If you get busy, like me, you may have stopped following Ron Paul’s progress after the Primary results came in. It’s not that I lost interest in Ron Paul’s politics, but rather that I lost interest in modern U.S. presidential politics.
What are we left with as viable candidates? There is Obama, Hillary, and McCain.
Obama
Obama started out as a promising candidate. He became an overnight sensation due to his age, and skin color. Partially as a linguistic remnant of our racist past, Obama is referred to as black, despite the fact that his genetic make-up is better described as multi-racial. Yet, Obama’s legitimate newness in the realm of politics does not appear to transfer in policy.
Obama fills a void. He offers Rorschach-ink-blot-style symbolism. A candidate who fulfills your every political desire, even if you change your mind tomorrow. For all the empty buzz about Obama, there are a few things that stand out in his policy-making. Obama does offer the voter an exit from Iraq. When? Soon. Maybe. He also offers neoconservatives hope that we may invade Pakistan someday under his “leadership”.
We get a sense of justice from a theoretical Obama presidency. Finally, a “member” of a much maligned “race” in recent history, especially in the United States, gets a chance to hold one of the most powerful political positions in the world.
There is not a single enlightened person in the world who does not feel good about this possibility. In today’s racially-tense urban areas, particularly well-depicted by the movie Crash, such an event resolves a deep cognitive dissonance shared at many levels by “white” people who are constantly labeled “oppressors” - ironically oppressed occasionally by policies enacted with benevolent intent, such as affirmative action.
And Obama’s policies do not deviate from this pattern of humanitarianism. He wants to pursue more affirmative action, create programs that encourage students to fill 50 hours of community service, and enable civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
As a matter of political savvy, or perhaps hypocrisy, Obama stands against actual marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Though incremental steps are always wise, one must wonder why Obama has chosen to hide his intentions, if he indeed favors gay marriage. Some theorize it has to do with appealing to the Christian vote. After 8 years of incompetence, Obama is a welcome sight, but in terms of “new”, the only thing he offers is his background.
Hillary
There’s little to say about Hillary, whose policies mirror those of Obama’s. The only contrast between Hillary and Obama is a heightened sense of fakery and disingenuity, from her fake laughs to her unlikely emotional outbursts during televised events.
Well, Hillary does offer more to neoconservative-leaning folk. She is ambiguous about Iraq, but less ambiguous about pursuing conflict with Iran. And she is definitely not ambiguous about protecting Israel at all costs simply because Israel is an ally. One wonders if the defense industry chose to fund her for her interest in Israel, or if she developed an interest for Israel as a result of the funding.
McCain
Where Obama’s background appeals and Hillary’s repels, McCain’s background also offers the voter a chance to sympathize. A former prisoner of war who refused to use his familial connections to escape Vietnam without his fellow soldiers, McCain appears deserving of sympathy.
One would expect such an experience to change a person for the better. Why, then, does McCain insist on provoking Iran with an attempt to get them kicked off the Soccer World Cup? Why, if he so despises torture, does McCain insist on resolving conflict through war? Is this a case of “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?
Perhaps McCain could conduct a war more responsibly than his predecessor. Perhaps anybody could. But is he wise enough to ask himself why we need war in the first place?
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not without his shortcomings. But in the areas that are relevant to the presidency, Ron Paul shines. Foreign Policy and Economics. Ron Paul’s presidential bid offered hope to the families of soldiers deployed in Iraq. It also offered a platform that differed from most others. The difference? Substance.
While most candidates were out distorting facts to fit their platform and appealing to emotion, Ron Paul stuck to the facts. Factcheck.org released some criticism on Ron Paul’s claims that the Iraq War was costing the United States 1 trillion dollars a year. They claimed they had not criticized Ron Paul because of his visibility (lack thereof), which may be true. However, their insinuation that Ron Paul was exaggerating is misleading at best.
The central question
What happened to Ron Paul is at one level, very simple: Ron Paul’s policies are counter-intuitive. Fighting racism by dissolving affirmative action? Enabling gay rights by leaving the government out of marriage? Fighting drug-related violence by legalizing drugs?
