I agree with your viewpoints completely. But you've got to imagine that if Ron Paul's administration is what he wants it to be, and your state government has power and it is also Libertarian, you will get that freedom in the end, no? He's preserving the Constitution first and foremost. And he's taking care of the Federal Government. But as a Constitutionalist he feels no power over the states. That's not to say the state governments cant mimmick his government. That, too, is on the decision of the people to demand.
He'd just be doing his job in the nation that is America. Pulling the strings of the Federal Government (or cutting most of the strings away). The rest isn't up to him (as a Constitutionalist).
I'd like to think that would be the case. I just don't know how easily it'd be for him to actually run the country that way (and then there are people who don't know how much he adheres to the true libertarian ideals to begin with).
Myself, I honestly don't know what to think of the guy. I agree with his drug stance, agree with his "let's stop going to war so damn much" stance-it's REALLY nice to hear someone say that for once, but some of his other views I keep hearing back and forth on what he believes in regards to them, and it's very confusing.
Not to say your idea wouldn't be worth a try with a true libertarian candidate, that could be quite the interesting experiment. But with the way our system works nowadays, it'd be very hard to do. And then of course we'd have to make sure the state government was libertarian, too, and that enough people would be informed and involved enough to work alongside.
Woo to being in agreement on those specific viewpoints on those issues, by the way
.
Libertarianism is down the political spectrum of anarchism. Anarchism has an absolutely negative sound to it. Communism does, too though, and Socialism is down that road.
Indeed. Anarchism right now only sounds good to many people within the confines of a Sex Pistols song
.
But yeah, there's always going to be strange bedfellows and different ends and whatnot.
Absolutely. Mobocracy. This is an opinion though, but I feel as though we've shifted far enough from even the notion of mobocracy to a point where we're completely controlled. Over the past 200 years the government has successfully made a massive list of things we can and cannot do, and has told us what we have to do. Do not be mistaken - the majority of this was at the hands of those 'representing' the people. Or rather, misrepresenting the people because they 'know what's best'. Sometimes... sometimes they do know what's best. Others... they're simply stripping away freedoms.
I do agree with this as well, and don't want to dismiss the civilians at all. I do think, for the most part, many can be trusted to do the right things without people telling them to do so. I still have a crazy faith in humanity overall, and as the old saying goes, "power corrupts" and our government has freely shown just how true that saying is many times in no uncertain terms.
But at the same time, having some sort of proper structure in place still makes sense, too. I think the main issue is just looking at all the issues and deciding who has the power to control what. And I think if we were all able to sit down and make a list or whatever, we might actually for the most part find ourselves in agreement on what the government can control versus what we can control. I really don't think it's nearly as complicated as many people like to make it out to be sometimes.
Perhaps this is true. One thing you've also got to factor in is his genuinity. He doesn't 'play the game' of politics, if you will. No deal making, no teleprompters, no lies (perhaps avoids the real truth sometimes though), no flipflopping, etc.
Now if only we could get a candidate who is like that where people would back him... oh that'd never happen because the media wouldn't have an interest
They would once they realized that a good portion of the country supported him. Right now Ron Paul's fanbase is definitely vocal and passionate, but how much of the population it comprises, I don't know. But if at least half the country was behind a candidate of that sort, the media'd HAVE to pay attention at some point. And if not, they should be bombarded by voters until they do.
Yeah, I think the guy seems overall pretty genuine and honest-he's the old guy who just says whatever's in his head and doesn't care how it sounds
. Of all the Republican candidates, he certainly annoys me the least.
I think that is the case. I suspect people who support Ron Paul do it because they're sick of deciding between only two parties in this country.
And on that note, I certainly understand their feelings. Limiting our options to two people really is pretty crazy.