The United States is more than just a large chunk of land; it’s the birth-place of an idea. This idea was freedom, liberty, peace, prosperity, and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Some refer to it as the “American Dream.” If I look through my rose-tinted glasses, I can see exactly what this American Dream was. It’s sometimes strange you can nostalgia on a vision, which you never actually experienced. I cannot truly describe it, as I’m merely a young adult in this country. It would be impossible for me to describe the America that my family grew up in, but I can still envision it. America seems to be divided already, but I would not say that it’s conquered yet. We see the debates, and we slowly gather facts about the corruption of our officials over time. Even the youth of this generation that is now proceeding into the adult world acknowledges how bad it is. The most disheartening thing for me however, is to see how little my generation cares for these politics and criminal acts. If they truly cared, why aren’t they getting angry? I’m not only infuriated, but I am deeply disturbed. Almost as if this entire conspiracy theory of psychic ops is relevant, and that my generation’s ability to think as individuals has been stripped from them forcefully.
My generation-younger generation-will still complain about how difficult it is to succeed in this life. However, much of this generation doesn’t lift a finger to help moderate a government that has exceeded its means, and betrayed the ideals of our founding fathers. How can we complain, if we shall not contribute? If we do not contribute, how can we be shocked when our government stops communicating with us and becomes oppressive? Wasn’t it our constitutional responsibility, to contribute, in order to preserve everything that this nation is supposed to hold dearest? Without Americans willing to become active in our own political sphere, are we even America? I wish to argue, that we wouldn’t be American, and that would be due to this little piece of paper called the “US Constitution.” Why is this paper so important, and ask yourselves; “do I understand it?” If you understand the constitution, then you must also learn how government within the last 97 years has gradually disobeyed that piece of paper. I see a dim future ahead, if this is the type of respect for the paper that defines us as American, and what gave us rights to begin with. It’s not a long document, and it may appear vague. But it accomplishes so much for such a short paper, with so many interpretations and possibilities. But that’s the point, this little ole’ piece of paper was taken for granted, leaving us in our current state of affairs. As Ron Paul so eloquently put it, “we have an empire we can’t afford.” So let’s try and insert some common sense into economic situations which have gone unsupported.
If you’ve ever read Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” you’d soon realize one of the main conclusions in that article (I suggest you read it, great read). The conclusion is in regards to morality, and if humanity should be obligated to prevent bad things from happening to others that are in unfortunate positions. The catch to that conclusion is that Peter Singer also states “while not sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.” Do you see where this is going? Foreign Aid is only a charity when given. If you take money from a citizen by law, then hand that money to non-citizens by law, thus leaving the citizen without the ability to choose. You call that freedom (what form of government does that remind you of)? I view my freedom to choose who I support to be very important. I would also donate to causes I find beneficial, not because the government says so. This is all money that could be channeled back into the economy, but instead we have foreign countries prospering as a result from it. We continue to see our freedoms, liberties, and finances depreciating faster than the value on your brand new so-called “domestic” automobile.
Military spending should also be taken into consideration regarding morality. It’s morally correct to fund your military, but not if you sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance. We have wars that disobey the constitution, and these wars also obtain the approval of the people simultaneously, which is a major sacrifice of something morally important. In doing so, you admit to corrupt politicians that you don’t really understand your constitution, and that you don’t value it with all your inner-American. Do you think they’ll respect the constitution if you openly disobey it yourselves? They’ll take advantage of such an opportunity, and they do-so in very clever ways. Let’s think deeper into military spending and why Ron Paul takes the stance that he does. If you’re familiar with Ron Paul or Philosophy, you’d understand that the US Constitution was heavily based on something called the Non-Aggression Axiom (also known as principle). I’m not going to get into the fine details of the Non-Aggression Axiom, as that can lead to debates that take away from the point. The US Constitution speaks about a strong self-defense, and that’s what the Non-Aggression Axiom stands for. Doing the opposite of self-defense makes us the aggressor, and that is unconstitutional. As for Ron Paul being an isolationist, throw that one out the window already; it’s getting “very” old. Isolationists don’t communicate, negotiate, or even trade with foreign nations. Non-interventionists merely follow the Non-Aggression Axiom, and continue to support trading and true diplomatic peace resolutions as our country once did over a century ago (AKA: never become the aggressor, only retaliate if justified, never become invasive, and make find foreign allies the real way).
