13 ms·

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

159 points by relampago 14y ago

mixmastamyk 14y ago
The real thing: http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-address-to-congress/article/2513544 http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-... Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot.
- wyclif 14y ago
  Keep in mind this was his Farewell Address. He was going to get his licks in, esp. that bit about "psychopathic authoritarians" (which I took to include the other members of Congress). There was absolutely no reason or incentive for him to make it shorter than the allotted time he had. Ron Paul is the only US politician I've ever wanted to cross the street for. I'm hoping his youth movement produces more leaders who value freedom and liberty as much as he does.
  - thesagan 14y ago
    He's one of the few politicians of that caliber where I think he's both batshit crazy while being a force for good (?) in the public sphere. I don't really know what to make of the man.
    - kmfrk 14y ago
      He has a voting record to judge him by, for what it's worth.
    - wyclif 14y ago
      Precisely what part of Ron Paul's policies are "batshit crazy", hmmm? Which policies, specifically? Not wanting to fund wars and nation-building in other countries? Not picking sides in foreign revolutions, operating drone wars in other countries, assassinating American citizens and maintaining a secret "kill list" without any congressional approval? Wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay? Vetoing legislation that is unconstitutional and which violates our civil rights like the PATRIOT Act and NDAA? Not wanting to maintain the security theater that is TSA? Hell, if that's batshit crazy, then sign me up. In fact, open up one of my veins and mainline it right into my bloodstream. Because if that's crazy, America needs more of it instead of the status quo "sanity" that results in $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, TARP, banker bailouts, Dodd-Frank, corporate welfare, the failed drug war, and continued violation of the civil liberties of ordinary citizens.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Politicians lie. The more you agree with them, the closer you should be looking.
        rhizome 14y ago
        Yes, I should have known better than to comment on an HN political thread.
      - astrange 14y ago
        When your policy is to oppose absolutely everything, it sure is easy to make it sound good by listing unpopular policies, since those happen to be part of 'everything'. But I somehow doubt that policy would stay the same if there was more than one (or now zero) of him. And I happen to like public roads, safety regulations, and currency that doesn't deflate.
      - Steko 14y ago
        Cherry pick the relatively popular policies and anyone can look reasonable. You want batshit? Getting rid of the Fed. Repealing the Civil Rights Act. Global warming denialism. Getting rid of clean air and water standards. Seizing the Panama Canal. There's no shortage of batshit insane ideas when you go down Ron Paul's rabbit hole.
        wyclif 14y ago
        Getting red of the Fed is crazy? Wow. And a lot of those aren't policies, you know. You still haven't told me what policies I wrote about above are objectionable to you, and not preferable to the status quo. You like the drug war? NDAA? Patriot Act? Massive debt and unfunded liabilities? Corporate welfare and bank bailouts? Constant war and policing of the globe? Secret kill lists? FBI raids of dairy farmers? Rendition and torture? Please explain to me how voting for Obama or Romney (and thus their support of those policies) is not crazy in comparison to Paul's policies. After you do that, I'll continue this conversation, but not before.
        14y ago
  - mtgx 14y ago
    Hopefully the Republicans let the libertarians take over the party by the next election, as that would probably be the only thing to make the Republican look good again. Otherwise, good riddance for the Republican party.
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      Do you have evidence that any form of libertarianism has a meaningful amount of support? And can it contend with the stigma developed by the insane and vocal form most people have seen?
  - mixmastamyk 14y ago
    The reason would be the message would be communicated better. I got lost in a few places down the page. This length might be better as the first few chapters of a book.
- ataggart 14y ago
  He's certainly letting his voluntarist-anarchist flag fly: "What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state. No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do."
  - rayiner 14y ago
    These days, the most profitable ways to violate other people don't involve physical aggression. But as someone who makes a living based on people trying to screw other people over, I don't think the need for government to reign in such behavior is any less now than it ever was.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    "What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but I am a believer in the Enlightenment and the social contract. When a regime of property has grown unbearable to the people, it is the right of the people together to abolish it and free themselves of its burden. Whereas Ron Paul would say that anyone wishing for even the slightest alteration of existing property arrangements is exercising the "offensive use of force." No, we are simply withdrawing force once exercised because we no longer approve its usage. You are not entitled to a police force that defends your plantations, factories, mines and, yes, server farms and retail outlets from the angry, starving masses. You receive that defense because you're part of a society that works together and must work for everyone. "Anarcho"-capitalism is in no way anarchist: without hierarchies.
- larsberg 14y ago
  > Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot. If the "John Galt speech" is your baseline, that was brief for a libertarian/objectivist.
pjriot 14y ago
"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." 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.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > 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. On the other hand, the government is also responsible for the existing monopolies that are the biggest threat to net neutrality. So at the end of the day, it goes both ways: both corporations and government can act either in defense of neutrality or to its detriment. No easy answer.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to. Or accelerate it. Don't confuse the ostensible intent of regulation with the actual likely outcome. Stable regulatory regimes are often the most effective venues for collusion in existence.
kroger 14y ago
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Way to pander to Reddit.
- wyclif 14y ago
  Sorry, that's not very compelling. Would you call the thousands of other TechCrunch posts that are auto-submitted to HN "pandering to Reddit"? I regret to inform you that my nerdy Ron Paul advocacy will continue unabated. Reddit has nothing to do with it.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Maybe he's saying Ron Paul was pandering to Reddit. I really can't tell.
    - wyclif 14y ago
      Maybe I put "pandering to Reddit" in quotes to emphasize how ridiculous that is. Maybe people should stop referring to everything they dislike on HN as Reddit-pandering, replete with tinfoil hats.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        Huh. I thought you were quoting. That's usually what quotation marks are used for. My apologies.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Been there recently? Reddit, as far as you can say it "likes" or "dislikes" anything, does not like Paul.
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    Everyone hates him. He's too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservatives.
SpikeDad 14y ago
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. Don't let Washington hit your ass on the way out.
- hypersoar 14y ago
  Can you elaborate? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just haven't followed him enough to know what you're talking about.
  - bithive123 14y ago
    Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764) Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was...), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)
slurgfest 14y ago
"The Internet" is not democratically elected. Why should it have a mandate to defeat what is decided democratically?
- marshray 14y ago
  The internet as an institution is far more democratic than the current US election system. Anyone can exchange ideas online, and better yet, most people do!
  - camus 14y ago
    the internet is a medium ,not an institution.
snitko 14y ago
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.
- astrodust 14y ago
  The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions. I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too easily corrupted to serve the interests of those with power. Ron Paul either lives in some kind of puppies and rainbows small-town world where corporate interests never trump personal liberties, where money doesn't equate to power and relative immunity from prosecution, or he's willing to overlook all that and hold out faith that Libertarianism will somehow change how people iteract. Basically he's the Richard M. Stallman of politicians. Blinded by ideology and ultimately dragging things in the wrong direction.
  - snitko 14y ago
    I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).
    - mbetter 14y ago
      Ugh, I hate haggis.
1123581321 14y ago
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.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Steko 14y ago
"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.”" -- Lee Atwater's Secret Decoder Ring for Conservative Doubletalk http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...
devb0x 14y ago
"...why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation" The internet just gets switched off or blocked in some instances, we've all seen it before. China, Iran, Egypt. You don't control the infrastructure or the pipe in, the government does. Even here in South Africa, I wonder at which point they will switch it off. It's not ours.
jacobsimeon 14y ago
He also says something of a little more substance that, maybe, lines up with the deeper HN sentiment: "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." 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.
curt 14y ago
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. 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.
- rpm4321 14y ago
  Well put. It seems to me that there is a lot of room for a moderate libertarian party, which could sit between the two major parties as a reform-oriented 3rd party. The majority of the electorate is uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating their bedroom activities, and is highly alarmed with the profligate spending and clearly unsustainable entitlement obligations, and is very skeptical of overseas adventurism. If this 3rd party simply co-opted the Democrats social policies and the Republicans fiscal policies, but with a reformist, common sense, moderate-libertarian bent, it could probably win enough seats in Congress to become legislative kingmakers - especially with an electorate as disgruntled as in the last two cycles.
jakeonthemove 14y ago
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. They would compromise because it's just impossible to do otherwise. IMO, they have a lot of great ideas that Reps and Dems don't even consider (which is why they probably label Libs "crazy").
wordplay 14y ago
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?