Ron Paul is not without blame. When faced with questions regarding a newsletter published under his name, Ron Paul should have gone as far as to produce the name of the ghostwriter(s). His counter-intuitive (but intelligent) libertarian-leaning solutions were too consistent, whether by chance or by design, with some of the ideas expressed in the infamous politically-incorrect newsletters.
Had the writings been his own, an admission with contextual explanation would have sufficed. Everyone who has heard Ron Paul speak knows that he has either never uttered such non-sense, or it no longer represents his informed views. Then, again, giving a false rumor undue attention would have also backfired.
Ron Paul’s misplaced emphasis on NAFTA and the hypothetical North American Union and his association with unsavory individuals or organizations, whether mutual or not, fueled perceptions that Ron Paul was a “kook”.
The mainstream media ultimately earns the blame for Ron Paul’s mostly disappointing official poll numbers. Not just because they distorted the results on occasion, or asked him irrelevant or loaded questions at the debates; The media deserves the majority of the blame because they censored him every chance they had. This is not a “conspiracy theory” in the modern sense of the word. The censorship and misrepresentation is well-documented, on occasion by the offenders themselves, when it suited ratings.
A Ron Paul presidency was a long-shot. Especially from the beginning. However as Ron Paul’s supporters organized massive one day donations, the media began to take notice and Ron Paul’s numbers in the polls improved dramatically. After all, you can be featured in a debate, asked irrelevant questions and still get little coverage on the news. As an avid Ron Paul supporter I might watch every debate he is featured in, but what about the average uninformed or uninterested voter who sees the Ron Paul-less highlights on CNN or FOX News? This is why Ron Paul could give the most intelligent answers, and generally outperform the other candidates at the debates, and still be relatively unknown.
Add to the general media blackout the typical misrepresentation, and you have voters believing Ron Paul has “no chance” even before the official results come in. Had Ron Paul been given an equal amount of fair airtime on the news as Obama, or Giuliani, when Ron Paul announced his candidacy, the results would be dramatically different. There is no delusion here - Ron Paul would have still had to work hard at better explaining his ideas, and his ideology would not appeal to all who were accurately exposed to it. Nevertheless, the mainstream media didn’t do Ron Paul any favors. Not in the way they gave Obama and Giuliani a free pass.
Ironically, the premature labels of “non-factor” and “he has no chance” would have been better suited for Giuliani, whose only source of viability was a fake expertise on terrorism, and a willingness by the mainstream media to monetize a symbolic figure of IX.XI.
Do you want substance in your elected leaders? You may need to move to the 14th Congressional district.
[l]ibertarianism has experienced a resurgence likely to resonate in politics for quite some time. I did not agree with Ron Paul on some issues, and I don’t think strict libertarianism is the answer to everything. But at a time when liberties are threatened by irrational fears, a little reasonable freedom couldn’t hurt. We can all thank Ron Paul for bringing this to the global stage.
The next 8 years could be very long. Fortunately, Giuliani’s authoritarianism will not be a factor. Now we only have to worry about a 100-year war, and/or more deficit spending in the name of equality with a dash of dogmatic authoritarianism.
In the pursuit of responsibility and peace of mind, I may vote against a 100-year war for the alternative 5-6 years of war and limited interference abroad. Nevertheless, I’d much rather abstain from that “choice” and write-in Dr. Ron Paul as a statement of disapproval.
If the Nov 5th trend holds, Ron Paul is on schedule to break 4.3 million in donations in one day, and reach up to 10 Million for the December 16th Tea Party. Get ready to see Ron Paul all over the news tomorrow. It’s possible that we will see Ron Paul surpass some of the “mainstream” Republican contenders in totals for the 4th Quarter. But the 16th will be the new measuring stick for elections to come.
Ron Paul may or may not get the Republican nomination, but his decentralized approach to government, and the message of freedom will live on through thousands if not millions of young supporters who will shape the United States and the world in years to come.
It may be easy to reject Ron Paul at first because you don’t understand him or his policies.
You can probably look at the other candidates’ names or faces and make a quick decision that way.
But if you spend any time making a thoughtful decision, and if you get past the learning curve, you’ll love Ron Paul.
—
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.
It is also one of the only political philosophies backed up by modern economics and psychology instead of pure dogma.
