"I don't believe the leadership in Washington - Republican or Democrat - care about what your interests are. They care about the North American union." Thank you, thank you.
Mr, unfortunately you guys are correct. Lets hope this time the Ron Paul revolution changes things around. Id imagine whoever gets elected this year will probably say " LET THEM EAT CAKE" unless its Ron Paul who will say " Let the voice of the common man be heard!!!!"
Ron Paul is a Washington insider. duh. He's using an old scam to try to paint himself as someone who hasn't been buying and selling votes for years. Unfortunately, it's just not true. He's been in Congress for years, selling his votes to special interests and buying votes from special interests with your tax dollars. This NAU sillyness is just a scare tactic to pander to the mentally weak.
Got a source for these votes? Unlike the mentally ill who think it is a good idea to have global government. ^^
As I have already posted them, just look around DP. duh. If a government is good, it is a good thing that it's global. If a government is bad, it's a bad thing that it's global. Which would you rather have? One government, run according to the wishes of Thomas Jefferson. A thousand governments, run according to the wishes of Joe Stalin. I know my choice, and I know what we have on this planet today.
Should be easy for you to find then. Paul's known in Washington by lobbyists, as a guy whose office they avoid as a waste of time. I'd be curious to see these votes you have turned up, in the pursuit of intellectual honesty of course. Global government reduces the impact of an individual to affect change. It's easier to overthrow one of a thousand Stalins, than one global Stalin. The concentration of governmental powers is antithetic to libertarian philosophy. It is in effect, statism, which is the opposite of libertarianism. One size fits all government doesn't benefit individuals.
I've already posted 'em. You've already ignored 'em. The true believer ignores any facts which do not fit their theories. This is just bad thinking. A highly statist government can exist just as easily in a small area as a large area. Nothing logical or rational says that a global government cannot be less intrusive than a regional government. The U.S. government has a larger territory than the Cuban government. Does that make Cubans more free? No. Of course not. It's a silly misunderstanding which is perpetrated by people who just don't know any better. You're confused again and thinking about group rights. In regional governments, the "rights" of groups tend to be protected. In a truly global government, groups would naturally lose power and influence and individual rights would (almost accidentally!) be improved. Iran is a small regional government with excellent group rights and abysmal individual rights. That's not a good model, but that's the model that is called "nationalism." Nationalism is nothing more than the organized oppression of individual liberty.
I'm asking you to post the again. It's a simple copy paste operation Will. I don't remember seeing them, and your claims run counter to any thing I have heard or read. If it's true, please post it. You didn't respond to my statement, you merely called it bad thinking. Concentration of power is not a statement on geographic size. Your last sentence is meaningless to the discussion. Negative proof is not proof of an argument. Again, you're hung up on size Will. True libertarians believe that the best government, is self government. Moving governmental power for all people, to the highest possible global level, is an absolute threat to individual liberty. I'm not sure how you reconcile being a fan of Hayek and Goldwater with these globalists positions. Only if you believe that all people should be utilizing their individual rights, the same amount, in the same proportion. Which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. And what would you call the Warsaw Pact countries, or the USSR? How can individual liberty be oppressed if fundamental human rights are maintained? Nationalism doesn't preclude this.
You're just expressing your true lberal nature -- expecting other people to do your work for you. I did. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. Try reading past the first sentence. Then either you are merely playing terminology roulette or you admit that a global government could be a good thing, as long as power is correctly managed. This is not an argument, this is merely a restatement of your original misunderstanding. It's quite simple. Good and evil are good and evil -- no matter who does them. All people should be allowed to use their individual rights as they deem fit -- until they impact the rights of others. The legitimate role of government is to define what happens when conflicts between the rights of individuals occurs. After Ronald Reagan's term in government, I would call them a historical relic. But Ron Paul and his peacenik bunch oppose Goldwater/Reagan and their defense-of-liberty bunch. The Goldwater/Reagan policy defeated the global communist threat and restored individual rights to hundreds of millions of people -- whereas the Paul strategy would support the oppression of those people because Paul supports group rights over individual rights. Nationalism is designed to give undue power over others to one limited group. Nationalism is designed to allow one nation to oppress individuals in another nation. It is merely another scam to give groups power over individuals.
Well, give me a keyword to search for Will. You've got several thousand posts. Did you link to the Thomas.gov site? If you're not willing to repost, link or lead me to these statements you claim to have made, I'll call them false. After your post about Paul being anti-liberty in another thread, and then avoiding the challenge to explain yourself (while claiming to be the only candidate you have researched), is starting to undermine your credibility. Insufficient answer to the challenge. Not at all. You are the one choosing geographical size of a region to make your point. My point is that the system is the issue, not the size of the region governed. See above. Who defines good and evil? So your global government would not tax? It would not apportion rights, or seek to create economic, geographic or wealth status equity? Ah, someone has not been reading their Hayek! Perhaps a course on Von Mises is in order. Communism was doomed to fail economically. And it did. No one defeated the Russians militarily or diplomatically. What next, you're going to convince me that Grenada was the tipping point for the Iron Curtain? Paul is a student of Hayek and Von Mises. He understood that the empire would fail when it's currency collapsed under it's own socialist mandate. Do you believe in private property rights, or do you believe that all property is communal?
Missed this one. How does Paul's position differ from Goldwater/Reagan's on group rights? If anything, Paul is much more for individual liberty than either of those guys.
Paul believes in the rights of nation-states to oppress the individuals who were unlucky enough to be born within their borders. Both Goldwater and Reagan believed that individual rights were more basic and more important than geographical boundaries. Goldwater and Reagan, for example, both supported liberty for the people of Vietnam. Goldwater and Reagan would both support liberty for the people of Iraq. Paul supported only liberty for the government of Saddam Hussein.
I see, so he should endorse trading one oppressor for another. Like what happened with the Shah of Iran, or Musharaff in Pakistan. Brilliant. You're kidding right? Not true. Reagan's "Time for Choosing" legendary speech in 64 supporting Goldwater made it clear that Vietnam was part of the domino theory rhetoric, and it was in the interest of America, not the Vietnamese to fight the war. Btw, Vietnam was started under false pretenses, 2 million Vietnamese died, we left without a victory, Vietnam ended up being communist, and today, it's a thriving capitalist socialist state and our trading partner. IIRC, Reagan talked about bombing it into a parking lot. That's not pro-liberty rhetoric for the Vietnamese. Right, Reagan did a good job supporting Saddam. He was Ron's buddy when Saddam was gassing the Kurds. Reagan's regime did a nice job of selling Saddam weapons, and then selling the Iranians weapons through Iran-Contra. Nothing like arming both sides for a war, if you want liberty for the people. You do realize that our so-called liberty of Iraq today has lead to women being forced to wear the veil (they didn't have to under Saddam), and the government is run by the same terrorists who blew up the US embassy in Kuwait? Don't feed me the holier than thou stance. It doesn't bear the scrutiny of history.
What a bizarrely off-the-wall attempt at a straw-man argument! Did we trade one oppressor for another in Germany? In Japan? In South Korea? No, we only did this when we failed to engage fully and drive the situation to a successful completion. North Korea and Vietnam are two excellent examples of the poverty and death that results when we abandon individuals to be oppressed in the name of national determinism. Because we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, millions of people there have significantly less freedom and liberty than they otherwise would have had. They have lived and died as slaves of a brutal communist and nationalist regime with no concept of individual liberty. The entire world is a poorer place because of what transpired in Vietnam after our retreat.