Ron Paul’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has ignited a revolution.  For the first time in a century, a real movement against the entrenched system in Washington has arisen, and it is a movement of capable people who don’t just complain - they get things done.  After a complete debacle for the neo-cons in Nevada, the Republican Party has actually had to mobilize itself in several states to prevent Ron Paul supporters from taking over state conventions and voting in their own delegates.  They have resorted to breaking their own rules to prevent a party takeover.  This is a sign that their political days are numbered.

Almost universally, Ron Paul supporters oppose the Iraq war.  Whether conservative, liberal, moderate, or independent, Ron Paul has brought together a coalition that recognizes that the United States government had no right to invade Iraq.  Regardless of their positions on other issues, people of all parties in this movement deserve high marks for taking a stand against the Iraq war.

Similarly, we are almost universally in agreement in our opposition to the expansion of executive powers, especially insofar as they have allowed the government to compromise our privacy and to threaten habeas corpus.  These are direct attacks on our lives, and we have been right to defend ourselves against them.  It is truly the good fight, and we will win.

So, we are certainly united in what we are against, but are we united in what we are for?   Are we all really for free markets, for truly limited government, and for individual liberty?  Do we all really understand what that means, and what responsibility that places upon us?  Are we really ready to live in a truly free country?

Certainly the first inclination is to answer “yes” to all of the above.  However, I wonder if the majority of the freedom movement is really ready for life without big government.

Are we ready to live without Medicare and Medicaid, and depend on the free market to determine the distribution of medical care?  Supporting the programs means taking the money for them at gunpoint from our fellow citizens, so the moral question is easily answered.  Sound economic theory as well as historical evidence indicates that the poor and elderly would have more access and higher quality care without these programs.  Are we ready to trust the free market and private charities with medical care for the poor and elderly?

Are we ready to live life without a “safety net?”  Like medical care, the benefits of traditional welfare are also funded by the coercive extortion of money.  Similar appeals to economic theory and history prove that the poor would be less numerous and would again experience an improving quality of life without these programs.  However, are we ready to admit that no one has the right to even the basic necessities of life?

Are we ready to take full responsibility to support ourselves for our entire lives?  Despite the government’s official fairy tale, there is no “trust fund” for social security.  The money collected from taxpayers today goes directly to pay today’s beneficiaries.  While the program actually runs a surplus (although it will soon become insolvent), the government spends 100% of that surplus on other budget items, as it always has.  At the end of the day, social security is just another government redistribution program funded by extorted money.  Any financial analysis would show that the money collected from working Americans for social security would be better invested almost anywhere else.  Are we ready to admit that no one has the right to retirement benefits, and enter our golden years without social security?

Here is one that even I have trouble overriding my own programming on.  Are we ready to get government completely out of education?  Are we ready to admit that, like medical care or any other good or service that is produced by somebody else, that no one has a right to education?  Are we ready to trust the free market for this as well?

To the average American, the questions I have asked would sound like complete lunacy.  However, to someone who understands and accepts the principles of liberty and wishes to live by them, I argue that the answer to every one of those questions must be “yes.”  Reason, history, and economics all tell us that these programs are immoral and destructive, not only to society as a whole, but even to the recipients of the benefits.  Only our conditioned fear tells us that we cannot live without them.  Are we ready to overcome that fear?

There are certainly many more intrusions by the federal government into our private lives, but I have chosen these programs because this is where the money is.  Despite what we are led to believe, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars amount to only 5% of the $3 trillion budget.  Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would eliminate less than half of this year’s deficit.  The entire military budget makes up only 20%, and some of that would still be necessary even if we brought our troops home from all 130 countries that they are stationed in.

By contrast, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and the Department of Education combine for over 55% of our $3 trillion budget (The Department of Education is only 2%, but after that no other expenditure has a significant percentage at all).  Without them, there would be no deficit.  Without these programs we could eliminate the income tax and begin paying down the national debt at the same time.  The financial benefits to our country would be staggering.

I am interested in the answers that CDR members would give to the questions I’ve posed.  Can you answer every one of them yes?  If not, I would like to hear your arguments supporting why you cannot, and specifically how you would reconcile the programs with the principles of individual liberty, property rights, and the proper limits of government.  In a free society, how does government derive the right to seize the funding for these programs from its citizens?  Can we ever really be free while they exist?