Aces

I have been in many internet-based arguments with socialists who argue that the only humane way to ensure that all people are cared for and educated properly is to adopt socialist principles. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to live as a free society under a socialist system.

Many socialists I encounter cite the current US economic situation as proof that capitalism promotes economic decline. However, capitalism alone is not enough to ensure a society has personal and economic freedom. Capitalism alone does not ensure freedom. However, all free societies ARE capitalist societies. But, capitalism alone is not sufficient. 

Let us examine the socialist society to see why it is not free, and how it is impossible to live free in such a system. Under the socialist umbrella, the government taxes the people heavily, often 50% or more of their income, and dedicates those funds to consumption and spending. Much of this spending will go towards health care, education, housing, and the like. A common misconception of the so-called “socialist” living in the United States is that capitalists want to “take money from the government” that would otherwise be dedicated to government-run socialist programs, for the good of society.

The truth of the matter is that the government does not have any money that it earns of its own accord. The government can only take money from the people it governs in the form of taxes. And it must take this money by coercion and the threat of police action if such taxes are not paid. Think of if there were no repercussions for tax evasion in this country. Would you pay your taxes diligently every year? Of course you wouldn’t! This is because the government cannot spend your money in as beneficial a way as YOU can spend your money. But, what is beneficial? You would spend your money in such a way that YOU benefit… you would purchase food for you and your family, fuel your vehicle to drive to work, invest in stocks for profit, save in a retirement account… if given the choice, it is very likely that you would spend your money in a manner that YOU benefit. In this way, human nature bends toward capitalism.

But, continuing with socialism. It has been determined that the government can only procure funds from the people it governs, and this must be accomplished by the threat of force. So, the very fabric of socialism depends on subversiveness and coercion from the government, which is in direct contradiction of the tenants of a free society. Socialism, by definition, violates all principles of freedom and individual liberty, regardless of the intentions. Intentions are an overrated virtue! Even if the intent is social good, a socialist government takes from its people their money, by force, and spends it in a way that they would not use it for themselves if given the choice. But, they are not given a choice. The lack of choice makes them unfree.

But, let us examine the social programs promoted under socialist systems. First, socialist governments own the means of production in their country, and therefore free enterprise and entrepreneurship does not exist to produce innovation, the result of which is a lack of exportable products. Contrarily, the government must IMPORT much of what it requires to carry on the little production it does manage. The result is high inflation that inevitably results from the printing of money via a centralized bank in order to have local currency for foreign exchange in order to buy foreign currency in order to import its needs. (This type of runaway inflation is akin to what we see in the US as a result of the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, a topic which requires its own lengthy blog.) 

Now, apart from production, let us examine socialistic government run programs. In particular, let us look at health care. Socialist countries in Europe are praised by would-be Marxists in the US for having government subsidized health care. But at what cost? This example requires a concurrent argument from the TRUE capitalist society. Under socialism, certain health care providers will be selected for government subsidy in order to provide “cheap, or FREE” health care to the public. But, what happens to the other health care providers? They must continue to offer health care at a higher cost than those that receive government subsidizing, for reasons obvious to even the casual reader. The possibility of true competition is made impossible by government intervention, running the other providers out of business. The socialist government has, ipso facto, CREATED a health care MONOPOLY. Now, the health care provider, who has been subsidized (i.e. “chosen”) by the government, is the sole provider of health care. 

So what does the sole provider of health care do? Well, they provide health care for the entire nation, with the same number of available physicians, which causes the quality of health care to drop dramatically! But some will ask me if the monopolized provider is the sole provider of health care, wouldn’t their profits increase, thereby making them able to expand the business and hire more physicians. This is a huge concept error! The provider no longer makes profits, because they are no longer paid by clients, but are involuntarily entered into an exchange with the government, which they will receive a fixed income. In truth, the health care field becomes overwhelmed and provides a highly substandard product to its people! And at what cost? 50% income tax? 60% income tax? 

By contrast, a free market allows for competition between health care providers. It is true that the consumer must pay directly from their income in a way that they observe. But the free market society has an income tax that is so low compared to socialism, its socialist contemporary is blown completely out of the water! Let us continue, however… the health care provider competition will spurn the natural high quality, low cost product that results from a capitalist free market in order to retain customers. The result, when compared to socialism, is a product that is of a higher quality at a lower cost. Just because you don’t hand over money personally to a health care provider in socialism doesn’t mean you don’t pay! You pay dearly, and you pay to get put on a waiting list, sometimes indefinitely, for a product that will likely not solve your ailment.

In the interest of brevity, I will bring this blog to a close, but you can see I did not even touch on government housing, education, or a number of the other socialist vs. capitalist arguments, nor did I mention the tendency of socialism to rapidly degenerate into oppressive regimes (communism, fascism, etc.) 

If you don’t believe me, do your own research. Read the works of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman… listen to contemporary economists like Peter Schiff.