The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism; meaning you submit to authority simply because “you should”. Giuliani is a prime example of an authoritarian. Giuliani wants to tell you what to do even though he is no expert and even though he has no logical or rational explanation. Of course, Giuliani would never say that he doesn’t have a rational explanation. He’ll simply say something that sounds good like ‘9.11′.
An example of authoritarianism is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that we should ban mature video games. A libertarian would leave such decisions to the parents of a child. Another example of authoritarianism is the move to ban trans fats in NY. Sure, trans fats are unhealthy and undesirable. A libertarian would let people make the decision themselves.
In other words, libertarianism maximizes your ability to make your own choices. Authoritarianism maximizes Giuliani and Hillary’s ability to make choices for you, even when you disagree with them.
And what happens when Giuliani and Hillary make a bad decisions for you and you choose not to comply? Tough. If you disobey you get punished.
Next thing you know, you won’t be allowed to eat at your favorite restaurant.
—
A free market describes a theoretical, idealized market where the prices of goods and services is arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. In theory, a free market will affect the price of goods such that the price reflects the real value of the goods.
An example of a society with free market society is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is ranked #1 when it comes to economic freedom. Hong Kong enjoys an employment rate nearly identical to that of the United States and there are no minimum wage laws. This keeps inflation at bay, which means residents can afford more with their money. The lack of artificial manipulation of the market means an umbrella costs more when it’s raining than when it’s not. And why shouldn’t it? An umbrella is worth more when it’s raining.
It also means there is more competition, and thus prices stay competitive. People will buy your umbrella if it is better or cheaper. In turn people make and sell better, cheaper umbrellas.
An opposing concept is the idea of nationalized healthcare systems, such as Hillary and Edwards’ proposals. These programs are wasteful because they raise taxes to pay people that have no incentive to provide good healthcare. They also raise the price of healthcare because people go to the doctor even when they don’t need one. They order expensive tests when they don’t need any. The patient (consumer) has no idea what their medication or their doctor visit costs, so there is no feedback that pushes prices back or indicates which services are more efficient. The end result is worse healthcare, longer waiting lines, and higher taxes.
Studies involving psychology of ownership show that people place more value on goods they own than on public goods. This means private property gets taken care of better than public property. This is great news for the environment. In true free market conditions (that is, with no corporate welfare) an oil company has a real incentive to minimize its effect on the environment for two reasons: (1) It can resell the land it has bought at a better price and (2) If they pollute the surrounding private property they are liable for damages to private property.
Better news for the environment: If the oil companies do not get subsidies to drill for oil, and they must pay for the plot of land they will drill on, the price of the plot of land will increase. This means oil companies better do what they can to resell the plot of land once it has been drilled; and more importantly, it provides a real incentive for the oil companies to invest in other technologies - both to drill more carefully, and to avoid oil dependency.
This also explains why our government (and in particular the military branch) is the biggest polluter in the United States. What incentive does the military have to keep its easily-acquired land clean?
References
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Forest Jourden. “Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership”, 51 Vanderbilt Law Review 1541-82 (1998).
Teach your friends and family to use the internet.
Show them a clip of their favorite TV show, or music video on YouTube.
Help them look up a Ron Paul video and ask them what they think.
If they can use the internet, they have complete access to Ron Paul. The rest is up to Ron Paul, and he sells himself remarkably well.
Try a video with Tucker, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or if they have a decent attention span, this video:
If you understand the nuances of true conservatism, or classical liberalism, strike up a conversation with a friend who is undecided. Someone who thinks for himself/herself, dislikes the war, or dislikes dogmatic infringement of personal liberty will respond quite nicely. Others will too.* Everybody likes freedom.**
These are good places to brush up on liberty as it pertains to government:
Bring the internet to the older generation, and Ron Paul will do the rest.
