other single person walking the earth today I can think of.
 
In the scheme of politics, winning is everything.

And since the political Establishment has defined the "rules" of the race, you can be certain that it is rigged... no one who is a true threat to their "system" has a snowball's chance of winning. Well, that was certainly true pre-Trump... perhaps there is a sea-change coming.

What you are overlooking is that we had to have people who have been prepared to occupy seats as they are able to win them -- by "prepared", I mean prepared not only ideologically (values), but also in terms of the deception, trickery and corruption of the "system". If you're not prepared for that, it will just overwhelm you. Ron Paul 100% knew about the corruption in the US government but he didn't let it discourage him. That alone makes him almost completely unique in American history. The vast majority of Americans with RP's values (honest, integrity, traditional social values, etc.) get tangled up in some kind of Mr. Jefferson Goes To Washington situation, then disavow politics forever after. So the key preparation that Ron Paul has helped lay the groundwork for is to get the younger generation to understand that DC is incorrigibly corrupt.

If you go to DC, you have to have something more in mind than just "we're gunna change da laws!!!!!!" The laws can, indeed, be changed. But tilting at windmills, Don Quixote style, will get you nowhere. DC has seen a million like you, and even better, chewed them all up and spit them out. It's not hopeless, but it's not simple, either. That's the balance that Ron Paul modeled and which younger folks thinking of going to DC will benefit from emulating.

But these people (like me) aren't doing anything, aren't in positions to effect change beyond our homes (and perhaps that's honestly the best place for all of us to start anyway),

That's it!

Ok, I get that. So here's my next question: what good does this forum do? How many active people are there anymore? 200? What does this forum do to advance liberty? To me, this forum is like the local bar - I come here to drown away my sorrows with like minded individuals. There's not enough of us left (it seems to me) for us to mount campaigns (political or educational) and get our ideas not only out there for the people (and as you said, freedom is NOT popular), but enacted to benefit people like us.

I can't find the exact quote, but I will paraphrase it: "Every significant change throughout history has not been the result of a sweeping mass movement but of a tiny, committed minority who have clung to their cause against all odds." The globalist Marxists understand this. This is why they are perfectly content to hide away in their academic ivory towers. Does Noam Chomsky head a "mass movement" of any kind? Of course not. But Chomsky is the root of an enormously powerful change or, at least, potential change, within the US because he and a small group of other maniacal radical leftists have laid the ideological groundwork for those changes. When new converts arrive to the movement, they are given booklets with his quotes, they see memes with his quotes, and so on and so forth. Each of these digestible pieces of the ideological framework could not exist if the main structure had not been built many years before. The Marxists absolutely understand this, we know that because they were the first ones to write all of this stuff down! (They didn't invent it, though.)

Each time you write out a post that applies the principles and values of Ron Paul to current events, there are a dozen others who are able to read and understand what you have written and many of them may have not looked at that particular issue from that particular angle before. This helps reinforce the movement.

And unlike Marxism, the liberty movement doesn't need a secret "inner agenda" because we are not selling a package of lies which are secretly designed to decimate the global population. The liberty agenda is completely superficial... what you see is what you get. That also makes it absolutely unique among political agendas. No other agenda, not even the conservative agenda, can go toe-to-toe with the liberty agenda because every single one of them has something to hide, and we do not. There is absolutely nothing to hide in saying, "I just want you to be free to do what you want."

For this reason, each liberty proponent who takes the time to clarify the reasons for liberty is acting like a "distributed peer-to-peer" node in a global network that is converging more and more accurately on The Truth. Yes, there is capital-T Truth, which is something the Marxists have to deny (so they can keep pushing their secret mass-murder agenda). By choosing to converge on Truth, you are able to participate in this "distributed peer-to-peer network" of Truth-seekers without any central coordination. No central coordination is required because Truth is the coordinator -- 2+2=4 in California, Texas, New York and Florida alike. Red or blue cannot change Truth. That is why liberty is inevitable. Welcome to the side that wins no matter what!!

stop worshiping idols like Ron Paul,

Ron Paul is not an idol because he is not competing and has never competed with Jesus for attention, love and worship. He is what the traditional Church would have called an icon, father of the faith (he is a believer) or (if recognized), a saint. Such individuals act not as their own focal point (trying to create an "-ism" and personality cult focused on themselves), rather, they act as intermediary focal points that point people along the path to The Truth (Jesus). They are like those statues that people set up that point the way to a nearby city... a living road-sign if you will. "Liberty: THIS WAY. (points)"

"If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36) Make no mistake, the Gospel is libertarian... it is the original, undiluted libertarianism. And that is the real reason that liberty is inevitable.

who at the end of the day, didn't actual do much that was measurable. And that's not necessarily Ron's fault - that's our fault; the people's fault.

It's just not true. I understand it can feel that way. But the problem is that we have chosen the wrong ruler to measure progress. Holding political seats is the final outcome of a long process of change that has occurred many decades before. Ron Paul and others in the liberty movement have built the foundations for that change. Let's not get tired, but keep working to erect the scaffolding and start building the first floor of the tower of true freedom that will inevitably be built. So much work has already gone into it, it would be a shame to lose that to history and leave it to a future generation to restart the entire project from bare earth...
 
Last edited:
He got called out for earmarks in the mainstream liberal media, explained himself, and ended the practice.

That may not be everything. It may not be enough to save the nation. But it's concrete enough. You can put your finger right on it.

Most of his legacy must be filed under "time will tell". No one makes their legacy relevant all by themselves. But, yes. There are things that are concrete.
 
He got called out for earmarks in the mainstream liberal media, explained himself, and ended the practice.

That may not be everything. It may not be enough to save the nation. But it's concrete enough. You can put your finger right on it.

Most of his legacy must be filed under "time will tell". No one makes their legacy relevant all by themselves. But, yes. There are things that are concrete.
I don't think he ended the practice. I believe Rand does not do it


"If you don't earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there's no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial. But we need more earmarks.

The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. It's like a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that."

 
Last edited:
Back
Top