As a matter of principle, I don’t vote. Why not? Because it is taken as signalling endorsement of democracy and by extension, an endorsement of government as it exists. I believe that governments should be abolished. They are the primary agents of war. As long as governments exist, humanity cannot know peace.
I will spare you the rant on government and focus on the topic: Ron Paul. I would have made an exception in the case of Ron Paul and voted. He is a politician but cut from a different cloth. Libertarian whole cloth, to be precise. Here’s Ron in conversation with Charlie.
I’d love to meet Ron Paul.
5 thoughts on “Ron Paul in conversation with Charlie Rose”
I can’t tolerate Charlie Rose; he just cannot let the other person complete a sentence!!
Perhaps a transcript of this talk would be better than listening to this idiot interrupt constantly!
Anup, you are right. Charlie keeps interrupting Ron. See the comments to that video. Tons of people have written that Charlie Rose should STFU. Charlie did not use to be so bad. I think this is a new and deplorable development.
I’m surprised at the abolish govt comment from you. I took you to be a classical liberal who supports a small and effective govt guarding individual freedoms.
I should have written, “I believe that governments, as they exist today, should be abolished.” Note in the statement just prior to that, I had written, “…an endorsement of government as it exists.” Anyway, it was sloppy writing on my part. Good catch.
I maintain that I am an Old World classical liberal. Just BTW autobiographical note, I had not known what an OW classical liberal was when I was told by my professor (Irma Adelman) that I was an OWCL. She said that my views were such that I was one. I then read the literature and realized that indeed I had arrived at the same conclusions as the classical liberals of old. That was thrilling and I told myself that I was pretty darn clever. 🙂
And as you point out, and in keeping with the OWCL tradition, I do believe that the only purpose of the government is to guard individual liberty. Everything else follows from that one single purpose of the government, and every restriction on government is required for limiting the government to that role alone.
For reasons mysterious to me, many people seem to believe that the government has a role in improving society, in promoting economic development, in redressing societal wrong, and a whole raft of “social good” objectives. It puzzles me no end. But then I realize that it is an infantile impulse. Too many people never grow up. As infants and children, they had their mummy and daddy take care of everything. And when m&d are no more, they transfer those functions to the government. The nanny state demanded by some is a projection of need to have mummy and daddy make it all ok.
I should elaborate on this in a blog post, don’t you think?
“As infants and children, they had their mummy and daddy take care of everything. And when m&d are no more, they transfer those functions to the government. The nanny state demanded by some is a projection of need to have mummy and daddy make it all ok.”
I think about this all the time, and i have to say the hindu culture somehow is deeply responsible for this. I call this a form of “automatic respect” in which you just respect, let’s say elders — no matter what! You still today see grown men in india scared of their moms when choosing which girl to marry! Then there are instances where a certain elder is just a gone case with alcohol problems or maybe just somebody who has no real achievements but they command, expect and even received utmost respect from their younger siblings etc.
In contrast with western values (not the countries) but even people with western values in india are more open to make a lot of decisions on their own. And a lot of people who I know are even open to a discussion about govt influence come from that segment.
Comments are closed.