Ever since the 2008 global financial crisis and ensuing recession, I’ve developed a growing interest in economics and politics. Before then, I didn’t really feel like anything made sense to me.
I would identify with many liberal values; to me, wanting to help the poor and give underprivileged people better opportunities is a noble thing to do. However, I never agreed with the idea that hard-working people who managed to accumulate some wealth for themselves were somehow less deserving or “selfish”. How could people working to make a better life for themselves and doing it in an honest way be bad? Why did they deserve to be treated as cattle for the milking? It didn’t make sense to me and I didn’t see how I could support that, especially as I spent many years in the ghetto and I saw for myself many of the problems were not caused by these people but were in fact caused by poor incentives, many of them promoted by the government itself.
What were the alternatives? I believed in fiscal conservatism, but which actual party ever put that into practice? Social conservatism did not make much sense to me either because why should one group of people tell another how to live if that group of people is not doing anything to hurt the first group? Why should we prosecute victimless crimes? What exactly is conservative about spending lots of money on guns, bombs, and police-state legislation? These so-called conservatives were anything but. They were as eager as anyone else to feed at the public trough.
Then 2008 came and went, and I read and learned a great deal. I discovered the Mises Institute, as well as Ron Paul. At first I almost had to spit the information I was reading right back out. This stuff seemed so radical compared to what I had been reading in the main stream media that I felt that these guys had to be living in a dream world. I believed that in spite of all of the flaws, a strong government still served the interests of the people. However, I am an open-minded guy and I kept reading, and read from different sites and looked at both sides of the coin. I resisted because of the conflict with my existing information and knowledge, but what I was reading just made more logical sense to me. All of this time I believed that simply because I had the right to vote that somehow the government was a proxy for my own self-interest. I then came to realize that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The United States, and Canada for that matter, are most certainly not hell-holes like North Korea, and I consider myself fortunate to be here, but our democratic institutions are sick. We have been led to believe that the government serves the interest of the people simply because we have a vote. In reality, the incentive structure is perverted and government only superficially serves the interests of the people. Along the way, 1000 different special interests jockey at the helm in order to gain control. Everyone wants to milk the cow as fast as possible before someone else gets their hand at the teat.
The way I see it, many politicians are simply in it because they want the power and they want to be in control. They nominally support the interests of the people; they have to, after all, in order to get elected. However, if Canada can elect a university bartender that took a vacation to Vegas during the campaign to parliament and didn’t even bother campaigning, then it goes to show you that they don’t really have to support the interests of the people.
Who is Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is unlike most other politicians and doesn’t fit anywhere on the traditional left-right spectrum. He believes in helping the poor through proper incentives, not government mismanagement. He believes in friendly relationships and exchange with other countries, not nation-building and occupation. He believes in self-defense, not aggression. What makes our countries great places to live, and what makes places like North Korea horrible places to live, is that here we have the right to life, liberty, and property. The hellholes of this earth are such because they don’t recognize any of these rights. Our countries are great insofar as they recognize that all human beings have these rights, and they are sick insofar as they believe that some human beings have more of these rights than other humans.
His profession is that of a doctor, a profession dedicated to helping the lives of others. His political career is about returning the power of life, liberty, and property to the people, where they belong. His message is not always popular; in fact, he was shat on by the mainstream media during his 2008 campaign and if it wasn’t for the support of bloggers and his grassroots supporters, it’s not likely that he would be as well-known today. While his message is not usually popular with the mainstream media and entrenched interests, he speaks for truth and for freedom. No human is perfect, but Ron Paul may be one of the most principled statesmen of our time.
Those in government must never forget that they are the servants, not the masters of the people. Stuff like this should never happen in a civilized country. I don’t know how much one man can change institutions, but Ron Paul may be the one candidate for the 2012 election that represents true hope & change.
(This video is from the 2008 campaign but is a good one)
If you would like to learn more about Ron Paul and what he stands for, I recommend starting with his New York Times #1 bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto
Further Reading
Yakezie Reading
- Ron Paul Is The Man (20s money)
- Memo to Government: Cut Spending (Hope to Prosper)
- 18 Things You Didn’t Know About The Federal Reserve System (Len Penzo)
So, reader, at the risk of opening Pandora’s Box, what are your thoughts on the direction of the U.S. government, the 2012 election, and Ron Paul? Do you think he has a chance, and would be able to enact real change even if elected? What about his ideas on true freedom of choice in health insurance and the end to the rules that allow monopolies and oligopolies to persist? In this age of cynicism, it’s hard to be too hopeful about anything, but sometimes big things start with an idea. The Internet is breaking down barriers to communication so that the mainstream media no longer has a monopoly on the dissemination of information. Maybe it’s not too late for the ideas of liberty to take root once again.
