Is America getting a monarch?
I am not a fan of Ron Paul's politics, but you gotta admire the guy for his honesty and consistency, and that was a hell of a speech.
I think hes nuts and has a third wheel whirling around in his head. If I consistently said there should be no law and govt and we should go back to the wild west and whoever draws the fastest wins, id be consistent and nuts
Is America getting a monarch?
How long does someone who hates the federal government have to work for the federal government before it becomes a little inconsistent?
The United Ceased to be a republic when the 17th Amendment was ratified.
That as nearly 100 years ago.
What's your say? :roll:
So, what exactly are the US today?
That's why I don't like his politics.
But what's cool about Ron Paul is he is very ethically consistent. I happen to think his political ethics are wrong, and in some cases, yes, perhaps they are also nuts. But he always uses due process, and his political philosophy is nearly perfectly consistent. A rare quality in a politician, and I wish I saw it in one I could agree with but I still respect him
And in this case, I think he's right. Whether you agree with his extreme libertarian interpretation, a maintaining of checks and balances is something I think we can all agree on, and here he is right.
I think it's an inevitable behavioral response.
The more comforts people have to more often they take them for granted and require more.
I believe this largely started in the 1900's with the finalization of universal suffrage.
(no this is not meant to be an attack against women but against universal suffrage in general.)
We allow people to vote who do not have to justify their opinions with facts or reasonable logical conclusions.
Are you saying there should be a test to qualify to vote?
There should be multiple objective measures.
I find it unethical that people who directly benefit or could directly benefit (monetarily and service) from a program or legislation, get to vote for those who promise to implement that legislation.
It's wrong ethically.
Knowledge testing, contribution to society, things of that nature, should be done before any person could vote.
Or, we should redesign the representation system.
Instead of representation by district, each party should get equal representation and the people should vote for their representative.
No more party X wins over Y, Z
Then neither side could vote because each gains direct benefit. Tax cuts are just as much a direct benefit as welfare.
Who decides which knowledge or contribution to society is good enough to convey the right to vote?
I don't think your concept of equal representation is so equal. One party will still prevail over the other, just is a bigger pool of voters? Or do I misunderstand?
In suggesting this, are you doing away with the concept of one man, one vote? Or taxation without representation?
Some tax benefits are just as unethical, I totally agree.
I do not think our system works.
It's severely broken because we have completely discarded what a republic is supposed to be.
Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority.
Edit: Contributions should be made on volunteering to preserve the common institutions of the society, roads, trash pick up, etc.
The most complete review of facts should be done before using a testing measurement.
The amount of people voting is immaterial.
Each party has an equal seat, but only 1 seat or a council of seats.
It's still in concept form but it could take a lot of the unethical money problems out of the system.
One person, one vote should be tossed away.
There is no reasonable justification for all the votes because many people come to their conclusions for unethical reasons.