All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:22
922 Ron Paul: Responses to Criticisms

Sooo, some youtubers had some, um, questions...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope that you're doing very well. It's Steph from Freedomain Radio at freedomainradio.com.
Thank you so much to all of the very exciting comments that I received from the Ron Paul fans on my last video, Ron Paul, The Shape of Things to Come.
And I'd like to take the opportunity to respond to some of the...
Few coherent criticisms that I got so that we can put things squarely on the table and then I'll go a little bit further into questioning the efficacy of political actions in terms of building a program, a productive and achievable program Of human liberty.
It's not because I don't want us to be free.
It's just because I don't want us to waste our time on politics and invest our energies into the illusion that someone's going to come thundering over the political landscape and wave his wand and free us all.
I just don't think it's going to work that way and there's pretty good evidence as to why.
Why that is the case.
So I'll put forward a couple of additional arguments and hopefully it will make some sense to you.
And if not, feel free to start a new flame war on the YouTube threads or on my boards or, of course, in my inbox, should that be your preference.
So, first, there were some criticisms that I may be slandering Monsieur LePaul with regards to his desire to deport 10 to 20 million Americans, I guess a fairly significant percentage of the 1 in 15 Americans.
And you can go to his website, and I've posted this on the YouTube video, go to his website where he talks about no amnesty and a desire to deport 10 to 20 million Americans.
He does say that it's impractical, but he obviously wants to do it.
Now, he says, Ron Paul says that He wants to do this because the illegal immigrants are breaking the law.
Breaking the law.
But Ron Paul himself founds just law.
He is a natural law advocate.
He is not a positive law advocate.
In other words, a law does not gain validity just by being written down.
That it has to have something to do with a larger moral framework that people can accept.
And that it's rational and just and so on.
And he talks quite a bit About the non-aggression principle, which I would fully subscribe to and I'm a huge fan of myself.
So when he says that he wants to deport illegal immigrants, he has a problem.
And all libertarians who advocate this have a problem.
Insofar as they say, well, I want to deport illegal immigrants But the problem is that illegal immigrants clearly have not violated the non-aggression policy.
They have not shot anyone.
They have not stabbed anyone.
I mean, those that have is a different category, but then you can't call them the category illegal immigrants.
Then you have to call them the category of criminals.
So, illegal immigrants clearly have not violated the non-aggression principle simply by immigration more accurately termed is just moving, moving from one place to another.
Moving from Toronto to Buffalo is a very small distance, but of course would involve a massive amount of paying off the local state mafia on either side.
Whereas, moving from New York to San Francisco is a much greater distance, but because you have this imaginary mafia, Desmasse, you can do it with less hassle.
So, the true term for immigration is just moving.
And, of course, America has a grand history and in many ways was founded on fleeing from political persecution from the home state.
This occurred throughout Eastern Europe, then Western Europe and England, fleeing particularly religious persecution to go to a new country to found a new society, to take part in a new society was very much core to the American experience.
And the foundation of the country, of course, the people who are fleeing Mexico and other countries in South America and some of the people who come over from other areas, Are fleeing exactly the same thing that the founding fathers fleed, which is terrible, statist, horrible governments such as the Mexican government, the first communist government in the world, actually, in the early part of the 20th century.
So they're fleeing economic and political persecution and come to America, which is exactly what the founders of America were doing.
But now that we're in, I guess, the drawbridge can go up and so on.
So the reason that people have to come up with all this nonsense is because if you are against the initiation of the use of force, which any rational moralist is, then you have to recognize that people who move from one place to another Are not initiating the use of force.
If you move across town, if you move across the state, or you move across the country, you're not initiating the use of force.
If somebody walks from Mexico into Texas, they're not initiating the use of force.
So then the question is, if you are a libertarian and you found your libertarian ethic, On the non-initiation of force, on the non-aggression principle, then you have a problem when it comes to being against immigration.
And that problem is immigrants aren't violating.
What are you going to say? Well, you're going to say it's the law that they're violating.
But then you've thrown your ethics out the window completely and you say that law, which is in fact just an opinion with a gun, that law is what makes what illegal immigrants do completely wrong.
But there's no moral thing in that.
It's just, well, we're the government. We can write down laws and you better obey us or we'll throw you in prison.
So you've lost every kind of moral justification that you could conceivably have for opposing immigration the moment that you invoke the magic entity of the law.
So that's not particularly something that I can have any respect for.
