Ron Paul: "Pure Democracy Is Dangerous"... When It's Purchased

Tyler Durden's picture

From an outright libertarian, the headline seems contrary; but Ron Paul's affirmation that "pure democracy is dangerous" critically confirms what Romney accidentally admitted: that enabling the majority to dictate the minority is a problem when the majority are receiving a [government] check. Bloomberg TV's Betty Liu looks a little shocked when the thoughtful Paul confirms bluntly that the reelection of Obama is driven simply by 'the people' being on the 'receiving end' of government benefits and that the US is "so far gone; we're over the cliff already." From Boehner and the lack of credibility in Washington to GOP's 'acceptance' of higher taxes and why he quit Congress, Ron Paul succinctly reminds many of the true state of the union in which we live...



Paul on Boehner's address to Congress on the fiscal cliff:

"Well, there are a couple of things in there. The problem is, there is no credibility. What I run into going around the country is that people I talk to generally do not believe anything they hear. Someone said we want to work together, fine. We will not raise taxes. They do not believe that. It goes on and on. They're just looking for the truth. They say all we need is a little compromise. No one expects that because they do not admit the truth. The truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise?  They only way you are going to compromise if you agree on what to cut. Instead they're trying to find out how they will agree on what they will protect. I do not think I have heard the answer. They talk about this fiscal cliff, but in my mind I work with the assumption we are already over the cliff, we're just wondering how we're going to land…it is unsolvable because you have to cut spending."

On whether there's any circumstance where the GOP would accept a type of tax increase:

"I do, but they're not in Washington. They're outside of Washington. I talk about it all the time. The few people I could work with, like a Dennis Kucinich and others, we had coalitions. We agreed to come together say on militarism. Why do we need to spend more than everyone else put together? You bring coalitions together of progressives and libertarian conservatives and say yes we have to cut across the board. Right now they say compromise on preservation of certain programs, but you have to get together and bring people together of different viewpoints. I do not call that compromise because I do not think anyone should sacrifice their principles. But there's no reason in the world you cannot get progressives and libertarians to agree on some of these cuts and spending we do not need."

On what he'd need to see in order for Congress to come together and approve on some kind of deal:

"As long as they move in the direction of less government. Maybe taking their oath of office seriously…That is long gone. We're so far gone. We're over the cliff. We cannot get enough people in congress in the next 5-10 years who will do the wise things. We have to prepare for having already fallen off the fiscal cliff. it is like what is going on in Greece. Every day you hear of a solution and things pop up, but they are in debt and spend too much money and then the people go out in the street and demonstrate. Romney was hit because one issue he was correct on, he was opposed the bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him. Oh, we have to be taken care of! So that vote was sort of like what we are laughing at in Greece. Those 80,000 people do not want anything cut, they will not compromise. It is the people that are that way. That is why our revolution is significant. We're trying to change people's minds. That is why changing the minds of young people is so important."


"If you look at the numbers and the way pure democracy works, pure democracy is dangerous. The majority dictates against the minority. Right now the majority are receiving a check. That is why people were sort of surprised with these conditions that the president could get reelected. That is a bad sign in that there are more on the receiving end. People do not want anything cut. They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we of gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with a magic solution. You cannot have a budgetary solution if you do not change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to please the world and run this welfare state, all we will argue about is who will get the loot. "

On why he quit Congress:

"I think people had enough of me. I do not have much confidence in the political system and never did. My goal has always been to change people's minds because as long as people demand more government, they will get it. Government reflects the people. That is why I am excited to go to college campuses and I will continue to do that. That's where I will get a lot of support and they are saying, I agree with you, we do not need more government, we want more freedom and we want to be able to keep our own money. We want sound money. If you have sound money coming in you do not have deficits because you cannot print more money."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ACP's picture

Even more so because it's purchased by the fattest fat cat in the world, the US Govt.

ACP's picture

Amazing that all we need is a few small tweaks to the US Constitution to damp the effect of govt money, but it'll take WWIII to get those tweaks. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

TwoShortPlanks's picture

It one giant shake-down. The puppets need to see that they are puppets, then see that there is a puppeteer.

