The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer<


Comment: See my other replies
See my other replies
for the point of the article. It's not about removing privacy but making easier to do.
And yes, it doesn't matter if we have a government we can trust. We still hold in our power the right to choose what is kept private.
But that choice is nowadays made for us. We are forced to choose privacy in everything. Period. We simply cannot survive a normal life if we let it all out, so to speak. What I'm trying to investigate are the reasons that have stopped that option.
Regarding the statement that they can never be trusted, I disagree. I'm certainly not saying it would be easy but there definitely is a couple ways to accomplish it.
You state "eventually, they all turn corrupt". So? Past history does not guarantee future performance. It is actually pretty easy to see where things went wrong in every government example in history. All one needs are the hard true facts (sure, not real easy) and a rational debate on how that can be avoided. Even if this path only yielded a 'good' government for a limited period of time, during that time, we'd be better off than we are when we do nothing. For that reason, I find it defeatist to say they all turn corrupt because that's equivalent to saying 'why try'?
Replies to this comment: