The HUGE Difference Between The Ideas Of Ron Paul & Bernie Sanders

By Chris Rossini

There's a HUGE difference between a society based on non-aggression and liberty, and a society that Bernie Sanders and his something-for-nothing followers advocate. 

Jeff Deist, President of The Mises Institute, perfectly describes this difference:

In Ron Paul’s America...voluntary “socialist” arrangements would be perfectly allowable and legal. But libertarian communities are never permitted in statist societies.

In other words, in a society rooted in liberty and non-aggression, all Sanders fanboys would be free to form their own "socialist" communities. As long as these individuals don't use violent force or fraud against others, they can knock themselves out! They would be left alone.

But the same is not permitted to libertarians who want to live in Bernie's America. Under that scenario, Bernie must have his hand in everyone's pocket. There is no opting out. There is no escaping the violent force.

Deist elaborates further:

So thousands or even millions of people could come together in areas like San Francisco and voluntarily create single-payer health schemes, “dues” based on income, free schools, collective child-raising, etc.-- the whole panoply of progressive programs.

But the opposite is not true: in Bernie Sanders’s America, libertarians cannot opt out of income taxes, Selective Service, Social Security, Medicare, drug laws, property restrictions, federal regulations, or a host of state and local laws. There are no libertarian communities permitted within the geographical confines of the US.

If that doesn't explain the nature of the two competing ideas, nothing does. Liberty is rooted in peace and voluntary interactions, while Sanders' dusty old ideas are rooted in conformity and violence.

The choice should be obvious to those who seek civilization over barbarism.