Students in the state's official propaganda institutions learn about the wonders of the ­­democratic process, so called, throughout their years of formal study. But the truth is on full display during a presidential election season. These are not wise statesmen, discussing matters of importance from a disinterested, platonic summit, but narcissistic power-seekers shoveling ill-gotten gains to favored constituencies.

Elections have sometimes been compared to markets: just as firms compete for consumer dollars, political candidates compete for citizens' votes. But the comparison is a superficial one.

When the consumer spends his dollar, he is guaranteed to receive what he purchases. So he researches that big-screen television, or automobile, or tablet, or smartphone. He considers his options and decides which one best suits his needs. He perceives the benefits that accrue to him from his purchase, and he is also aware of their cost. He immediately reaps the benefits of a wise purchase, and immediately suffers the loss associated with an unwise purchase.

When the citizen casts his vote, he gets what he votes for only if 50 percent of the rest of the population votes for the same candidate he does. So he may not in fact suffer any adverse consequences from a poorly cast vote. Likewise, the politician he chooses may win but not carry through on his promises. Again, there is no direct feedback mechanism for the voter the way there is for the buyer on the market, who immediately reaps the benefits of an informed decision and suffers the consequences of a decision made from ignorance. And although he perceives the alleged benefits bestowed by the state, he has no idea what their cost is.

And of course, there is zero chance that one person's vote will decide an election. As a result, a voter has no reason to bother researching his options, nor entering the government booth to begin with. He may cast his vote on the most superficial basis, the kind of basis on which he would never rest his decision to purchase a consumer good.

Meanwhile, and by stark contrast, those pressure groups that expect and intend to extract favors and loot from the state apparatus know every last detail about the state, its personnel, and its activities.

Because it is so unlike the market economy, politics operates according to perverse principles. Instead of reason and evidence, political campaigns appeal to emotion and irrationality. Consultants labor obsessively to uncover just the right combinations of words and images to project an attractive package to the voting public. Meanwhile, when a candidate in an unguarded moment thoughtlessly utters a truthful statement, you can be sure each of his rivals will solemnly denounce it, and that it will be formally retracted within 24 hours.

This is why it was such a thrill to watch Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles. If you want to raise money and win votes, political consultants would say, then flatter your audience, avoid specifics, speak in platitudes, weep over your love for America, and so on. But Ron gave honest, unrehearsed answers to whatever he was asked, and paid no attention to focus groups or political fashion.

And this is precisely why Ron raised all the money he did. In the fourth quarter of 2011, remember, Ron led the entire GOP pack in fundraising.

Who else in political life was saying that the Fed, far from the savior of the economy, was the cause of the boom-bust cycle? Who else would denounce the drug war even in the most conservative states? Who else described peace and nonintervention as moral imperatives, and called the warfare state a racket through and through?

This is what got Ron noticed. These were opinions no one had ever heard in political life before. Had there ever been so principled a noninterventionist? The very idea of nonintervention as a consistent philosophy had never before found a place in the American foreign policy debate, which had always revolved around degrees and forms of intervention. And certainly no one had ever made the Fed a political issue, or opposed it vociferously and on principle.