Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Ron Paul Farewell Speech Quotes that Should Go Down in History

Ron Paul delivered his farewell speech to Congress today. It was a very powerful, radical speech explaining to Congress what liberty really means Here are quotes from the speech that all Americans should be made aware of:

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.

---

One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite.

---

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up” [as the financial and economic crisis intensifies]

---

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.

---

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.

----

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

---

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which costs so much less.

---

Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.

---

The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted.

---

Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?

---

Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

---

Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

---

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves

---
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

---

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

---

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, 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.

----

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment

---

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. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.
---

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

---

Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”

---

Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
---

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.
---

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

---

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do.
---

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end.
---

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
...

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

---

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.

---

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

---

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.

---

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.

---

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way.

---

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.

---

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, na├»ve, 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.

---

Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

---

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
---

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

---

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
---

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

17 comments:

  1. Amazing. After all these years, Ron has become more radical! Is there any other politician one can say that about who gets elected as a Republican or "limited government" type?

    This is the best speech I have ever seen a congressman give - ever. We will continue the fight against the Empire that you started, Dr Paul! Thanks for showing millions of us the Matrix for what it really is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. He gets more consistent every year. But I'm assuming he's not comfortable saying he's an anarcho-capitalist out in public. He just endorses virtually the same ideas but without the label.

      Delete
    2. I wasn't sure if he was a full blown anarcho capitalist until this speech, but I now am.

      Delete
  2. Ron Paul brought people to the cause of liberty because of precisely THIS kind of thinking.

    Rand Paul sold his soul, and the Republicans got their asses kicked.
    Gary Johnson provided wishy washy "safe" libertarianism without foundation, and didn't nearly meet the expected numbers.

    Anyone still doubt that only principles and consistency will convince people about freedom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You hit it Tony. I simply don't get the, "well, if you're too radical no one will listen" bullshit. If that's true then why did the 1960s happen. At the time what they did was VERY radical.

      Geez people grow some BALLS! This means you Rand.

      Delete
    2. A good point but those 1960 radicals didn't start winning things Until they dropped the radical Talk and adopt a more main stream persona but kept their radical beliefs and once in power worked to slick in their radical agendas without the public's notice. The 1960 Leftist radical have been horribly successful with this tactic, and I say go easy on Rand Paul I believe he is using this same tactic to get a liberty agenda moving....

      Delete
  3. "In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness."


    ROADS!!!!!!!!111!!!111!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Over time, there have been a handful of those elected that do not crave power, they actually just want people to have freedom, Ron Paul was one of them.

    America had a choice this year to first push to have him as a candidate for President, and ultimately elected. Powerful forces set against it, however, if the American people had risen up and demanded he be on the ballot it could have happened. They would have agreed with his message of wanting to do away with Federal Agencies(and downsize the federal bureaucracy); cutting spending meaningfully across the board; stop taking on ever more debt; taking steps to implement a sound money supply; Use of military for what it was intended, limited defense only(and downsize it); take the education system out of the hands of government in terms of mandated policies and funding; get rid of the growing police state. It really was simply returning America to principles that excepting the civil war period were in place for much of the 1800's. There might have been a tiny chance for what was the American experiment to make one more go of it. However, it was not to be.

    In any event, thank you Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't wait to watch the video tomorrow. I can't wait until someone makes a video on Youtube of Ron Paul speaking these words to a song by Metallica or Two Steps from Hell. This video, as well as these quotes, ought to be preserved and spread as far as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's make this go viral!

    #thankyouronpaul

    ReplyDelete
  7. This speech immediately went on my fb wall!!!
    A hero & statesman in every sense of the word.
    Ron opened my eyes to liberty & I am forever in his debt because of it.
    Farewell Dr. Paul

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
    Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?" Does anyone want to expand on this? To challenge or clarify it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is saying that the GOP understands that intervention in the marketplace (other than the Fed, which they don't grasp) is a bad idea. The Dems understand that intervention with privacy and due process is a bad idea. However, both want to intervene in the other, not grasping that the same principle of intervention leading to disaster is accurate in both instances.

      Delete
    2. In a free society, civil liberty is not limited your person but also to your property and what you wish to do with it.

      Therefore in a voluntarism based society you are free to do with your property as you please with the only restrictions being you do not harm someone else's rights to their person or property.

      A free market is simply all individuals using their property as they wish without restriction or intervention via force/coercion.

      Dr. Paul is correct, they are the same thing.

      Delete
    3. "Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
      Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?"

      Yes this is one of my favorites. A controlled market is ultimately controlled by force. Government action is backed up by force. When a market is not free, it limits the civil liberties of the participants in that market. Because they are impeding the buyers and sellers rights to decide for themselves what is an efficient and ethical transaction (thus a violation of their liberties)....

      That is my best stab at explaining it maybe a better writer could help clarify more or if you have a question...

      Delete
  9. And this is the man South Carolinians booed during the faux "debates"? Well, I guess it true that a nation GETS the government it deserves.

    ReplyDelete