* Some older people dislike paying for expensive medication (courtesy of the FDA) when it is cheaper abroad; or being restricted to picking up their medications every month, instead of once every 3 months (which is more convenient). Young parents may be concerned that they can’t afford to move to a wealthy area with good schools, (easily resolved with school vouchers or other privatization), and being told they cannot send children to the school of their choice. A small business owner may want the government to ease up on time-consuming and inconvenient regulations. A smart college student who has done his/her research may want to choose his own anti-depressant, instead of requiring a prescription from a general practitioner (who will simply select the medication via trial and error, anyway). A lot of people may not want heavy surveillance, REAL ID, or any more of the Patriot Act (a real misnomer). More politically inclined people may simply want government transparency. Ron Paul means all these things.
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper, and current libertarian county chairman, Michelle Shingal. They regard Hillary Clinton as the candidate of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”
His colleague asks, “Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul”, to which Tucker responds, “That’s the question I think millions of Americans are beginning to ask themselves.”
“I have received more emails than I can count from people around the world who write to say that they wish they could be American citizens in order to have the privilege of voting for Ron Paul.” -Thomas E. Woods, Jr. from Having Fun Doing Good
Blogs in the international community are spreading Ron Paul’s message of freedom and giving tutorials on libertarianism, hoping to inform their fellow compatriots and to rally U.S. citizens in support of Ron Paul. The phenomenon is becoming widespread and growing as meet-up groups form around the world as far as Australia, Belgium, and Baghdad to discuss Ron Paul and create inspiring videos. This is what the world is saying about Ron Paul:
Can you imagine the the effect these kinds of politics would have on our [Latin American] countries, eternally paralyzed in the notion that everything that happens to us is the fault of the gringos? Chavez’s tantrums and his assassination paranoia would fall on completely deaf ears. One less tool in the recruitment arsenal of the [Venezuelan] left.
We want to be a bridge between Belgium and the Ron Paul campaign. Mainly to inform Belgium about Ron Paul—we think Belgium has more to learn from Ron Paul than Ron Paul from Belgium—but also to show to Ron Paul that when he becomes president and visits Belgium, there well be cheering crowds, not demonstrations!
Undoubtedly, Ron Paul is an exemplary model for libertarians around the entire world and Europe in particular. Since the Second World War, Europe got stuck with an increasingly sweeping welfare state which cost more and more money to European states. Reagan and Thatcher also had their influence in Belgium, for example, think of the nickname of the then still young Guy Verhofstadt who was called ‘Baby Thatcher’. When both Thatcher and Reagan disappeared from the picture, Verhofstadt had also went with the European flow. He could, as it turns out, not pursue liberalism alone.
Regardless of of how weak the dollar is currently, the United States is still the leading monetary power. In the case, and I realize that this approaches utopia, that Ron Paul succeeds in eliminating the power of the inflationary Federal Reserve, this undoubtedly will have consequences on the European central bank (ECB).
People who want to seize liberty in their country must for this reason look across the borders. This opportunity is undoubtedly available to those in the US themselves. There is an extremely large chance that the Democrats will win the elections, as people there do not understand the disadvantages of the welfare state the Democrats are enamored with.
He is a principled libertarian/classical liberal by political and economic philosophy. That is enough for him to have many new friends in India and Pakistan — both enormously large countries which are sorely in need of libertarian/classical liberal political and economic philosophy to develop themselves. Moreover, Dr Paul advocates a non-interventionist American foreign policy in the world, and he was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from long before it started. That too is something that people in India and Pakistan appreciate. […]
There are rich Indian-Americans paying big bucks to get close to people like Hillary Clinton. They need to stop being so opportunistic and instead look to what is truly in their adopted country’s and the world’s best interests: that is a Ron Paul Presidency.
[Translation: People in other countries wish they had what we have: Ron Paul.]
America launching aggressive wars in the world is not the way to earn the world’s respect or its leadership. Ron Paul, alone among the likely contenders, knows that.
Maybe this will give people in the United States a sense that there are other people out there who care about what we are doing in the world and who would respect us if we had a leader like Ron Paul and a respective foreign policy.
Ron Paul has become the third most searched name in Google and his videos have transformed into the most watched on YouTube. Nobody has probably heard him mentioned, or ultimately, you have heard his name in passing. It’s about a congressman for the U.S. Republican party who wants to be president in the United States in 2008.
Now, one could ask, what makes a Republican politician so special?
