Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, IRS, FEMA, NAFTA, WTO, NATO.

He wants to eliminate every single one.

Now, what do you think will happen if the IRS and the Department of Energy are eliminated? Let's dig up Ida Tarbell (just listen for the one rolling in her grave) and ask her.

FEMA's poor performance in Katrina weighs on us all. But one thing Katrina taught us was FEMA lacks the training and logistics to handle a disaster of Katrina's magnitude.

The magnitude of displaced people forced FEMA to use untested trailers, which were later found to have poisonous levels of gases from the glue used.

Eliminating FEMA would mean even *more* homeless people, and more shoddily constructed temporary housing.

The people most exited by Ron Paul are democrats. They couldn't beat a retarded monkey like Bush, but they think they stand a chance against a crazy fucker like Ron Paul who would dismantle what little protection we have against natural disasters and energy cartels.

Madai,

You have succinctly nailed the Achilles heel of the Libertarian Party. They have some very good ideas concerning individual liberty and adherence to the constitution, but they are downright paranoid about government performing any non-military function.

>>Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, IRS, FEMA, NAFTA, WTO, NATO.

He wants to eliminate every single one.

It's a good thing he's running for President rather than King. He can't rule by royal edict, he actually has to convince Congress to go along with him.

I personally prefer divided government. With Rep. Paul, you'd have the equivalent, no matter which party held Congress. And considering the primary job of the President is to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, make appointments, and veto bills, having one that followed the entire Constitution -- rather than just the parts that are convenient -- would be a welcome change.

is that he is way too honest. Unelectable in America where we prefer our lies with a dollop of whipped cream. Even if he did win, he'd be assassinated befoe the first quarter was out.

I can think of no short answer which could adequately inform the argument for abolishing the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, IRS, FEMA, NAFTA, WTO, NATO. A careful review of an unbiased history and function of these organizations would be convincing. Unfortunately The Department of Education has seen to it that you will receive no such thing through our system of public education. An appropriate motto might be: "Ignorance is Strength".

The Department of Energy is the protection arm of the global energy cartel. Their job is to ensure that the many viable sources of alternative energy do not threaten the monopoly of these giant corporations. They are responsible already for what will be the starvation of billions through the diverting of food crops to biofuels. This has been described by one author as akin to raising your children for you own food.

Some of you may recall another marginalized candidate, Ross Perot, who alluded to a large sucking sound that NAFTA would create as jobs left America. Well, the sucking sound has finally stopped. All the jobs are gone just as this other patriot suggested they would be. The damage being done by clauses in NAFTA that nullify existing state and federal laws and environmental protections continues.

Perhaps the best answer is to listen to Ron Paul as he addresses these questions and others during the Iowa Straw Poll. This extraordinary interview with Google executive Elliot Schrage was inexplicably removed from Google Videos. Mercola. com helpfully links it:

<link>

I am not accustomed to people defending the IRS. The truth of the matter seems to be that the 16th ammendment was never legally ratified. In addition, a tax on our wages, like in paycheck, has been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court on several occasions yet this illegitimate organization continues to rob us of our just wages.

This is a complicated subject which involves the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, an even more demonic crime against the American people, which is perhaps Dr. Paul's most important initiative, abolishing The Federal Reserve. If the American people understood what this act, along with the 16th Ammendment has done to them there would be a revolt tomorrow.

FEMA, which is now part of the largest government organization in American or probably any other history, The Department of Homeland Security, as far as I can tell, has always been a scam for transferring taxpayer's money to favored contractors. How can it be that an Israeli citizen is in charge of it? If you look at the current state of "recovery" following Katrina I cannot imagine how it could be nearly as bad if there had been no such organization. Their efforts along with paid mercenaries from Blackwater have successfully prevented the very recovery they were chartered to accomplish.

Along with the Gulf Coast much of our our federal government needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to attempt this. Of course this is why Dr. Paul is the worst nightmare to our "establishment" which has nearly drained dry the life blood out of this country.

