I can believe he participates in the earmark system, but to say that only four house Republicans do so is absurd. I would be disturbed if Paul was a congressman from a state like West Virginia. Some states are "welfare queens" who receive substantially more from the government than they pay in taxes. This system is understandably controversial because it redistributes wealth and is plagued by corruption.

While other states are supporting the "welfare states," not all states are affected equally. Texas is one of the states that receives the least amount of money from the federal government compared to what they pay in taxes. So while earmarks are despicable, the fact that Paul represents a district in Texas makes it less so. In fact, the argument could be made that he is actually trying to recover some of the money paid in a system that unfairly burdens Texas.

That, and as imperfect as Paul may be, he's the most powerful person who stands for relaxing economic regulations, ending an expensive foreign policy, and restoring our civil liberties.

Xeno,

I think there is a context where we can talk about a government's legitimacy. For example, an opportunistic usurper is illegitimate in a society where kingship is based on hereditary succession. The same could be said of a military coup in a society with a long tradition of democracy. However, this allows the possibility that legitimacy can be acquired, and has the implication that all governments were at one time illegitimate.

For these reasons, I don't think it's productive to talk about legitimacy in the context you have outlined. That doesn't mean I think political discourse is necessarily unproductive. However, I don't see the point of discussing a fluid concept as though it were immutable. When it comes to the relevant context you outlined, I believe political authority depends on possessing the resources to gain compliance. The ways this can be accomplished include mythical indoctrination, appeals to popular or institutional sentiments, the use of coercion, and appeals to reason.

Personally, I prefer that governments primarily rely on reason. Meaning, that the government justifies its authority by serving a rational function, such as providing services including security, law and order, basic welfare, civil rights, and education etc. I also like it if that government is transparent, actively minimizes corruption, and upholds values like equal opportunity and meritocracy. If my government can deliver those things to my expectations, then I am glad to give it my allegiance.

Now, I'll probably give my compliance to a government that does not meet my minimal expectations to the extent I can tolerate it. For example, I can tolerate giving 10% of my earnings to thugs who deliver very little and act like buffoons but generally leave me alone. Nevertheless, I will not defend those thugs if they get themselves in to trouble. However, if those thugs take 90% of my earnings and actively attempt to terrorize me, then they have made an enemy for life who will deliver the fiercest justice upon them should the opportunity become available.

Simple. Iron and blood.

Your power is legitimate if you have the strength to keep it. Elections, religion, morality, they are all irrelevant.

Mace,

I think Flint is just confused, thinking something along the lines of "Those stupid plastic things are worthless! Smart people use cash or check." It's a common error among older Americans.

When I go out, I only carry cash or my debit card when I need to. And the only time I carry $300 or more is when I am using adult services, like strip clubs.

When it comes to violating NAFTA by subsidizing some agricultural products, the United States started it. It's only natural that Mexico would do the same.

Fool,

N/m, I agree with you that no one has an objective value. That doesn't mean that a person doesn't have value according to the values a person has committed themselves to, which may be usefulness.

V.Kemp,

There is no contradiction. Capitalism can not thrive unless the government provides legal services that enable it. Since the government must finance these services with taxes, taxes are not necessarily bad for capitalism. They become bad when they crush incentives, due to high taxes for example.

The fact is you owe taxes to the government and they punish you if you don't pay them. By definition, taxes are a liability. What's bizarre is thinking you own the money forcibly seized from you and have no say in how it's spent.

There is no conclusion requiring that the purpose of life is to serve the government. It might imply that might makes right, which I sympathize with, but that does not stop the people from rebelling when their government becomes intolerable.

That is as explicit as it's going to get. If you are going to insist it's false, then I suggest you at least independently study finance and accounting.

> Simon wrote:

> >  And you should support it because crime and sexual frustration correlate with one another. Your choices are more police, which is more expensive, or access to sexual health, which is cheaper. The rational choice is obvious.

You remember that article about asexuals in Japan, where a surprising number of young people has never had sex? Japan still has one of the lowest crime rates.>

That's because Japan permits economic substitutes to be sold in vending machines.

Yell,

I'm a slut, and proud of it. I want the government to make my lifestyle easier by eliminating the risks inherent in sexual activity by facilitating access to birth control and safe sex. And you should support it because crime and sexual frustration correlate with one another. Your choices are more police, which is more expensive, or access to sexual health, which is cheaper. The rational choice is obvious.

According to my Economics textbook, $10 million.

Btw, it's a freshwater textbook.

Hillary for President! She would be better than either Romney or Obama.