If you're going to run as a politician, I mean, nobody expects Hillary or Obama or John Edwards.
I mean, nobody expects those people to have any ethics.
Everybody knows they're just sleazy power mongers.
But if you're going to run on ethics, if you're going to run on the non-aggression principle, then be consistent.
Don't throw it out immediately that you come across this illegal immigrant problem.
Another sort of issue is that if Americans want to focus on a group that is Causing them economic difficulties, right?
A lot of it is pragmatic. Oh, the immigrants, the illegal immigrants and the immigrants are taking welfare benefits and double dipping into this, that and the other and sending their kids to school and not even paying the taxes and blah.
Well, then what you're saying is that people should be deported if they are harming your economic interest through some sort of subterfuge or manipulation or outright violence.
Well, of course, if that is your criteria, and I think that's a reasonable position to take in the realm of politics, right?
And if you're going to take that position, which is not a reasonable realm, but if you're going to take that position, then what you have to do is apply it in a principled way to the landscape that you see before him.
So if you say, well, we should deport people who are aggressing against us and costing us money, Then we should deport all the police who enforce the tax laws that take the money from the citizens.
We should deport the police, we should deport the politicians, we should deport the prison guards who are currently keeping all of the Americans, two million Americans in jail of which the majority is a non-violent defenders war on drugs and other nonsense, right? So then we should deport those people because it's not the illegal immigrants who are enforcing the theft of your income through the government.
It's not the illegal immigrants who work for the IRS and who will come to your house if you don't pay your taxes and put a gun to your face and shoot you down should you refuse to go with them and pay up your money plus interest and penalties.
It's not the illegal immigrants.
Who are doing that? It is the police and it is the military and it is the prison guards and it is the judges and it is the politicians who are all involved in that.
So clearly, if the initiation of the use of force is bad, then if those who harm your economic interests or aggress against you should be deported, then clearly This should happen to the cops, right?
And this should happen to the people who work for the IRS and the people who keep you in prison.
I mean, just logically. You can throw that all out the window and that's fine.
But then you just join the general baying political herd of people who'll say whatever they want to say or whatever people want to hear in order to get into power.
But the moment, the moment that you say there is an ethical basis to what it is that you're doing...
That's fine. If you want to be some religious nut and come up with all the nonsense in the world about how the universe came into being and how dead Jewish zombies love you and if you telepathically communicate your passion for them, they'll elevate you to a spirit realm of pure bliss.
Fine. Everybody knows that's just madness.
But if you're going to come in as a scientist and say, I have a scientific theory, then you're going to be subject to a kind of rigor.
And the moment that a politician starts talking about the non-aggression principle and ethics and virtue, Well, then, do it.
I mean, don't just use it to gain political power with a particular constituency.
So, that's sort of another area which I think is pretty abhorrent.
Just psychologically, I'm not gonna say any of this is syllogistically proven, but just psychologically, let me take you on a journey.
What I'd like to say is that From where I sit, it's very clear what is going on with the hostility towards immigration.
What is going on with the hostility towards immigration is the basic fact that immigrant communities, particularly Hispanic, are growing.
They're just growing.
And so the average American citizen who is xenophobic and understands politics is terrified of being outvoted, in particular in certain areas.
And there's some projection, I can't remember what it is, it's like within 20 or 30 years whites will be a minority and so on.
And so what happens is people are like, oh my god, if we become a minority we're going to be outvoted by Hispanics, by blacks, by whatever, some other group.
In other words, white Americans are concerned that they, in a sense, will become the immigrants, that they will become the minority, that they will be on the receiving end of the political power that they wield as a majority now.
That's the way I see it, because it makes no sense why we would be, you know, why libertarian campaigners like Ron Paul would be, oh, end the war on drugs, get rid of all taxes, but the immigrants, push them out.
And that is the fear and the divisiveness and the ugliness that politics always brings to the table.
Philosophy creates beauty.
Politics creates ugliness.
And you can see this, of course, in the comments one video back.
So, really what's happening is that as the immigrant populations grow, the white people who are the majority are afraid of being kicked into minority status, particularly because of the fact that, you know, whitey don't breed, right?
I mean, there's lots of additional fecundity in the immigrant community that is outstripping, this is true particularly of the Muslim community and more so in Western Europe, that is outstripping the native.
So, the question is, If you become, if you're a white guy or a white person in a white family, you become a minority within your own sort of community from a political standpoint, you're terrified of that, right?