The answer lies in his history and his proposals, since Ron Paul seeks to return liberty to the citizens of the U.S. embodying the original principles of the revolution that gave the country its opportunities. An example we should attentively look at from Chile.
[…]
Ron Paul thus embodies the spirit of the North American “founding fathers”, who drew up the Constitution with the idea of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of the State. In this sense, Ron Paul embodies, the original North American idealist, largely devoting himself to libertarian ideals more so than the conservative ideals.
His discourse and relevance are causing him to win all the debates for the Republican primaries. […]
From now on, [he is] my favorite candidate for the U.S. elections in 2008.
Because Britain is suffering the EXACT same symptoms as the USA. We are being ruled, instead of having real representative democracy. Like us, the USA are being deceived too. Britain has almost being totaly swallowed up by a corrupt, undemocratic European Union. The USA are starting to go down the route of North American Union.
[…]
The USA has managed to do what we haven’t so far and got itself a champion of freedom. The Americans aren’t quite as docile and ready to accept a police state as we seem to be, so they have rallied behind the one politician they have with integrity. Maybe Britain doesn’t have such a person and thus why we are floundering.
Ron Paul winning in the States will send shockwaves of freedom around the world. Maybe the British will rediscover our spines if he does?
Public Polish Television (TVA), supported by our taxes, reported on the online presidential campaign in the United States on August 5, 2007. Peter Krazko informed Poles that the most popular candidate among online users is Barack Obama, an obvious lie. In the course of several minutes, not once is Ron Paul’s name mentioned, who definitively leads on YouTube, the biggest online portal in which users can upload videos, also political in nature. The Polish Television propanda is exposed here.
If I were an American I would vote for this guy, no doubt. I had been having this theory that it was the American foreign policy that was so messed up and it was the reason why America was so hated throughout the world and Ron Paul honestly supported my idea during the second GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina. During the debate Ron Paul, a congressman from the state of Texas, courageously pointed his finger at American foreign policy of making terrible blowbacks in foreign nations. Ron Paul said that America should listen to the the people who attacked America about the reason why they did it. Ron Paul suggested that the only reason why America was attacked was because America had been messing around in other countries. A statement that resulted a hot debate with Rudy Rudy Giuliani. But I have to say, Ron Paul beat him. He said, “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” […]
Untuk Tasa Nugraza Barley: Aku akan memilih Ron Paul untuk kepentingan kamu dan siapa saja yang tidak dari Amerika Serikat. Terima Kasih untuk artikel kamu yang mendangkan ilham; dan salam Indonesia!
Some people ask us, why we care about an old Congressman from Texas. They ask us, what it has to do with Europe.
Well, it`s pretty simple: we support the only honest politician around. We support the only politician who addresses the REAL problems, who stands up against the lies we are being told.
It`s not our fault we don’t have any of those in Europe.
This is not about the USA. This is not about national entities. And, by the way, this is not about being “Anti-European“. The politics of the EU are “anti-european” as they breed conflict among us.
Thanks for the post. We must secure our own Ron Pauls here in Europe - it is extremely necessarily. And we will do it! The European r3volution will come, it will be so memorable we will tell our children about it :-))) heartfelt greetings, Tuur (RP Belgium)
Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is especially interesting for functioning with an unknown degree of spontaneity and decentralization. It compels one to imagine a similar occurrence here in Brazil, right?
Ron Paul’s position on the Iraq war deserves special clarification - not only because this is one the more controversial aspects of the campaign, but mainly because it has great chance of being misunderstood by the majority of the Brazilian public.
Ron Paul, like the majority of Brazilian journalists, is against the Iraq war; however, his reasons for it are very different from that of our journalists. […]
[He is] against the war, but not against the United States […] He can be against the war and at the same time defend American values […]
Military force does not generate democracy: the futility of artificially creating new social orders […] The idea of spreading democracy through military intervention, therefore, is strictly anti-conservative, therefore a true conservative would know that each social order has deep roots in the culture of a people, and could not easily be modified through an external influence - less so if the external influence is military force, which tends to only disorganize effective institutions, without provoking changes in respect to values and ideas.
