Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

"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.'"

Agreed. The large network media are all scum for their dishonest editing - whether against RP or anyone else. It is disgusting.

That said, in some ways Ron is not very cagey at all - something I admire in some ways but also recognize as a terrible drawback in a game where forthrightness can be turned fatally against one. I would have stated things differently, perhaps to no better effect, but I would have left "them" with a far narrower choice than editing; basically whether to air my words at all. IMO a key strategy in dealing with the media for persons such as RP is to give them very little with which to work. This paints them into corners where edits become more obvious. This is a VERY tough thing to do and one has to be extremely fast on the feet to produce responses that are difficult to edit without screwing the pooch, but I think it is a goal toward which all persons of RP's ilk must aspire in order to neutralize the power of dishonest media to the greatest extent possible.
 
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.

Yes, it is. No, it's not mistaken.


"But in the US, his books now become instant best-sellers and he tours university campuses pushing a libertarian agenda. Where once he believed he was seeding the ground for a movement that would triumph well after his own career is over, to his own astonishment, policies he has espoused to almost universal ridicule for decades might just be about to go into law.

And this is why the economic and political establishment fears Ron Paul as one of the most dangerous men in America. His innocuous-sounding plan to subject the US central bank to a regular audit of its activities is a Trojan horse for the wider aim to End the Fed – the title of his latest book. Behind the liberal-sounding policies lies an audacious agenda to erase 100 years of economic orthodoxy and take the US back to a Nineteenth-century version of every-man-for-himself capitalism. Inch by inch, he is making progress.

"The college kids I think are interested in the anti-war position, in personal civil liberties and allowing them to do with their own lives what they want – but I tell them, if you ruin your own life don't come begging the government to take care of you."

Paul greets The Independent at his rooms in Congress, decked out in the formal regalia of public office, with flags and seals, but with portraits in one corner that reveal his inspirations: members of the Austrian school of economists whose founder Friedrich von Hayek predicted government attempts to intervene in the economy would set their people on "the road to serfdom".

"Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant," he says. "What was boiling out there I just brought to life. This material has been available in a quiet way on the internet and from a few libertarian think-tanks, but I was pretty shocked when college kids started calling out 'End the Fed, End the Fed.'"

Growing up in Pittsburgh, Paul was fascinated by the jar of coins that his parents kept on the kitchen shelf. He became a stamp and coin collector – still is – and he is fascinated by what gives money value. He's got a proportion of his savings in gold. Currencies come and currencies go, he says, but when people wanted to escape Vietnam during the war, they paid with gold coins at the border. "Most people think gold is beautiful, that's why it's money. It's because it's beautiful and rare and divisible and it lasts a long time. We don't use lead."

He decided to go into politics on the day, in 1971, when Richard Nixon said the dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold. Since then, the global financial architecture has been built entirely on the world's faith in the good credit of the US government. Paul is crouched under it, convinced the architecture will collapse."​


Ideas without action are worthless.... yes, did you watch the video in this thread? :confused: Ideas are what matters, politicians are irrelevant does NOT thus mean, do nothing.

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?

Yes, and I have already referenced the link. Introduction (more there), great read.


"I decided to run for Congress because of the disaster of wage and price controls imposed by the Nixon administration in 1971. When the
stock market responded euphorically to the imposition of these controls and the closing of the gold window, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and many other big business groups gave enthusiastic support, I decided that someone in politics had to condemn the controls, and offer the alternative that could explain the past and give hope for the future: the Austrian economists’ defense of the free market. At the time I was convinced, like Ludwig von Mises, that no one could succeed in politics without serving the special interests of some politically powerful pressure group."[...]

Because of my interest in individual liberty and the free market, I became closely associated over the years with friends and students of Mises, those who knew the greatness of Mises from a long-term personal friendship with him. My contact, however, was always through his writings, except on one occasion. In 1971, during a busy day in my medical office, I took a long lunch to drive 60 miles to the University of Houston to hear one of the last formal lectures Mises gave—this one on socialism.

Although 90 a the time, he was most impressive, and his presentation inspired me to more study of Austrian economics. My subsequent meetings and friendship with the late Leonard Read and his Foundation for Economic Education also inspired me to work harder for a society unhampered by government intrusion into our personal and economic lives. My knowledge has been encouraged and bolstered through the extraordinary work of the Mises Institute, with its many publications and conferences, and its inspiring work among students choosing academic careers.

