CNN / Lou Dobbs - Ron Paul Interview 2-26-2007

"End birthright citizenship"? that's gonna require an amendment to the constitution.

I don't think so.

atleast this show give ron paul enough time!! atleast there still even a few what we called "true media"

This video is beyond compressed/stretched.

'we promote the general well being; We the People is not Me me me.'

That sounds nice and all but that's the grey area, and that's where 'individual choice' and not government decision becomes ever so important. It is one's right to decide who, if anyone, he gives his aid to. How do you make sure this person's right to refusal get respected? You may feel a group of people deserve aid but what if someone else don't share your view? Is he forced to give or does he have to choice to refuse?

It is also the choice of individuals, in a democracy, who form the majority, to aid his fellow man, to provide a safety net to those who fall, to provide a means for that man to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Government is not a seperate entity in our society, as opposed to monarchy or other oligarchies, which is to be feared - rather it is our corporation, to ensure we are a nation of laws and not of men; to ensure that majority rule and minority rights are respected.

But it is impossible to represent the choices of ALL individuals, and that is the main reason why government should NOT get involve in these type of things. Government should only be involve in things that can be universally agreed such as defense of the country's soil. Whether to provide any safety net should be a choice made by those who desires to give back.

You made an interesting point about respecting the rights of minority.  Is it also not a right to refuse to help those who fall? Is it not a right to refuse to provide assistance if one choose not to? I know it sounds bad and not that I would do such a thing but you can't dispute the fact that there are such minority does exist. For government get involve in the provision of this saftey net, does that not violate their rights? What of democracy then?

Remember empircal evidence is true science and that law and reason is as true for economic policy as it is for anything else - it is unreasonable to allow 5% to control 95% of the wealth - to go from a society where the ratio was 10/1 or 30/1 in some cases (when we made stuff and followed capitalism influenced by Hamilton) - to one where it is now 100/1 or 300/1 per pay scale when we follow the privatize, free marketism and trade that is not a part of our heritage and not how a nation succeeds.

That the free trade rust belt, lowering pay of our citizens etc. together with the loss of skills and productive capacity is right ? That our fathers were wrong about Governments purpose? That it should not do anything about economics? Are you so inclined to follow a disproven 19th century theory of French phsysiocrats, Adam Smith, and the Cobdenites who ruined the British Empire and lead to its decline while Germany, USA, Japan rose due to Capitalist policy rather than free marketism and trade

What you are saying then is this: regardless of historic proof and empirical evidence to the contrary of the free market/trade theories - regardless of the admonitions of great leaders like Washington/Sen. Clay/Lincoln/McKinley/TR/and FDR - who together with the American people created the Arsenal of Democracy and greatest Middle Class ever -- that Capitalism - an economy where Government supervises, promotes, regulates for the public interests - works here and abroad - is wrong?