HOW CAN WE SOLVE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PROBLEM? ANSWER BY RON PAUL

I think the first thing we have to do to solve these problems with education is to recognize that the federal government should not be the director right now. We have a Department of Education spending billions of dollars. Many students think that the only way they can survive is to go to college, get a degree and run up a debt and then leave college with a $50,000, $60,000, or $100,000 debt. Then there are special loans where a student isn’t even allowed to declare bankruptcy. All of these loans are very harmful.

I would suggest that we look to the constitution for guidance. The constitution has given no authority for the federal government to be involved, and yet they are involved in setting the curriculum. I think there is an agenda there. I don’t think there is any doubt. There are some people who believe that parents are irresponsible. Just because a few aren’t doesn’t mean that everybody has to give up the responsibility and deliver to the government because, in many ways, if education is universal it becomes indoctrination. The bigger a government is, the more control it has. All authoritarian governments, whether it’s a fascist state or a communist state or other types of authoritarian state, generally want control. Our country continues to move in the direction of getting control of the teaching of our children, even at a younger age. First it was Kindergarten, then it was pre-Kindergarten. Now it’s even before that.

We have to challenge that and say that is not a solution. Parents have to speak out and find out what the options are and demand they have the right to opt out. There are so many things that the government is involved in, and it is very difficult to get around it because once you pay all of your taxes to go to school you don’t have much left over to maybe go to private school. Also, parents who are concerned should look at homeschooling because where they might spend $15,000 per child in some of these school districts and not get an education and be exposed to all of these dangers, at the same time some homeschoolers can be educated for $500 a year and get educated. People need to look at that. There should be as much competition as possible.

It would be horrible if homeschooling and private schooling were made illegal, and some people would like to do that. It is crucial that these options are available at the state level. Some districts offer voucher system. I don’t particularly favor the voucher because the government can dictate the same rules on the schools that might take the voucher, so it’s not true competition. A better way to do this would be to give tax credits to individuals so they get their money back if they are going to assume more responsibility.

The question would always come up, what about the very poor? Well, the very poor were educated before we had the federal government doing all of this. To ask a libertarian how would the poor people end up getting education is like asking how do the poor people get a car? How do the poor people get a cell phone? How do the poor people pay to see a football game? It depends on their desires and their willingness to work and realizing there’s always a way. This whole idea that governments are capable of doing this, I think, is a little bit misled. We have to have a lot more confidence in a free society. We have to have a lot more confidence in parental control of education. And we have to have more confidence in a system that distributes wealth in a much fairer manner than the government. For instance, even though for my education I worked hard and paid my tuition, there were a lot of subsidies pumped into medical school and into college. So even if you pay your way and pay all the bills, there are still subsidies. You can say, that’s wonderful, but who ended up paying for that? Some of the poor people pay for this, the people who never get to go to college. The hardworking person ends up paying for this education. It’s the way education is delivered that has to be challenged.

We need to ask the question of whether it’s really a right to have education, whether the federal government should be involved. I believe it should not be involved and then we have to have a society where we have a lot more confidence in the responsibility the parents should share in making sure that, whether it’s a local public school, a private school or homeschooling, they play a role in this. But if this is deferred to a single authoritarian force, especially at the federal level, you’re going to see Common Core getting expanded, never being diminished, and people are going to be more disgruntled than ever. They are very disgruntled right now because people are have spent all this money graduating from college and not having a job. So it’s an absolute failure what’s going on, and we have to be able to offer other options.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION EIGHT

Daily Bell: What gives you the most hope right now?

Ron Paul: I think I get the biggest encouragement from talking to young people figuring this out. Their minds are more open, they’re aware of the problems. And, once again, they’re not the 51 percent but the ones who will come out and get involved in the many projects I have are very, very enthusiastic about learning and being involved. Some of them get involved in politics and some do other things like teaching. I think that’s where I get the greatest encouragement.

And, of course, the places where I go I get more support from people who are probably under 30. But then again, there are a few over 30 that know better and remember times that were different, when government was smaller and things were better and people were self-reliant. So I think nobody can measure those numbers of people out there but there are a lot of people who are very sympathetic and we just have to persist. And I think that is what’s happening.

