Ron Paul is the best candidate for President in 2008

I'm going to start with the UN and the increasing problem posed by gloabalists and supra-national government systems. At the heart of this issue is the undermining of American sovereignty, as I said before, the transfer of power from the American Congress, which, for the record, is the only entity which can constitutionally declare war or regulate trade, and the actual effect that organizations like NAFTA and the WTO actually have, which is both to take away freedom of choice from the American people and to cater towards moneyed special interests. You said that the UN does not undermine American authority, and frankly I find that outrageous. True, our involvement is half assed already, and we ignored them when we went into Iraq. Obviously, as Ron Paul supporter I strongly oppose the war, but the idea that we should only go to war when the UN deems it appropriate is ludicrous. By what authority does an unelected, bureaucratic international organization have to dictate American foreign policy or that of any other nHow does the UN not undermine our national sovereignty? For example, the UN wants to impose a direct tax upon us! You also raised the question "where would we be without the UN?", and I'm really glad that you did, because the answer is a much better place than before it was created. What do we have to show for our involvement in the UN? These past 60 years have been riddled with non declared, unending 'peace keeping' wars, all of which cost the American people dearly. The founders warned against entangling alliance, and that is precisely what the UN is- the worst type of entangling alliance- a permanent one. You said its purpose is to come to a world consensus, and if that is all the UN is....essentially a conference, I'm fine with it. Diplomacy and open dialogue with all nations, which Paul encourages, is great, but bullying 'dissident' nations through sanctions which never work anyway and calling for peace keeping missions which send US soldiers to war without congress's declaration is unacceptable. As for our world image, the reason it is in tatters is due to our foreign policy, and the attempt by the neo cons to hijack the UN as a means to advance an interventionist foreign policy, which the UN is well suited to do..since it is essentially an intervening entity. We could withdraw from the UN, the WTO, etc and conduct truly free trade dictated by the free world market, and conduct diplomacy on our on terms. With regards to Sudan, I did not mean to be so blunt and inflexible, and I do not think that when Ron Paul rails against interventionism, he means to exclude those who genuinely require our help. However, he does mean to caution against a self serving, arrogant foreign policy which causes backlash. In Sudan, you may be right that the simple presence of our troops might stop the slave raids, but what Paul insists upon is that the president cannot just ignore the constitution and send soldiers on such missions without a declaration of war- because when he does so the wars never end (iraq, vietnam, etc). If we were to intervene in Sudan, several critical issues would have to be addressed before doing so, namely how would we get out once we stepped in? Do the Sudanese genuinely want us there? All that Paul is saying is we need to be more cautious of the ramifications of our involvement abroad, and if it is possible to smoothly end the suffering in Sudan without incensing terrorists and sectarian violence, we should declare war and free the nation. Within the context of your health care argument, you are correct in one thing- that most Americans simply cannot afford it. However, switching to a government controlled system won't make things any cheaper. The costs will just be 'hidden', in tax rates in the vicinity of 50% as they are in Europe. It would, in reality, not drive costs down all that much. As I said though, what would is true competition and the removal of the federal government into the medicine industry. You may be right in that it comes down to a matter of is health care a right of a privilege, but another matter of principle which I feel is far more important is who should have control of the health care decisions of individuals. These days, it is the insurance companies and the government to some degree, acting collectively as a 3rd party. What we need is a return to a true free market, where doctors and patients interacted directly, and the government did not stick its nose into the business, requiring insurance and drawing up all sorts of regulations that force doctors to delegate resources to ensure that they are met- rather than using those resources on their patients' health. The final authority on health related decisions should reside with the individual and the expert, the doctor, and the last thing we need is the government in total control of the industry, stifling competition and quality, while merely hiding costs, not reducing them. I often hear people contend that Paul's views are merely to delegate authority to the states, with regards to health care and abortion. That comes merely out of his respect for the constitution, something which has sadly been lost. He does have very clear stances on both issues though, which you need look no further than his website to find, but it is not constitutionally permitted for him to implement them as president. The national debt is a tremendous issue, and I think it is safe to say that both Paulo and Kucinich realize, as you just explained, that our foreign policy is the prime offender. Our defense budget, not including Iraq war appropriations, was over 600 billion dollars in 2007. We borrow endlessly to finance this. As I said before, the government also prints money out of thin air, due to existence of the secretive federal reserve and the absence of a sound money, gold standard system, which leads to the weakening of the dollar and the inability of the lower and middle classes in particular to pay for health care or college for their children, amongst other things. What I think you and Kucinich fail to see is that it is not only foreign policy which has caused this problem, and involvement in things like the UN also facilitates a policy of interventionism in the first place. Government departments, many of which are unconstitutional, like the Department of Education, also contribute heavily to government spending. that is the real issue behind the national debt- spending, not a lack of revenue. the federal government already sucks enough dollars away from hard working Americans, so I take issue with your statement that taxes will not kill us. The more taxes there are, the less truly free a people are. Taxes are coercive, and a free society is defined by a lack of government coercion. Now,on to the regulation of the economy. The oil companies are there to provide a service and to gain a profit from it. If they competed in a true free market, costs would be driven down...thats a simple law, meaning no gov subsidies. If the federal gov respected property rights more, individuals could stand up to moneyed interests. If that is so, the cost of producing inefficient vehicles and polluting will deter the big companies from doing so. Ford does have a right to place its low quality vehicles on the market, and people should not buy them for that reason. The German government does not regulate the making of BMW's and Audi's- they strive for quality on their own accord. In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment is very clear in its meaning. Americans have the RIGHT to bear arms. Not the right to only bear whatever arms the government thinks have the proper magazine capacity, but simply arms. The reality is that criminals will acquire arms one way or another on the black market, and law abiding citizens should have access to weapons that they can defend themselves with.individuals can protect themselves