1) a real campaign-finance reform
2) strong restrictions on lobbying

Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics and nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful bankers and corporate elite. It might be time for Congress to consider retaking the Federal Reserve into the Federal Government as the Constitution originally specified, and make the entire process easier for all.

“[G]overnment interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”

Government is violence, pure unadulaterated violence. So given the sinfulness of human nature why would any one want to give one group of humans a monopoly on violence? Do you really think that they will use it for the good of the community rather than to accomplish their own objectives? Do you really think the State can protect us? Months before 9-11, the FAA banned pilots from carrying handguns. Perhaps if the pilots were armed, there would have been 19 dead hijackers instead of 3,000+ civillians.

Thomas Paine once wrote “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” Yes, without government there would still be suffering. But I would much rather deal with sinful humans in the free market than to give sinful humans a monopoly on arms and hope they will not abuse their power.
Radicals such as I hate the State with all of our hearts, all of our minds, and all of our strength. It is the most brutual institution ever created which cares only about its own power; it will use any emergency or even create emergencies to increase its power at the expense of society. It’s goal is simple: complete slavery of its citizens.
I realize that today most Americans have become so inured to government such viewpoints are met with derision and ridicule, but there was a time in this country when this viewpoint was mainstream. The desire for freedom burned in the hearts of the revolutionaries and they were willing to sacrifice their lives to free themselves from King George. Given that the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence is a trip to Disneyworld compared to the abuses of power that we suffer now, this viewpoint is more necessary now than it was then.

Second…about the comment that jefferson went to war with the pirates is absolutly not true. he declared the Letters of Marque and Reprisal which is meant to go after a group with no nation i.e. PIRATES OR TERRORIST.

WHY is Ron Paul getting so much attack on his foriegn policies?

OH yea you guys drank the COOLAID

You should have read more of this thread. Jefferson did use the Navy and Marines against the pirates as mentioned before the “…shores of Tripoli..” you know the Marine Corp hymn the thing you and Ron Paul would do away with.

After reading your view on foreign policy I’m pretty sure Hitler would be ruling most of the world and most of Jews would be dead because who are we to stop someone from killing people?

Oh yes, those damn Barbary Pirates. How did we solve that horrible problem? We used Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which worked really well. Now, if it worked for their antecedents, why would we not want to use it on the current terrorist, as Ron Paul advocates. Oh, yes I forget, just arresting “evil dooers” is not as much fun as dropping bombs and physically rounding them up in the streets.

Toward the second point on why Ron Paul is weak on defense, Islamic objections to our culture have nothing to do with defense. Under a Paul administration, we would be friends with them, which would implicitly mean that we recognize them as relevant, legitimate, and important, which is something that they are very interested in. Second, nothing would require them to take in our culture, the Imams could still censor their people all day long, and we would say nothing about it. Lastly, friendship and openness is two way, and those in the Middle East are very interested in the fate of Muslims in America and on having their ideas heard in the US forum, which would be open to them only if we are friends.

Besides, people in the Middle East are, like everyone, interested in improving their standard of living. If the US had friendship with all the countries in the Middle East with no tariffs, we would provide a huge market for their goods, while allowing them cheaper access to the better aspects of our culture and economy. If your neighbor is making you richer and better off, why attack them?

As Ron has pointed out, if they hate the West just for not being Muslim and for our depraved culture, why are they then not attacking places like Switzerland, which holds all the world’s banking, money, and has arguably a more depraved culture, since they are not as prudish on nudity as we are. Easy, Switzerland stays neutral, has great chocolate, and provides them the same great banking services as the rest of the world. We would be wise to follow Switzerland’s example.

@Mary: nope, those ideas go great with Red Cool-Aid!

“My personal view of Israel is, the zionist made their beds, they can lay in it. If you want to create a Jewish state where the majority of indigenous people are Arabs/Muslim, you can expect some “blowback”.

The Jews did no such thing, which you might understand if you bothered to step out of your Noam Chomsky/Ron Paul echo chamber. The Jewish presence stretches across the centuries; the land was acquired lawfully; the state was sanctioned internationally; the so-called displacement was reasonable in repelling a war of aggression.

And the “blowback” you mention includes using bombs wrapped in nails dipped in rat poison on children. So much for libertarian “ethics.” You deserve your place at the bottom of the political food chain.