Ron Paul: “There’s a Limit to How Much Independence You Can Get Away With.”

Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Posted in category Uncategorized

Turn to 2:45 of the video and watch.

Now, as people know, I have supported and admired much of what Ron Paul has done, especially his passionate writings and his ways of educating Joe Blow. Yet people also know that I say what is, and I don’t care who I “offend,” who I piss off, or what future “engagements” I might blow by taking people on and standing on principled ground. I am an independent, so I don’t have to kiss anybody’s royal behind, nor do I have to fit into their philosophical framework to be a part of their think tank or website. That’s the way I like it. I let my occupation fund my passion, and therefore I go onward, owing no one in the world of libertarianism. What a wonderful thing.

But Ron Paul has proven what I have always said: all politics is coercion. It’s just one person’s (kinder and gentler) coercion versus the other guy’s brand. Now Ron Paul is not a statist – of course. But he has made his point here, and a lot of libertarians don’t like it.

If you want to see a long string of comments on this video, go to my Facebook page (Karen De Coster) and look at the post and ensuing comments. Very interesting.

I will still admire Paul’s massive body of tremendous work, but I will always call out these moments and bring necessary attention to them. Paul has not only told us, here, that Republican politics own him, but the attitude he conveys is callous, and, what’s with the sniggering?

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

15 Responses to Ron Paul: “There’s a Limit to How Much Independence You Can Get Away With.”

  1. Richie says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 12:34 am

    I completely agree with you on this. I have never quite understood the fascination with and worship of Ron Paul. Yes, he represents Austrian economics well, but he is still a politician. This is the one area in which I am disappointed with Lew Rockwell. Lew constantly criticizes voting (as do I), but yet he incessantly pushes the candidacies of Ron for president, Rand Paul, and Peter Schiff. These men would better serve the movement for liberty and freedom by not partaking in the corrupt system.

  2. Dean says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 9:25 am

    The Free State Project is starting to look more and more inviting. I know I’m ready to pack up the family and move. Nothing going on where I’m at.

  3. Jeremiah says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 11:56 am

    That was disappointing to hear. I remember in ’07 when Paul was confronted in an interview (Stephanopolus maybe) where they asked him why is it that he votes no on spending bills yet inserts plenty of “goodies” for his district. He gets to play it both ways. Paul countered by saying his job was to get back his district some of the income tax money they put in..kind of a stretch.

  4. Bob says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Amen, Richie.

  5. liberranter says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Karen, I not only echo Richie’s sentiments here, but will add to them: SHAME ON RON PAUL! This is not the first time he has “played ball” with the rest of the rotten, corrupt, criminal GOP establishment in order to curry favor for God-only-knows-what reason. I cannot imagine that he would gain anything of value to the cause of liberty, other than retaining his congressional seat for its own sake, by doing so. And I hope I don’t continue to hear some variation of that trite and condescending saw “you gotta get dirty if you play with the pigs” line, especially from “libertarians” who ought to know better! If Ron isn’t going to consistently stand and act on the principles to which he pays lip service, if he’s going to put his own political career ueber alles, then who needs him? There are 434 other criminal scumbags on Crapitol Hill who do that already, so what’s one more?

    Liberty lovers aren’t interested in career politicians or what they have to say as long as they play along with the status quo or conduct business as usual inside Rome-on-the-Potomac, and that’s where Ron Paul seems to be heading. Good God, that’s what got us into the mess we’re in now, and having another Establishment hack “on the inside” serves no purpose whatsoever in advancing the restoration of freedom and limited government.

    My recommendation: Bombard Ron’s congressional website, inbox, and snailmail box with tart reminders of what side his political bread is buttered on! If he wants to play GOP Insider, then he can try doing it without libertarian support. Since all that distinguishes him from any Establishment officegrabber is his lip service (f not actual service) to liberty, his changes of maintaining his seat will likely vanish without the support he has now. Collective outrage by his libertarian base ought to wake him up, and QUICKLY!

  6. Chris G says:

    January 20th, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Well, politics always represents devil’s choices for libertarians.  What’s better?  Getting SOME representation of our views into the choices the political decision makers or NONE?  Compromise is the nature of the beast in politics except in dictatorship.  I don’t blame purists for not wanting to sully their hands…..but I also don’t blame those who choose to participate.

  7. Splash Daddy says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I have to agree with Chris G on this. I voted for Ron Paul as a Libertarian in 1988. Ultimately, Ron Paul made the decision to join the GOP because he believed he could have more of an impact long-term as a member of the GOP than as a Libertarian. The emperical evidence to date indicates this has been a correct decision. Prior to the 2008 primaries, who other than Libertarians had even heard of Ron Paul? Who exposed Rudy Guiliani to be a complete fraud on the debate stage? Of all the Dem/Rep candidates, who other than Paul brought the concept of “blowback” as a consequence to US foreign policy into the debate? Had anyone seriously pushed for an audit of the Fed?

    Ron Paul is but one man fighting against Leviathon. He’s not an angel or a saint – he’s a human being. By choosing to join an organization one also accepts you are part of a team and cannot demand every issue go your way. He honestly answered why he is supporting who he is. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Political strategy is about advancing incrementally to build a foundation upon which future gains can be made. It is not an exercise in idealogical purity nor is it mearly a debating club.

    Speaking of Libertarians, did you vote for Bob Barr? As a federal prosecutor and congressman he was an anti-drug zealot if there ever was one. Now that the para-military police state to combat “drugs” has been constructed, he suddenly “sees the light” and becomes libertarian?