People who get all tied-up in politics are merely getting tangled up in the strings of the puppeteer.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Jack Napier's picture

Ron Paul spent the better part of 3 decades in politics stroking us off with what we wanted to hear, had 2 Audit the Fed bills go absolutely nowhere, and now he's retiring with all the free money people gave him with their false hopes? His Masonic and Jesuit overlords must be very proud of the job he did in keeping this nation complacent in thinking he would actually do something.

Quit giving this guy publicity. He already wasted enough of our time.

Lock and load bitchez. The system has failed. Where's Anonymous?'s picture


Longtime congressman Ron Paul has always refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral".[5]

Supernova Born's picture

Ron Paul makes me sad.

He confirms my worst fears about the future of this "country" in an articulate and convincing way.

Damn.'s picture

I know what you mean but Ron Paul is also one of those guys who comes along and renews your faith in the possibility of a better future. And it can't happen without you.


Ron Paul’s Task: Build Up the Remnant

Ron Paul, without a friend in the world, nothing but hostility aimed at him from all directions, stood his ground and did not back down. Just reiterated his points even stronger. I was blown away. I felt at that moment that the world changed forever, that here had been this massive shift in reality and what could happen.

It wouldn’t be the last such moment. In a GOP debate in Florida of all places, Ron Paul said the U.S. government should normalize trade relations with Cuba. In a South Carolina debate he stuck by his guns on the drug war. At a meeting of an Arab-American association, he was asked if he had a special speech tailored to their group. No, he said. It would be the same speech he gives everywhere.

That’s who Ron Paul is.

Why did he do these things? Why didn’t he take the path of least resistance by speaking in slogans and taking no political risks?

One reason is obvious: he’s an honest man.

The other reason may not be so obvious: he was seeking out the Remnant....


And that’s what Dr. Paul has been doing. He’s been looking for this heretofore invisible Remnant, giving them comfort, making them aware of themselves, providing them a rallying point. Selling out for the sake of mainstream respectability would defeat his purpose entirely. Those approaches repel the Remnant, Nock said. On the other hand, the truth teller who appeals to the Remnant will find them.

To be sure, Ron Paul has wanted to make his message as appealing to as many people as possible. He never gratuitously drives anyone away. But he has accomplished this task not by the usual method, which is to water down the message according to focus-group results. He has simply explained himself, boldly and without retreat.



LetThemEatRand's picture

Lew Rockwell is a corporatist douche pretending to be a libertarian.  Too bad Ron every hooked up with him.

James_Cole's picture

Ron Paul: Democracy is great until I disagree with it and then democracy is a problem.

lol, real libertarian you folks have there! Next thing he's going to say is that rights come from God, oh wait...

LetThemEatRand's picture

Ron Paul's biggest failure is his sophomoric and frankly simplistic belief in free markets.  But at least he believes in free something, which is far more than the Red Team or Blue Team can muster.  He would usher in a reset which is badly needed, so he's okay in my book even if naive and overly ideological.  

Cabreado's picture

You seem to be confused... and without conviction.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Step 1 of the 3 step plan is complete.

AldousHuxley's picture

democracy is GOOD when majority are educated, good, strong people.

democracy is BAD when greedy idiots outnumber smart kind people.


gold standard is BAD when you are already in debt .... as if US is going to pay back China with gold?


Ron Paul hated Fed for printing money...but Fed is a scapegoat.







EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture

We are not in debt, nor do we owe anything to China. Democracy is good when enforced by it's citizens at gunpoint instead of forced on it's citizens by gunpoint

Those in our present society with guns are the Redcoats, and we the people have no minute men or Militia to defend ourselves.

The sooner the dollar collapses completely, the better. We can have sound money if we want it

AldousHuxley's picture

the problem is democrats, republicans and majority of American consumers don't want sound money as they love debt spending for today instead of investing for tomorrow.



EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture

They like that the dollar exports inflation and imports wealth. Morals, integrity and dignity have no place in a self oriented society

smlbizman's picture

man, that paul guy should have ran for president....

infotechsailor's picture

"As long as you think we have to please the world " ... he surely said POLICE the world.

yars's picture

Correct, this entire transcript is bungled.