You're scared of that. That seems horrible to you, that you could be outvoted by a bunch of people who, I don't know, didn't come over with the Mayflower or something.
And I'm here to tell you that you need to experience that fear.
I want to run away from that fear by subscribing to the Ron Paul bandwagon, because that fear is very essential.
That fear is very essential.
A lot of the work that I do through Free Domain Radio is really focused on emotional work.
And this is going to sound all fruity as hell to political people, but it's very, very important.
The fear that you experience, the sense of disorientation, of being pushed out of your own community, of not having the power anymore, the sense of fear that you feel when you think of the whites becoming a minority in your community or in the country as a whole, that fear is exactly what whites have inflicted on other minorities throughout most of American history, if not all.
So that is your way to understand the evil of politics.
When you consider your children growing up in a minority white country and you think that's terrible, that's scary, but that's exactly what Mexicans and blacks have experienced and other communities have experienced throughout the history of the United States and other countries, in particular to the United States.
So the solution to that is to experience the fear and the humiliation and the caution and the concern and the scarediness that comes out of looking at the question that you might be a minority in your own country.
That is the nature of the government, that the majority screws the minority, except for the minority of politicians who screw everyone.
But that's essential.
That's an important fear to have.
You get stuck in this dead backwater of minarchism if you are afraid of government power, but you think there's some way to manage and control it.
It's like, oh, we might be outvoted by immigrants.
Raise the drawbridge.
Get rid of the immigrants. Kick out people.
Don't let them come over here and naturalize their citizens.
As if there's some magic spell like dropping a baby on American soil suddenly creates a new kind of human being.
But the important thing is to empathize with and to understand that what you contemplate, even in the abstract, is what other groups and communities have lived with for hundreds of years, lived under, which is the dominance of whites and particularly Christians in the United States and WASPs or whatever over in Europe and so on.
But I think I really do suggest that it's important not to have a knee-jerk response to that fear and say, well, that's it.
Get rid of the immigrants. Clamp down on immigration.
Build a wall. But it's absolutely essential if you want to get the real power and destructiveness of the state to say, that which I am vaguely afraid of in decades is what other people are living with right now.
And the solution, the solution is not to get rid of the immigrants.
The solution is to get rid of the state.
The solution is to get rid of the state.
So let me give you a metaphor for that.
Maybe it will make some sense. First time for everything.
But let me give you a metaphor for that.
So let's say that you are, and we'll take all the clichés on the planet, you are an Italian deli owner.
And local Luigi Von Soprano, Von Mafioso, comes over and, you know, you have to pay him $5,000 a month in protection money or somehow your store will mysteriously get burned down.
And so you pay that money.
You pay the $5,000 a month to the Mafia.
Now the Mafia then take that money and they go blowing it on, you know, hookers blow, weapons, nice shiny Italian suits you can see your own face in, all of that kind of stuff.
And what happens is this generates an enormous amount of restaurants, like the restaurants spread up because the mafia don't like to cook.
And they go and they tip waiters and they tip all the busboys and all of these people come into the community because the mafia is just laying out all this cash that they're stealing from you to begin with.
Right? I think you know where I'm going with this.
And you look at the situation, right?
You're this deli store owner.
You look at the situation. You say, well, I'm being ripped off for $5,000 a month by these thugs.
And then they go and they spread all of this money around the busboys and the waiters.
And that's attracting more unskilled laborers to this neck of the woods.
Now, on what planet?
On what planet?
Could you think, could you conceivably think that the solution is to get rid of the busboys?
Just hold the thought.
Go with me on this.
You're being ripped off by the mafia who are threatening to burn down your store $5,000 a month.
They take this money, they blow it on restaurants, hire lots of busboys.
Busboys all flowing into town because all the mafia tipped them 20 bucks every time they go in.
On what possible planet of even remotely logical contemplation could you look at that situation and say, you know what the problem is?
Those goddamn busboys.
Half of them don't even work that much.
It's not the problem.
Illegal immigration is not the problem.
Where the money goes after it's stolen from you is not the problem.
The fact that it is stolen is the problem.
The fact that mostly white guys come to your house if you don't pay your taxes, drag your ass off to jail if you don't give them what they ask for.
That is the problem.
That is the problem. The fact that, oh, there's some illegal immigrants who come here and get fake social security numbers and get welfare, that's equivalent to the busboys that the Mafia is paying off.
And you want to join the Mafia so that you can talk them out of tipping?