My friendships with two important students of Mises, Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard, were especially helpful in getting first-hand explanations of how the market functions. They helped me to refine my answers to the continual barrage of statist legislation that dominates the U.S. Congress. Their personal assistance was invaluable to me in my educational and political endeavors."​


@all - Reality folks. Accept it. Don't be like some moderators here at this forum who called individuals who went to Mises.org (to study Austrian Economics) trolls. They were simply following the suggestions and recommendations of Ron Paul. Embrace it, don't hate it.
 
Last edited:
@all - Reality folks. Accept it. Don't be like some moderators here at this forum who called individuals who went to Mises.org (to study Austrian Economics) trolls. They were simply following the suggestions and recommendations of Ron Paul. Embrace it, don't hate it.

Actually, Conza, a few were called trolls in the past because of this thread over on Mises.org mentioning plans to come over to RonPaulForums to convert minarchist to anarchists. Interestingly enough, you were in that thread too.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx
 
Pillars of Prosperity


The Economics of a Free Society

These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today don’t understand the Founders’ wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanism—as opposed to “democracy.” A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individuals—no matter what a temporary ma ority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.
 

I'm sorry, was that quote meant to be a "refutation" of anything? :confused:

Actually, Conza, a few were called trolls in the past because of this thread over on Mises.org mentioning plans to come over to RonPaulForums to convert minarchist to anarchists. Interestingly enough, you were in that thread too.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx

LibertyEagle, interestingly enough - my posts in that thread are near exact replicas of word for words posts I had made here, prior to the creation of that thread. Funnily enough, when I wrote that exact post I had YOU in mind as the number 2 two of minarchist. The intellectually dishonest and close minded type.

If you go look at my early posts here in this forum, I arrived largely ignorant of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. I came from the DailyPaul. Keep diggin'.
 
He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD! :D

If you are Christian, you believe EVERYONE has a direct line to God.

But I don't even get your point with threads like this, because no one here, whether they believe in God or not, thinks Ron Paul is God. And wouldn't just change our entire philosophy because he did. We'd have to agree with it. We support him because we agree with him, and because of his remarkable consistency and integrity. We don't worship him.
 
Last edited:
Yeah Trav, most of RP's quotes in the video come from his latest book. Keep trying. It's explicitly clear. I think that's what the governments role SHOULD BE too. Whether IT ACTUALLY IS or NOT is a completely different question. And Ron Paul provides those answers.

I respect the constitution compared to what we have now. RP talking about individuals and government, yeah self-government :cool:

Quotes and Audio Clips


0:04-0:09 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

0:07-0:11 - audio from Ron Paul at the MSNBC debate, 3rd May 2007. Full video.

0:11-0:16 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.

0:26-0:29 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

0:31-0:42 - quote from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

0:46-1:39 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

2:00-2:05 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

2:07-2:12 - quote from Lew Rockwell in an interview for The Liberal Post.

2:21-2:38 - quote from Murray Rothbard: In Memoriam chapter by Ron Paul.

2:40-2:52 - quote from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

2:53-3:25 - quote from Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician by Murray Rothbard.

4:46-4:49 - audio from Ron Paul interview with Adam Kokesh for Adam vs. The Man. Full video

4:46-4:53 - quote from Freedom Under Siege by Ron Paul.

4:55-5:03 - quote and audio from The Arena with Eliot Spitzer, CNN, 13th May 2011. Full video.

5:06-5:13 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

5:11-5:20 - audio of Ron Paul being interviewed for Motorhome Diaries. Full video.

5:22-5:32 - quote from What is to be done? - 1961 Confidential Memorandum to the Volker Fund by Murray Rothbard.

5:37-5:41 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.

5:42-5:44 - audio from Ron Paul and Rand Paul interview by Neil Cavuto. Full video.

5:42-5:47 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

5:57-6:02 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

6:03-6:07 - quote from End The Fed by Ron Paul.

6:13-6:21 - quote from No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.

6:20-6:33 - quote and audio from question posed to Ron Paul after his speech at the New Hampshire Lincoln-Regan Dinner, 25th March 2011. Full video.

6:23-6:33 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

6:41-6:48 - audio of Ron Paul being interviewed for Motorhome Diaries. Full video.

6:57-7:08 - audio of Ron Paul's speech at the Rally for the Republic. Full video.

7:07-7:29 - quote from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

7:27-7:36 - audio from CNN Presidential Debate, 5th June 2007. Full video.

7:38-7:47 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.
 
"The most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues."

That is literally his advice when asked what activists should do.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

:D
 
I'm sure Ron has been hugely impacted by both Classical Liberal/Constitutionalist and Voluntaryist thinkers, much as a lot of us have been. Both variant groups of the liberty message are vitally necessary to the wider movement, and bring a lot to the table. For example, without the Voluntaryists, the liberty movement might become rudderless and lose its primary guiding principle (the NAP). But without the Minarchists, us intransigent no-gov't folks would just scare the Hell out of everybody and make few converts. :D
 
Ok, this is a total nitpick Conza, but how do we know that Nock was a Voluntaryist? I know he wasn't overly fond of the Constitution, however he never really displayed any knowledge of polycentric legal systems. The same could be said for Boetie.

