We see things very differently:
1. You believe all people and property inside a “country” are the rightful domain of its “government.” I believe each person owns his own life and honestly acquired property.
2. You believe that if one disputes a government’s claim of ownership and control of its “citizens” and their property, ones only proper recourse is to leave their "country." I believe government has NO moral claim on any peaceful person’s life, liberty or property, and any non-violent action one takes to avoid such government infringements is perfectly justified. (Holding multiple passports is one such action.)
3. You believe that choosing to live in a particular country means one must accept that its government has a moral right to rule your life, liberty and right to property while you reside there. I believe that only individuals possess rights – and no individual has a moral right to rule another, either tyrannically or "democratically."
4. You see self-ownership as a Utopian ideal, unrealistic in the face of various governmental claims to dominion over the entire planet. I see self-ownership as a plain fact, and “governments” as a delusional superstition that some individuals use to subjugate others. The politicians, bureaucrats, cops and soldiers are all real, of course, but their “right to rule” does not exist.
5. You see the issue of international/national/state sovereignty as an extremely important principle. I recognize the practical consequences (evils) of a strong centralized government, but I regard ALL government assertions of “sovereignty” as a usurpation of individual rights, and inherently fraudulent. (In other words, I believe each person owns his own life; you want to quibble about which government ought to own it.)
6. I think perhaps you and I view “freedom” differently: you believe men are free when their government “legalizes” most peaceful conduct and allows people to keep (most of) their honestly acquired property. Is that about right? I believe that men are free by moral right, and that any restrictions placed on their peaceful conduct by the men who name themselves “government” are immoral and illegitimate acts of aggression.
I guess this just shows that people can support Ron Paul for very different reasons. I support him because he believes that “Government should NEVER have a right to do anything YOU can’t do.” (quote from his Feb. 11, 2011 speech at CPAC) – and that he will BEST be able to spread that anti-authoritarian message to the world from the White House. You, on the other hand, support him because he will be a more kindly ruler than the other candidates, and will give his subjects permission to keep more of their own property and generally interfere less with their peaceful actions.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...