We’re having a lot of determined people, not only because we have the access to the Internet but because of the blatant failures. I noticed a big blip in interest in what I was talking about with the Fed when the housing bubble burst and there’ll be another giant movement in our direction when the next crash comes, which I suspect is not too far off.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION SEVEN

Daily Bell: What do you suggest individuals be doing now toward rebuilding now what we want to exist after the collapse? As opposed to fighting what we’ve got now, should we be building toward what we want next?

Ron Paul: I think the most important thing is education, spreading the message, which is where we’re having success, and getting people to understand free-market economics – why it’s good and why it’s beneficial to the largest number of people and the reason we had a large middle class at one time. And the only responsibility that each of us has is to educate ourselves. We can’t just listen to the propaganda of the government or the misplaced education that most of us got from our colleges and public schools. We have to challenge that and that’s the great part about the Internet – we can find those answers.

After each and every one of us did that then there will always be a role we can play. It will be different. Some of us stay involved in education, others in politics, some people become writers and then others might apply it to their investment opportunities, looking at investments and things and saying this is what’s coming; you ought to be prepared. Everybody has a responsibility first to understand the system and then be available and be willing  to share that, not only with your friends and neighbors but anybody who asks you for the information. And hopefully, these ideas will spread.

Nobody should be discouraged because you don’t have to make sure 51 percent of the people understand exactly what’s going on; you have to have that 7 or 8 or 9 percent of people who are intellectual leaders who reach other people and explain to the majority why you must go along with liberty versus authoritarianism because we now live in an age of authoritarianism, which has proven to be a failure through the many, many centuries of all the history we’ve recorded.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION SIX

Daily Bell: You stated you see an overarching economic crash coming, so where do you see the Federal Reserve in that overall collapse?

Ron Paul: One thing is for sure, the Federal Reserve and those who benefit – everything from the military-industrial complex to all welfarists – they will not take it easily. Although we’ve made great progress in the last eight years and have actually had the bill in the House passed that would audit the Federal Reserve, the people who benefit from it are very, very determined not to allow that to happen. So I think we have to keep doing it. I keep working with that to make sure everybody knows what it is, because when we repeal it we don’t want another Federal Reserve System; we want constitutional money and we want commodity money and we want freedom of choices in it. And that is the important thing.

But I don’t think we’ll legislate the Fed out of existence. Even I don’t say it would be wise to take the key and lock the door and close down the Federal Reserve System tomorrow. It would be rather chaotic. But I do believe the system will self-destruct because, although we’ve benefited tremendously by being able to issue the reserve currency of the world, that is coming to an end. It will come to an end. It’s a nonviable system. And we just have to fight bad ideas with good ideas and, as far as I’m concerned, the good ideas come from the Austrian economists and commodity money and freedom of choice.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION FIVE

Daily Bell: What do you think of drug legalization? Is it a good idea to legalize marijuana? How about other drugs?

Ron Paul: I don’t look at it in that narrow sense. I look at it in the broad sense of legalizing freedom, the freedom of choice, and that includes everything that you put into your body, everything that you put into your soul, your religious beliefs, everything you put into your mind, your intellectual pursuits. We don’t tend to watch and regulate those so why should we regulate anything we put into our bodies? I would just say legalize freedom. Let people make the choices.

The biggest hurdle for people to get over is the fact that if you legalize something it doesn’t mean you endorse it. Just because I legalize freedom of choice in religion, that doesn’t mean I endorse violence by some religions or  anything else, or some religions that make no sense. But if they’re nonviolent, people get to make their choices. And the same way on personal habits.

The key thing about personal habits and individual liberty is if people make bad choices, whether they make bad choices in their social behavior or bad choices in their economic behavior, they have to suffer the consequences and they can never go to the government and to their neighbor and use force to bail them out. They have to assume responsibility for it.

So I’m for legalizing all freedom that does not initiate violence against another person.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION FOUR

Daily Bell: How much of that waking up, as you said, can be contributed to the Internet? And do you see it growing worldwide or only in the US?

Ron Paul: I think the Internet is key to it and is the one reason why I have my Internet program. Fewer and fewer people depend on regular TV and you see more programs being deleted from TV. So the Internet is the wave of the future and that’s one of the reasons the freedom movement is growing, because it’s not dependent on the establishment. When I got interested in these ideas in the ’50s and ’60s it was very, very difficult to get any  information but today it’s so easy and it spreads like a wildfire. I think it’s fantastic and hopefully, that is so, so big that no one government can close it down. I’m betting somebody who knows a lot more about computers than I do will be able to maintain some type of communication on the Internet.

It is worldwide. I’ve said it so many times – this is not a Republican deal. We’re not just trying to improve the Republicans and make it a better party. If the ideas are correct they will be pervasive, just like the interventionist foreign policy and Keynesian intervention economics. That was endorsed by the Republicans and Democrats; they just argued over who got to be the managers. And I think this is what’s going on and it’s worldwide and if we continue to improve on our successes, it will influence not only Republicans and Independents and Democrats; it will be worldwide. I hear from a lot of people around the world and I do travel out of the country, who are encouraged and are anxious to hear the message.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION THREE

Daily Bell: Is the US, like Rome, doomed to fall or can the pre-Civil War laissez faire republic be brought back?

Ron Paul: I work on the assumption that you can save the republic and it can come back but not in a conventional way. Although I’m involved in political activity, in trying to help people get elected and stay involved, I do not believe the republic is going to be saved by electing two or three or ten more members of Congress who are very sincere about doing the right things. I think it’s good. I think it’s beneficial only in providing answers for the long term.

So I see the republic and our liberties being much further undermined – because they are constantly being undermined. If you think of what’s happened since 9/11, our liberties have been taken away constantly and I think that’s going to get much, much worse and we’re going to have a lot more violence, not only around the world but here at home and the economic problems are going to get much worse. And indeed, our liberties and our republic will be threatened and in many ways we don’t have the fundamentals at all anymore.

But on the positive side, I think there are a lot of people waking up. For once in the history of Keynesianism more and more people, and and the young people I’ve talked to at the college level, are realizing that there’s something seriously wrong with the economic model of Keynesianism, this idea that you can print money and run up debt and it doesn’t have any consequence. So we have a tremendous opportunity. The failure of Keynesianism in the 20th century shows that fascism and communism are evil monsters and they don’t work and they’ve finally collapsed. And authoritarianism doesn’t work, and telling people how to run their lives. And I think there’s a growing movement. The freedom movement is alive and well.

Now, how we go from here to having a much better system it’s hard to tell but it’s not going to be gradual and smooth. I think we’re going to have things get much, much worse here, more attacks on our liberties and maybe a total breakdown of our economy, with then an opportunity if we lay the groundwork for having a generation of individuals realize what can replace the system we have.

That’s exactly what the left did, the Keynesians and the socialists. For years and years they controlled the thought processes and the thought leaders and they were teaching and preaching all this government intervention, the Federal Reserve System, pushing of interest rates and economic planning. I think the wave is different and I believe that if we continue the momentum we can pick up the pieces and have a much better society than we’ve had in a long time.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE - QUESTION TWO

Daily Bell: Of the never-ending stream of “bad news” these days, what has you most concerned right now? What do you see as the most significant problem that the US faces?

Ron Paul: There’s one problem I think the world faces, and the United States faces, which is a very generalized problem that I deal with all the time and I think is the source of all our troubles. That is the lack of understanding and determination to protect liberty for the people. If you do that you solve so many problems – economic, you have less war and all these other things.

But most of the time when people are interested in the most important issue they’re looking for something maybe more specific and right now I think it involves foreign affairs. I think what’s going on in Iraq verifies my position and the position of many others that have held for a long time that us being involved there and intervention in these internal affairs and squabbles around the world and being the policeman of the world doesn’t lead to many good things. And it’s coming back to haunt us right now. It’s very expensive, a lot of people have died and after ten years, where are we? We’re worse off than ever. It’s getting so silly that we’re actually talking about working with the Iranians to help us out in bringing about stability.

But it’s not only stability in Iraq. It’s regional. It has to do with oil. There are problems going on with our interventions everywhere from Libya to Egypt to the Middle East to Syria and Ukraine. It’s just way too much and it contributes so much to our economic problems because it all costs a lot of money and leads to a lot of death. I think that’s the greatest thing we face now. More specifically economically, I think the wave of the future the people will all of a sudden start talking about will be inflation, though I believe inflation is here because they’re printing money like crazy. I think prices are going up in certain areas very significantly and it will finally get to the  point where even the government statistics will have to admit that there is a lot of inflation in the system.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY WILE FROM THEDAILYBELL.COM - QUESTION ONE

Daily Bell: Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Paul. We know your time is short today so will keep our questions succinct. Please tell us first about the efforts you have you been most focused on since leaving Congress.

