Agreed, but I think its really only one legitimate responsibility. To prepared to use force when force is first engaged on any individual within the territory of the country governed.

Both you examples fall under this. National defense is just that a defense that is used only after another military power brings force against the US, or an ally of the US if we choose to assist that ally.

Courts and contracts of law are used by people who have had force used against them in some way by another. For an example if a landlord does not get the agreed upon contract and takes the tennat to court, the only reason the landlords actions are needed is becuase through failure to act the tennate has instigated teh force of theft (in this case retaining something that is no longer theirs) against him.

All government actions that are legitimate protecting its citizens against the enemy foreign or domestic who initiates force of any kind against them.

I was proud to call myself a conservative. I also thought the congressman was a wacko. As I opened my eyes and really started paying attention I realized that conservatism died over 20 years ago.

Yep. The federal government has two legidimate responsibilities; National defense which is paid for with a head tax since all citizens benefit, and courts of contract law to be paid for by those who use them. Anything else is off limits.

I know. The liberals hate him. A lot of conservatives don't like him either. I used to blog on the Fox news comments and if you try to say something good about Ron Paul there, the conservatives come down on you. I think Ron Paul might be too advanced to be President right now. Many people don't want to hear all that truth.

Lot's of people from all ages groups like him. His domestic message is incredible. However, the media refuses to give him any air time. He is probably the single greatest threat to liberalism to have been on a ballet in a long time.

Viva la Paul!!!

Protect Boarders = Yes

Aid in case of natural disasters = No, It was never the intent of either state or federal government. No should it be a role of government. People must prepare for and, of there own choice, help in times of need. Either to help themselves or others.

It kept it so well you just asked me about it.

And the Manhattan Project? It kept the secret of atomic weapons though tens of thousands worked on it.

The idea that there's a secret group of power manipulating everything on a mass scale is paranoia that is refuted simply:

1. Tiny conspiracies always leak. There's no way one so large wouldn't.

2. Social engineering never has (and likely never will) work. There are too many variables. If the economy can't be planned, how can the culture and politics of the world be planned in order to keep one group in power?

Ron Paul knows he won't win, but he is trying to make a point. Lots of young people like him and are listening to what he says.

I think Ron is just tired from trying to keep fight on his own for so long. I hope that his son can succeed where his father could not.

I can not speak to the real nature of a group like the Illuminati as a secret society. I can very easily say that the further the power is from the people the more likely corruption is to occur. Therefor the only reasonable reason to have a central world government is to provide a location for greater corruption.

To clarify corruption is simply put the taking of the unearned in anyway. and that is more likely to occur and more likely to be able to be covered up the larger and more withdrawn from the people an organization is. It hard to hide million dollar transactions from a cities budget, or even county. Some states its much easier than others and the federal government is far easier to have the waste than any of the smaller government entities. Moving in the direction of bigger having more power and more money running through it is the wrong way, period.

If such a group as the Illuminati does exist it would be far easier for them to wield and control power from a single central world governement than from smaller national and state governments. Move the power down a far as you can in a society and corruption has a much harder time thriving.

I like Rand, to me his foriegn policy discussion is much better. Ron often sounds like an isolationist where as Rand does not. I do not think Ron ever had a chance and do not think he had the charisma to pull off president, but Rand just might.

There's always his son!

I was referring to the secret society. However all of those classifications are fitting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ...
He quickly chased it with "freedom" and got applause too. Oy!

I'll never forget the day I heard president George H. W. Bush say the words..."New World Order" I fell out of my chair.

I think the illuminati and new world order are the same. We can't stop it, but we can slow it down. Even Hillary would go slower than Obama will, at bring down America. And I don't like Hillary either.

Ron Paul is the best; because it is a war propaganda. But our hopes lie in his son Rand, because Ron Paul is getting old. My mother loved him in the 80's.

His policy on Iran will ensure that he will never win. But he'd certainly win my vote.

Get Obama out first and then hopefully next time a Ron Paul might actually have a chance. Any New World Order is BAD.

Haha. Too easy!

Are you referring to the Secret Society, or the Globalist, or the Ruling Class... or the U.N.? Take your pick.

At least Romney is an American :)