Ron Paul's Legacy

Andrew,

I’m not sure how much the Paul supporters deluded themselves into beleiving they can change the system, I think that Paul himself may have done that. His rhetoric is/was all about constitutional government and the US Constitution in general. A lot of people who became Paul supporters were apathetic non-political individuals, or independents/borderline party supporters. They weren’t coming from a position of political awareness that the system has nearly unstoppable beureaucratic momentum. They were coming from the mainstream “every vote counts, democracy works” position. Paul knew this, and I don’t blame him for using the rhetoric. If someone tried to get mainstream coverage by telling people not to vote but to actively subvert the existing system, and the Constitution itself, it would have gone absolutely nowhere.

The good news is that I think a good chunk of supporters have come around and realize that the political system is hopeless, but that doesn’t mean the movement is dead. I’ve been going to freedom rallies/events around Philadelphia since 2009 or so, and have watched as a lot of Paul supporters became disinchanted with the political process. That doesn’t mean they gave up, just that they realized that Paul was more important as an educational figurehead rather than some hope of salvation. The real work is ahead of us.

I stick to my position from way back on the C4L forums in 2009 when Tom Woods called me a drone–before he was an anarchist, and he’s since admitted that he was wrong then.

Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty is limited constitutional government. That’s his legacy.

He should have spent a months training with Stefan Molyneux, learning how to present solid arguments for anarchism, learning how to debate. Instead, he argued publicly for liberty-as-government, and mislead an entire generation of people. The fact that some of us came to be anarchists is a fine coincidence, but RP isn’t a principled immovable superhero, rather he’s just a politician–that is, ultimately he was only comfortable saying what he thought people were comfortable hearing. It’s purely his fault he didn’t consult Molyneux on how to present anarchist arguments to the masses.

“Ron Paul had a unique chance in history, and he used it to convince the widest potential audience for anarchism that liberty islimited constitutional government. That’s his legacy.”

Liberty is. It is not government that creates liberty. Liberty exists separately from government. Government can only befuddle it. Frankly I’m done with the hero worship for people like Adam Kokesh or Stefan Molyneux or Tom Woods. They are just people, with their own ideas and their own methods. They are not paragons. They do not need to be consulted. This is exactly what has/is going to happen with the Ron Paul movement. You make a paragon and when he is gone the the moral dies. That is why you hear all this talk now of trying to continue “the revolution,” because everything was about Ron Paul. They made the personality more important then the ideas. That’s why Republicans still worship Reagan. They made an idol and nothing else can live up to it. One would question if they really want something to stand up to it or if they are content with the pure nostalgia of the past.

By the way, this is a general comment but why is constitutional government “limited?” Compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a radical divergence of “limited.” The funny thing is that people celebrate this! God what lies people have been feed about the revolutionary period. It is grossly overromanticized.

"By the way, this is a general comment but why is constitutional government “limited?” Compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a radical divergence of “limited.” The funny thing is that people celebrate this! God what lies people have been feed about the revolutionary period. It is grossly overromanticized. "

This isn’t what people think of when they celebrate the constitution, but I’ve always thought that the constitution did one thing do really promote liberty which was to guarantee certain rights regardless of what individual states would have done. It also prevented the troubling possibility of direct conflict between the states themselves.

:This isn’t what people think of when they celebrate the constitution, but I’ve always thought that the constitution did one thing do really promote liberty which was to guarantee certain rights regardless of what individual states would have done. It also prevented the troubling possibility of direct conflict between the states themselves.:

Define these “certain rights” and give examples of possible conflicts between states which would be resolved by the 1780s version of the Constitution

Well this is according to Wikipedia buuttt

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
- [Second Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – [Militia (United States)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)), Sovereign state, [Right to keep and bear arms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms).
*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*[[60]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-59)
- [Third Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection from [quartering](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Act) of troops.
*No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.*
- [Fourth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection from unreasonable [search and seizure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure).
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no [Warrants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)) shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*
- [Fifth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – [due process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process), [double jeopardy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy), [self-incrimination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination), [eminent domain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain).
*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a [Grand Jury](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Jury), except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.*
- [Sixth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – [Trial by jury](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury) and [rights of the accused](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_the_accused); [Confrontation Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause), [speedy trial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial), [public trial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trial), [right to counsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel)
*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.*
- [Seventh Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – [Civil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(common_law)) trial by jury.
*In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.*
- [Eighth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Prohibition of [excessive bail](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excessive_bail) and [cruel and unusual punishment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment).
*Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*
- [Ninth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*
- [Tenth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Powers of States and people.
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*

As an external (though interested) observer this is my comment.

