Finally got around to listening to Ron Paul's farewell address. He has a block of questions in there ... and I think they're worth posting.

Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences – even up to life for crimes without victims – as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a "kill list," including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?

Some great points there. Most are things that I can totally agree with. My son has been a Ron Paul supporter for years. Spent four years in the USMC, and is now a senior at Appalachian State. Even though I agree with most of his thinking the one thing I could never agree with is his philosophy to withdraw from the world so much militarily. Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

I imagine that 90% of America sympathizes with many of Paul's positions.

But in politics, even if people agree on 90% of an issue, the politicians will use the other 10% to drive a wedge between people who share a lot of common ground.

That's why it is important to move ahead with the 90% of things, and work hard to come together some way on the other 10%. If Congress only would act in our interests, not lobbyist's.

(02-08-2013 11:35 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?

Germany's decision to let some portion of its gold be kept in physical custody on US soil was always a political act that arose from the unique context of the Cold War, when Germany was a divided nation and the threat of Russian invasion/occupation was real. It was never meant to be "forever" and quite honestly I'm surprised Germany didn't start this process 20 years ago.

Now, with all that said, Yes the world's "trust" in the US, and the dollar's status as the reserve-currency of choice, is unquestionably "waning" (I would argue that process began in the 1960s, but whatever. It's undeniably happening now). But Germany's decision to have physical custody of more of its own gold is not really a good indicator of that process.

Quote:Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?

You mean like Chuck Hagel? Good question, but the better question is, how do people commit political suicide and then get nominated for Secretary of Defense?

Quote:Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

On a deep philosophical level, yes I think they are the same. But in the day-to-day, here-and-now of political argument, no they are not the same. And some members of Congress defend one more vehemently than the other because in some contexts they believe one is more urgent than the other.

Dr. Paul's question also overlooks the vital point that, in Congress, there are several members who just flat-out reject the idea of "free markets" and use their influence to restrict the ability of such markets to function. Yet, there are no members of Congress who flat-out reject the idea of "civil liberties" in the same way. So in that sense, the question is naïve and/or misleading. Neither quality is characteristic of Ron Paul, but I suspect he is being naïve in this instance.

Quote:Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

I don't think anyone is surprised. At least, I've never heard anyone express surprise at that.

(02-08-2013 03:10 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

There is nothing preventing you from assisting those you feel are oppressed. The challenge to your argument is requiring all to fund, with resources and lives, your desire. When you coerce others to fund something you value, it is a form of oppression in itself.

(02-10-2013 11:15 AM)chess Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 03:10 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

There is nothing preventing you from assisting those you feel are oppressed. The challenge to your argument is requiring all to fund, with resources and lives, your desire. When you coerce others to fund something you value, it is a form of oppression in itself.

Why anyone pays attention to this man is beyond me.

(02-10-2013 11:15 AM)chess Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 03:10 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

There is nothing preventing you from assisting those you feel are oppressed. The challenge to your argument is requiring all to fund, with resources and lives, your desire. When you coerce others to fund something you value, it is a form of oppression in itself.

+1...Outstanding. Chess have you read "Healing our World" by Mary Ruwart? If not...I think you would enjoy it. She covers much of what you are talking about. I think you can find an on line version of it. I highly recommend it for anyone who cherishes the principle of non aggression.

(02-10-2013 11:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 11:15 AM)chess Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 03:10 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

There is nothing preventing you from assisting those you feel are oppressed. The challenge to your argument is requiring all to fund, with resources and lives, your desire. When you coerce others to fund something you value, it is a form of oppression in itself.

So what would that entail? Forming something like the French Foreign Legion and make it voluntary.

(02-11-2013 06:19 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 11:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 11:15 AM)chess Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 03:10 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not a war monger, believe we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, but do feel we should sometimes help people that are oppressed.

There is nothing preventing you from assisting those you feel are oppressed. The challenge to your argument is requiring all to fund, with resources and lives, your desire. When you coerce others to fund something you value, it is a form of oppression in itself.

So what would that entail? Forming something like the French Foreign Legion and make it voluntary.

This subject often comes up in discussions about Anarchocapitalism and Voluntary societal paradigms. We are of course miles away from those types of systems today. Sadly...There are few legitimate ways today to battle the above situation without the use of force. Honestly...I would have no problem with a voluntarily funded organization supported by the nations of the world who carried out this function.

(02-10-2013 01:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why anyone pays attention to this man is beyond me.

Of course it is beyond you.