JimBowie1958's picture

democrats, republicans and majority of American consumers don't want sound money as they love debt spending for today instead of investing for tomorrow.

I disagree. I  have never met anyone that wants the US government to take on more debt. They simply disagree on what to cut, and since the lobbyists tend to know where the bodies are buried, nothing ever gets cut.

When we crash and burn we will rebuild, but it will all be for nought if we dont hang some bankers, lawyers and lobbyists first and starting with the people who fall into all three groupings especially.

kill switch's picture

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner..

To the Republic for which it stands? Anyone..

ONO47's picture

The real culprit is us because we let them do it.

beaglebog's picture

How can democracy ever be "good" ?


How can it ever be good that one man's fate is determined by the votes of his neighbours? 


No. Voting is an evil.

Marco's picture

If those neighbours have the power to evict him from his home his fate is in their hands to begin with ... there is no freedom for the peon, laissez faire doesn't change that.

juliawong's picture

"gold standard is BAD when you are already in debt .... as if US is going to pay back China with gold?"

Agree. I can understand how Gold is "honest money" but switching to a solid money like gold now from the "funny money" over the last several decades will lock in billions of people into perpetual debt-slavery. Which is NOT FUNNY. Personally, I don't think US will payback China with gold, nor that switching to Gold standard is a real solution given most people are in debt (including the third world countries). So I admire the intention to have "honest" currency, but it's just too FAR gone into the hole now that it's economically suicidal for most to even contemplate. 

illyia's picture

democracy is GOOD when majority are educated, good, strong people.

democracy is BAD when greedy idiots outnumber smart kind people.

And, history has gone to the winners, who put out textbooks, that taught us that Columbus sailed the ocean blue and just about nothing else. The only real educated citizens are those who educated themselves.

Overfed's picture

Democracy would be great if it took a 2/3 majority to pass any law, and if every law had a 10 year (or fewer) sunset.

El Diablo Rojo's picture

Democracy is NEVER good.  We had a Republic at one time.....

DonGenaro's picture

What is phase 2 ?

Phase 1 is Collect Underpants.


fourchan's picture

the longer we go the more right he becomes.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Just capable of complex thought and nuance.  Something you apparently would not understand.

centipede's picture

He, he, so smart and unable to understand what free market actually is. :-)

AldousHuxley's picture

nothing is free



you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.



centipede's picture

Free market doesn't mean it is for free. It can be "free" only if participants responsibly uphold the same right for all other participants.

AldousHuxley's picture

there are natural monopolies.


people in these natural monopolies are pushing for free markets because they know they won't be affected while others suffer under increased competition.


also some markets should exist otherwise you are subsidizing immoral behavior (hiring illegal alien underage children for hard labor) by penalizing moral behavior (hiring expensive US citizens)

howenlink's picture

The vast majority of monopolies are either government monopolies or government created ones.  Theses are coersive, criminal, and immoral.  Think about it.


And, BTW, free market does not mean violation of childrens' rights, either.


(Why do I feed the trolls?)



JimBowie1958's picture

nothing is free  ... you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.

You are exactly right, but the anarchists and rigid anti-government libertarians will neg you for evere disagreeing with them on anything, lol.

And the Truthers are just stupid as shit in a burning bag.

Freewheelin Franklin's picture

you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.

No. You can't have free markets without strong prohibitions (laws) against the initiation of force, and fraud. Something our current economy is lacking. Perhaps, because the government has a forced monopoly on the adjudication of law. Yes, you are correct in that monopolies ---> bad. 


James_Cole's picture

Ron Paul says many of the right things and clearly has more conviction than many American politicians. 

For me he goes wrong primarily in terms of science & religion.

Once you start saying rights come from Santa Claus the idea that a free market can exist starts to make a lot of sense. And then science becomes a moot point, way down the list after God, God's free market & property rights.  

He's a pretty typical Texas Republican, not unlike George W. Bush. The main difference being RP actually walks the walk rather than simply talking. 

centipede's picture

Actually, you are exeptionally right here. Rights really do not come from Santa Claus. They are a result of one important condition. Equality of rights for all of us. Solve that condition and you will maybe finally understand what rights are. Free market is clearly one of them.