If you like me believe the goals of his campaigns were to increase awareness in limited constitutional government, sound money politics and individual liberties, they were a smashing success. I dare to say nobody in the world has done more for these causes than Ron Paul in the last two decades: people from all other world have listened to his message because, plainly put, they have nobody else to turn to. They either have the usual crop of “local Republicans” or anarcho-capitalists and libertarians who often struggle to appear sane, let alone make convincing arguments. Ron Paul taught them not only these values are right and should be defended, but you may also sound like a rational person while doing so.

Ron Paul was the first to know he had no chance of winning a nomination and, since he has served so long, he probably also expected the damnatio memoriae he’s been subjected to. Yes, the Republicans’ ridiculous measures to minimize his success are despicable but they also showed everybody what they really stand for. Yes, the press has gone to incredible lengths to demonize or ignore him but in doing so it revealed itself for the gang of lackeys and crooked liars it really is: we don’t need Big Media anymore. We can use our computers or cellphones, type “Ron Paul news” in the search window and start reading. It takes less than going to your living room and turn on the TV, let alone go outside a buy a newspaper.

The big problem right now is, of course, Ron Paul will retire shortly from his long and honorable political career. He will remain highly influential but he has deserved some rest. Who will take up the challenge? While there are more pro-liberty writers, scholars and thinkers than we could imagine just fifteen years ago, there’s a lack of a charismatic public figure, a figure people can rally behind. Ron Paul was the perfect man for the job: his sombre dignity and restrained rhetoric the example of how we should behave in public. We have enough flamboyant self-proclaimed savers already. We don’t need them: our ideals don’t promote salvation through a superior ideal, be it political, economical or religious. We just want to be free to make our own success or failure history without behind hindered and lectured at any turn.

I understand this a very tough challenge: by nature people attracted to liberty ideals tend to become businessmen, entrepreneurs, doctors, farmers etc. And rightly so: those are the sectors where you can build your success with your own hands. Politics is seen as tainted and as possessing a corrupting influence: I have seen a few promising figure going down the path of Saruman from The Lord of the Rings. It takes an extraordinary man to both survive this taint and remain a beacon of hope for millions. Who’s up for the challenge?

@LogisticEarth No, we need someone who will actually stand up to feminism.

  • @LogisticEarth No, we need someone who will actually stand up to feminism.

Please define what feminism is, because I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about. Many feminists persue their goals via statist means, but the general message of feminism jives with much of the liberty movement.

I think you misunderstood me. My point is precisely that liberty ISN’T government, but RP’s legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS “limited constitutional government”.

As for the hero worship, you’re way off. Where did I even get close to worshipping Tom Woods? Or Ron Paul? As for Stefan Molyneux, I recognized him for the value he could have contributed to Ron Paul–that is, SM is a magnificent in the way of presenting knock-down pro-anarchism anti-state arguments in a way that the public can get excited about instead of feeling like they have to challenge him, he’s an incredible salesmen in that regard which is exactly the type of help politicians need, and that’s exactly the type of help RP needed. Nobody is saying RP could only obtain that help from “the superman god Stefan Molyneux”, but SM is rather a great figure that I can think of who could have provided exactly the type of help I feel RP could have used.

"I think you misunderstood me. My point is precisely that liberty ISN’T government, but RP’s legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS “limited constitutional government”.’

Oh I was not misunderstanding you. Just reinforcing what I thought you were saying.

