The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom: The Ron Paul Revolution - A Postmortem

[Kraig]

This is from an article at freedomainradio.com, the whole article is far to long to post here, but here is one of the more thought provoking sections:

What Went Wrong

The central problem with the Ron Paul candidacy can be summed up by a two sentence exchange that the congressman had with Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show”.

Ron Paul said that the government did everything badly, and that everything should be privatized. Jon Stewart asked if that included the military. “Oh no!” exclaimed Dr. Paul.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

Propaganda is by its nature highly inconsistent – if it were consistent, it would be science, philosophy or just truth.

Citizens have been conditioned by statist propaganda for many, many years by the time they become politically active. They are able to hold opposing Orwellian “doublethink” principles without even noticing the inconsistencies. “The government that steals half my property at gunpoint is designed to protect my property” and so on.

Propaganda feels consistent to people, because it is consistent with the propaganda that everyone else believes. The only way to oppose propaganda is through complete consistency. The moment that inconsistent principles arise in any philosophy that opposes the general mythology of society, that opposing philosophy will inevitably fail. (We have seen the same phenomenon with Objectivism, the philosophy that utterly opposed the initiation of the use of force, but then supported the existence of a government.)

Thus when a libertarian candidate shows rank inconsistency within the first few seconds of a debate, the average audience member rolls his eyes and discounts the libertarian position. He says to himself: “Well, clearly libertarianism has nothing to do with intellectual consistency, and so it is in no way fundamentally different from the mainstream positions. Now, I can see that enormous difficulties will arise in my life if I accept the libertarian position, since I will become baffling and annoying to almost everyone I know. Thus, since the mainstream positions and the libertarian position both involve inconsistency, I might as well choose the inconsistency that is more comfortable.”

If you want to sell a product on the intellectual marketplace, it either needs to be highly beneficial or highly consistent. (Unfortunately, it cannot be both in our world as it stands.)

Highly beneficial beliefs are those that ease social interactions with those around you, or help advance your intellectual career. Highly consistent beliefs do quite the opposite – they irritate others, and tend to stall intellectual careers.

When the choice is between a highly advantageous inconsistent position (Republican/Democrat), and a highly disadvantageous inconsistent position (Libertarian), how many people will choose the latter?

Well, as we have seen from the numbers, all too few.


You can read the full article here:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-revolution-postmortem.html

[acptulsa]

Thus when a libertarian candidate shows rank inconsistency within the first few seconds of a debate, the average audience member rolls his eyes and discounts the libertarian position. He says to himself: “Well, clearly libertarianism has nothing to do with intellectual consistency, and so it is in no way fundamentally different from the mainstream positions. Now, I can see that enormous difficulties will arise in my life if I accept the libertarian position, since I will become baffling and annoying to almost everyone I know. Thus, since the mainstream positions and the libertarian position both involve inconsistency, I might as well choose the inconsistency that is more comfortable.”

If I had a dollar for every person nationwide who actually did think just that at that moment, I might just be able to buy a cup of coffee. Provided, of course, I went somewhere cheaper than Starbucks to get it.

I personally find 'what the Constitution says they're there to do and not one thing more' a very consistent position.

[Theocrat]

I thought Congressman Paul did a great job on The Daily Show. If given enough time, Dr. Paul would have justified his position on why the military should not be privatized. But even so, our society is at a point where it no longer seeks to justify any of its beliefs. People just believe things to be so because that's the way they've always believed. What's worse is people refuse to found political, social, and economic truths on a solid and consistent foundation, particularly the One used by our Founding Fathers.

Because our culture is increasingly becoming more secularized and postmodern in thinking, we have reduced truth to relative terms, where definitions are lost in any realm of discussion. We see that going on even here on the forums. People throw around terms like "freedom" and "evil," without using them in their proper and historical contexts of meaning. When a member here says he believes in liberty, it could mean ten different things to nine different people. How much more is this confusion pervasive in our American society today. We have lost our foundations for why such things as civil government should exist as well as why it should be limited.

Logical inconsistency is not only seen from Libertarians, either. It can be found in anarchical thought, pacifism, and even totalitarian thought about the nature of government. I doubt the general public is even able to comprehend the philosophical inconsistencies of such ideas were they introduced on TV (thanks to the propagan...uh, I mean, curriculum of our public school system). So don't blame Congressman Paul on the perceived inconsistencies of his political beliefs. Blame it on those who refuse to see the foundations and justifications for why Congressman Paul's beliefs make the most sense in a constitutional republican paradigm.