  8. liberranter says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Chris, the problem with the “half a loaf is better than none” philosophy, especially when it comes to politics, is that the idealist who compromises on his principles eventually finds that he’s given the entire loaf away! That’s the problem with the current rotten, corrupt system that operates inside that den of corruption euphemistically known as Rome-on-the-Potomac. In order to gain ANY ground whatsoever, those of a reform-minded bent feel that they have to go with the flow and not rock the boat. What happens then is that the very rotten system that these idealists seek to reform winds up completely co-opting them and they quickly become just another part of the problem.

    Where Ron Paul is concerned, my own opinion is that I couldn’t care less if he didn’t get a single piece of legislation successfully passed or didn’t bring a single dollar of stolen pork back to his district. AFAIC, his greatest effect on that cesspool called Congress would be to serve as a contrarian viral infection, a bone in its collective throat, a perennial troublemaker that gums up the works (a.k.a. “business as usual”) as much as his limited presence and resources allow. If nothing else, let him make symbolic gestures of defiance against the majority! On that subject, rather than pandering pathetically to his base by urging them to endorse one of Texas’s rotten incumbents (the despicable Lamar Smith, in whose district I had the displeasure of residing for his first two-year term of office), Paul needs to be building an army of like-minded fellow representatives. Rather than endorsing a man who has done everything in his power to undermine everything that Paul (supposedly) stands for, he needs to be putting his money where his political mouth is by stumping non-stop for Stephen Schoppe, the challenger to Smith’s congressional seat and a man who shares Paul’s (supposed) core values.

    Bottom line: It’s time for Ron Paul to step up to the plate and REALLY put his money where his mouth is, DAMN THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES TO HIMSELF! Otherwise, he’s just another professional politician fraud!

    (BTW and FWIW, I intend to send a hardcopy letter to Paul’s congressional office detailing not only my extreme disappointment in his performance in the aforementioned video clip, but reminding him of what his base is, how he is perceived by millions of liberty-loving Americans, and that he has a choice of either being a principled man of liberty and limited government or a self-serving politician hypocrite – there is no middle ground!. Sure, no one on Paul’s staff, let alone he himself, will ever likely read it, but he needs to receive such messages in tremendous number to let him know that he is not God and that any betrayal of his libertarian ideals will cost him. He WILL be held accountable!)

  9. Shayne says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction. That’s the best you can get in politics–steps. Ron Paul has overwhelmingly added steps in the right direction. So it’s easy to support him unreservedly, even while disagreeing with some of his ideas.

    I really don’t see what you are complaining about.

  10. Shayne says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Liberrants, Ron Paul is no more compromising his principles when he made the agreement to “endorse” (if you can call what Ron Paul did an “endorsement”) republicans than you or I are compromising ours when we pay our income tax. He made a judgement call just as you or I do concerning what Leviathan would and would not let him get away with. It’s a folly to second-guess what appears to have been a reasonable call on his part.

  11. Alex says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Karen, I applaud you for being independent and outspoken in taking Ron Paul and Schiff to task. I don’t vote and try to avoid politics, but I always keep Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” first and foremost in my mind when it comes to anyone being trumpeted by the political masses—even if that candidate is “libertarian,” “free market conservative,” blah blah blah. As with Jeremiah, I started looking at Paul cross-eyed when he defended earmarks in the guise of “getting tax dollars back.” I hope that they don’t drop you from, but even if they do, so be it; we’ve got your web address to keep coming back to!

  12. Karen De Coster says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    Alex, funny you mention that book. Butler Shaffer and I were in a bookstore in Stillwater, Minnesota a couple or months ago, and we came across an old (expensive first edition) copy of that book. Butler said I _have to_ read it. I just recently ordered a real cheap copy from Amazon.

  13. liberranter says:

    January 21st, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Liberrants, Ron Paul is no more compromising his principles when he made the agreement to “endorse” (if you can call what Ron Paul did an “endorsement”) republicans than you or I are compromising ours when we pay our income tax.

    Wrong analogy, Shayne. You and I pay our income taxes only because we face confiscation of our assets, imprisonment, both, or worse if we don’t – in other words, violence at the hands of the State. The worst thing Paul faces if he sticks to his principles and swim against the cesspool’s current is the loss of his congressional seat. And yes, he is endorsing Lamar Smith. If urging his base in West Central Texas to vote for Smith isn’t endorsing (pay particular attention to definition number 2) that candidate, then I don’t know how else you would define the word.

  14. Shayne says:

    January 22nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Actually my analogy is spot-on: we all get violence at the hands of the state except when we can stop it through legislation. If you are going to ban all principled men from politics by setting up impossible conditions on which they should participate, then you are delivering us into even more slavery. Ron Paul, and every one of us, is under duress from the demand: either change the law, or be raped by it. There’s nothing wrong with trying to change the law.

    And no, I don’t consider what Ron Paul gave an “endorsement”, because it is obvious to anyone who knows what Ron Paul believes that he doesn’t endorse anyone, he endorses principles. Particularly when he as much as declares that he’s only “endorsing” because he’s under duress.

  15. Tomás says:

    January 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    I don’t like this development, but frankly it’s not surprising. I’m just amused by everyone’s responses: from those who thought that Paul was their personal Moses and are horrified to find out that sausages are made in the first place let alone HOW they’re made, to the fellow anarchists/voluntaryists calling for the poor guy’s head on a silver platter.

    Ron Paul did something bad. Horribly bad? No, but bad for our perfect standards. NEWSFLASH: Politicians aren’t perfect! The whole endrun of politics, especially national, is horse-trading and cutting deals. let Ron be what he is 99% of the time: a thorn in the establishment’s side and a gateway drug to get mainstream republicans (eventually) onto anarchism.

Leave a Reply