I’d consider voting for Ron Paul in 2012, but would be very interested in seeing who he picked as his VP if he got the nomination. I think that will say a lot about his approach to getting things done as president and where he will be compromising. Unfortunately, the state of congress being what it is, Ron Paul would probably have to compromise a lot as president.
I wonder about the VP, too. Maybe he’d pick his son, Rand Paul? I honestly don’t know but it’s a good question!
He has my vote–not that my primary vote matters in the state I live in, but he has it. I’m not entirely sold on his anti-fed message, but I can appreciate his stance on ending the wars, allowing the younger generations to opt out on Social Security, and I get the feeling that he’s one of the few politicians that will actually at least TRY to accomplish what he wants to accomplish.
I’d probably go for Mitch Daniels, too.
I wonder how far he’d be able to get with the legislature and senate in place, but this is a guy I could see fighting to his last breath for the people.
I think the biggest risk the US faces is currently related to our debt. It’s not healthcare, it’s not abortion and it’s not hopes and dreams. It’s debt. The only politician that stands PRIMARILY for debt reduction (aside from Christie who won’t run) is Ron Paul. I might have to throw my vote his way this time around, even if it’s unlikely he’ll win.
With two contenders out of the race it’s already looking better. Something definitely needs to be done about the path of the debt, and preferably a solution that doesn’t just involve the imposition of taxes to fund increased spending.
Since Walter Block is not running, I’ll have to stick with Ron Paul.
Walter Block? That might be too “unforgiveable” 😉
Ron Paul will likely get my vote as well. You are exactly right that perverse incentives have led to a dysfunctional government. Principled leaders are in short supply.
If he can work on message delivery a bit then I think we could have a blockbuster on our hands.
I voted for Ron Paul and will probably vote for him again in 2012.
The first time around people weren’t as aware of him except for the crappy image painted by the MSM; it will be interesting to see how things go this time around!
What a great article and I hope, for many Americans, Ron Paul gets some serious consideration. Once many Americans realize (many Amercians do), that their hopes and dreams will be much tougher to realize in a debt-burdened society lead by a fiscally-challenged government, the more support Paul should get. Rightly so!
Time to get the boat moving in the right direction folks, you can’t spend what you don’t make. Same goes for us here in Canada as well 😉
Hey Mark,
We definitely need to get the boat moving in the right direction over here as well. It’s crazy how much debt Americans are now in, as well as unfunded liabilities.
Hum, Ron Paul, hunh? Well, if you’re going to dive into the waters of politics, there are definitely worse people to throw your support behind. I could definitely see myself voting for Ron Paul, at least as his politics and principles stand now (there’s something about a political campaign, particularly a national political campaign, that can turn principled people inside out). As I am a libertarian-leaning Democrat, he strikes me as much better than most of the current field, both on the Democratic side and the Republican side.
As for whether he has a chance…All but certainly not, at least as long as he stays a Republican. The social conservative wing of the party is going to be far from happy with someone who openly promotes legalizing drugs and prostitution, and the hawks aren’t going to endorse someone who proposes ending all our foreign wars and relegating the military to a defensive organization. No, if he’s gunning for the Republican nomination, I doubt Ron Paul will even make it on the national ballot in November. (Which is a shame, as I imagine I’m far from the only Democrat who would vote for him.)
If he wants a chance (and I stress, even this route is far from certain), I think he’ll have to go third party, and try to build a coalition of libertarians, fiscally conservative Democrats (myself included), socially liberal Republicans and others who are disaffected with politics as normal. A party platform of limiting government’s control over your personal life (from drugs to abortion), balancing the budget (and, crazy thought, maybe paying down some of that national debt), keeping foreign entanglements to a minimum (particularly those pesky, expensive wars) and a minimal social safety net so people aren’t starving in the street (not so generous as to be an attractive alternative to working, nor so complex as to require a sizable portion of federal expenditures just to administer it) would not only stand out as distinctly different from both the Republicans AND the Democrats, but also would likely be able to gather a large following. Unless (or until…) that happens, though, I don’t think Ron Paul’s got much of a chance.