Therefore, Ron Paul contends that the only role the American government must have in relation to the internal affairs of the other countries is “to give a good example”. That is, the American government must show to the world the benefits of a free society, without involving itself directly in the decision of whether other countries imitate the American model or not. […]
The media has put out the idea that somehow Ron Paul isn’t right for our national security. Really? I wonder how much these critics know about Al Qaeda, our real interests, strategy or world politics.
Students and schools in Belgium and around the world outdo their counterparts in the United States; but it’s not about lack of money, it’s lack of competition and a surplus of bad teachers who have no incentive to teach well. But guess what? Independent schools that spend less money per student, but more per teacher in the United States outdo our public schools as well. How do we fix the problem? Increase competition. Does it still sound strange when Ron Paul says he wants to do away with the Department of Education? Don’t miss the following video:
Stupid in America
Do you want to learn more about Ron Paul? Visit RonPaul2008.com and watch the following video:
One consequence of Ron Paul’s sound foreign policy, is that people around the world will stop hating us - what will that do for terrorism?
Request: Please inform me about any translation errors, particularly in Dutch and Polish. If you come across any notable website supporting Ron Paul, particularly in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, please send us a link, or post it under comments!
Robert Novak is a recent addition to the growing list of analysts and celebrities who support a Ron Paul presidency. Among those who like Ron Paul’s message of freedom as well as a unique alternative to a Republican field chock full of pro-war candidates:
On MSNBC’s Tucker
We saw these FEC reports, including those from your campaign, and were amazed to learn that Barry Manilow has given to your campaign.
Do you know Barry Manilow?”
Paul responded: “No, I do not. I was very pleased to find that out.”
Asked if he was a fan of Manilow’s music, Paul said: “I really like it now, I will tell you that.”
Bill Maher
Andrew Napolitano
Mark Cuban
Michael Badnarik
Chuck Baldwin
Aaron Russo
Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Steve Kubby
Others who have commented positively on Ron Paul’s candidacy are:
Andrew Sullivan
Pat Buchanan
As an interesting note, libertarian John Stossel believes Ron Paul is not entertaining enough to win votes, but FOX News correspondents and Duncan Hunter seem to believe he is very entertaining.
And just for fun, a few notable historical figures who would most likely endorse Ron Paul:
Modern-day academics and relatively obscure but notable supporters were not included.
Google also treated Ron Paul like a legend during his visit to Google Headquarters and asked him more questions than any other presidential candidate who has been interviewed there before.
If the last debate was any indication, the upcoming Republican debate on Septermber 15 hosted by CNN in conjunction with YouTube is expected to draw a large audience along the demographics of young adults 18-34.
According to usaelectionpolls.com, Ron Paul’s highest demographic is composed of young adults. Most of the Republican candidates will have a difficult time answering direct personal questions from the young YouTube audience. But Ron Paul has already faced young voters in countless interviews. His consistent and candid responses will set him apart from the rest of the Republican candidates. Furthermore, YouTube is already pro-Ron Paul, in volume of videos watched and popularity.
In the meantime 26,000 people in Ron Paul meet-up groups are promoting Ron Paul independently of the main campaign. The most watched Candidates@Google video is Ron Paul’s with 109,858 views after only one week. This video is over an hour in length.
The most blogged item according to Technorati is consistently “Ron Paul”.
And along the 18-29 age group 33% of people are libertarians, the largest ideological demographic for that age group, which partly explains the popularity of Ron Paul on the internet.
Since 13% of voters in the last election are libertarians, it should be fairly straightforward to predict that Ron Paul will get at least 13% of the vote in the primaries.
Additionally, there is a growing trend for libertarian voter turn out. It increased 3% between the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Because the national polls do not reach young voters and voters who have not voted before, the 3% that registers nationally is a bad indicator of what to expect in the Republican primary.
Based on the number of libertarians who have voted at previous elections; the misrepresentation of young voters at the landline-based national polls; Ron Paul’s growing popularity at this relatively early stage; the strong military support for Ron Paul; the “Streissand Effect“; and the expected high voter turn out by his grassroots supporters, my prediction with the current available data is Ron Paul will take a surprising 15-20% of the primary vote.
“Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty.”
“The philosophical concept of negative liberty refers to an individual’s liberty from being subjected to the authority of others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity.”
