Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Ron Paul's Farewell Speech live. Watch now!

rated by 0 users
This post has 48 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous Posted: Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:32 PM

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:35 PM

OH MY GOD. He just said we don't need a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:41 PM

He said the government should have the power to prevent foreign aggression, but everything else he's saying is boilerplate AnCap.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:42 PM

Just started watching it now. Is there anyway to see the beginning as well? Or am I stuck missing it because it's live?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:44 PM

Yeah, you're stuck. :P

You'll have to wait an entire like 2 hours.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:45 PM

According to dailypaul.com, we'll be able to watch it later on youtube.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:45 PM

HE JUST USED THE SPOONER ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:52 PM

I love how he keeps driving home the NAP.

HA HE DID IT AGAIN! The government is an aggressive monopoly. *THUMBS UP*

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

which spooner argument?  seemed to me spooner had to do a lot of arguing in his life.

on gov in general?

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:55 PM

HA IN YOUR FACE EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM WHO GAVE ME CRAP FOR THE GOLDEN RULE!

Go Ron Paul! Golden Rule FTW

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:57 PM

Here he makes at the end, the speech he should have made at the beginning.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:58 PM

That's okay, he word dropped voluntaryism.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:00 PM

Grant - it's that either the Constitution was never created to restrict government, or that it was and that it has been completely ineffective. Either way, it's doesn't deserve to exist.

Well, RP didn't quite say that - he just said that it had failed. And that a constitution is pointless unless people believe in Non-Aggression.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:00 PM

Absolutely beautiful.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:00 PM

gotlucky - you beat me to it! ARGH!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:02 PM

lol Wheylous, that's what you get for helping Grant. No good deed goes unpunished.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

All I can see is Nancy Palosi talking about women in Congress! WTF?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:06 PM

Here is the transcript of Paul's farewell address.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:07 PM

Yeah, it's over.

Or, rather, it's just beginning ;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Damn it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:10 PM

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:11 PM

Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:12 PM

initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:13 PM

 

It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority

George Ought to Help, anyone?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:16 PM

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:20 PM

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

And yet look at all of the horrible wars caused over religion.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

SkepticalMetal:

And yet look at all of the horrible wars caused over religion.

 

What wars?

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 2:55 PM

Therefore the Golden Rule is wrong. Thus the NAP is wrong too.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

@ gotlucky

I'm a little curious to know what you're getting at.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 3:01 PM

Why bring up wars caused by individuals regarding religion? What relevance does it have to the quote by Ron Paul?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Eh, it was just a thought.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 3:08 PM

Then I guess my comment was irrelevant.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4161883

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 305
Points 7,165

Lovely.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 7,345
Fephisto replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 4:52 PM

Mother of god...Conza was right...

Latest Projects

"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 257
Points 5,000

Yeah, he's against the government initiating violence. It doesn't mean he thinks that the government's existence is initiation of force. The government can exist and only do defensive things. He gives several (though flawed) examples of this (eg.  America before 1913).

And people shouldn't blow Dr. Paul's mentioning of "voluntarism" out of proportion. It's not code for anarchy. Why would he talk about the proper role of government and at the same time advocate statelessness? Libertarians shouldn't be the ones distorting history. Paul was not an anarchist.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Well...in Revolutionary Catalonia, there were anarchist politicians...so perhaps he is indeed an anarcho-capitalist who just isn't an Agorist (in other words, he believes in using politics to minimize and ultimately abolish the state).

Come on Ron, you can't hang around Rothbard and Rockwell all of those years and not be one.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 6:34 PM

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 8:21 PM

QC - the definition of government could be debated. Either way, he's most certainly at least a minarchist. And if he doesn't want to say he's an anarchist, he certainly points any listeners in that direction. If a young kid hears the speech and decides all initiation of aggression is bad, if he learns in a year or so that defense must also be aggressive due to taxation, he will already have this basis of the NAP and convert more easily. I can imagine this being RP's parting gift to the libertarian movement.

Anyway, even if he is just a minarchist - DUDE! There's a minarchist in the government! Not for long, but he's there.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (49 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS