Open Letter to Ron Paul
Mark Anderson
December 19, 2007
Dear Dr. Ron Paul:
The precarious condition our country is in compels me to write this letter to you, Dr. Paul. I am writing this letter to urge you in the strongest possible sense to guard against the temptation of trading away principle for power.
Having gained traction and momentum, election victory is a very real possibility. I can understand how the seductive prospect of political success causes pragmatism. Please, Dr. Paul, whatever you do, don't let this prospect ensnare you.
I would like to share with you just a few reasons why I believe we must remain steadfast in opposition to statism.
You are well aware, Dr. Paul, that winning elections should not be conflated with victory. Victory comes when we have liberty. There is little purpose behind winning an election, but losing the country. For too long, I have listened to partisan apologists explain that we must surrender and compromise our principles, or else we will be defeated at the polls. But when you surrender your principles, you have already been defeated.
Instead of tiptoeing away from your core principles, the success you have had presents you with a great opportunity to educate the American people about the solutions to our problems. While there is an awakening going on, I believe many Americans still do not understand the pathological origin of our problems.
Some of these things I am about to share are already self-evident to you, Dr. Paul. However, for the sake of the readers, I am going to belabor a few axioms.
Unlike the free market - i.e., the real free market, not the subsidized, faux private sector - the government doesn't sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands, or earning its income. The government - contrary to the free market - sustains itself with compulsory taxation, which is coercive and violent. This is why problems inhere with everything the government touches.
Wealth is simply that which satisfies consumer demands. Only the unmolested free market produces wealth. The government destroys wealth. Consequently, as the government spends money, job-sustaining capital is eroded, diminishing economic opportunity.
The government is so huge today that there is very little economic opportunity for those who wish to make the transition from dependence to independence. Let's face it: there are a lot of people - politicians, bureaucrats, contractors, government employees, et al. - who are dependent on the government.
Dr. Paul, suppose we cut government spending by a few hundred billion. What do you suppose would happen? I have thought this through, Dr. Paul, and I believe that gradualism could do more damage than good.
If too much of the government is left intact, there would be very little economic stimulus. People who are cut off from the government would then be forced to swim against the current. You are known as a libertarian, Dr. Paul. Rather than blaming the statist current, the free market shore would be the scapegoat.
I have came to the conclusion, Dr. Paul, that weaning people off of the state's tit can't be done gradually. And doing so would be unfair to the people who get cut off first: i.e., those having to swim against the current. Don't get me wrong. I am all for cutting government, but not gradually. We have to stop the current.
Let us not forget that if you do win the Presidency, Dr. Paul, we may not have another chance to change things - especially if we fail to make a compelling case for the free market. If all we do is tinker with a few departments, I don't believe people will be able to experience and appreciate a true free market.
And about returning to the gold standard, Dr. Paul. It is much easier than most people realize. There is no need for gradualism here, either. You know very well that inflation is a policy. It is an expansion of the supply of money not backed by specie.
Henry Hazlitt wrote about how to make the dollar convertible. On that point, he was wrong. Making the dollar convertible would be a price control. Ludwig von Mises got it exactly right with his first prescription: Stop inflating. The anti-thesis to the gold standard is inflation. As soon as we stop inflating, new money can only be created by mining, which is a market transaction.
President Ron Paul, I beg you to use your time wisely: cut as much government as you possibly can.
The precarious condition our country is in compels me to write this letter to you, Dr. Paul. I am writing this letter to urge you in the strongest possible sense to guard against the temptation of trading away principle for power.
Having gained traction and momentum, election victory is a very real possibility. I can understand how the seductive prospect of political success causes pragmatism. Please, Dr. Paul, whatever you do, don't let this prospect ensnare you.
I would like to share with you just a few reasons why I believe we must remain steadfast in opposition to statism.
You are well aware, Dr. Paul, that winning elections should not be conflated with victory. Victory comes when we have liberty. There is little purpose behind winning an election, but losing the country. For too long, I have listened to partisan apologists explain that we must surrender and compromise our principles, or else we will be defeated at the polls. But when you surrender your principles, you have already been defeated.
Instead of tiptoeing away from your core principles, the success you have had presents you with a great opportunity to educate the American people about the solutions to our problems. While there is an awakening going on, I believe many Americans still do not understand the pathological origin of our problems.
Some of these things I am about to share are already self-evident to you, Dr. Paul. However, for the sake of the readers, I am going to belabor a few axioms.
Unlike the free market - i.e., the real free market, not the subsidized, faux private sector - the government doesn't sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands, or earning its income. The government - contrary to the free market - sustains itself with compulsory taxation, which is coercive and violent. This is why problems inhere with everything the government touches.
Wealth is simply that which satisfies consumer demands. Only the unmolested free market produces wealth. The government destroys wealth. Consequently, as the government spends money, job-sustaining capital is eroded, diminishing economic opportunity.
The government is so huge today that there is very little economic opportunity for those who wish to make the transition from dependence to independence. Let's face it: there are a lot of people - politicians, bureaucrats, contractors, government employees, et al. - who are dependent on the government.
Dr. Paul, suppose we cut government spending by a few hundred billion. What do you suppose would happen? I have thought this through, Dr. Paul, and I believe that gradualism could do more damage than good.
If too much of the government is left intact, there would be very little economic stimulus. People who are cut off from the government would then be forced to swim against the current. You are known as a libertarian, Dr. Paul. Rather than blaming the statist current, the free market shore would be the scapegoat.
I have came to the conclusion, Dr. Paul, that weaning people off of the state's tit can't be done gradually. And doing so would be unfair to the people who get cut off first: i.e., those having to swim against the current. Don't get me wrong. I am all for cutting government, but not gradually. We have to stop the current.
Let us not forget that if you do win the Presidency, Dr. Paul, we may not have another chance to change things - especially if we fail to make a compelling case for the free market. If all we do is tinker with a few departments, I don't believe people will be able to experience and appreciate a true free market.
And about returning to the gold standard, Dr. Paul. It is much easier than most people realize. There is no need for gradualism here, either. You know very well that inflation is a policy. It is an expansion of the supply of money not backed by specie.
Henry Hazlitt wrote about how to make the dollar convertible. On that point, he was wrong. Making the dollar convertible would be a price control. Ludwig von Mises got it exactly right with his first prescription: Stop inflating. The anti-thesis to the gold standard is inflation. As soon as we stop inflating, new money can only be created by mining, which is a market transaction.
President Ron Paul, I beg you to use your time wisely: cut as much government as you possibly can.
Print
Email