Department of Eating Out and majority rule vs unanimous consent.
Whenever the government creates a new organization like the Department of Homeland Security or raises taxes, it interferes with your liberty. We wouldn’t make our neighbors pay for our haircut or our next meal. So why does the government do it? The answer is that the government does it because we accept the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority.
Think about it this way: You are with your friends and you want to order a pizza. Well, eight of your friends do. Your last two friends have been eating pizza for the last week and will absolutely not pay for your pizza. In most situations you wouldn’t force them to pay for your pizza; if you did you might not have very many friends, soon. So your two friends abstain and instead choose to go separately to a Chinese restaurant. The rest of your eight friends are divided between Papa John’s and Domino’s, most don’t really care, because they just want pizza. So you flip a coin and Domino’s it is. Six of you want pepperoni and three of you want anchovies. You could force the three to eat your pepperoni pizza, but that’s not a fair solution. Instead, you order two large pepperoni pizzas and one large anchovy pizza. Furthermore, three of you want onions and mushrooms and the other three don’t care. So you end up with one large pepperoni, one large anchovy pizza, and one large pepperoni pizza with mushrooms and onions. And Chinese take out.
Seems like a very good solution. But what if we created a fictitious U.S. Department of Eating Out? What would the order look like? Well, they’d ask you for each individual’s social security number, look through their records, and determine that they will send you two medium anchovy pizzas for everyone in your eleven-person party. You argue with them on the phone and you tell them that most of you don’t like anchovies, but it turns out that three of your friends didn’t register with the the department of Eating Out. That’s why you are only getting two medium pizzas. And that’s why they made them with anchovies. But don’t worry… Your pizzas will arrive in 40-70 minutes and they are free. That is until you look at how much the government is paying for your two pizzas: each pizza is costs 15 dollars, but the total isn’t 30 dollars. The total is 570 dollars because the government pays minimum wage and it was just raised to 13.00. The person who made your pizza dropped a bucket of tomato sauce on the floor and his friend slipped and had to be sent to the emergency room.
But who cares right? If it wasn’t for the goverment, we wouldn’t have pizzas. Everyone would have to buy their own pizza, and who would deliver it? Does anybody outside the government even know how to make a pizza? No thanks. We’ll eat our cold and tiny anchovy pizzas and pay 570 dollars for them. We are scared of the consequences of abolishing the Department of Eating Out.
As you can see, the only happy people in your party are the three anchovy aficionados. Eight of you are completely unsatisfied. This is an example where the tyranny of the “majority” affects the “minority”. Except it wasn’t the majority because the government had incomplete records and no incentive to please you.
Now apply this scenario to Health Care or the Department of Education, or Homeland Security. These organizations are inefficient and have no incentive to please you. On the other hand, Papa John’s and Domino’s Pizza make money by pleasing you. Their greed is an incentive to make your pizza better, faster, and keep you coming back for more. When you were ordering the pizzas from Domino’s your friends figured out exactly how to order without government interference. Your friends who didn’t want to eat pizza got their Chinese food and were happy. Everyone else got a share of the pizza they wanted and were happy as well. And it was done through unanimous consent, not majority rule. This is the way libertarians envision an ideal society.
But if the government doesn’t make our pizza who will?
If Papa John’s and Domino’s didn’t exist, someone would learn to make it and make a living off it. The first company to sell pizzas might sell at relatively high prices. But if this is the case, someone else will take advantage of those high prices to sell pizza at lower ones. As long as the government stays out of the pizza industry, pizza will get better and cheaper. So there is no need for the government to make our pizzas. As long as there is demand for pizza, the free-market will provide it.
But what about the poor people? They can’t all afford pizza.
No. Pizza isn’t free. Someone has to make it. To give pizza away for free would be to devalue the work of Someone. When we start giving free pizza away or raise minimum wage, we trigger a domino effect that reduces the value of our currency and the value of our work. Then other people can’t afford pizza either. But it’s free right? So they don’t need to be able to afford pizza… Well, wrong. Because nothing is free. In order to make pizzas, the government has to raise taxes.
But the rich can have all the pizza they want. It’s wrong for them not to share. What have they done for us anyway?