“As for the hero worship, you’re way off. Where did I even get close to worshipping Tom Woods? Or Ron Paul? As for Stefan Molyneux, I recognized him for the value he could have contributed to Ron Paul–that is, SM is a magnificent in the way of presenting knock-down pro-anarchism anti-state arguments in a way that the public can get excited about instead of feeling like they have to challenge him, he’s an incredible salesmen in that regard which is exactly the type of help politicians need, and that’s exactly the type of help RP needed. Nobody is saying RP could only obtain that help from “the superman god Stefan Molyneux”, but SM is rather a great figure that I can think of who could have provided exactly the type of help I feel RP could have used.”

When did I claim you were engaging in hero-worship? I just think that the idea that we need to consult people in order to understand if we are doing something right is erroneous to a certain degree. I mean sure its nice to given/take advice but the mentality that there is a person that one must consult is a bit off putting. If you feel that the RP campaign, in order to win, must have consulted Stefan in some manner then I believe you would fall into this category. However, if you do not think such a thing then you do not fall into that category.

Hell no. If we did nothing more than money bombs for Revolution PAC to send every person on the RP mailing list a few copies of Economics in One Lesson and Bastiat’s The Law, we’d be killing it. But there’s a lot more that can be done than that. Ron Paul really has put classical liberal philosophy back on the radar. He’s made it respectable to talk about these subjects socially and that’s a big, big deal. When you’re at a place where “libertarian” equals “crazy” in general society, you’re really hurting, and that’s where we’ve been since, oh, at least the 1930’s. Ron Paul almost single-handedly undid 80 years of beat-down that libertarianism has been unable to escape despite the inexhaustible efforts of the best and brightest academics, such as Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and many others. They laid the foundation… and Ron Paul has raised the barn. Now, we just need to set up the disco ball and have us a classical liberal shindig… all the statists will become jealous that we’re having so much fun and join up.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Clayton -

RP’s legacy will be that he convinced an entire generational audience of potential anarchists that liberty IS “limited constitutional government”.

I think Kakugo underplays this point, but what better way to create a reaction against the system than to play along with their game? The greatest result of the campaign was to show it’s impossibility. Nobody can see government being limited in the present context any longer.

Perhaps in can be imagined thus: 1. Conflict generates energy → Conflict resolution fails → Refined reaction → back to 1

The ball is swinging back into the court of the anarchists. It’s not entirely obvious, but campaigning for limited goverment did more for anarchism than if he had tried to do so directly. As a side, Ron Paul was reading Rothbard before you were even a twinkle in your father’s eye so a little revernce might be in order. :stuck_out_tongue:

So now it’s official

All you did was post the bill of rights Neo. Are you stating that these rights did not exist before the constitution?

Lot of cool stuff here.

Some thoughts, not sure if it will resonate, I’m a bit Pollyanaish.

Hopefully one of the effects that comes from his campaign is that the followers (millions) will in small numbers grab onto the idea that, the individual members can make a difference. Ron Paul made a difference. I’ve found that there are a lot more people like me, and at minimum I try not to crush the seeds of libertarian thought, even if they’re mired in minarchy or even fiscal conservativsm, but stil socially liberal. Any part of government that can be pushed back, frees us all.

I don’t think the movement has died, though if the question is when did the campaign fail, other’s have pointed out that there’s no way Ron Paul thought he’d win. But I think he actually won more than he probably dreamed of both in 2k8 and in 2k12. The republican party had to actually go on the offensive this time, to push his message out. They had to change the platform to bring in some fiscal issues. There’s also a clearly defined vacuum for strongly conservative fiscal policy, and they have an opportunity to step into it.

If they don’t actually make any changes this next year or so, by the end of 2013 I think you’ll see a much more vocal and angry mass starting to get active. That frightens me somewhat also. It gets even worse if the Fiscal Cliff is hit, the credit rating for the US drops and inflation rises dramatically, all very real possibilities. If that happens, I think you have an opportunity for a third party to come in and upset everything. Very rapidly. I believe a large portion (35-40%) is trying to shoehorn themselves into one party or the other. A truly libertarian platform has the potential to coalesce within a year or 2 if the Republican’s gain power, don’t make serious fiscal changes, and the economy drops like a rock. I’d lay this momentum at the feet of Ron Paul. Not alone, but as the tip of the spear. Perhaps one might call him the lightning rod, but he rests on top of a very deep and very sound foundation. d

Another point, I think we ought to remember Ron Paul is 77. I think he had to decide where to focus the remaining energy he had in this last year of his public service. And his has been service in the best possible way it could be. Late in 2011 and early in 2012 I recall there were some articles about Ron Paul being a bit exhausted and worn down by the whirlwind tour. I don’t think we should underestimate the physical toll on and old man whose passion never waned, but whose body did its best. It may turn out to have been a wise choice to focus instead the energy of this last drive on the Fed Audit, while the chance existed.