This is the most in depth video on this yet and I love it, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind here.
 
And you could benefit from actually listening to Ron Paul.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=324s

"The most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues."

That is literally his advice when asked what activists should do.


Out of context quote. There isn't a period on the end of that sentence. Also, please listen to the entire answer, not just the pieces that you want to use for your own purposes.
 
I'm sure Ron has been hugely impacted by both Classical Liberal/Constitutionalist and Voluntaryist thinkers, much as a lot of us have been. Both variant groups of the liberty message are vitally necessary to the wider movement, and bring a lot to the table. For example, without the Voluntaryists, the liberty movement might become rudderless and lose its primary guiding principle (the NAP). But without the Minarchists, us intransigent no-gov't folks would just scare the Hell out of everybody and make few converts. :D
qft. There's enough room in this movement for everyone, IMO.
 
didn't read thread. Just wanted to say that, yes, people learn their ideas from external sources, but how they put them together has a lot to do with a person's character. So although citing thinkers who have influenced Ron Paul is good, we should never think that a person is the sum of what they have studied.

Intellectual learning =/= wisdom
 
Ok, this is a total nitpick Conza, but how do we know that Nock was a Voluntaryist? I know he wasn't overly fond of the Constitution, however he never really displayed any knowledge of polycentric legal systems. The same could be said for Boetie.

This is the most in depth video on this yet and I love it, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind here.

I didn't make the video, but get credit for finding a lot of the quotes - along with Wesker and Nielsio.

I will quote from elsewhere, where I have addressed Nock.

Of similarity to Nock, that's what he called himself. I wasn't referring to the wiki which lists them. Anyway, it's not too clear, because Nock uses the word anarchist etc to describe himself:

"Likewise, also, when occasion required that I should label myself with reference to particular social theories or doctrines, the same decent respect for accuracy led me to describe myself as an anarchist, an individualist, and a single-taxer."
....
"The single tax impressed me as the most equitable and convenient way of paying the cost of such matters as can be done better collectively than individually. As a matter of natural right it seemed to me that as individually created values should belong to the individual, so socially created values should belong to society, and that the single tax was the best method of securing both the individual and society in the full enjoyment of their respective rights. To the best of my knowledge these two propositions have never been successfully controverted. There were other considerations, too, which made the single tax seem the best of all fiscal systems, but it is unnecessary to recount them here.

Probably I ought to add that I never entered on any crusade for these beliefs or sought to persuade anyone into accepting them. Education is as much a matter of time as of anything else, perhaps more, and I was well aware that anything like a general realization of this philosophy is a matter of very long time indeed."

But again, didn't quite get there - i.e single tax.. and his opinion of no need to crusade etc, is probably similar to Herbert Spencers conception and that of Walter Block's about society slowly advancing socially [probably haven't characterized that right]. In any case, Mises was probably much closer - but this is where the radicalness and worth part comes in, Mises didn't violate Rothbard's law... [specialise in what you are worst at i.e Friedman and money] and neither did Nock. All you hear from Nock is how evil the state is.. it's one of the first books I read, real radical - and I never really got the impression he wasn't fully there.

"So I recon it'd be more accurate to kind of call him a "philosophical anarchist" like Albert J. Nock, as opposed to a minarchist or supporter of "government" because he is far better than the classical liberals or other minarchists today.. who don't advocate individual or even anything close to village secession at all."

Rothbard said:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.[/FONT]

:)
 

Again, is that meant to be some kind of refutation? :confused:

Because if so, you are fundamentally demented if you think I disagree with politician action entirely. Get a grip on reality LE. It still stands that according to Ron Paul, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is understanding the philosophy, secondary etc comes other types of action.

Or do you deny the logic to this? Yuh huh. What was the last book you read about Austrian economics, or libertarianism LE? And when was that? 1970, right?
 
Again, is that meant to be some kind of refutation? :confused:

Because if so, you are fundamentally demented if you think I disagree with politician action entirely. Get a grip on reality LE. It still stands that according to Ron Paul, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is understanding the philosophy, secondary etc comes other types of action.

Or do you deny the logic to this? Yuh huh. What was the last book you read about Austrian economics, or libertarianism LE? And when was that? 1970, right?

man, fuck you. be respectful or shut the fuck up.
 
Back
Top