Hey Roger,
I can agree with a lot of that. It’s actually not very expensive to feed, clothe and provide basic shelter. Even if the government didn’t directly try to help the poor but restricted itself to preventing gang warfare and stuff like that, I doubt that some people would be dying in the streets and that others would simply walk on by. It’s only expensive when you try to do it through a huge centralized bureaucracy, since then you’re spending a lot of money to employ contractors, government employees, etc…. and not that much of it actually goes to directly aid the poor, and then you don’t have the right programs or incentives, either. I find it a double standard that government can get away with this but nobody else would be able to.
i like ron paul because of where he stands on our budget and spending. But i think he’s too radical to ever be elected (He also lacks charisma in a big way).
I’m pretty sure he stated that he wanted to get rid of the CIA. He also supports the legalization of all drugs including heroin. I agree that the “war on drugs” will never be won, using the tactics that we are using. But i think the average voter won’t be able to handle such a completely different way of handling it than we currently do now.
i like him, but he is so far away from what is considered main stream that i don’t think he will ever have a real shot at winning.
Ross, you are right in many ways, but that’s also what I love about him. I watched the latest video, and when they brought up heroin he made the point that the government is insinuating that the only reason that people aren’t rushing out and becoming heroin addicts is because it’s illegal. So wait a second, if it was legal we’d all go rush out and become junkies? I don’t think so.
Unfortunately people are too wrapped up in emotions and propaganda. They don’t realize that alcohol & tobacco are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and are in some ways far more dangerous than many of the illegal drugs. People equate goverment laws with morality so then if you drink alcohol it’s OK but if you smoke a joint you’re a loser. I think this is slowly changing though and marijuana at least does not seem to carry the stigma attached to it especially now that beneficial uses are coming to light.
Personally I don’t use tobacco or much alcohol or any other form of drug except for the occasional cold medicine and cup of coffee (caffeine) even though they’re legal, and if all drugs were legalized tomorrow I wouldn’t be rushing out. 🙂 There are some people that become addicted easily, but what are we doing for them today? Throwing them in jail and otherwise destroying their lives? Surely we can do much better for these people than the way they are treated today.
The war on drugs has got to be one of the most inhumane wars fought by the government. It punishes mostly innocent people, creates a black market, thus rewarding those who would murder and steal, and creates a huge bureaucracy creating many cozy government jobs and pensions, depriving the people of their wealth. It seems that those people are the only true winners of the drug war. Not only that, but so long as people use caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, as well as plenty of other legal drugs, then it’s also a very hypocritical war.
This is a radical idea, of course, but it gets people thinking, doesn’t it? 🙂
I love reading about Canadians who have intelligent opinions about another country’s political decisions. I think that’s a great thing. Call me bias, but I think that’s mainly a “Canadian thing”.
Haha, I’m not sure, Andrew! There are some that don’t even know who the PM is! 😛 I think otherwise I agree with you though. Some Canadians suffer from “we’re the center of the universe” syndrome but many Canadians realize we play a small part on the world stage so getting to know what’s going on on the rest of the stage is a good idea.
I definitely enjoyed the video. I will probably vote for Ron Paul, because we need change in this country. Out of control spending isn’t the kind of change we needed. No matter who gets elected President in 2012, they are going to have a very diffcult job. And, it’s going to take someone with some character and vision to get anything done. Most of the candidates from either party represent the status quo, which is bankrupting our nation.
I am rooting for Ron Paul, but I actually have a hard time seeing him being able to accomplish much of what he wants to do, since he’d have to work against the system. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to have a hard reset instead of trying to garbage collect… (sorry for the geeky euphemism).
I’m a huge fan and have been for years. I voted for him in the primaries last time around … sigh.
Remember, what’s important is not whether he ultimately wins or not but whether his ideas spread. Ideas are like seeds, and they can be planted in people’s minds. That will be his ultimate victory, and a victory for all of us that believe we can do better.
Kevin, Firstly, I’m impressed at your broad knowledge of a political candidate of a neighboring country. There is certainly some allure in some of his “hands off” policies. Frankly, simplifying the tax system and raising the retirement age for social security would do wonders for the USA.
Social security is a tough one because so many people are in it now, but giving the youth a choice would be a good start! I think the young would probably agree that they shouldn’t be held hostage to pay for the old since theoretically it’s a savings system not a wealth transfer system. Maybe that’s not how it operates in practice but that’s how it’s usually justified.
And I have to be careful here, because it’s easy to get wrapped in these dichomoties of “young” vs. “old” but that’s what the government likes us to do, so we miss the elephant in the room. Ultimately we have to realize that it’s not the older people to blame, at least not directly, instead it’s the policies which have led to the situation we now find ourselves in.