And you think that's going to solve the problem of an organized crime?
Madness. Madness.
If you don't experience the humiliation that comes from being treated like a piece of tax livestock by the state with guns, if you don't experience that humiliation, if you think you can jump into the state and take control of it and get rid of it and go back to the Constitution and get rid of this, that and the other, you're just drugging yourself with fantasy.
That's not good. You get rid of every single illegal immigrant in the country, you are not going to reduce the size of the state.
One atom. One at them.
They'll just spend the money on something else.
Just spend the money on something else.
The problem is not that people are fleeing political persecution and working under the table.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the government is stealing money from you every month at the point of a gun.
And I know, I know, I know, I know, I know everybody wants to act now.
Everybody wants to act now.
Yes, yes, that's fine, Steph.
You might have some libertopian ideal, and maybe I believe in it, and maybe I don't, but that's generations away.
I've got to act now. Now I can be free.
Now I can be free. If I just vote for Ron Paul, now I can be free.
But, uh... What I asked for in the last video, nobody's at all obligated to present me with anything, right?
I'm just some guy on YouTube. But what I asked for was, could I get a plan?
A real practical plan.
Because every politician on the planet says, I'm going to cut taxes and increase spending.
I'm going to cut taxes and I'm going to get rid of this and I'm going to get rid of that.
You're going to be more free and so on.
I'm going to protect you and make you free.
And it's just standard, right?
It's like every war is to end war.
So I just asked for a plan.
I said, what's the plan? And I put forward some scenarios as to why it couldn't happen, or at least couldn't logically happen, couldn't happen economically.
And people responded by saying, well, yes, but you see in France recently, the French president confronted the Railway Workers Union, and the public sided with the president and not the union, and so on, right?
But... You don't want to just wave around words and think that you're solving problems.
Very, very important. Just look at the facts of that situation.
Yes, you had a railway union that had retirement at 50 or 55, that was not popular with the general population.
I understand that.
But nobody won anything.
Nobody won anything. All that happened was these guys went on strike for a couple of days, shut down the country.
All that happened was they came back to the negotiating table.
Nothing's been resolved, at least to my knowledge.
And certainly, even if they manage to get these guys to retire at 57 instead of 55, or 55 instead of 50, that's not called bringing down the state.
They haven't even been able to achieve that.
They haven't been able to cut these guys' pay.
They haven't been able to cut these guys' retirement benefits.
They haven't been able to cut anything.
Because they're in a legal contract with the union.
And what happens if they break the legal contract?
The union sues. The government has to pay more.
Is Ron Hall going to tear up the contracts with the public sector unions?
Is that how he's going to do it?
Is he going to declare martial law on the union?
I mean, just need a plan.
That's all I'm asking for.
Not just, well, you might as well say, well, Reagan.
See, Reagan confronted the air traffic controller, so that was getting rid of government.
Federal government was...
Almost twice the size by the time Reagan left office after promising to cut spending, to cut taxes.
He did all that, just yanked up the deficit, right?
You save a buck, your kids get hit with a $5 bill.
So just asking for a plan.
There's no plan. There's no plan.
It's just like, well, we're going to do this great stuff.
I'm going to be in office and magically things are going to happen.
What's the plan? What's the plan, and how is it that people are going to react to the plan?
Because every politician in the world will tell you that they're going to give you great stuff for less money.
Great stuff for less money, but the question is, how do you do it?
There's a reason politicians don't put that plan out ahead of time, because then they mobilize opposition.
If Ron Paul put out a 50-page plan or a 500-page plan saying, here's exactly what I'm going to do every day to get rid of X, Y, and Z... All that would happen is he would be alerting everybody who would then start to fight him tooth and nail, right?
But if there's no plan and it hasn't worked, as I said in the last video, for the last 150 years, then I don't believe it.
Right? And you shouldn't either.
I mean, not because I'm telling you anything, but just because if it hasn't worked for the past 150 years that classical liberals and libertarians and anarchists have been trying to control the size of the state to reduce the power and the size of the state the last 150 years, and it has completely been a total disaster that not only has the state not gotten smaller, but it's gotten massively larger.
If that has been the pattern of the last 150 years, and then people are saying, my guy can change it.
Don't you worry. Ronnie P's all over it.
He's going to change it. It's like, well, how?
Hasn't worked for the last 150 years.
Done quite the opposite of what people intended.
So you show me how it's going to work.
I mean, I have. I know that people say to me then, well, yes, but if I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul, what am I going to do?
