Has Molyneux ever interviewed Ron Paul?

[ThinkSkeptic]

I can't find any video in which they've interacted and I'm wondering whether it exists. If it doesn't exist, then why? Has Ron not wanted to talk to him, has Molyneux not wanted to talk to him?

[Wesley]

There are probably 20-25 podcasts (more?) where Stef talks about the ineffectiveness of the Ron Paul campaign and how libertarians should not support political solutions of any time.

 

I can't think of a reason why he would interview Ron Paul anyway. I can't see what he would give of value in an interview, but you could let me know what I am missing.

[Mick Bynes]

He has not interviewed Ron Paul.  Paul has retired from politics.  Even though he is not in politics anymore, I don't think Stef will interview him any time ever.

[waywardvariable]

There are probably 20-25 podcasts (more?) where Stef talks about the ineffectiveness of the Ron Paul campaign and how libertarians should not support political solutions of any time.

 

I can't think of a reason why he would interview Ron Paul anyway. I can't see what he would give of value in an interview, but you could let me know what I am missing.

Yes, you are missing something IMHO, Ron Paul has brought many millions of Americans into the libertarian movement (especially young people) and for many years was the lone voice in the statist bubble of D.C. that was courageous enough to say things that are WAY outside the narrative of the statist apologias.  You may not agree with Dr. Paul, you may not like Dr. Paul but libertarians of all stripes should recognize how much he was able to accomplish in moving libertarian ideas into the national dialogue, forget about the politics it's the message that counts and Dr. Paul has a big audience for his message.

 

I would love to hear a discussion between Mr. Molyneux and Dr. Paul since both are able to articulate the ideas and the principles that we as libertarians share and I think it would be beneficial for both of these gentleman's audiences to hear it.

[LanceD]

There are probably 20-25 podcasts (more?) where Stef talks about the ineffectiveness of the Ron Paul campaign and how libertarians should not support political solutions of any time.

 

I can't think of a reason why he would interview Ron Paul anyway. I can't see what he would give of value in an interview, but you could let me know what I am missing.

Ron Paul admits he was never going to achieve a political solution. He was spreading his message and using the campaigns as a bully pulpit, and it worked very well.

[waywardvariable]

Ron Paul admits he was never going to achieve a political solution. He was spreading his message and using the campaigns as a bully pulpit, and it worked very well.

Well put my friend.

 

[Wesley]

Ron Paul lead people to political libertarianism which is bull and only justifies the state by encouraging donations and voting.

 

Ron Paul was for me a stepping stone into philosophy and libertarianism, but for my brother he was a stepping stone into pursuing a career in politics and joining the murder machine of the military in the name of defending the country.

 

Ron Paul used most of the campaign money to set up businesses and find jobs for his family rather than actually trying to run to win.

 

I would not be surprised if he caused as much harm as he caused good. If not more harm than good. It is easy for me to say that for me he happened to be a stepping stone (which I may have used another step if not for him) and ignore the mountains of negatives for people and society that were produced by his actions.

[waywardvariable]

Ron Paul lead people to political libertarianism which is bull and only justifies the state by encouraging donations and voting.

Why is it "bull"? I understand Mr. Molyneux's argument that a truly free society is a long ways down the road but You and I live in the here and now and the only feasible path to make our and our children's future any better than what is offered up by the government worshippers is via the political process, would you rather have a viable libertarian political movement or would you rather the authoritarians just have an unopposed path?

 

I think it's important to understand that Ron Paul's campaign put so many people on the path to the acceptance of libertarian ideas and Austrian Economics, people that would otherwise just go on blindly accepting statist propaganda. We really need to avoid circular firing squads because all that does is alienate people and you don't get anywhere doing that, we're all in this together and that includes Ron Paul, he's on our side even if we all don't agree with his chosen methodology. 

