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

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.

The real thing:<p><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-address-to-congress/article/2513544" rel="nofollow">http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-...</a><p>Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot.

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.<p>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.

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

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.

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.<p>They would compromise because it's just impossible to do otherwise.<p>IMO, they have a lot of great ideas that Reps and Dems don't even consider (which is why they probably label Libs "crazy").

"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."<p>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.

The video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E</a>

<i>"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.”"</i><p>-- Lee Atwater's Secret Decoder Ring for Conservative Doubletalk<p><a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...</a>

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

"...why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation"<p>The internet just gets switched off or blocked in some instances, we've all seen it before. China, Iran, Egypt.<p>You don't control the infrastructure or the pipe in, the government does.<p>Even here in South Africa, I wonder at which point they will switch it off. It's not ours.

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?

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.<p>Don&#x27;t let Washington hit your ass on the way out.

Way to pander to Reddit.