James_Cole's picture

Equality of rights as defined by....?

Rights are defined by the people who exist within the society, just as the free market is defined by those who participate in it. 

centipede's picture

No. Rights can not be defined arbitrarily. That is the whole point. They have to be equal for all of us. You can not initiate a force against me if both of us have to have the same rights. Only a right fulfilling that condition is the real right. Free market is that kind of right. Everybody has right to freely create and exchange values with others and that condition is not violated.

James_Cole's picture

Of course they are not defined "arbitrarily" they are defined by you and I and the society in which we live.

These rights are then enforced by you and I and the rest of the society in which we live. Over time they will evolve. 

"They have to be equal for all of us."

And how do we ensure that? Better - who ensures this?

"Everybody has right to freely create and exchange values with others and that condition is not violated."

Another platitude. 

centipede's picture

You still do not want to understand. The fact, that we are not able in particular situation to ensure equality of rights doesn't mean that we do not have those rights. Even slaves had those rights and they certainly were not able to ensure that.

You were asking where the definitions of those rights are supposed to come from. Definitions do not represent any ability to ensure anything.

Are able to prove that that "platitude" doesn't fulfill the equailty of rights? So why shouldn't it be a right for all of us? Any rational reason?

Taffy Lewis's picture

Wow, James_Cole, LetThemEatRand, and other stupid fucks in a circle jerk of stupid fucks - on one thread.

Should I play the lottery tomorrow?

AldousHuxley's picture

"Rights" don't exist in nature.


laws of nature, physics, economy, etc. don't give a shit about your human rights.


"rights" are what elites define to promote optimal society for their benefit.


Founding fathers' definition of rights excluded rights of natives, rights of slaves, rights of women, etc.


African-Americans got "rights" when elites wanted them for factory labor instead of on the farms.


Gays get "right" to marry when new york real estate prices are ridiculous and only professional same sex couples without kids can afford them.


Illegal Mexicans get legal "rights" when elites need them to replace aging white lower class laborers.


In the end, it is all about the money...control of your and other's life.


James_Cole's picture

You're arguing natural rights, which I see as both irrelevent & non-existent.

The only thing that matters is the rights we agree on and that the law upholds. 

Not to be confusing, but I see morality as yet another separate issue. 

"So why shouldn't it be a right for all of us? Any rational reason?"

Yes, because "freely create and exchange values" should only read "create and exchange values" and end with "as dictated by market forces." Because market forces will both limit and expand free exchange by design. Marking the whole idea of "free exchange" as the absurdity that it is.  

If GS wants to pay a lot of money to quote stuff your orders they should be able to do that if that's within the legality of the market. This practice severely limits your ability to "Freely" create and exchange values but that's how it works. GS pays so that they get the advantage. You don't pay so you are at a disadvantage. 

That's what I don't understand about zh, they go on and on about free markets and then complain endlessly abut things like quote stuffing and HFT. If the market needs more regulation to stay alive / efficient, say it. Don't hide behind this free-market bullshit. 

As I said before, functions of markets are determined by the people participating in them, not magic. Same goes with rights. 

centipede's picture

Why are natural rights irrelevent? Is equality of rights for you irrelevant? For me it is much more imporant than whatever is legalized by law and enforced. That is exactly what I should do my best to achieve and change existing laws accordingly. Only mental slave resigns on those rights.

If we do not know rationaly define what rights to agree on and why what is the point?

Market forces are just mysticism, not a real proof. Are you saying that we shouldn't be free to create and exchange values just because you for some mystical reason think it is absurd? This is supposed to be a rational reasoning? If you are able to identify any real "practice severely limiting your ability to "Freely" create and exchange values" that is exactly what you should try fight if we want to uphold our rights. I agree, GS has privileges incompatible with free market and that is exactly why we should try to change it.

The only regulation free market needs is the upholding of equal rights (no privileges) which is in reality crime prevention and suppression.

You are still confusing rights with what is currently enforced. Rights generally, justice and free market specifically are concepts we should strive for in the same way the slaves were trying to become free.