 

"It is not necessary for us to agree on everything, it is necessary that we agree that we should all be free" -- Grover Nordquist, Rally for the Republic 2008

[Wesley]

You should at least listen to a handful of the podcasts or read a few of the past forums. The negatives of political libertarianism have been addressed almost too many times. If you can bring something new to the discussion, then I will continue, but it is not worth rehashing the same stuff for the 26th time.

 

I was where you are with politics in the past. It just doesn't logically follow in every possible way.

[waywardvariable]

You should at least listen to a handful of the podcasts or read a few of the past forums. The negatives of political libertarianism have been addressed almost too many times. If you can bring something new to the discussion, then I will continue, but it is not worth rehashing the same stuff for the 26th time.

 

I was where you are with politics in the past. It just doesn't logically follow in every possible way.

Well, sorry if it's been discussed here before but after all I was responding to your post, so if didn't want to discuss "political libertarianism" one wonders why you chose to bring it up.....

 

Secondly you have no idea where I am with respect to politics, my personal awakening to libertarian ideas (hats off to Barry Goldwater) and Austrian Economics started over 40 years ago so my observations aren't based on Ron Paul's campaign or some podcasts or a few message board discussions and a couple of things I have learned in all those years is that it behooves us to never to intentionally alienate people that are receptive to the message and always challenge your own assumptions and the assertions of people you admire.

[Wesley]

deleted 

[LanceD]

Ron Paul lead people to political libertarianism which is bull and only justifies the state by encouraging donations and voting.

 

I firmly believe society cannot be simply thrown into a free society. In my opinion a libertarian system needs to be a stepping stone. We have too many shitty people that need to be dealt with and too many bad parents creating bad people to just turn this whole thing loose.

 

Ron Paul was for me a stepping stone into philosophy and libertarianism, but for my brother he was a stepping stone into pursuing a career in politics and joining the murder machine of the military in the name of defending the country.

 

This statement makes absolutely no sense to you. Your brother turned to the military because of Ron Paul? That's like saying listening to Stefan turned you to devote yourself to the church. Ron Paul is so vehemently against the current function of our military that I just can't see how a rational follower of Dr. Paul would want them to join the military industrial complex in any capacity.

 

Ron Paul used most of the campaign money to set up businesses and find jobs for his family rather than actually trying to run to win.

 

This is a serious attack on a man that many hold a very high opinion of, including myself. So to make such an attack against him without any evidence to back up that claim is very inflammatory.

 

I would not be surprised if he caused as much harm as he caused good. If not more harm than good. It is easy for me to say that for me he happened to be a stepping stone (which I may have used another step if not for him) and ignore the mountains of negatives for people and society that were produced by his actions.

 

You've presented more evidence for him doing good then harm. He was a stepping stone for you, +1 for Dr. Paul, your brother was confused and misguided and did something completely opposite anything Dr. Paul preaches, so that bit was irrelevant. By my count that's 1 for Dr. Paul and 0 against, seems you should be a supporter.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@Wesley: Check your avatar before projecting onto others.

[Wesley]

@LanceD This is what I mean by looking at only the positives an ignoring the negatives. You can do a little research on the issue. I think Adam Kokesh did a video or two about it as the politics and nepotism of Paul's campaign lead to him being not allowed to participate. It mainly revolves around his son in law Jesse Benton.

 

@waywardvariable I think darkskyabove is somewhat right. Your position is not that Ron Paul is right, but that we should be open to all libertarians. I have some personal feelings about this that clouded what I thought you had said.

 

I view Ron Paul and political libertarianism as a negative force and not on the same side as I am. He advocated a state, forced deportation, and many positions that I find rather reprehensible. He advocated spending on his campaign, voting for him. This legitimizes the state.

 

Political action will not solve anything and thinking that the state is even a direction to solve the problem is the wrong direction. It only can cause more problems.

