Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Conza88]

​

Ron Paul says that "ideas are the only things that count". So where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard stand behind Ron Paul and his message of peace and liberty. Their strategy is to awaken and educate the masses to the idea of liberty, for when the State is widely recognized as unethical and uneconomic, it's days are numbered, since all States rest ultimately upon the support, active or merely passive, of the masses.

Ron Paul speaks to the masses, educates them, and introduces them for the first time to the ideas of liberty, in the hope that they will embrace the message and join the intellectual and moral battle against State power. He encourages all his supporters to discover for themselves the philosophy of liberty, directing them to Mises, Rockwell and Rothbard.

http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.vforvoluntary.com

 

[low preference guy]

from the founding fathers

 

[Conza88]

from the founding fathers

Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!

 

[AFPVet]

When you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, you then understand the framework for the Constitution and what it meant....

 

[Conza88]

When you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, you then understand the framework for the Constitution and what it meant....

When you read Austrian Economics and other writings of the adherents of that school, you then understand the framework of liberty and what Ron Paul means...

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

 

[TheTexan]

Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!

+rep

 

[sailingaway]

from his creator....

Ask him. He says he was born with them.

 

[Conza88]

from his creator....

Ask him. He says he was born with them.

If that was his drive, he wouldn't be running for office. Ask him.

"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.'

"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"

 

[AFPVet]

When you read Austrian Economics and other writings of the adherents of that school, you then understand the framework of liberty and what Ron Paul means...

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

Unfortunately, I have not read the Austrian economic philosophy; however, I happen to own an Austrian Glock 20 10mm

 

[Athan]

He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD!

 

[Conza88]

He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD!

What's his number? Seriously though...

"The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door. To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man's nature and man's proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy. [3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology and proclaiming the ability of man's reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. If belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man's reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius. The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.[4]"

Leave whatever "god" is out of if thanks. It's completely irrelevant to political philosophy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Leave whatever "god" is out of if thanks. It's completely irrelevant to political philosophy.

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul

"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. ;It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."

-Murray Rothbard

....

 

[Hospitaller]

"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. ;It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."

Does anyone have a counter argument to this?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Conza you should realize that Austrian Economics is not a normative pronouncement. You can be an Austrian Economist and a Socialist if you so happen to believe that being poor and destitute is preferable for instance or you believe in egalitarianism, or something. In other words -- Classical Liberalism / libertarianism has nothing to do with Austrian Economics. It just so happens Austrian Economics gives us valuable insights which, most people value prosperity so, they promote actions which increases our prosperity, hence, them then being Classical Liberals / libertarians.

Ron Paul got his economic ideas from Austrians, and his Political ideas from Classical Liberals / libertarians such as Lysander Spooner and William Graham Sumner for instance.

 

[Fr0m_3ur0pe]

This video is showing the true meaning of awesome

 

[Conza88]

Conza you should realize that

I already do. I've made the same point to many others, many times before. I can go quote if you wish. I responded to dismissive comment lazily, add the label of 'Austro-Libertarian' then. Yes, I understand the distinction clearly.

Ron Paul got his economic ideas from Austrians, and his Political ideas from Classical Liberals / libertarians such as Lysander Spooner and William Graham Sumner for instance.

He got his political philosophy ideas from folks like Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner and Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Voluntarists. Not classical liberals. The above is part of his recommended reading list.

 

[Conza88]

Does anyone have a counter argument to this?

That presumes an argument was actually made. And I'd like to see the primary source thanks. Not secondary, and not out of context. Then I'll offer what I'm going to say anyway (more than the below quote).

In "Big-Government Libertarians," MNR:

"Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn't work that way."

 

[Sola_Fide]

Conza,

If secularism is the foundation that brings voluntarism to societies, why isn't Europe a voluntarist dream land?

 

[osan]

Ron Paul says that "ideas are the only things that count". So where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?​

Is that really a quote of Ron Paul? It is mistaken. Many times, and perhaps most of the time, ideas without action are worthless, save as titillations to the mind.

[The founding fathers...] Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!

Is there no direct quote from Dr. Paul on this? I am not terribly fond of placing such words into anyone's mouth.

For myself I can say that my ideas came primarily from within myself, from the innate sense of sovereignty that I can recall experiencing even as a very young person. Many years of thought, reading, and discussion helped bring those thoughts and feelings into sharper focus and better articulation, but they originated within myself and I might be willing to bet a small sum that the same is so for many people, maybe even Ron Paul. Perhaps it is a personality type and some do not hold such a sense of individuality. I cannot speak for others.

Anyone have a quote from RP on this question?

 

[Conza88]

Conza,

If secularism is the foundation that brings voluntarism to societies, why isn't Europe a voluntarist dream land?

Did you miss the point where religion is directly irrelevant to political philosophy? You can be religious, or anti-religious - you have the FREEDOM to do so.

Your question is built on a strawman premise. Try again.