. He would decrease the size of the
, reducing foreign military activity, and slashing taxes to invite investment back in to the US from other countries. (My acquaintance Carmen Alexa might complain that ending foreign aid and even reducing domestic welfare is not very compassionate, but that is exactly what he advocates, plus think about all the money that could be leaving other countries to come to the US for investment: how sad for them!)
Obviously, a President cannot legally implement any of those policies alone. A constitutional amendment or the support of the US Congress would even legally force whoever was President toward any of those outcomes that Ron Paul advocates.
So, with the logistical realities in mind, let’s consider the actual consequences of those policies. At the same time, we will be considering the actual consequences of current policies of increasing the influence of central governments.
As background, note that government is the influencing of behavior by force, particularly the systematic redistribution of affluence through organized coercion. In the case of foreign wars, it is quite clear that a government uses organized coercion (with bombs backing up the more seductive art of diplomatic negotiations) to advance political and economic interests.
So, Ron Paul is basically advocating that the US decrease it’s international and domestic operations of organized coercion. For instance, consider the consequences of legalizing (decriminalizing) marijuana. Huge numbers of jobs will be lost in the correctional system. Huge numbers of able-bodied people (mostly young men) will be available for employment. All of that could promote the capacity of those people to actually contribute some economic productivity that allows the US to better compete with the rest of the world.
What about the protections and favoritisms of the current economic system? For instance, without the FDA promoting the interests of huge corporations at the expense of small farming operations, would small farmers recover and grow? What if masses of people were not indoctrinated with propaganda for highly-refined foods (especially carbohydrates and modern vegetable oils) and against healthy traditional foods of the last several thousand years or more? What if the USDA
stopped raiding health food stores and farms? What would happen to the current health care industry and food industry?
Consider the huge losses for MDs when the far superior effectiveness of inexpensive methods are not suppressed. Consider the civil lawsuits bankrupting multitudes of MDs for promoting the use of interventions with clear records of harm and pathetic records of little or no benefit (but at least they are expensive!).
What if organizations like FNMA
and FHA and HUD are discontinued or allowed to fail? If not for the propping up of the mortgage industry, consider the suddenness of the massive decline in housing prices (and rent prices). Sure, housing prices may plummet anyway, but consider how fast the decline would be if all of those federal government interventions (wealth redistribution
programs) were quickly removed.
What if foreign wars were stopped totally? What would happen to all of the businesses that rely on huge defense spending- like missile manufacturers and all of the jobs related to that (from janitors to computer technicians)? What about all those soldiers and support personnel? What would they do?
What Ron Paul is advocating, in simplest terms, is a withdrawal of a massive infrastructure of the military industrial complex. Even mainstream health care would no longer be protected from open market competition. Massive food industries could collapse without protections and subsidies. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few favored corporations would suddenly decentralize.
How? Real estate prices would collapse. Stock prices of major corporations would collapse. The relative value of human labor might rocket (even though wages might also fall steeply).
What?!?! If human labor rose toward being a primary economic valuable, rather than the primary economic value being concentrations of hoarded resources and exclusive legal ownership, then there would be less inequality (less variation in affluence and influence). Hoarding private wealth is the American Dream. Speculating for unearned gains is the American way, especially when it involves borrowed funds for mortgages. What Ron Paul is advocating is having to work to earn money. Think of all the real estate flippers who retired early and who may have to get jobs again rather than live a privileged life of luxury as they pay meager wages for maids, public school nannies, and other domestic servants
(landscaping crews, repair workers, etc).
What if all that diminished and, instead of valuing things like diamonds and massive estates so much, people valued their relationships more and their stuff less? What if people valued other people in general more (rather than other people in particular: like the well-connected politician or the wealthy, draconian boss)? What would happen to the death penalty, the correctional system, the global imperialist colonizing operations of organized coercion, and so on?
What about the tax system? What would all those bureaucrats and tax lawyers do if a simple tax system replaced the current system?
Ron Paul advocates simplifying complex systems of corruption and favoritism. He advocates an ending of (or dramatic reduction of) the massive system of coercive wealth redistribution of the US central government.
Above all, he threatens to reduce the influence of mainstream media. What if they did not have the commercial revenues from the massive corporate interests of the military-industrial complex? What if there were a sudden increase in local media, social media, and actual live interaction in person between people… while the trend toward a bigger and bigger audience for a more and more homogenous central apparatus of mind control propaganda indoctrination diminished?
Masses of people might start to think for themselves. Masses of people might stop obsessing about the US economy and US Constitution and be more interested in things like their own budgets, their own neighborhood and local community, and practical issues like physiology and health and how to sew or garden.
Instead of some professions and industries being protected and subsidized by the central government, the market would be free for open competition. The variations in the incomes of various professions could decline. Specialization of labor could decline. The near dictatorship of central government bureaucracy and corporate concentrations of wealth could decline or even collapse.
Ron Paul threatens to end corruption, or at least reduce centralized corruption. Rather than a centralized monopoly of corruption, corruption might decentralize as well. Rather than lobbyists being able to focus on centralized bureaucracies, instead, the legalized bribery and PR schemes would be less concentrated and also less distinctive.
The repression of small-scale corruption by central governments intent on monopolizing corruption would diminish. The naive would no longer be as protected and the clever would no longer be as thwarted.
Of course, if clever people also did not face as many taxes to punish productivity, than technological innovation might also flourish. Suppression of alternative technologies could collapse. Uniformity would decline. Instead of a handful of major auto manufacturers relying on sexy commercials during the super bowl, imagine three hundred regional auto manufacturing “franchises” competing based on actual performance. Again, advertising budgets for national TV networks might collapse. “Word of mouth” might be a driving force behind market growth.
Instead of the concentrated huge profit margins from people paying for name-brand “fashion,” imagine people buying clothes based on features such as comfort and functionality. The entire market for high-heeled shoes might crash.
Medical systems based on the suppressing of the immune system (combating symptoms) might crash as well. Or, people may be so desperate that they continue to favor suppressive medications and moderate levels of short-term functionality so as to avoid a day or week of unplanned interruption to their regular schedule. (Again, TV advertising budgets for pharmaceutical “miracles” are at issue here.)
Further, as the profit margins of suppressive medications falls, so might their manufacture. The masses may simply be forced to turn to nutrition and wellness rather than immune system suppressants and mass-produced addictions like cigarettes and beer. Imagine if people targeted increasing their overall health rather than targeting occasional numbness to relieve them from their sensation of biochemical toxicity or deficiency.
Well, the reality is that we can only speculate as to what would happen if Ron Paul’s proposals were implemented. It might even “open the door” to an influx of international corruption on the scale of a new macrocosm of centralization and corruption with NATO or the UN or the BIS.
Why do the masses have such favorable views of the UN? Mostly because the UN is so remote from the actual experience of the masses. The masses know almost nothing about the UN. (Consider that the vast majority of people have never even heard of the BIS!)
A few well-constructed PR pieces and the masses may presume that the UN is unlike other similar operations, like that their violence is less violent, or that their diplomatic negotiations are less “diplomatic,” or that their courts are less political, and so on.
If the centralizing of the influence of media was to decline, governments might have to resort to open activities rather than hiding behind propaganda and diversion tactics. This is why the media is so important to the modern military-industrial complex.
Is the mainstream media really censoring Ron Paul? No, not at all. They are just focusing on other things instead. ;)
Censoring Ron Paul may be a trivial issue though. People who get worked up about what the media focuses on are obviously relying on the mainstream media to be responsible to them, rather than just investing in whatever forms of media actually fulfill on their values.
Who taught us that the media should be reliable or accurate or serve the interests of the audience? Every media outlet is a business designed to serve the interests of the operators and funders of the business.
Imagine me complaining that a particular hardware store in Europe is not featuring the line of product that I personally think is the best to use. Why would I be concerned about that? Why would I obsess over it?
Maybe I am even the owner of that product line, but still why focus on that store in particular? Why not just market to some other stores?
If no other stores are retailing my product line either, then I might sell it myself. Or, I might try developing a new product line.
Of course the mainstream media is biased. So am I.
Why would the mainstream media give Ron Paul equal treatment? Equal treatment is not the job of the media. Promoting favoritism and influencing behavior is the job of the media.
They are economic operations directed by commercial interests (including of course editorial decisions that are influenced by the funding of commercial advertising). If the top ten commercial advertisers tell a media outlet that running a particular story or program (or not running a particular story or program) will result in a discontinuing of advertising revenues, could that make a difference of whether that story or program gets run?
The media indoctrinates us about what should be and what should not be, what we should do and what we should not be, what we should think about and what we should not think about. That is their function.
So, I do not complain that a particular hardware store in Europe sells whatever they sell. No one told me to complain about that. No one told me to focus on it.
In the US, the mainstream public has been trained to be attentive to the focus of the mainstream media, to be attentive to the controversies that the media publicizes, and even to be shocked that the media would ever be biased. We are trained to perceive the media as honorable and trustworthy and so on.
Again, we may know little about the UN or the BIS, but even with the mainstream media right in front of us, how much do we know about them? They are subject to the influence of lobbying, as in corruption by way of influence through offers of rewards. So am I. I work for pay. I do not work for the direct, immediate economic benefit to me of my own activity (except when I do). I work (like at a job) for pay (for the promise of future payment) whether as a public bureaucrat or a real estate salesperson or a hitman or what.
Maybe you are susceptible to believing that the mainstream media is really threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe they are.
What about you? Are you threatened by the mainstream media? Have you been trained to look to a political savior to protect you from the threats that you have been trained to perceive?
Maybe corruption, which I just defined as “subject to influence by offers of money,” is a pattern of human behavior that is in no way threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe centralized concentrations of corruption will diminish (such as those of mainstream media). Maybe particular policies will be a catalyst in those trends.
Consider that every politician SAYS they are against corruption. However, do any of them ever explore any alleged differences between corruption (responding to the influence of offers of compensation) and capitalism (responding to the influence of offers of compensation)?
Imagine a politician (or mainstream media outlet) that announces that it is the pro-corruption candidate or channel. That simply does not make sense, does it? All media outlets and all politicians are influenced by whatever has influenced and will influence them.
I do not complain that media outlets are biased (except if I ever do). I do not pretend that I am not biased (except if I ever do).
In conclusion, I might say that “mainstream media should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation. Likewise, politicians should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation.”
I value direct rewards as well as indirect rewards (like being paid with money that I can then go use to buy other things). Why wouldn’t everyone else, even politicians and other bureaucrats and the mainstream media?