Now in terms of the RNC’s underhanded delegate battle, again I think it was a win, not in numbers of delegates, but in the fact that they had to actually fight Paul. Sometimes you win a battle and it costs you more than you win. I hope at minimum that the egregious behavior motivates some to become more active at the local level in fighting for freedom and fiscal conservatism in their local communities.

Someone mentioned the utter futility of fighting the expandning state. I agree that the results in these specific battles to curb government are most likely futile. But it takes courage to fight these battles. And like I said, the battles in and of themselves even when lost convert people.

I’m curious to see the outcome of the 2012 campaign. In 2k8 the roots of the Tea Party were laid in Paul’s grassroots campaign. There are other reasons for it’s rise, and I’m sure none of us here are fans of the warhawk and religious fervor that seems to be a part of the binding force for that movement, but there is a very strong fiscal responsibility tone to the Tea Party. Ron Paul should rightly be considered a huge part of that. But what’s going to rise from 2k12? It would be interesting if we were to see a Tea Party analogue that also embraced civil liberties, were anti-drug war, pro-states rights, still fiscally conservative, but also Peace Loving “isolationists.” I don’t think it’s far-fetched to imagine this might happen.

Finally, in terms of Ron Paul’s love of constitutional government. I’ve read his works on Lew Rockwell.com. I don’t buy it. I’ve always thought of the constitution as a line in the sand that he could point to as a rule of law which we’d abandoned. I always took his message as “Shouldn’t we at least head back that way?” If Lew loved him, and the impression from Lew is that he does, I just can’t believe Ron’s not a Rothbardian ancap. Last point about his apparent love for constitutional government. I don’t believe that Ron would ever publicly speak out against the document he’s sword to protect and defend. And the line in the sand that he has, is sufficient to point the direction the country needs to go.

Anyway, I’m disappointed and a bit dismayed, but the youth are involved. I may not like Paul Ryan on some of his issues, but dammit he’s my age… And his ideas in fiscal issues at least sound libertarian.

Last point about hero worship.

Heroes are to me those who handle themselves with dignity and grace, who prod us and poke us to stand up look around and think. To embrace our personal power in our daily lives and especially in our intellectual life.

We should not worship, but I’ll always hold a special place in my heart for every man who stood up and encouraged me to think for myself, and to embrace freedom.

We hold Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in high regard for their courage to fight those very battles. We hold them up as standards of independence and courage. They are the John Galt’s in many ways of our society. Murray Rothbard, Mises, Hayek they are men who we should hold up not as perfect, or idols, but as examples of the type of men we can become with courage and dignity.

Ron Paul is such a man today. He deserves at minimum respect and honor for his courage, dedication, and tenacity in the face of what must have seemed like futility.

A teacher of mine when I was young, was an alcoholic and got removed from teaching midway through my 4th grade year. But he will always be my favorite teacher. When I was bored and he still had to teach the class, and he couldn’t respond directly to all of my questions, he’d pull me aside and get me to read through and encyclopedia, and right a little something about a topic I was interested in. Do I worship him? No, but I’m grateful for how he encouraged me to be curious, without trying to crush my spirit and my passion. Those are the kinds of men I hold in high esteem.

This is off topic of OP, but read through this…

“Can anyone else spot the hilarious irony?”

I left a hint.

Yeah, I tried to go back and edit…

Maybe if I’d paid more attention in class :slight_smile:

Jefferson embrace freedom? Jefferson was a disgusting hypocrite who created the idea of the “Empire of Liberty.” Did you think Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of spreading democracy and American values by himself? A pox on Jefferson for giving us the empire we know today.