[Kraig]

I personally find 'what the Constitution says they're there to do and not one thing more' a very consistent position.

Then how can you convince people that the Constitution is a worthwhile position? Why do you even think it is a worthwhile position? If you don't mind.

[Kraig]

I thought Congressman Paul did a great job on The Daily Show. If given enough time, Dr. Paul would have justified his position on why the military should not be privatized.

How can that be justified? How is it morally right for everything to be privatized, yet security and justice are exempt?

[Kraig]

Here is something I think even more thought provoking, it's not something very comfortable to consider, from the end of the article:


Freedom will advance only when we act with integrity in our personal relationships – when we reject those we define as evil.

As libertarians, we expect people to accept wrenching changes in their lives as a result of our philosophy. We expect public sector employees to switch over to the private sector. We expect drug enforcement agents to lose their entire careers. We expect corporate participants in the military-industrial complex to accept catastrophic downsizing. We expect people trapped in the quicksand of the welfare state to claw their way out. We expect a decommissioned soldier to make the transition to a civilian life, even if he wants to spend the rest of his career in the military. We expect those who exploit the existing system – the financiers, politicians and state-protected unions – to give up their inflated profits.

We expect so much from everyone else – and so little from ourselves.

“You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,” we say, “though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.”

“You should give up your war profiteering,” we say to mercantilist corporations, “though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.”

Is it any wonder that the Ron Paul revolution could never have succeeded?

Is it any wonder that for the past few hundred years, libertarianism has made virtually no progress whatsoever?

The answer is very, very simple.

If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves.

If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine of course – but if you don’t want to live your ethics, can you do the rest of us a favour please?

Please – just stop talking about “ethics,” and thus discrediting those of us who are actually trying to make a difference.

To me this is huge.

[MRoCkEd]

“You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,” we say, “though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.”

“You should give up your war profiteering,” we say to mercantilist corporations, “though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.
So we can't hang out with people we disagree with?

[acptulsa]

Then how can you convince people that the Constitution is a worthwhile position? Why do you even think it is a worthwhile position? If you don't mind.

How many pages is that worth?

In brief and given what I know of your beliefs, I would argue against privatized military for the same reason I would argue against state militias being the only military--the armies are liable to decide that showing each other up is more important than showing the enemy up. Besides, where states are concerned, we enjoy certain tangible and undeniable benefits from being a nation of some appreciable size, and fifty individual states wouldn't enjoy those benefits.

As for doing without a military, I'm not for it. I don't want us to get our ass kicked. Which is why we have so much trouble selling non-interventionism. Many are convinced that if we aren't imperialist, someone else will be, so we might as well.

As for the Consititution, it's designed to keep the federal government in its place. Now, if we could only grow it some teeth, that would be a nice improvement. But in any case, it certainly does a decent job of bowing to the simple fact that all politics is local.

[Kraig]

Which is why we have so much trouble selling non-interventionism. Many are convinced that if we aren't imperialist, someone else will be, so we might as well.

Couldn't I use the same argument to say "well the government is stealing from me through taxes and bailouts, so I might as well be doing it too", and then I just go into the store and shoplift whatever I want. Serious question. I actually have a friend who operates under those principles, he agrees that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn't care because he is sick of it being done to him.

[Kraig]

So we can't hang out with people we disagree with?

That is what he is saying, though it's not just disagreement, he's talking about not hanging out with people who we consider morally evil. Also it's not even that we "can't", obviously we can, the question is it a good thing to continue to do so?

[acptulsa]

"If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves."

May I have a show of hands of everyone here who has a food stamp card in his or her pocket?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

Thought not. Talking ethics discredits those trying to make a difference if done by someone who hangs around with his warmongering cousin? Yet if no one tries to talk sense to that warmingering cousin, who will ever make the difference to him or her?

I smell someone trying to divide us and reduce our effectiveness. Either this article is a poor attempt at sabotage, or it's terribly misguided.

[acptulsa]

Couldn't I use the same argument to say "well the government is stealing from me through taxes and bailouts, so I might as well be doing it too", and then I just go into the store and shoplift whatever I want. Serious question. I actually have a friend who operates under those principles, he agrees that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn't care because he is sick of it being done to him.