 

I do have some personal vitriol towards him because I feel like I wasted time and money supporting his campaign in order for Benton to pocket big checks of campaign money and to set up his family in political action organizations. Also, my brother wishes to follow in the footsteps of Dr. Paul by joining the military and then running for office as one of the "good guy politicians". That was the example set for him by Ron Paul and the track that he advertised all the time.

 

Instead of just debating ideas I let some of my personal anger, irritation, and issues with it leak into the debate and directed it at waywardvariable which was not justified as you were not the proper object of my anger. I do have some anger at the idea of political action in solving problems, but it did not justify the responses I was giving. I apologize for that.

[Culain]

I wouldn't want Stefan to interview Ron Paul, but rather have a conversation similar to the Joe Rogan Podcast. If there is any interview to be done I think it would be for Ron Paul to interview Stefan on his show.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@Wesley: Thank you for taking my "one-liner" for the sincerity that was meant.

 

I do not believe that a political solution will be effective. I do not put Ron Paul on a pedestal. (As I do not put anyone on a pedestal, i.,e., Ayn Rand, who I admire, but recognize her failings.) At the same time, I have learned that someone can be right in one area, while wrong in another. Does that mean I should throw out everything they say, because they are wrong about some part? I don't think so. Sometimes it's about: take the best of what others have to offer, and leave the rest behind.

 

As to the potential of a political solution:

 

Not gonna happen. Stefan and others have expounded on the idea that significant change must be multi-generational, and must be spawned by "peaceful parenting". I accept that, and endorse it wholeheartedly. Although this is a necessary methodology, I do not accept it as sufficient. The depths of power are too deep. For every step towards liberty, the power-mongers find a way to dance two steps back.

 

Regardless of Ron Paul's failings, it is incontrovertible that he has brought many people to, at least, rethink their position on reality. It's a start. But, again, I don't see it as sufficient. Those that grasp at power will not let go easily.

 

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

 

As I see it, the "impossible" is a peaceful resolution. The "improbable" is a complete reboot of human interaction, and all that entails.

 

Should Stefan and Ron have a one-on-one? I think it might be productive. Then again, I could be wrong. I think that these two are, actually, more in agreement than disagreement. But, if the disagreeable parts out-perform the agreeable, it would turn into a unnecessary competition of value.

 

It would probably be better to leave well enough alone. Let each work their own magic.

[Mike Fleming]

I think Ron Paul would be an excellent guest for the show.  He was my gateway into libertarian ideas which eventually led me to anarchism when I realised the inconsistencies behind the small government idea and had to look for something else.

 

It doesn't matter that they don't agree on anarchism.  Stef has had other guests on his shows that aren't anarchists.   

 

At any rate, I agree with those who think Ron Paul is a "closet anarchist".  That if he takes his principles to their logical conclusion you end up with anarchism.  He is also great friends with Lew Rockwell and many of the Austrian School who are professed anarchists, as well as Murray Rothbard of course.   I think he would be quite happy to see an anarchistic society, but probably believes it isn't possible at least at the moment and so worked with what he thought he had.  I don't have any proof of that of course but it would be nice to get a good interview out of him now that he has no more political considerations and is free to speak his mind.  The best person to do that kind of interview would be Stef.

 

 

I think also, getting facts and stories about government and it's workings, from the horse's mouth as it were, would back up many theories that Stef has put forth.  The idea seems all upside and no downside to me.

[waywardvariable]

@waywardvariable I think darkskyabove is somewhat right. Your position is not that Ron Paul is right, but that we should be open to all libertarians. I have some personal feelings about this that clouded what I thought you had said.I view Ron Paul and political libertarianism as a negative force and not on the same side as I am. He advocated a state, forced deportation, and many positions that I find rather reprehensible. He advocated spending on his campaign, voting for him. This legitimizes the state.

No worries my friend, I do understand your frustrations regarding the politics and political activism, You and/or Your brother might be interested to hear what Ron Paul himself has to say on this very subject since it echos some of the sentiments you express.