159 points by relampago 14y ago

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

wyclif 14y ago
Keep in mind this was his Farewell Address. He was going to get his licks in, esp. that bit about "psychopathic authoritarians" (which I took to include the other members of Congress). There was absolutely no reason or incentive for him to make it shorter than the allotted time he had. Ron Paul is the only US politician I've ever wanted to cross the street for. I'm hoping his youth movement produces more leaders who value freedom and liberty as much as he does.
- thesagan 14y ago
  He's one of the few politicians of that caliber where I think he's both batshit crazy while being a force for good (?) in the public sphere. I don't really know what to make of the man.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    He has a voting record to judge him by, for what it's worth.
  - wyclif 14y ago
    Precisely what part of Ron Paul's policies are "batshit crazy", hmmm? Which policies, specifically? Not wanting to fund wars and nation-building in other countries? Not picking sides in foreign revolutions, operating drone wars in other countries, assassinating American citizens and maintaining a secret "kill list" without any congressional approval? Wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay? Vetoing legislation that is unconstitutional and which violates our civil rights like the PATRIOT Act and NDAA? Not wanting to maintain the security theater that is TSA? Hell, if that's batshit crazy, then sign me up. In fact, open up one of my veins and mainline it right into my bloodstream. Because if that's crazy, America needs more of it instead of the status quo "sanity" that results in $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, TARP, banker bailouts, Dodd-Frank, corporate welfare, the failed drug war, and continued violation of the civil liberties of ordinary citizens.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Politicians lie. The more you agree with them, the closer you should be looking.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Yes, I should have known better than to comment on an HN political thread.
    - astrange 14y ago
      When your policy is to oppose absolutely everything, it sure is easy to make it sound good by listing unpopular policies, since those happen to be part of 'everything'. But I somehow doubt that policy would stay the same if there was more than one (or now zero) of him. And I happen to like public roads, safety regulations, and currency that doesn't deflate.
    - Steko 14y ago
      Cherry pick the relatively popular policies and anyone can look reasonable. You want batshit? Getting rid of the Fed. Repealing the Civil Rights Act. Global warming denialism. Getting rid of clean air and water standards. Seizing the Panama Canal. There's no shortage of batshit insane ideas when you go down Ron Paul's rabbit hole.
      - wyclif 14y ago
        Getting red of the Fed is crazy? Wow. And a lot of those aren't policies, you know. You still haven't told me what policies I wrote about above are objectionable to you, and not preferable to the status quo. You like the drug war? NDAA? Patriot Act? Massive debt and unfunded liabilities? Corporate welfare and bank bailouts? Constant war and policing of the globe? Secret kill lists? FBI raids of dairy farmers? Rendition and torture? Please explain to me how voting for Obama or Romney (and thus their support of those policies) is not crazy in comparison to Paul's policies. After you do that, I'll continue this conversation, but not before.
        14y ago
- mtgx 14y ago
  Hopefully the Republicans let the libertarians take over the party by the next election, as that would probably be the only thing to make the Republican look good again. Otherwise, good riddance for the Republican party.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Do you have evidence that any form of libertarianism has a meaningful amount of support? And can it contend with the stigma developed by the insane and vocal form most people have seen?
- mixmastamyk 14y ago
  The reason would be the message would be communicated better. I got lost in a few places down the page. This length might be better as the first few chapters of a book.
ataggart 14y ago
He's certainly letting his voluntarist-anarchist flag fly: "What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state. No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do."
- rayiner 14y ago
  These days, the most profitable ways to violate other people don't involve physical aggression. But as someone who makes a living based on people trying to screw other people over, I don't think the need for government to reign in such behavior is any less now than it ever was.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  "What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but I am a believer in the Enlightenment and the social contract. When a regime of property has grown unbearable to the people, it is the right of the people together to abolish it and free themselves of its burden. Whereas Ron Paul would say that anyone wishing for even the slightest alteration of existing property arrangements is exercising the "offensive use of force." No, we are simply withdrawing force once exercised because we no longer approve its usage. You are not entitled to a police force that defends your plantations, factories, mines and, yes, server farms and retail outlets from the angry, starving masses. You receive that defense because you're part of a society that works together and must work for everyone. "Anarcho"-capitalism is in no way anarchist: without hierarchies.
larsberg 14y ago
> Some great stuff in there, I just wish it was about half its length. Would tighten up the points a lot. If the "John Galt speech" is your baseline, that was brief for a libertarian/objectivist.

