- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Just reading through the comments and want to cover a few points:
Those free trade agreements are not real free trade. They are managed trade and favored trade. Real free trade doesn't require an agreement, it doesn't require an enforcement body, it doesn't require unaccountable bureaucracies. Ron Paul is for real free trade, not the bait and switch we got, which is government sponsored incentive to close factories in the US and open replacements in other nations.
Regarding those fearing a decline into dictatorship: The two major parties have been following that textbook of how to turn a republic into a dictatorship for decades and shrub has turned on the hyperdrive in the last few years. Ron Paul is probably our best shot and derailing this run-away freight train to tyranny.
On Austrian economics, yes there are radicals in every crowd. The keyensian (sp?) radicals exist too. Beyond that, parental, protective government is not freedom.
What scares me is when I learn (often by their own publications) what groups like the CFR want for the US and seeing much of it getting implemented step by step (Security and Prosperity Partnership) These things, like the stuff Robert Pastor and David Rockefeller write is where Hillary and Rudy will take the US. That to me is very scary. A radical of the libertarian austrian economics kind, even with some of their unworkable ideas isn't going to force me to do anything. I don't find that to be a scary world. Someone like Ron Paul, who is very sensible and understands how things need to be done in the real world and make gentle transitions is what we need before the current system goes beyond a tipping point and we get sudden and catastrophic change if we want it or not.
And lastly, the constitution was designed to protect us from the concept of a government being only as good as the people running it. The flaw in not following the constitution is that we are now subject to the whims of those in office. Why do you think the US Constitution has been essentially put aside by those in elected office? It was in the way of their power.