That's one of the best retorts to that attitude I've ever come across. Think I'll keep that one in mind.

[Brassmouth]

Thanks for posting that, Kraig. Stefan Molyneux doesn't get enough attention on these boards.

[Theocrat]

How can that be justified? How is it morally right for everything to be privatized, yet security and justice are exempt?

Gee, Kraig. There's a book called The Federalist Papers which goes into depth about the need for central government in our republic. Have you read it?

Because we are a republic (not an anarchy), national security and justice cannot be privatized because they do not operate on an individual-to-individual basis. Private justice is a silly idea, anyway. How can justice be enforced in a private court? It's institutionalized relativism. What's just to the private court may not be just to the perpetrator sought for trial by that court. It degrades into a matter of opinions.

Also, you fail to see the divine foundations for the existence of civil governments, as our Pilgrim Fathers utilized when they first landed in this country and as our Founders gleaned upon in the formation of our republic. I have dealt with that subject many times on these forums, as have other members.

Kraig, you just have an entirely different paradigm of thinking when it comes to this subject, and one that differs significantly from Congressman Paul's. That is why you fail to understand the necessity of civil, public institutions.

[Theocrat]

Couldn't I use the same argument to say "well the government is stealing from me through taxes and bailouts, so I might as well be doing it too", and then I just go into the store and shoplift whatever I want. Serious question. I actually have a friend who operates under those principles, he agrees that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn't care because he is sick of it being done to him.

That's a good moral. Repay one evil done to a person by committing the same evil towards others. :rolleyes:

[newbitech]

Interesting, I read the whole thing. There is definitely some valuable insight into one person's opinion but, BUT....

the author didn't go into any details about how Dr. Paul was consistently ostracized by the GOP, how the media tried to paint him as a non-viable candidate because he didn't tow the GOP party line, and how the 2 party political system is really a 1 party political system.

His argument of why the campaign failed sounds more like;

Ron Paul is old, his ideas are old, and his supporters could never live up to the standards he set.

The author tries to paint the "Revolution" in the light of failed libertarianism. I see it the other way around.

Libertarianism is a subset of the "Revolution".

The failures of Libertarianism are not the failures of the "Revolution". The Revolution didn't fail to get Ron Paul elected. All of the political system failed to get RP elected. I place the blame on the GOP and the libertarians who choose to run their own candidate rather than rally behind the libertarian leaning Republican Ron Paul. The Revolution was born out of the candidacy and gained strength even when it was obvious that Dr. Paul would not win the GOP primary.

Whether Ron Paul was elected or not, the goals of this old man with old ideas was completely realized in that the foundation for a peaceful revolution has been created. Now its time to start building on that foundation.

It does not matter if foundation or the parts of final structure contains pure libertarian ideals, or a combination of ideals from across the political spectrum.

What matters is that 100's of 1000's of people have and are becoming aware of the truth of our current system. This small vocal minority are the beacon in the political fog. The success or failures of Ron Paul will be measured generations from now. Ron Paul won't be around to see his dream come true, and many of his supporters may also miss it. But the fact remains that Ron Paul will leave this world a better place for his grand-kids and that torch of freedom has indeed been successfully passed down. The Freedom Fire is burning more brightly now than it did 30 years ago.

It is up to us to keep it lit and to fan the flame.

[Kraig]

That's a good moral. Repay one evil done to a person by committing the same evil towards others. :rolleyes:

I assume you are being sarcastic and I agree that it is still wrong.

[Theocrat]

"If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves."

May I have a show of hands of everyone here who has a food stamp card in his or her pocket?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

Thought not. Talking ethics discredits those trying to make a difference if done by someone who hangs around with his warmongering cousin? Yet if no one tries to talk sense to that warmingering cousin, who will ever make the difference to him or her?

I smell someone trying to divide us and reduce our effectiveness. Either this article is a poor attempt at sabotage, or it's terribly misguided.

I smell the foul stench of anarchy hogwash. It's the same illogical reasoning process of destroying the whole because of the part. "The government has stepped outside of its Constitutional boundaries, therefore, we must destroy all of government." It's equivalent to a person who chops off his foot so that he doesn't get a bunion on his big toe. Absolute nonsense.

[Theocrat]

I assume you are being sarcastic and I agree that it is still wrong.