 

Here's an interview he had on 10/29/2013 with Dr. Thomas E. Woods in which he talks about running for congress, his views on anarcho-capitalism and the realities of what a politician can actually accomplish (starts at around 17 minutes into the interview) --> http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=62776

 

Enjoy and have a GREAT Day!

[PatrickC]

I have to say that I'm not altogether interested in an RP discussion myself. However, if it sates the appetite of some listeners then it might be useful.

 

The conversation doesn't necessarily have to lean towards the political of course. It might be more interesting to concentrate any conversation on his history and influences perhaps. I see him more these days as an historic figure, that got some of the world to rethink the role of govts.

[Dave Bockman]

Ron Paul admits he was never going to achieve a political solution. He was spreading his message and using the campaigns as a bully pulpit, and it worked very well.

 

too bad for those suckers who donated to his presidential run, eh? The old switch-a-roo Jerry!

[PatrickC]

too bad for those suckers who donated to his presidential run, eh? The old switch-a-roo Jerry!

 

Yeah, this does make him less approachable from an integrity standpoint of course.

[Kevin Beal]

1980 – Walter Block vs Stefan Molyneux vs Ron Paul!
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1980_walter_block_rebuttal.mp3
 
972 – The Ron Paul Revolution - A Postmortem (and prescription)
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_972_Ron_Paul_Post_Mortem.mp3
 
814 – Ron Paul and Weightlifting
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_814_Ron_Paul_And_Weightlifting.mp3
 
955 – An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_955_Open_Letter_To_Ron_Paul_Supporters.mp3
 
I got into libertarian politics because of Ron Paul. I was not any more free because of it though. It was working on myself as a person with the extra prompting and guidance of this show and community that made me free

[Culain]

Ron Paul recently appeared on the Tom Woods show to answer listener questions.

 

One of the questions was, Mr Paul are you an Anarchist and believe we can go on without the State? He says, "I have not accepted that tomorrow we can scratch it and have no government."

 

This was a very disappointing answer in my opinion, mostly because not only did he collectivize it but he looked at the question as if it needed a solution tomorrow to be practical. Example, he would be the one who would say, "But without slaves who would pick the cotton?"

 

 

Anyways I hope that Tom can get you on his show Stef to discuss peaceful parenting to achieve freedom. He has not covered that topic yet.

[Mike Fleming]

I got into libertarian politics because of Ron Paul. I was not any more free because of it though. It was working on myself as a person with the extra prompting and guidance of this show and community that made me free

 

That's the same for me.  It was a gateway only.  He had the public persona to lure people in, but he doesn't go far enough and I don't find him satisfying ultimately.    It would be curious to find out what percentage of FDRer's are here because of him initially.  It must be reasonably high.  He has his place in the overall movement.

Ron Paul recently appeared on the Tom Woods show to answer listener questions.

 

One of the questions was, Mr Paul are you an Anarchist and believe we can go on without the State? He says, "I have not accepted that tomorrow we can scratch it and have no government."

 

This was a very disappointing answer in my opinion, mostly because not only did he collectivize it but he looked at the question as if it needed a solution tomorrow to be practical. Example, he would be the one who would say, "But without slaves who would pick the cotton?"

 

 

Thanks for posting that.  He sounds like he's where I was a few years ago.  He says he just doesn't know how it could work but he's also said that he is much closer to it than he was decades ago.  I don't think he's stubborn on the idea of government by any means, in fact, he sounds reluctant when he says that he thinks government is probably necessary and that he would like to endorse An-Cap but doesn't feel like he responsibly can.

 

That's my take.

[tasmlab]

In Dr. Paul's new book, The School Revolution, he plainly says in the first few pages that political activity is completely ineffective in creating change or pursuing liberty.

 

If for no other reason than to attract more budding libertarians to FDR, Stef should absolutely have Dr. Paul as a guest or be a guest on Paul's new channel.  They could talk about homeschooling.