Ron Paul: I’ve done various things. A lot of people ask me if I’ve retired. I’ve retired from Congress but I’m probably busier than ever because I have a lot of projects going on. I’m busy with the Internet programming that I have with the Ron Paul Channel. I have a Ron Paul Curriculum, trying to get homeschooling moving along. I stay very involved with Young Americans for Liberty and travel to college campuses. I usually stay rather busy!

WHAT I THINK........OLIVER GETTELL

Moviegoers largely, er, shrugged at the first two installments of "Atlas Shrugged," the ongoing three-part film adaptation of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel. Though the book has found a passionate readership, particularly among political conservatives and libertarians, the first two movies combined for just under $8 million at the box office in 2011 and 2012.

In an effort to drum up some buzz for the trilogy's conclusion in the upcoming "Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?," the filmmakers have enlisted an array of prominent conservatives to appear in the movie, including former congressman and possible presidential candidate Ron Paul.

In a video posted to the film's YouTube page, Paul talks about what inspired him to join the project. "'Atlas Shrugged' has been a fantastic novel, a fantastic book, but it's much more than a story, of course," he says. "It made me stop and think and assess all my beliefs and principles."

Paul will portray a TV commentator covering the aftermath of a speech by the titular John Galt (Kris Polaha), and he'll be joined by real-life media pundits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Producer Harmon Kaslow quipped to THR, "We put out a casting call and those are the only guys who showed up. It could be the subject matter."

Although "Part III" will mark Paul's acting debut, it won't be the first time he's appeared on the big screen: He was infamously prank-interviewed by a disguised Sacha Baron Cohen in the 2009 comedy "Bruno."

As with the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, which opened on Tax Day in 2011 and a month before the presidential election in 2012, "Part III" will be timed to make a political statement. The film hits theaters Sept. 12, about seven weeks before midterm elections.

WHY LIBERTY? FROM THE RON PAUL FORUM

Anyone concerned about their well-being and the society they live in will eventually find their way to deriving viewpoints on matters of political policy. In doing so, individuals will normally identify with positions that are in their personal best interests, resolve a perceived injustice or align to views that are similar to ones espoused by a favored political leader.

In arriving at positions there are two critical mistakes that many people often make in that they fail to apply core principles to derive their positions and they don't drill down to the root cause of issues. As a result, people fail to undercover the best position to achieve their desired end result. This mistake is unfortunately understandable since most media outlets don't focus on root causes or matters of much substance. Instead, the media often sensationalizes issues on superficial levels using appeals that cater to emotions rather than reason. Compounding the problem, individuals don't always spend time critically analyzing issues themselves since there always seems to be too much to do in ones personal life. Unfortunately, the combination of all this on a wide scale is often a recipe for disaster.

A prime example of an overlooked root cause is the proclaimed health care crisis in the United States where many people are rightfully concerned over the exorbitant cost of health care. The root cause that many seem to be overlooking however is that the high costs are a direct result of too much government involvement and over regulation in the health care market. The over regulation of forcing the use of arbitrary standards and criteria has seriously restricted peoples ability to conduct business in the health care industry which has led to less competition and skyrocketing health care costs. In a free society, individuals would have the ability to operate health care practices, educational institutions and insurance companies on their own terms as long as they aren't being dishonest. Those in need could then choose what services are right for them even if the offering doesn't meet today's arbitrary standards. In a free society, high prices would draw in competition for more cost effective solutions which would lower the costs of health care overall. In the case of the proclaimed U.S. health care crisis the failure to drill down to the root cause of exorbitant costs has prompted the "solution" of more governmental involvement which will only drive overall costs higher while lowering the standard of care due to bureaucratic overhead and restricted choices that everyone is forced into.

Taxes are another hot issue in which many people argue that they are a necessity and that each person needs to "pay their fair share." Common tax structures often argued include a flat tax, a "fair tax" and a sales tax, to name a few. While many people will genuinely support a taxation system that makes sense to them to fund what they see of value the application of core principles of jurisdiction and what it really means to live in a free society often get lost in the shuffle. Few ask questions like "How can one be free if they have no viable choice in paying some arbitrary tax?"

Finding a core set of principles that one can apply throughout their life to achieve social harmony is a thought process that has been performed by philosophers throughout history, it is also a thought process that is applied by many people that are a part of our website community here. The quest for core principles to build a society on has shown that the twin ideals of liberty and justice have often been seen as the blueprint to allow for humanity to thrive. These ideals and their supporting principles are often seen as the cornerstone of "pro-liberty" views and often get re-discovered and repeated. A variation of these ideals and principles is as follows:

Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.