Agreed.

[acptulsa]

I smell the foul stench of anarchy hogwash. It's the same illogical reasoning process of destroying the whole because of the part. "The government has stepped outside of its Constitutional boundaries, therefore, we must destroy all of government." It's equivalent to a person who chops off his foot so that he doesn't get a bunion on his big toe. Absolute nonsense.

It's worse than that, imo. It smells of defeatism from its title down. Post mortem? We ain't dead yet, bubba. Nice try at dividing and conquering us, but the bad news is we're too smart to play that today. Yes, you're right that having morals is more work than not having morals. That doesn't mean we're going to let your false moral paradigms paralyze us, though.

[Kraig]

Thanks for posting that, Kraig. Stefan Molyneux doesn't get enough attention on these boards.

Yeah, I have always liked the few videos of his that I have seen, but never really looked through his website until last night. It is really a gold mine of some great information! I will go there daily now.

[Kraig]

I smell the foul stench of anarchy hogwash. It's the same illogical reasoning process of destroying the whole because of the part. "The government has stepped outside of its Constitutional boundaries, therefore, we must destroy all of government." It's equivalent to a person who chops off his foot so that he doesn't get a bunion on his big toe. Absolute nonsense.

Yes it is the "stench" of anarchy you are smelling but I don't see how it is hogwash (or even smells bad for that matter :)). The reasons for anarchy have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that government has stepped outside it's constitutional boundaries. Anarchy is based on moral arguments against all forms of coercive government, primarily involuntary taxation, and the monopoly on force, security, and justice that a government must maintain to remain a government.

[torchbearer]

I like Stefan. He is a great guy. If everyone in the world was as enlightened as him, we could live in the anarchist utopia. everyone would respect each other- no one would form large military groups to control others- and everything would be fucking rosey... but not everyone is like Stefan. Some people think they have the right to own you. They are crazy- and we need to get rid of these mobs, not make more of them.

[Theocrat]

Yes it is the "stench" of anarchy you are smelling but I don't see how it is hogwash (or even smells bad for that matter :)). The reasons for anarchy have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that government has stepped outside it's constitutional boundaries. Anarchy is based on moral arguments against all forms of coercive government, primarily involuntary taxation, and the monopoly on force, security, and justice that a government must maintain to remain a government.

Anarchy actually brings all those things you've described because it allows the strongest to prey on the weak in society. Since there is no establishment of the universal rule of law, the strongest in society get to dictate what they want and can do without civil restraints. They can coerce others to follow their rules, they can take money from others ("involuntary taxation"), and they have a monopoly on force, security, and justice because their word and will is law. Anarchy gives rise to the rule of the strongest, which is much worse than the rule of the majority. Anarchy is dangerous because, philosophically, it undermines the true nature of humans. I don't know how many times that has to be explained to you.

[Kraig]

Anarchy actually brings all those things you've described because it allows the strongest to prey on the weak in society. Since there is no establishment of the universal rule of law, the strongest in society get to dictate what they want and can do without civil restraints. They can coerce others to follow their rules, they can take money from others ("involuntary taxation"), and they have a monopoly on force, security, and justice because their word and will is law. Anarchy gives rise to the rule of the strongest, which is much worse than the rule of the majority. Anarchy is dangerous because, philosophically, it undermines the true nature of humans. I don't know how many times that has to be explained to you.

So we must accept those things willingly to prevent them from happening? That is a contradiction. I agree that anarchy would bring about the same things (not even anarchy really, but it is just part of life), but they would exist a lesser degree, and those who did it would be lambasted as the criminals they are rather than accepted and even respected as the government.

[Pennsylvania]

Thanks for posting that, Kraig. Stefan Molyneux doesn't get enough attention on these boards.


Yeah, I have always liked the few videos of his that I have seen, but never really looked through his website until last night. It is really a gold mine of some great information! I will go there daily now.

You guys should check out his video on self-defense. I like the guy and agree with him on most things, but I disagreed with him on that. He was basically arguing, unless I am mistaken (which I very well could be), that using violence in self-defense is not justified. I don't understand how anyone can possibly accept that as true.

[Kraig]

I like Stefan. He is a great guy. If everyone in the world was as enlightened as him, we could live in the anarchist utopia. everyone would respect each other- no one would form large military groups to control others- and everything would be fucking rosey... but not everyone is like Stefan. Some people think they have the right to own you. They are crazy- and we need to get rid of these mobs, not make more of them.