I would argue that this is why Ron Paul is against the wars, as these invasive and illegally offensive wars go against this principle. He’s also against these wars, due to something called “priorities,” in this case being; the economy. Is it really that difficult to understand that to supply and fund military operations in a foreign country, that it costs a phenomenal amount of money? If you can understand the economic burden of war (which is indisputable), then I would imagine you can understand that if the economy hits the breaking point and as a result; implodes. Then I would imagine you can understand that continuing these wars will be a major contributor to destroying our economy faster. That isn’t just “doom and gloom” either; America isn’t invincible even though we’d all like to think so sometimes. America can collapse due to economic reasons, and continuing these wars will help increase that risk. Do you consider the US Economy to be worth preserving? Would you be willing to sacrifice this morally important necessity of our nation, just to seek blood? You won’t have protection or a military at all if the economy implodes due to excessive spending, and quite frankly you’ll be fortunate if you find food if this ever happens. Yes, starvation is a much larger threat during an economic depression nowadays than it was in the early 1900’s. Why? Very simple, the population has grown incredibly since then. This is why Ron Paul stands where he does, because he understands “all” of this, and is trying to avoid this from happening at “all” costs.
- The explanations above are compounded by other issues, such as the welfare state, indirect taxation, detrimental cabinets, and corporatism. Those issues are things which will be resolved under his presidency as well.
We notice by analyzing the few things described above, that Ron Paul is trying to preserve the most morally important things that are required as a complex society. This is why he talks about “taking the economy seriously” and why he says we’ll “be in a lot of trouble” as long as we continue to have this be our type of thinking. He understands that we’re not invincible, and that we’re losing much in the process. How much more do you want to see leave us? He prioritizes these things over his personal beliefs even, and that is why Ron Paul wishes for “special-interest” to be abandoned in political decisions. Ron Paul is a devout Christian as well, and it’s hard to put aside religious beliefs (or any) and continue to maintain that integrity in the political spectrum. He does so indeed, and I deeply respect him for that.
I see so many people despise Ron Paul supporters, and yet I see so many people despise our current president Barrack H. Obama. I’ll be fair, I’m a real conservative, and Ron Paul is a real conservative as well as a Libertarian. The constant bashing of parties will serve you no benefit in this coming election. We all need to vote with what we know we can trust by evaluating the history of the candidate, the individual policies, and the US Constitution; not the label that has been skewed over the past decades. But first let me state this, to all my friends in all political wings, spectrums, philosophies, or whatever you wish to call political parties anymore. Please understand that one key thing about Conservatism derives from its Latin origin; “To preserve.” In Ron Paul’s approach of preserving the economy, everything else is preserved as a result. Don’t we all want to preserve this land, economy, social safety net, liberties, freedoms, and our future children? Why do we need to change it to this form of government, or that form of government, when the reason this country has gotten to this point is because we’ve tried to change too much to begin with? You may be a follower of Conservatism, Democracy, Liberalism, Republicanism, or anything in between. But does whatever party that fixes the economy truly matter? Why do we care for something so shallow as a label, when all that matters is that the job gets done properly? Do you truly care if it’s a Democrat or a Republican? Ask yourself that, deep down before coming to a conclusion.
So, to end my little philosophical rant, I must admit I’m a passionate Ron Paul supporter, so of course I’m going to speak positive for him. Not because he’s a Conservative Republican, or a Libertarian. But because he thinks for himself as an individual, and he uses critical thinking to help carry out his message. He’s also a philosopher, and this is why he is so wise, because philosophy teaches you how to think critically of the other perspectives. Why do you think he predicted the collapse years ago? He used something called “conceptual analysis” as a means to identify paradoxes and variables, thus allowing him to come to the correct conclusion before it ever happened. He ruled out all of the bad variables and paradoxes, and this is why Austrian Economics heavily supports philosophy. This is also why Ron Paul supports Austrian Economics. So, this is my proposal to Americans everywhere. You don’t have to like him for every view, but you should respect him for what he’s accomplished in his life in a respectful, tiring, consistent, and honest manner. Wouldn’t you rather vote based on that principle? Or would you rather risk dividing our votes to continue more years of what we’ve been experiencing for a long, long, time. When we already know for certain this man has continued to walk down this path, and been oppressed by the very same “leaders” that further strip us of our economy, our sanity, our liberties, and our freedom? Think critically, for the difference between critical thinking and mere disagreement. Is that people who use critical thinking even question their own beliefs.
I apologize if this wasn’t the greatest academic composition, I merely didn’t care all that much. The point(s) still remain.