I rest my case

"Well when was the last time a modern country shot the shit out of it's own citizens?" "In 20 years from now 50% of US citizens will probably still own a firearm. Have fun being the president who pisses them off."  MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/genocide.html TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION

Lolwut no it's not. So are you saying because you pay taxes you can make a good call about how a country should be ran? Explain the logic there - self-entitlement isn't a justifiable reason.

You have no reason to think they are sociopaths therefore to treat them as such is paranoia.

No idea, but nevertheless it shows that if people care enough, they can boycott companies.

You have google. You have access to the truth; the question is do you really have the motivation to find it? Yes the US does have an issue with corporate corruption, but that doesn't mean you need to know every move the government makes and is wholly independent of drone strikes (walmart and drones? wut?)  Why would corporations want to hurt people? They want to make money; their not sadists...

But you are not informed and educated. Informing you of judgement calls made is beyond what you know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Why go into depth when you are not educated enough on the topic at hand?

If you really think the US government is a bunch of corrupt socio-paths, leave. You have literally no reason to believe what you do.

You don't even understand the concept of "no taxation without representation" I don't want to talk to somebody as unifnormed about political science and American natural law as you are. No thank you. 

The irony here is that you are saying propoganda is bad, yet have you even questioned sayings like that at all or just blindly accepted it in the same way people are born into religion?

You argue for the truth and yet you have not expanded your view of the world to encompass the truth in it's entirety. This really is no different to a blind man asking what blue looks like. 

How exactly should you be represented? What is the best way? There are so many questions that arise from that one saying which you have obviously adopted as "truth" without questioning any of the beliefs tacked on to it. 

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to fill in as a teacher for your ignorance. There are plenty of philosophical works on natural law, common law, self-government, and liberty you can peruse. All of your questions are addressed in these works. I'll redirect you to Thomas Paine, John Locke, and Francis Bacon for a start. Then read about the American revolution, American legal cases, and all of American history until and after World War II. Your entire concept of government is not synchronized with what has traditionally and is postulated to still be the American systems of law as described by the law of the land - U.S constitution. 

Again the irony is that you think those philosophical works are "correct". Plato stated democracy was one of the worst forms of government possible. 

Correct? No, there is plenty I disagree with. The foundation of American common law? Yes. 

My questions are not addressed in "those works" because all those works are flawed/describe something wholly different to the government you are living in. The question here is not "why did the american revolution happen" it's "will the government really use drones on it's own people?" The answer is a resounding no, and thinking the government will start killing instead of arresting people is as sensible as thinking that Obama will suddenly declare an undying love for Al-Queda. 

They are addressed. You just didn't read them. Philosophy is absolutely necessary for a legal foundation. Liberalism and republicanism were the foundations of American law. 

You claim to not want propoganda yet have bought into nonsensical republican bullshit that isn't founded in reality in any way. 

Right, so the U.S legal system is not based on common law? The constitution isn't the law of the land? 

Also take a second to actually analyis the constitution. "We the people" - do you actually have a say in what laws are written? No you don't - you surrendered that right to someone who you may or may not have elected to make these decisions for you. The fact is the constitution is incredibly ambigious.

We have a say in who our representatives are, which is what you would like to deny. Hence the meaning of the phrase, "No taxation without representation."  In the liberal society that is the American one, this issue is important. You are not part of our liberal society, and do not align with it philosophically. That's fine. But recognize that and move on. This issue is important to Americans because we care about individual rights and liberalism, you evidently do not. 

Your reasoning for why the government may start killing US citizens on US soil is because you claim companies can make money from it even though you have absolutely no proof. Who has bought into political propoganda now?

It doesn't even matter. American law guarantees a legal proceeding, according to the 800 year old tradition of due process of law (guaranteed by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the U.S constitution.) 

Ah liberalism. Ever questioned it?

What kind of person reading philosophy doesn't question the derivations? Certainly any philosopher questions his axioms in order to derive new principles. Regardless of whether or not I questioned it, it would take a revolution for me to change the very basic structure of my government. It would take a deconstruction of the American and state governments and a replacement to rid liberalism in the legal system. This is not something I have control over. 

You have a say in who your representative MIGHT be, working on the notion that hopefully everyone else agrees with you. Here we already have an elitist system that states the majority are better than the minority. Why could that not be refined further to include education? You are blinded to the system you are part of because you've bought into the propoganda that having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. 

You are saying certain groups of people should not have any say at all, despite paying taxes. I say that anybody who pays taxes should be given the right to vote on the representatives who control their money, otherwise it's tyranny and thievry. I don't believe in direct democracy. The U.S doesn't have a populist system (which you're describing.) The people transfer power to both the states and the federal government, as well as to a variety of three branches. And I didn't say having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. I said that all individuals have the right to a voice, and whether or not they're informed is a societal issue, not a state one.