Well, I have an answer to that.
I mean, as best as I've been able to work it out, the way for you to actually be able to achieve a far greater degree of personal freedom in your own life and not as some guy said, Steph, stop sponging off your wife and go on a diet.
No, I don't sponge off my wife, by the way.
I perfectly pay my own way.
But even if I did, I supported her when she was getting her clinic going.
Anyway, the important thing is to focus on your personal freedom, things that you can actually achieve, things that you can actually change in your own personal life.
Not to be a slave to fantasies about how someone's going to ride over the horizon and set you free.
This is something you have to take on yourself if you want to have any credibility.
So, and the reason I was sort of saying that, let's just, you know, one or two graphs and I'll let you go.
Let you go. Let's just have a look at these.
I'll try and do this while I'm still talking and also see this, right?
So this is a graph.
You can sort of see here, we start, what is that?
1790, and usually the First World War, Second World War, and so on.
This is the growth in government spending.
From the founding of the Republic only through to 1990, which is 17 years ago, almost 18 years ago now.
And as you can see, we have, just after 1940, there is, so actually you can say in the 1920s, so right down in there, in the 1920s, we had Mises writing his first books on why socialism didn't work and so on.
And you'd think That it would have been a whole lot easier to control the size and growth of government when it was only that big.
I'm not giving you the finger on purpose.
So that would be a good time to do it.
Right after the Second World War, when it was half the size that it is now, actually it was about a whole lot smaller than it was now, you'd think it would have been easier to control government spending back then.
So people couldn't do it when it was tiny in the 1920s or before the First World War or whatever.
They couldn't do it when it was like that. How are they going to do it when it's absolutely massively larger by now?
Let's have a look at, this is 1957 to 2006.
So again, it doesn't have the ugliest and most meaty numbers in it.
But here we have total American debt.
And here, we can see in 1957, $5,000 per person.
Now, $50,000 per person, sort of up around here, 2006, as of last year.
1957, I can think Atlas Shrugged came out in 1957, if you're a Rand fan or whatever, and Murray Rothbard was writing throughout the 60s and so on.
And they had no luck whatsoever, with all of that amazing intellectual energy, great works, great writers, getting the Nobel Prize for, I think it was Hayek, In 1970.
So here, we're cooking down this area.
So we're cooking down in this area and people were unable to control the size and the power of the state.
And then in here, just to the left of this little box here, That's Reagan, right?
Right in there. That's when Reagan started to came in and say, well, government is the problem, not the solution.
I'm going to get rid of the Department of Education.
I'm going to collapse taxes.
I'm going to do all this, that, and the other.
Well-meaning fellow, smart fellow.
I'm a great communicator, great speecher, one of the best, I think, speech givers ever, and completely and utterly and totally failed, right?
Government spending went out, completely out of control under Reagan, never came back down.
So, as I've sort of mentioned, People are saying, well, we can stop this truck that is accelerating.
We can stop this truck and we can bring it back down to idling.
And the same people have been saying this for the past 150 years.
Don't you worry. Political action is going to stop this truck that is rolling down the hill, gathering momentum, crushing your liberties, aimed straight at you.
You're going to become some splurged, splatted on hood ornament on this truck.
And people have been saying this for 150 years.
Just, you know, let's take the spotlight back a little bit.
And statistically, I mean, just roughly, the truck was going two to three miles an hour 100 years ago.
And people piled on trying to stop it.
Grabbed the wheel, hit the brakes, and so on.
And it just started going faster.
They said, I can stop this truck.
It just started going faster.
We go all the way back to the American Revolution, they said, well, we're going to keep this truck going at one-tenth of one mile an hour.
They all pile on. Somebody hits the gas.
Lord knows what happens. There's lots of reasons as to why this happens.
It's just important to understand that it does happen and why we can have some rational skepticism about the magic carpet ride of instant liberty through political action.
So, we go into the First World War, this truck really starts gathering momentum, right?
It's speeding along, and then people pile on it, and yes, there is some slowdown after the war.
Governments always get smaller again after their massive increases during the war.
They just never return to their pre-war size.
Government grows and grows and grows.
All the whole time, we've got a whole bunch of classical liberals, von Mesians and Minarchists, all piling on, constitutionalists, trying to control the size and growth of this increase in this accelerating truck.
You get to the Second World War, thing takes a massive gun, and then it comes back down quite considerably, but never back to pre-war levels.