At least libertarians are consistent. You say government sucks at everything and want to stop it from doing things. Republicans say government sucks at everything but want to impose morality on the people and start ill-advised wars for no apparent reason.

I used to be a libertarian for these reasons. Then I realized a simple idea: the reason we need all of those government organizations is the same reason we need a military: It serves our national interest just as much to educate all children or provide disaster relief as it does to defend our country from invasion.

"Along with the Gulf Coast much of our our federal government needs to be torn down and rebuilt."

Tearing down the US government and rebuilding it looks like an awesome idea, after seeing what a bang-up job the US did tearing apart the Iraqi government and rebuilding it. I'm sure you agree that the rebuilding of Iraq is progressing perfectly, and a rebuilding of the US government would be even more of a cakewalk!

Meanwhile 16th amendment is legal. If it wasn't, the rich, who would logically benefit most from it's cancellation, would have abolished it long long ago. Only a crackpot incapable of math and logic would be able to believe the 16th amendment is illegal and getting rid of it would be a good thing.. While we at it, let's repeal the 13th amendment. If we don't tax the rich, we will become their virtual slaves, why not make the virtual the reality?

a republican.

who was the "angry peasants with pitchforks" guy? Pat Buchanan?

Ron Paul is like him. He sounds lucid for the first 5 minutes, but when you probe on the details you find out he's nutcase.

Madai:

Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, IRS, FEMA, NAFTA, WTO, NATO.

He wants to eliminate every single one.

The people most exited by Ron Paul are democrats. They couldn't beat a retarded monkey like Bush, but they think they stand a chance against a crazy fucker like Ron Paul

Yes, when I first talked to a libertarian, I thought they were on crack for thinking about getting rid of all those programs.

But then I thought about it, and I realized that most government programs are quite large, inefficient, and expensive. Why keep something that costs more than it benefits? We have become so reliant on the government that now we cannot think of living without these programs. It is like a poor person who becomes rich, and could not imagine going back to living in small apartment or what have you.

But one time, we got along just fine without these programs.

But anytime we face a problem, a new government agency springs up, ready to suck out more of our tax dollars, and increase the US deficits. Americans now work 1/3 of the year to pay for these government programs and this is only likely to incease. Inflation is rising (eating away at our retirement accounts), yet the government and citizens are not scaling back on spending. Democrats now want universal healthcare (illegal immigrants included). Is it any wonder there is a crunch on the middle class?

The government HAS to cut some agencies and reduce spending on programs if it wants to not only have a budget surplus, but to actually start reducing the debt. It's just common sense. But the Republicans won't do this. The Democrats surely will not do this. Then who will?

Well, to me, and many other free-thinkers (liberal republicans, conservative liberals, libertarians, independents) the only likely candidate who will have the guts to do this is Ron Paul. And even if he becomes president, he likely won't dissolve all those anyway. I mean, politicians hardly keep their promises right? (Well at least if you are a neo-con or a soc-lib they don't). So you can call me nuts anytime if it prevents our government from becoming bankrupt and bought out by chinese foreigners.

You know, at one time there was a group of men who rebelled because of a small tax on tea. I bet they're rolling in their graves.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

~declaration of independence

Seek and Find information. Don't be Told it.

"But one time, we got along just fine without these programs.

But anytime we face a problem, a new government agency springs up"

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Meanwhile, America's past has not been marked by success. We did not become a superpower until emerging victorious and nuclear from WWII. Before WWII, we suffered from a great depression, a nasty flu pandemic, a civil war, and several smaller nasty incidents. No, we did not "get along just fine". Infant mortality was higher, life expectancy was lower, there were far more occupational hazards, war occurred more often, etc etc.

The WTO evolved out of GATT. GATT was a direct response the great depression and WWII. If you understood history, you'd know the smoot-hawley tariff act was a huge fucking no-no and had a lot to do with how Hitler was able to come to power. Look up the word autarky.