Well, the rich create jobs. When you raise their taxes and raise minimum wage they can’t afford to hire as many people. That means next time they need to reduce spending, they might have to fire you, because maybe you are not worth the new minimum wage.
But in an ideal world everyone would have pizza.
Not everybody likes pizza. If your neighbor doesn’t like pizza why should they pay for it? Think back to the example at your party. Everyone got what they wanted and nobody paid for anything they didn’t want, through unanimous consent.
Health care is different. Health care is a necessity.
And that’s why it is more compassionate to let the free-market take care of it. When you use a medical coupon you are entitled to all kinds of evaluations and free tests. And the hospital or clinic gets a free pass, so they can order as many tests as they want. What happens then? The price of health care increases and the price of taxes goes up. Furthermore, because everyone is expected to afford health care the price goes up.
So, in reality, government subsidized health care increases the price of medical services. That means the poverty line will gradually increase until people who might have once been able to afford health care no longer can.
What about the war on drugs?
If we stopped fighting war on drugs, we would spend less tax money on a problem we created. By fighting a war on drugs, we increase the market value of drugs. This means drug dealers earn more money from selling drugs. So in reality the war on drugs is relatively good for drug cartels and dealers. It’s not so good for people who get caught in the cross-fire. One would think it would be preferable that someone who wants a drug simply got it and left everyone alone than for our government to kill that person during a drug raid.
Furthermore, our jails are filled with people whose crime was victimless. They would be more productive and less costly out in the real world.
So if the government stays out of everything, who takes care of the environment?
You wouldn’t trash your neighbors house, so why should you be allowed to trash a privately owned park? It has been shown in experiments that people protect and value things they own more than those they don’t. When people own private property, they take care of it. By privatizing all land, we can protect the environment.
So if the free-market works so well, how come Ron Paul isn’t doing well at the polls?
On the contrary. Ron Paul does very well on all post-debate internet polls
But those aren’t scientific. I get the impression that the internet is filled with Ron Paul spammers.
The internet is definitely filled with Ron Paul supporters. The reason for that is that there is a great demand for Ron Paul and the main stream media is ignoring him. The internet is very much unregulated, and it allows people who are interested in him to follow his progress. Thus the internet is saturated with Ron Paul. A way to solve this “problem” is to ask the mainstream media to cover Ron Paul a little more often.
Ron Paul Blames America for 9/11.
False. Ron Paul blames our foreign policy. He was baited at the SC debate, but he didn’t bring up 9/11. It was brought up as a loaded follow-up question by the moderator and Giuliani.
Ron Paul is an isolationist.
No. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He favors global trade and diplomacy with all nations. He wants to pursue terrorists and wants to defend our country. However, he is against nation-building.
Ron Paul’s fiscal policies will help the oil industry and other monopolies.
Ron Paul favors a true free-market and is against subsidies, special interest groups, and corporate welfare. He would not subsidize the oil industry or any corporation. In a true free-market society true “monopolies” do not arise because the government does not hold back the competition through ineffective regulation.
You don’t have to agree with Ron Paul on specific issues to benefit from his principles and presidency.
Ron Paul wants to restore your freedoms. Other candidates want to impose an arbitrary and inconsistent belief system - Thus, I cannot bring myself to vote for just anybody else.
Is Romney for or against abortion?
Is Rudy going to implement a Real ID and embedded RF-ID chips in humans?
What are Obama’s positions on the war? How are they consistent?
What about Fred Thompson? If these candidates are consistent in their positions, why are they hiding them? If they simply want to follow popular public opinion why don’t they come out and say it?
Because it would cost them the presidency. Because they know there is wide opposition to their inconsistent views and if you really knew what they stand for, given an informed choice, you’d choose to avoid them.
I don’t have to agree with Ron Paul’s positions to know that my political positions and freedoms will be respected as long as I don’t hurt anybody else.
Ron Paul has been the most transparent candidate. Everyone else is putting on a facade. Why vote for someone who is going to change their mind when an interest group sponsors them? Why vote for someone who isn’t led by consistent principles, and who can’t explain to you, reasonably and justifiably, why they support a particular issue?
We don’t need a cryptic president. We need transparency and consistency.