After the New Deal, straight on through the 50s, it's accelerating, it's accelerating.
Then Reagan gets on when it's going like 20 miles an hour, 30 miles, and he's like, I'm going to hit the brakes on this thing.
I'm going to get it right back down to 5 or 10 miles an hour.
By the time Reagan is thrown off the truck, the thing is going 50 miles an hour.
And now it's going like 120 miles an hour.
It's going 120 miles an hour after 100 years of libertarians and minarchists and classical liberals piling onto this truck to try and slow down its growth.
And when you look at it from that perspective, all due respect to the guys, good public speaker and all that, Ron Paul is just another guy scrambling on the truck saying, don't worry, I can stop this thing.
But if it couldn't be stopped when it was going 5 miles an hour and it couldn't be stopped at 15 and it couldn't be stopped at 50, How the hell is it going to be stopped at 100 or 150?
Which is the current speed that it's at right now.
And when the wall is only a couple of years away, anyway.
That's all I'm asking for.
Is he 50 times smarter and that's why he can stop a truck going 50 times faster?
Is the internet the magic that's going to do it?
I have yet to see a plan.
The internet may get the word out.
Doesn't say how he's going to do it.
It's just more people piling onto the truck and more desperate people saying, well, the truck is going so fast, now we've got to use political action.
But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The more we pile onto this truck, the faster it goes.
There's not been a single exception.
The more we pile onto this truck, the faster it goes.
And I'm all piling on there, trying to hit the brakes, trying to grab the wheel, trying to...
It doesn't work. It doesn't work.
I'm not saying this because I'm mean.
I'm not saying this because I'm anti-Ron Paul.
I'm not saying this because I'm a Canadian who doesn't want liberty.
I'm not saying any of this.
I'm saying this because I don't want you to waste your time and energies.
And there's not better ways.
I was going to say better ways. It's much different than better ways.
If you want to become a marathon runner, there are better things.
It's not that there are better things to do than smoking.
You just shouldn't. Not only should you not smoke, you should go 100% in the opposite direction.
Political action is an incredible drug.
It is so tempting. It really, really makes you feel like you're doing something.
But just look back in history.
Just look back in history when it was much, much, much easier To control the state, everyone failed.
That's an important lesson to learn.
I mean, what I've tried to sort of get out of my study of libertarian history and history as a whole, I have a master's degree in history from the University of Toronto.
What I've tried to do, and I think every responsible libertarian needs to be doing this and an anarchist, why have we failed?
Why have we failed?
We have, since Adam Smith, over 300 years ago, 330 years ago, almost.
We have had, for instance, the argument for free trade has been down pat.
No economist has any doubts about the argument for free trade.
We have less free trade now than we did in the 19th century.
Why is it that we keep losing?
Why is it that we keep losing?
And if you are a responsible A person who's really, really dedicated to liberty and not just to frantic action to ease your own anxiety about oncoming fascism, if you're really interested in liberty, then you will ask that basic question.
Why have we failed? It's not because we haven't tried political action.
That has been tried for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
And it fails every time.
Fails every time.
You can't join the Mafia to get rid of the Mafia.
You just can't. It just doesn't work.
And the moment you do that, the moment you go for political power, you have to dilute your ethics to the point where you look even more hypocritical than your average run-of-the-mill relativist corrupt politician.
So, it doesn't work.
There's better things to do. We have to try something different.
We have to try something different.
I've come up with, through Free Domain Radio, go listen, go look, read books.
People got mad at me for...
I'm going to do it again. People got mad at me for holding up my books like I'm, you know, trying to use Ron Paul to sell books and so on, right?
Well, that's not the case.
If you want the books for free, I will ship them to you for free.
Pay me if you like them.
On Truth, Universally Preferable Behavior, Novel, The God of Atheists, I will ship you the PDF or the audiobooks.
Totally for free. I'm not trying to make a killing here.
I'm trying to spread some important philosophical concepts.
Anyway, I hope that this has been really helpful for you.
I know it's really, really hard to let go of the track, particularly when it's going this fast.
And of course, I'm not I'm not imagining, I don't convince a lot of people here, but just, you know, keep it in the back of your mind.
Cook it in the back burners a little bit so that when the things do play out with Ron Paul, at least you'll have someone who said take an umbrella.
That way when it does rain, you might come back and look at these again.
So thank you again so much for watching and posting.
I appreciate your interest. FreeDomainRadio.com.
▲
Export Selection