Yes, Ron Paul DID call for a revolution

Posted by WWJGD 11 years, 7 months ago to Politics
3 comments | Share | Flag

Posted under "Politics" but I think Ron Paul needs his own Galt's Gulch category. OK, just kidding.

Anyway, I'm still reading & studying the text of his farewell address, but here is the pertinent part to this post. Note the very careful phrasing to avoid breaking the law; yet, the message is clear as a bell:

"Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between."

A little more than halfway down. Mark those words.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by HazelChaser53 11 years, 7 months ago
    I haven't had time to thoroughly read it all, but I skimmed most of it, and what I read suggests that it was a very good speech. I do disagree with one thing, however: that the Constitution has failed. I would agree with this statement, if we were actually following the Constitution. It's like saying capitalism has failed when we are not practicing true capitalism. I think the problem is more that we have failed it, instead of the other way around. John Locke would be disappointed.
    Maybe I misread/misinterpreted. I only skimmed, after all.
    In addition, I'm not sure he was exactly calling for revolution... Well, not a revolutionary war, at least. It sounds more like he's saying that it COULD (and maybe should) happen, if we don't first get our act together. He might just mean revolution in the John Adams sense, "in the hearts and minds of the people." I hope. I don't think a full-out, blood-in-the-streets kind of thing will do us much good...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 years, 7 months ago
      I don't see anything that says the Constitution has failed. Here's what he did say:

      "After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed."

      Not quite the same.

      Other parts of his speech make it clear that he sees adherence to the Constitution as the solution.

      And moral failure as the root of the problem. And he clearly uses Ayn Rand's definition of "moral". Hooray for Dr. Paul!

      He's right: until we once again become a moral people, the Constitution won't matter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by HazelChaser53 11 years, 7 months ago
        Ahh.... Yep. I misread it. Although I can understand my thinking. That particular sentence still makes it sound as though it is not our fault that we are so screwed up, but the inadequacy of the Constitution to match our conventional morality. I don't think that's what he's saying--in fact, I KNOW that's not what he's saying--but the wording of the statement throws me off a bit.
        I think I just latched onto that sentence and skimmed the context. My fault. I need to learn how to read. Thanks again!
        And absolutely, he's right about the need for morality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo