PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul and the Department of Eating




goldenequity
07-24-2007, 09:54 AM
This needs to be condensed into a hand-out for streets, parks and rallys!

I really like this piece.... what fantastic persuasion!:) :)

Ron Paul and Pizza

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 wouldnít 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 wouldnít 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 Johnís and Dominoís, most donít really care, because they just want pizza. So you flip a coin and Dominoís it is. Six of you want pepperoni and three of you want anchovies. You could force the three to eat your pepperoni pizza, but thatís 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 donít 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, theyíd ask you for each individualís 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 donít like anchovies, but it turns out that three of your friends didnít register with the the department of Eating Out. Thatís why you are only getting two medium pizzas. And thatís why they made with anchovies. But donít worryÖ 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 isnít 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 wasnít for the government, we wouldnít 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. Weíll 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 ďmajorityĒ affects the ďminorityĒ. Except it wasnít 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 Johnís and Dominoís 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 Dominoís your friends figured out exactly how to order without government interference. Your friends who didnít 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 doesnít make our pizza who will?
If Papa Johnís and Dominoís didnít 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 canít all afford pizza.
No. Pizza isnít 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 canít afford pizza either. But itís free right? So they donít need to be able to afford pizzaÖ 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. Itís 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 canít afford to hire as many people. That means next time they need to reduce spending, the 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 doesnít 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 didnít want, through unanimous consent.

Health care is different. Health care is a necessity.

And thatís 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. Itís 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 wouldnít 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 donít. 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, why isnít Ron Paul doing well at the polls?

On the contrary. Ron Paul does very well on all post-debate internet polls

But those arenít 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 ďproblemĒ 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 didnít 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 Paulís 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 ďmonopoliesĒ do not arise because the government does not hold back the competition through ineffective regulation.

You may also find these articles very interesting:
http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/pizzacracy.html (http://www.isil.org/resources/libertydocs/pizzacracy.html)[Pizzacracy]
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html (http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html) [I, Pencil]

If you want to know what libertarians think about current events take a look at: http://cato.org/ (http://cato.org/)[The Cato Institute]

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) [Libertarianism]

ďLibertarianism 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.Ē
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) [Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty]

ďThe philosophical concept of negative liberty refers to an individualís 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.Ē

How everyone benefits from a Ron Paul presidency
The greatest thing Ron Paul has going for him, is that you donít have to agree with him on specific issues to benefit from his principles and presidency.

Ron Paul wants to restore your freedoms. Any other candidate wants to simply impose an arbitrary and inconsistent belief system - this is why I cannot bring myself to vote for just about 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 Obamaís positions? 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 donít they come out and say it?

Probably, because it would cost them the presidency. Because they know that there is wide opposition to their inconsistent views and that if you really knew what they stand for, given an informed choice, youíd choose to avoid them.

I donít have to agree with Ron Paulís position on issues to know that my political positions and freedoms will be respected as long as I donít hurt anybody else.

So far, 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 isnít led by consistent principles, and who canít explain to you, reasonably and justifiably, why they support a particular issue or another?

We donít need a cryptic president. We need transparency and consistency.

Do your OWN homework.

NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com)

raiha
11-24-2007, 06:22 PM
I like it! :) can it be shortened and pithier?

literatim
12-06-2007, 04:49 PM
That was a great read.