Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul

if in need—have a “right” to medical care, free education, a house, subsidized food, and endless other services. What they don’t want to hear is that governments have nothing to pass out, since they produce nothing. Anytime government provides a benefit, it must first steal it from someone else who is producing it, thus violating the rights of that individual. It is important to remember that.
    A majority vote should never be used to justify the undermining of human rights. That is what the philosophy of socialism, welfarism, and all other forms of authoritarianism depend on. This same principle allows wars to be fought for reasonsunrelated to national defense. Governments are very sophisticated in confiscating wealth from one segment of society and transferring it to another. When the country is wealthy, the victims are complacent and allow the process to expand massively. Taxation, borrowing, and inflating are all used as the deceptive tactics to disguise who is the actual victim, but the complacency ends when the productive capacity of a nation can no longer keep up with the demands and promises made.
    This dilemma elicits many suggestions on how to solve the problem of diminished resources. But the real solution requires a revolutionary change in understanding what individual rights are, and why the obsession with democracy is not the same as freedom and prosperity. In the nearly two-year debate on revamping a failed health-care system, almost no one in Washington was willing to entertain the thought that medical care is not a right and should not be provided by government. I’ve never heard a major politician state this truth. Even those who oppose President Obama’s health-care plan do so on less principled grounds and do not question the fundamental assumption that government is somehow responsible for providing a system of universal health-care delivery.
    Preventive wars, as our recent wars have been called, depend on tacit support by the majority of our citizens and the assumption that our motivations and goals are all that matters. This attitude permits us to violate the individual rights of the victims of our occupation and those who suffer collateral damage from our constant bombing of countries that never attacked us and are even incapable of doing so if they wanted. This is a far cry from the justified defense of one’s country if invaded.
    A majority vote may gain the politicians cover for what theydo, but this vote has no moral authority to violate the right to life and liberty of any individual. This means that government, even with the consent of the governed via democratic vote, should not mold personal behavior, supervise economic transactions, or try to make the world a better place by using our armies to “make the world safe for democracy.”

Caplan, Bryan. 2007.
The Myth of the Rational Voter
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2001.
Democracy: The God That Failed
. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Spooner, Lysander. [1972] 2008.
Let’s Abolish Government
. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

D ISCRIMINATION
     
    I f we are going to stick to the dictionary definition of the term “discrimination,” there is nothing wrong with it at all. It means merely to choose this over that. We can speak of “discriminating tastes” and regard this as a compliment. At one time the word merely meant “the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment; to differentiate.”
    Choosing friends of good character is discrimination that we should all endorse. We all discriminate on whom we invite into our homes and whom we date and marry, go to church and generally socialize with. It’s a right we all cherish and we should understand exactly what it is. This is positive discrimination and should never be regulated by government.
    But it is a different matter when it comes to politics. Here is where the word “discrimination” indicates some sin against the