Well I'm glad you at least give it that much credit, but I wish you could be convinced that it is better even in this society. Yeah some people think they have the right to own you, let them try to own me. :mad: Sadly when you have something has powerful as a government sanctioned by an entire society, they are quite good at owning me. I think I will always try to resist. I have been slowly realizing that me and you probably agree with each fundamentally on almost everything, we just have disagreements on the practical or utilitarian ways to reach those fundamentals.

[acptulsa]

You guys should check out his video on self-defense. I like the guy and agree with him on most things, but I disagreed with him on that. He was basically arguing, unless I am mistaken (which I very well could be), that using violence in self-defense is not justified. I don't understand how anyone can possibly accept that as true.

Sounds a lot like some of what is posted here. If you disagree with someone, you don't try to change their minds, you don't show them a good example, you avoid them like the plague. Huh? And giving the movement a post mortem because Ron Paul isn't currently sitting in the White House? Recent rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated, bubba.

[torchbearer]

Well I'm glad you at least give it that much credit, but I wish you could be convinced that it is better even in this society. Yeah some people think they have the right to own you, let them try to own me. :mad: Sadly when you have something has powerful as a government sanctioned by an entire society, they are quite good at owning me. I think I will always try to resist. I have been slowly realizing that me and you probably agree with each fundamentally on almost everything, we just have disagreements on the practical or utilitarian ways to reach those fundamentals.

If we destroyed the federal government- then you'd have to destroy the state governments- then the county governements- then the city governments-
whether you do it political- or do it through peaceful resistance- or do it through military force- it will require people creating new systems of organization to do it.
It will be some of these new systems that will arise as the new tyranny in your pursuit of anarchy.

[torchbearer]

Kraig- you don't understand- I feel exactly as you do- I don't need someone to lord over me. I don't need anything. Just leave me alone.
Most people feel that- but what you are advocating isn't going to get you to that point. And it is because of the hairless apes that live around you.

[Kraig]

It will be some of these new systems that will arise as the new tyranny in your pursuit of anarchy.

I agree, and that is why I really don't even like the idea of a "constitutionally limited government". Yes I can CLEARLY see how it would be better than we have now, but I can also see how it will become the new tyranny. It's really just like hitting the reset button, but if you follow it to the end the results will be the same.

[torchbearer]

I agree, and that is why I really don't even like the idea of a "constitutionally limited government". Yes I can CLEARLY see how it would be better than we have now, but I can also see how it will become the new tyranny. It's really just like hitting the reset button, but if you follow it to the end the results will be the same.

but if you can get another 100 years of freedom that is better than devolving straight into another tyranny.
Jefferson expected revolutions every 10 years- basically to reset the system before tyranny started creeping in.
Liberty requires vigilance- we are a couple hundred years overdue for a reset.

[acptulsa]

I agree, and that is why I really don't even like the idea of a "constitutionally limited government". Yes I can CLEARLY see how it would be better than we have now, but I can also see how it will become the new tyranny. It's really just like hitting the reset button, but if you follow it to the end the results will be the same.

You don't think we've learned enough to maintain it for more than two hundred years this time? Or you don't consider two centuries' worth of relief a worthwhile prize?

Obviously Molyneux doesn't or he wouldn't be advocating we sit at home on our asses and avoid as much contact with the outside world as we can. But then again, with an agenda like that about all he could be in favor of is letting the totalitarians win by default...

[Kraig]

Kraig- you don't understand- I feel exactly as you do- I don't need someone to lord over me. I don't need anything. Just leave me alone.
Most people feel that- but what you are advocating isn't going to get you to that point. And it is because of the hairless apes that live around you.

I think I agree with you that what am advocating won't get me to that point, not in my lifetime. However I don't think what you advocate will either, I really have not been convinced. If it's not something I will see in my lifetime, I would rather stand on principle as that brings me great enjoyment of life and happiness.

What I would really advocate is that everyone has absolutely nothing to do with government, let the whole idea of it slowly fall apart by a slow withdrawal of support. IF enough people did this, I would get what I want, but it is not going to happen in my lifetime, you have to start somewhere though. I can accept that I won't get to see it, it still brings me contentment to know that I am doing the right thing, and some hope that my descendants will someday enjoy what I wish I had thanks in part to what I have done.