The world was a far far bloodier place before GATT. One must only compare vietnam, where less than 60,000 US troops died, with WWI or WWII(407,000). Vietnam lasted longer, but the bodycounts in WWI and WWII were higher. And, of course, with this new Iraq occupation, US casualties are down another order of magnitude.

War is horrible, and Iraq, like Vietnam, was a huge mistake and a huge tragedy. We must not repeat either. But it's hard not to note that given our past, it could have been much much worse.

Libertarians have not demonstrated the command of history required to avoid repeating historical mistakes. In fact, they appear eager to rush headlong into repeating America's worst blunders of the past. Dismantle FEMA, so the next Katrina is 10X worse! Yeah, really smart.

"Cognitive dissonance, anyone?"

I don't see them as conflicting thoughts at all.

Sure, I don't mind that the government helps out with a little aid when there is a tragedy or pass legislation when things are absolutely necessary in terms of security/financial interests, or constitutional rights are being violated. But today, everytime a problem comes up, the government has to intervene and come up with some department, admistration, law, or program.

Some of these programs are worthless, or cost more then they're worth, and need to be cut. But people can't part with their dear agencies. I know someone who wanted to add a Department of Peace for crying out loud.

This is unfortunate, because the US is broke and the only way to fix it is by cutting government programs and spending. The next generations are going to be debt slaves.

"Meanwhile, America's past has not been marked by success. We did not become a superpower until emerging victorious and nuclear from WWII. Before WWII, we suffered from a great depression, a nasty flu pandemic, a civil war, and several smaller nasty incidents. No, we did not "get along just fine". Infant mortality was higher, life expectancy was lower, there were far more occupational hazards, war occurred more often, etc etc."

First off, you are distorting my quote. I was referring to how Americans lived just fine without some government programs. I was not referring to the US being just fine when things like war or the Great Depression were happening.

And yes, I know there was a Civil war, and a flu pandemic (which could still happen again today).

When you say there was no success, are you only referring to economic conditions? Because then their is the Gilded Age for that. Or does being a superpower only count as success?

I consider successes of pre-WWII to include women getting the right to vote, the abolishment of slavery, the labor movement, new inventions (light bulb, car, plane, telegraph, cotton gin etc.).

And, not to be blunt, but.. it is the 21st century. We have improved healthcare, technologies etc. I am pretty sure morality rates are down and life expectancies are up in all developed countries.

And there were more wars? Maybe officially declared wars, but we still have plenty of disputes this century. The Korean war, Bay of Pigs, Gulf Wars, Panama invasion, Vietnam war, invasion of Grenada, Bosnia, Afgahnistan & Iraq War/War on Terror, and of course World Wars I & II.

And to me personally, all those wars after WWII don't seem to really be directly related to US subidies or security interests, except perhaps the war in Afgahnistan.

Oh, and the US is probably more hated around the world then before.

"The WTO evolved out of GATT. GATT was a direct response the great depression and WWII. If you understood history, you'd know the smoot-hawley tariff act was a huge fucking no-no and had a lot to do with how Hitler was able to come to power. Look up the word autarky."

Yes, I've heard about the Smoot-Hawley act before and how other countries didn't like it. But I don't recall how that enabled Hilter to come to power?

"Libertarians have not demonstrated the command of history required to avoid repeating historical mistakes. In fact, they appear eager to rush headlong into repeating America's worst blunders of the past. Dismantle FEMA, so the next Katrina is 10X worse! Yeah, really smart."

I'm not libertarian anyhow, but do you think most people know that much history? Not to sound American-bashing, but I doubt most people, in whatever party, know anything or close to anything on the subject, unless if it's in their profession.

As for FEMA, it's done a horrible job, and it still has not done as well as private charities or persons have done. So it might as well be taken down and replaced or reformed.

And did I hear right that they built the levies to the same height as before? Has anyone else heard this?