pjriot 14y ago

"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." 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.

chimeracoder 14y ago
> 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. On the other hand, the government is also responsible for the existing monopolies that are the biggest threat to net neutrality. So at the end of the day, it goes both ways: both corporations and government can act either in defense of neutrality or to its detriment. No easy answer.
Gormo 14y ago
> Net neutrality is government regulation. It is also the kind of regulation that would prevent the kind of control Paul is referring to. Or accelerate it. Don't confuse the ostensible intent of regulation with the actual likely outcome. Stable regulatory regimes are often the most effective venues for collusion in existence.

kroger 14y ago

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZs9RDj3i7E

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Way to pander to Reddit.

wyclif 14y ago
Sorry, that's not very compelling. Would you call the thousands of other TechCrunch posts that are auto-submitted to HN "pandering to Reddit"? I regret to inform you that my nerdy Ron Paul advocacy will continue unabated. Reddit has nothing to do with it.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Maybe he's saying Ron Paul was pandering to Reddit. I really can't tell.
  - wyclif 14y ago
    Maybe I put "pandering to Reddit" in quotes to emphasize how ridiculous that is. Maybe people should stop referring to everything they dislike on HN as Reddit-pandering, replete with tinfoil hats.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Huh. I thought you were quoting. That's usually what quotation marks are used for. My apologies.
jlgreco 14y ago
Been there recently? Reddit, as far as you can say it "likes" or "dislikes" anything, does not like Paul.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  Everyone hates him. He's too liberal for liberals and too conservative for conservatives.

SpikeDad 14y ago

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. Don't let Washington hit your ass on the way out.

hypersoar 14y ago
Can you elaborate? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just haven't followed him enough to know what you're talking about.
- bithive123 14y ago
  Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBB0868C74B4AA3FA). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764) Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was...), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)

slurgfest 14y ago

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

marshray 14y ago
The internet as an institution is far more democratic than the current US election system. Anyone can exchange ideas online, and better yet, most people do!
- camus 14y ago
  the internet is a medium ,not an institution.

snitko 14y ago

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.

astrodust 14y ago
The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions. I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too easily corrupted to serve the interests of those with power. Ron Paul either lives in some kind of puppies and rainbows small-town world where corporate interests never trump personal liberties, where money doesn't equate to power and relative immunity from prosecution, or he's willing to overlook all that and hold out faith that Libertarianism will somehow change how people iteract. Basically he's the Richard M. Stallman of politicians. Blinded by ideology and ultimately dragging things in the wrong direction.
- snitko 14y ago
  I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).
  - mbetter 14y ago
    Ugh, I hate haggis.

1123581321 14y ago

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.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Steko 14y ago

"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.”" -- Lee Atwater's Secret Decoder Ring for Conservative Doubletalk http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...

devb0x 14y ago

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

jacobsimeon 14y ago

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

curt 14y ago

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. 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.

rpm4321 14y ago
Well put. It seems to me that there is a lot of room for a moderate libertarian party, which could sit between the two major parties as a reform-oriented 3rd party. The majority of the electorate is uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating their bedroom activities, and is highly alarmed with the profligate spending and clearly unsustainable entitlement obligations, and is very skeptical of overseas adventurism. If this 3rd party simply co-opted the Democrats social policies and the Republicans fiscal policies, but with a reformist, common sense, moderate-libertarian bent, it could probably win enough seats in Congress to become legislative kingmakers - especially with an electorate as disgruntled as in the last two cycles.

jakeonthemove 14y ago

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

wordplay 14y ago

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?