With all the talk about whether or not Ron Paul has a viable candidacy in the 2008 election in this paper the last few weeks, I feel it's necessary to examine what our country might look like if Ron Paul were in charge.
Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul and his record as a legislator.
He is obviously extremely intelligent and has a consistent worldview that influences his politics; unlike many politicians, he is not afraid to stand by those positions even when they are unpopular.
At first glance, it is this constancy which seems to attract many people, especially young adults, who have become disillusioned with "politics as usual." But I fear that many casual Ron Paul supporters may not realize what they are getting themselves into.
Ron Paul is a Republican in name only. His politics are that of a free-market libertarian.
Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the free market and that any government action restricting the flow of the market or that attempts to level the playing field by taxing its citizens should be stopped.
In other words, libertarians seek the dissolution of all social welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, public education, welfare, etc.) based on the erroneous belief that the market can and will supply every person with all of these benefits more efficiently than the government can.
Without Social Security, for example, corporations would willingly provide retirement benefits to all of their employees. Instead of welfare, private charities would be able to provide support to those the economy leaves behind. While these assumptions might show that libertarians have great faith in humanity, they don't seem particularly realistic.
So what would a libertarian society look like if it were implemented today?
Grandma and Grandpa would work until their withered bodies and clouded minds force them into retirement at which point they would hopefully die off, so as not to be a burden on the next generation - that is, unless their job could be done in another country for less money, in which case they wouldn't have it in the first place.
If you were to get cancer, you better hope you have deep pockets or a very generous private insurance company, because the government won't be helping with the crushing cost of your medical bills or even making sure that the health care companies aren't artificially inflating the market through trusts and monopolies in order to make you pay more for your illness.
In his book Libertarianism: For and Against, Dr. Craig Duncan argues that libertarianism should be rejected because it doesn't ensure that "individuals have fair access to a life of dignity." He is absolutely correct. The Declaration of Independence declares that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Libertarian philosophy does a great job with the liberty part, but it cannot guarantee the other two, which is exactly why we need a strong government structure in place to protect all citizens and ensure that every person has a shot at the rights our forefathers fought to give us.
Our government is far from perfect, but it could be a lot worse.
So while I respect Congressman Paul for his consistency, I won't be checking his name on Election Day.
Consistently wrong is still wrong. I wouldn't want to live in Ron Paul's America, and I doubt many of you would either.
Greg Wildermuth is a senior at Gonzaga.
Be the first to comment on this article!