Ron Paul Supporters from Both Sides Because His Political Ideologies ACTUALLY Make Sense!
Why and How did Ron Paul Cause a Revolution in Political Thought?
Often political candidates are criticized for not “compromising”, as though the answer to getting anything done politically is to compromise on your position. But both the traditional “right wing” (the GOP / Republican Party) and the “left wing” (Liberal) ideologies are primarily based around talking points without any real substance. It’s as though they latch onto soundbites that sound good and will grab their listeners attention and repeat them over and over with dabs of what sounds like supporting evidence or logic in between to make their political stance sound well thought out. The whole point of their political ideology is to separate themselves from the people they are blaming (the other side) and make sure that the public knows that whichever side the “other side” is, they are to blame and whatever the problems are can only be fixes by switching to their side. both sides are intellectually shallow and their arguments are dumbed down to a third grade level so that they can appeal to people who aren’t really listening, don’t care that much or just plain aren’t that smart.
Why is it that Ron Paul supporters come from such a diverse variety of political ideologies? Because his Libertarian philosophy actually makes sense. It isn’t a bunch of talking points reiterated over and over with emphasis and emotion to manipulate people who want something to believe in. It is actually substantial and well-thought-out.
How to REALLY Detour Crime – And ACTUALLY Make a Difference:
Both the liberals and conservatives in this country have eroded our constitutional rights and freedoms over the past several decades. There are more and more laws being added every day, both state and federal, which limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens without specifically addressing how to limit the ability of those who victimize others to be able to victimize others.
Take drug use, for instance.
Conservatives overwhelmingly think that drug use is a major contributor to crime and therefore should be illegal. Libertarians believe that drugs should be legalized. Therefore the philosophy is that if we arrest drug users and put them in jail we will decrease crime. There are many, many drug users and abusers in the United States. Therefore, prisons are overcrowded with many people who have not infringed upon the rights of others. They have simply decided for themselves that they wish to imbibe the drug or drugs of their choice.
What is the answer to the overcrowded prison system?
To turn people out of it. So many people such as child molesters, rapists, thieves, arsonists, kidnappers, etc are turned loose every day, while people sit in prison who have only hurt themselves but have not hurt others. Does this make sense? Why don’t we take the drug laws off of the books – especially the laws concerning less dangerous drugs – and only use prisons to RESTRICT the physical capability of people who have proven that they are a danger to others to be a danger to others? Wouldn’t that make more sense? If drug users actually did other things to prove they were harming other people, THEN put them in jail for THAT. The only thing the War on Drugs has done is to drive up the price of drugs by turning the marketing of drugs into a more dangerous enterprise. Now more criminals are making more money and more innocent bystanders are getting killed in the crossfire. Innocent people , falsely accused go to jail on a regular basis while dangerous criminals run free. Does this make sense? No, not at all. And is the outcome of these laws and all of the tax money that goes into enforcing them to lower drug use or danger to citizens? No! Not even close!
Get meaningless drivel out of the law books and only keep what actually protects the freedoms of law abiding citizens!
Streamline law and government until the laws are fair, concise, comprehensible and free from conflict. Only allow laws that ACTUALLY protect citizens from danger in REALITY. Get hypothetical drivel that sounds good but in actuality costs tax payers a tub of money and produces no real benefit off the books!
This philosophy can be added to any area of law enforcement.
The most obvious would be gun control. The whole problem with this concept is that by registering guns, restricting ammo etc, we will be decreasing gun deaths and gun violence. Yet, if we don’t get the type of people who would use guns in a violent manner off of the street, then what good have we done? We have only restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens but have not really found a long term solution for solving gun violence. Criminals who are capable of using a gun for violence will continue to do so, but law abiding citizens will be forced to turn their guns over to the authorities. Good citizens won’t have a way to fight back against armed criminals. There really is no benefit to this type of thinking. The price of guns will skyrocket due to problems in accessing them. It will become a high-stakes game just like the “War on Drugs”. Who will pay the price? Private citizens.
Why not streamline the laws and put all of our effort into arresting and keeping dangerous criminals behind bars instead of harassing people who don’t hurt anyone? How badly do we need another speeding ticket written? How badly do we need another urine test performed by a P.O.? Urine tests create a lot of false positives and negatives anyway. We aren’t ACTUALLY proving anything by requiring them. It just costs tax payers money for no good reason. Local police write speeding tickets and occasionally arrest someone for possession or transportation of drugs. What does that do to keep us safer? Why not focus our effort on child molesters, rapists, kidnappers, arsonists etc and quit enforcing laws that don’t help the citizens in any way instead of arresting people who only plug up the court and prison systems without really making the public safer?