Is Ron Paul a Serious Contender?
Even the most right wing of economists will tell you that some government intervention is necessary in order for capitalism to succeed. Capitalism requires free and fair competition. True capitalism is anti-monopoly and anti-big business whenever big business is allowed to profit unfairly at the expense of small business.
Ron Paul is a career politician and gynecologist from Texas who’s been a mainstay presidential candidate since the 1980s. He claims to support basic capitalism and economic libertarianism. In actuality, many of the views he advocates more closely resemble anarchy.
He’s got a large and devoted following among young internet users who largely do not appear to understand economics very well. He’s also been called a darling of the Tea Party, although Tea Party members appear more willing to support Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, or Herman Cain.
Among Paul’s wackier views are the complete abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank, the FBI, the CIA, and most government agencies. He apparently is not anti-monopoly, believing that monopolistic entities should not be regulated or prevented by government intervention. However what Paul and many of his supporters seem to not understand is that a monopolistic business is no different than a monopolistic government or monopolistic political party. All can be considered more a form of socialist domination over a market than anything economically libertarian.
To ensure capitalism prevails, we must ensure that competition exists in all markets. The government, in many cases, is in the best position to do so by strictly enforcing current antitrust regulation.
With that said, and given the American public’s general view of Paul as being unelectable, can we consider Ron Paul serious in his aspirations to be president? Or is he just attempting to bring awareness to failing aspects of our government by playing Devil’s Advocate to an extreme?