I'd rather that people don't be elected because those elected do not represent everyone in the first place, nor can they ever due to the fact that people aren't capable of being represented by anyone but themselves. you can try to argue that lawyers or politicians will word things a certain way to achieve results but in the end, it all flies in the face of the rights to self-determination and individual liberties. Ideally, there would be absolutely no need for government because ideally people would be content to do what is in their own interest without violating the rights of others but this isn't an ideal world obviously, so I'd rather have the smallest weakest government possible where the rights of the people matter more than the rights of the state or federal government. If you can't understand why a large governmental system is fundamentally flawed I would suggest you research and learn about the largest governments in history and see if you can find any reoccurring patterns. I'd take a good look at Rome, Egypt, China, Russia, Germany, as well as, many others. you'll more than likely see patterns both relativistically "good" and "bad." Also, I want you to consider the idea that Ron Paul is a real politician. Bear with me here, put yourself in Ron Paul's shoes, imagine you are him and look at the way you conduct your business versus the ways of others and ask yourself if you like what the other politicians are doing? Examine your own actions and think of how you could improve in helping America stay free and individual liberties protected? Now look at what the other politicians see in Ron Paul and imagine you are them. Can you still look yourself in the mirror as one of the other politicians and say you're a "good" man defending the Constitution of the Untied States of America and the individual liberties of it's people?
Closed AccountJun 14, 2008Submitter
It has moved to this address sorry for the inconvience :<a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7312714499723068171&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7312714499 ...</a>
agentguloJun 20, 2008
I'd rather that people don't be elected because those elected do not represent everyone in the first place, nor can they ever due to the fact that people aren't capable of being represented by anyone but themselves. you can try to argue that lawyers or politicians will word things a certain way to achieve results but in the end, it all flies in the face of the rights to self-determination and individual liberties. Ideally, there would be absolutely no need for government because ideally people would be content to do what is in their own interest without violating the rights of others but this isn't an ideal world obviously, so I'd rather have the smallest weakest government possible where the rights of the people matter more than the rights of the state or federal government. If you can't understand why a large governmental system is fundamentally flawed I would suggest you research and learn about the largest governments in history and see if you can find any reoccurring patterns. I'd take a good look at Rome, Egypt, China, Russia, Germany, as well as, many others. you'll more than likely see patterns both relativistically "good" and "bad." Also, I want you to consider the idea that Ron Paul is a real politician. Bear with me here, put yourself in Ron Paul's shoes, imagine you are him and look at the way you conduct your business versus the ways of others and ask yourself if you like what the other politicians are doing? Examine your own actions and think of how you could improve in helping America stay free and individual liberties protected? Now look at what the other politicians see in Ron Paul and imagine you are them. Can you still look yourself in the mirror as one of the other politicians and say you're a "good" man defending the Constitution of the Untied States of America and the individual liberties of it's people?