My name is Matt, and I am a staunch supporter of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in 2012 who already knows what I have outlined above, and has an economic plan to restore America to the prosperous nation it once was. Still don’t believe me? Check him out anywhere on the internet, or visit www.ronpaul2012.com

All blogs are original and my own opinion. I am not on the Ron Paul campaign committee. I, like you, am only a concerned citizen.

I’m sure the creators of the minimum wage rule had the best intentions. However, as life goes, it’s not what you intend, but often the results, that truly matter.

Minimum wage was designed by the government to help the poor by mandating that employers pay at least a certain wage per hour, no matter what the task. But, as is often true of government action, they have produced the opposite of their desired effect.

A student of economic theory would immediately spot the problem that went unnoticed by the government. Picture yourself as an employer. You have a position for hire that requires a certain amount of skill. Say, perhaps, an unskilled person applies to this position. Now say the applicant is qualified to fill a position equivalent to a wage of $8 per hour, but the minimum wage is $10 per hour. Hiring this unskilled worker would be an act of charity. There is nothing wrong with charity, but employers are not in the business of providing charity to their employees. So what happens? The employer doesn’t hire this individual.

So who suffers? Just ask who the unskilled workers are. This is teenagers and the poor. So what does the minimum wage do? It forces employers to not hire the poor and teenagers, because they would be paying wages at a loss to themselves. It prevents employers from hiring an individual with an $8 per hour skill level from being hired.

Of all the 2012 presidential candidates, ONLY Ron Paul understands the mechanics of a successful economy. He is a student of Austrian Economics, which promotes a free market, without government intervention, without taxpayer bailouts to failing companies, without regulation on businesses that prevent economic growth.

Only Ron Paul will repeal government laws that stifle the economy. Don’t take my word for it. Visit www.ronpaul2012.com to research his policies and decide for yourself.

If you believe the straw polls as representative, then if the primaries were held today, the Republican nomination would go to Ron Paul.

The main news media outlets have been mostly dismissive of the straw poll results. That is, however, because most victories have come at the hands of Ron Paul. Of the 39 total straw polls so far, with some being multiple online and in-person polls, Ron Paul is leading with 17 total wins. The next closest opponent is Herman Cain at 14. In third place is the supposed Republican front-runner Mitt Romney WITH A MEASLY THREE WINS. Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum have one win a piece. Gingrich has zero.

Just to see it broken out so you can truly grasp the scope of these results:

Straw Poll Victories:

Paul: 16

Cain: 14

Romney: 3

Bachmann, Perry, Santorum: 1

Gingrich: 0

And yet with every win, every news outlet including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, comment that it’s not a big deal. One CNN reporter stated, after Ron Paul won the California straw poll, that “[Ron Paul] keeps winning straw polls, but does it really mean very much?” The same reporter, after Congressman Paul won the Washington D.C. Voter Values Poll, said “yes, Ron Paul won the straw poll,” and then continued to mockingly add “so see, we ARE talking about Ron Paul.” 

Chris Wallace of Fox News said after a Ron Paul victory “these straw polls don’t mean very much anyway.” A guest on Wallace’s Sunday talk show was asked what he thought of Ron Paul’s recent straw poll victory, to which the guest responded “not much.”

Contrast this with Herman Cain’s win in the Florida straw poll, which was described by Fox News to be a “stunning victory in a critical contest.” CNN called is a “tremendous triumph.” Cain won by a margin of 12%, 37% compared to Romney’s 15%. This caused one reporter to say that such a victory meant absolute PERIL for the Romney and Perry campaigns. And as a matter of fact, by his own admission, Cain’s name was “plastered all over the news day after day after day.”

And yet Paul routinely wins straw polls by 20 and even 30%. Some straw polls show him taking as much as 60-80% of the entire vote! But, to nearly zero media coverage, and very little indeed compared to his competitors.

With regard to the Cincinnati Republican Debate straw poll:

A straw poll was held at the September 12 Republican debate, to find out who the debate audience thought were the front runners, both before and after the debate. Before the debate, Ron Paul came first, Rick Perry came second, and Michele Bachmann came third. After the debate, Ron Paul was still first, Michele Bachmann came second, and Herman Cain came third. CNN has not released the full results of this poll, instead holding an online poll which omitted Ron Paul from the choices. (Source: Wikipedia)

Ron Paul’s message of individual liberty is strong. It’s not new, however. 15 years ago, the American people would have been apalled at our current policy of invasion, nation-building, and interventionism. 20 years ago, Obamacare would not have even had a chance to get passed. Such a collectivist and anti-capitalist policy would have been rejected by the Congress and opposed by the people.

Like a frog slowly boiling to death, people now are complacent with our role as the world enforcer of our own policy. People now believe we need to have combat troops in other countries to keep our own safe, when in fact we have never been as safe as we are now. There is no looming military threat from the outside. There is no great terrorist threat. Our borders are weakened by not having our military here at home. The people have been acclimated to the policy of big government and meddling foreign policy. 

It’s time to wake up. Restoration to our roots of freedom and prosperity is necessary for our continued success. If we don’t choose liberty for ourselves by voting for Ron Paul in 2012, it will surely be taken away from us and never given back.