Core liberty principles:

• Groups of individuals should be able to self organize and impose rules upon themselves, but should not force the same on others.
• You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit.
• The fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise.
• You should honor the agreements you make with other people.
• You should not commit fraud against other people.
• You should not initiate aggression against other people.
• You should not steal or destroy others property.
• You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property.

If this all seems like common sense then you may very well have a pro-liberty political mindset from which you can derive ideologically consistent positions on all issues by logically applying the core principles. Unfortunately it can take some time to do this since you must study the issues, filter out logical fallacies and exercise your brain by doing a great deal of critical thinking, something that no one else can do for you. Others can help you achieve truly principled consistency, members on this site will often be happy to engage you in conversation, but you must lead your own way.

Alas, there is certainly no universal agreement on all issues, this is OK. Resolving differences is truly the point of civic engagement which one should embrace as an important element within the human experience as we develop knowledge and wisdom throughout our lifetime on this planet that we all share. In short, one should think, be thoughtful and avoid seeking a "solution" that only addresses a superficial symptom of an unseen root cause issue. As one shifts their thinking to the application of the principles of liberty one will realize that it can lead to a wonderful planet where all can flourish. The message of liberty truly brings us together.

As you develop a pro-liberty philosophical foundation you will also have a choice to make in regards to your views: do nothing or try to make a difference in the world. The core of the community on this website have decided they want to make a difference in a meaningful way, we hope you join us on this journey.

MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING A GOOD WAY TO DECREASE LIBERTY, POOR WAY TO INCREASE SECURITY by RON PAUL

Last week Americans were shocked and saddened by another mass killing, this one near a college campus in California. We all feel deep sympathy for the families of the victims.

As usual, many people responded to this shooting by calling for new federal gun control laws, including the mental health screening of anyone attempting to purchase a firearm. There are a number of problems with this proposal. Federally-mandated mental health screenings would require storing mental health records in a government database. This obviously raises concerns about patient privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality, as well as the threat of identity theft. Anyone who doubts that these are legitimate concerns should consider the enormous privacy problems with the Obamacare website; some have even suggested that healthcare.gov be renamed indentifytheft.gov.

Giving government the power to bar some Americans from owning guns by labeling them as “mentally ill” could easily lead to serious abuses. Even authors of mental health manuals admit that mental health diagnoses are subjective and can be based on “social constructions.” Thus, anyone whose behavior deviates from some “norm” could find himself deprived of his second amendment, and possibly other, rights.

People could be even be labeled “mentally ill” because they are outspoken critics of the government. Currently, as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Operation Vigilant Eagle” program, veterans who express dissatisfaction with government polices run the risk of being labeled mentally-unstable terrorist threats. There has also been at least one federally-funded violence prevention program that determined that holding certain political and social views indicates a propensity for violence. So there is precedent for labeling those with unpopular political beliefs as being “mentally ill.”

We have also seen how US presidents from both parties have used the IRS to target political opponents. Imagine the potential for abuse if those same politicians had access to the mental health records of their political opponents, or the power to label opponents mentally ill because those opponents were “dissatisfied” with the government?

People who say that the threat to liberty posed by mental health screenings is outweighed by the enhanced security they provide should consider that expanding background checks and mental health screening is unlikely to make us safer. Professor Richard Alan Friedman, director of the Psychopharmacology Clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College, has written that it is imposable to predict whether an individual will act in a violent manner.

One effective way to limit mass shootings may be to repeal gun control laws that, by disarming the law-abiding, turn the innocent into victims. Like most recent shootings, this one took place in a location where the attacker could be confident his intended targets could not defend themselves. It is interesting that even though the attacker used hammers and knives on some of the victims, no one is calling for background checks on those wishing to purchase hammers.

Instead of focusing on passing more laws, our focus should be replacing the entitlement culture with a culture of self-responsibility and respect for the rights of others. Government can help this process by ending its routine violation of our rights and the use of violence as a means to achieve domestic and foreign policy goals. This is not to suggest that government policies are directly responsible for the shootings, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that growing up in a time of preemptive war may feed a deranged person’s delusion that violence is a proper way to deal with personal frustrations. Fixing the culture is much more difficult than passing new laws but is the only way to guarantee our liberty and our security.