[Kraig]

You don't think we've learned enough to maintain it for more than two hundred years this time.

Depends who the "we" is, if it's the whole country, then no not at all. I don't think it would last a couple election cycles.

[heavenlyboy34]

I thought Congressman Paul did a great job on The Daily Show. If given enough time, Dr. Paul would have justified his position on why the military should not be privatized. But even so, our society is at a point where it no longer seeks to justify any of its beliefs. People just believe things to be so because that's the way they've always believed. What's worse is people refuse to found political, social, and economic truths on a solid and consistent foundation, particularly the One used by our Founding Fathers.

Because our culture is increasingly becoming more secularized and postmodern in thinking, we have reduced truth to relative terms, where definitions are lost in any realm of discussion. We see that going on even here on the forums. People throw around terms like "freedom" and "evil," without using them in their proper and historical contexts of meaning. When a member here says he believes in liberty, it could mean ten different things to nine different people. How much more is this confusion pervasive in our American society today. We have lost our foundations for why such things as civil government should exist as well as why it should be limited.

Logical inconsistency is not only seen from Libertarians, either. It can be found in anarchical thought, pacifism, and even totalitarian thought about the nature of government. I doubt the general public is even able to comprehend the philosophical inconsistencies of such ideas were they introduced on TV (thanks to the propagan...uh, I mean, curriculum of our public school system). So don't blame Congressman Paul on the perceived inconsistencies of his political beliefs. Blame it on those who refuse to see the foundations and justifications for why Congressman Paul's beliefs make the most sense in a constitutional republican paradigm.

I'm sure there are some anarchists who are inconsistent, but this is an exception, not the norm. It's sad that you apply the same collectivist thought patterns that atheists use against followers of Yeshua. Where are the real Christians when the freedom movement needs them? :confused::(

[torchbearer]

You don't think we've learned enough to maintain it for more than two hundred years this time? Or you don't consider two centuries' worth of relief a worthwhile prize?

this is true- each time we go through this cycle- we learn as a people.
If we could go back to the original intent tomorrow- we would be starting light years ahead of where washington and gang started.
we wouldn't have slavery and shit- the old world's taint will be gone.
we can have the wisdom to amend the constitution to rebalance and redistribute the power structure downward.
In today's world- confederacy may even be a more logical structure to help prevent a recurrence of what is happening now.
I do know we are smart enough to learn from history and to do what needs to be done. we just have to make sure we get in the position to hit the reset button.
Right now we are trying a political/peaceful way by getting people in a position where they can hit it from inside the congress.

[acptulsa]

Depends who the "we" is, if it's the whole country, then no not at all. I don't think it would last a couple election cycles.

If we go in and rip down 90% of Washington, D.C., reducing it from a megaopolis that reaches from Fredrick to Fredricksburg, and leave nothing official standing but the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court and the Pentagon, and you really think it will all be rebuilt in four to twelve years? Friend, we set out to create a paradigm shift, to change people's minds nationwide--and it's working. If we can get to the point where people look on with approval and relief as we tear down the office building that currently houses the Federal Department of Education, then we have changed attitudes in a massive way--and that won't be undone overnight.

[Kraig]

If we go in and rip down 90% of Washington, D.C., reducing it from a megaopolis that reaches from Fredrick to Fredricksburg, and leave nothing official standing but the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court and the Pentagon, and you really think it will all be rebuilt in four to twelve years? Friend, we set out to create a paradigm shift, to change people's minds nationwide--and it's working. If we can get to the point where people look on with approval and relief as we tear down the office building that currently houses the Federal Department of Education, then we have changed attitudes in a massive way--and that won't be undone overnight.

Well I see all the people around here who think and am crazy or downright evil to suggest that we shouldn't have public schooling. I think we have too many people that really want the nanny state, they may not like how it is currently being run, but they think it should be reformed rather than abolished (and I'm not talking about government in general when I say abolished here, just the nanny state). I think Obama was elected under the premise that the nanny government can be reformed into some sort of Utopia.

[dr. hfn]

bump! Super important reflection article. Learn from our mistakes. There is a good article in Reason magazine about the Ron Paul Revolution too.

[CCTelander]

thanks for posting that, kraig. Stefan molyneux doesn't get enough attention on these boards.

qft