Ron Paul, Ron Paul....
I've found it difficult to agree with Paul , in the past, , but I've eventually come to the conclusion to support Ron Paul. The majority of Democrats , and Republicans have dogmatic allegiances to their party, and they do not evaluate the core values that once made this country so great: individualism and free enterprise. Therefore, I have to give credit to Ron Paul ; Ron Paul encourages critical, thinking individuals to intervene , in government , when their government is taking a too liberal approach in their role; government is transitioning too much power to elected officials rather than the individual. In essence, we are seeing the seeds of a tyrannical, leaning government.
Some ideas I agree with Ron Paul on are:
I agree with Ron Paul on cutting spending. You have reduce welfare spending and military spending to balance the budget. You simply can't spend money you don't have;all us pay our bills on a budget, so , why can't our federal government do the same? Also, taxation doesn't solve the problem because ultimately national taxes from military and welfare programs tickle down to the most employed workforce of our nation: the working poor and the middle class.Since there is a larger proportional of wealth loss with a lower-class income, with increases in taxes, these groups suffer the most. Eventually, our country suffers the most due to it.
I agree with Ron Paul on civil liberties because of the simple fact that trading privacy , for security , is never the correct answer because it is always the government's failure to provide security; in result, that leads to the loss of privacy. If the government wants to be secure, it should have a policy that increases homeland troops, rather than using that money to fund overseas wars that eventually instigate attacks on American soil.
I agree with a non-interventionist and a non-preemptive war foreign policy. When I say foreign policy, I'm referring to the United States as being only involved in threats that deal with our national borders. Ever since our nation has gone into preemptive war with countries , from European , Middle Eastern countries, and Asian countries we've only instigated more wars that end up ending millions of innocence lives ; along with that, our nation has seeked long-term profits of these wars; this idea our government profiting from wars in-beds an immoral image of "pain for profit" as our county's foreign image.
The individual essence of life , and liberty should be the first obligation of any government, rather than economical, political and militaristic gain, can any true American disagree with that?
However, I understand my view on military interventionism is unrealistic due to the fact our government , for the last 100 years, has created enemies that do not go away over night, but instead of engaging in more preemptive wars to kill them - we should engage the individuals that engage in the specific terror events, rather than the group because it's too expensive, and too dangerous because it gives terrorists a reason to target our citizens. In a nutshell, you don't use the same ideological tactics , terrorists use , since it is counterproductive.
I agree with Ron Paul's argument on the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs, no doubt, has lead to a disproportional amount of Americans into our prison systems. While this is obvious, the main problem is that by incarcerating such a large population , just because they digest self-inflicting substance , seems absurd because the same argument can be made for any type of substance we digest.
Do we begin outlawing Burger King's fast food because of their food is considered unhealthy?
Of course not, as individuals, we should have our own ability to make our own choices. If we want to be unhealthy, that's our choice , and not our government's choice.
Not only does the War on Drugs violate individual liberties, but it only has a snowball effect on the true, detrimental effect is a false sense of security. The War on Drugs claims to lower "crime". However, the large incarnation of adult citizens does not lower crime, but encourages crime by creating a society without parental support. This, in fact , gives youth the incentive to commit crime because they have no family system that encourages correct, moral behavior. In the end, the government gains more power because the War on Drugs gets an economic incentive for local law enforcement to depend on government spending to enforce absurd laws.
I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views because he encourages the individual to take part , in their government, a lot more than government officials whom rather get fed a silver spoon all their lives - at the expense of our working class.
When I do disagree with Ron Paul, it would have to be issues that he leans towards religion, such as abortion , because I kinda get the idea that he'd choose a religious argument, rather than his over his libertarian views, because of preference.
I used to think about what Ron Paul would have done in the past which most of my disagreements came from , however , the problems of today, and every era requires a new way of thinking.
Our era requires limited government spending, zero government infringement on individual freedoms, and limited governmental power , in general.
To fit the times, our ideologies must adapt , just as our founding fathers intended it to be.
