Am I correct that your concern is the corruption of Congress, as they are the ones who write the laws? I'm trying to understand, and be sure you're not claiming that all government employees are corrupt. Since members of Congress are elected locally, I'm unclear how this would be helped. Campaign finance seems to be the most obvious place where such issues would take place. Would you agree that having an organized election system, where each candidate presents a set of views, and have that funded equally to ensure fairness would eliminate the appearance of corruption that exists now? Alternatively, do you believe that unrestricted campaigns would be better?
I also don't see where you read me as being against self-determination. People are free to do what they want. That's the point of equality of opportunity. Affirmative action attempts to provide that on a racial basis, under the assumption that college acceptance is biased. That was clearly the case in the past, and has improved over time. Should it be permanent? Of course not, but where making a cereal commercial with an interracial couple causes outrage (as was the case last year) suggests that racism is still a problem.
I will now gloss over the rest of that paragraph, as I can't see a common theme. Yes, human rights are universal. Yes, they should therefore be applied universally. I don't see where I claimed otherwise. Just because I support the current administration doesn't mean that they're without flaws.
Continuing: research. Figure out the solution beforehand. The world is not a series of unforeseeable random attacks. You can figure out how things will work before you try them. It's convenient that you bring up the ACA, as this is an example of attempting to solve a problem (uninsured citizens) by doing something (everyone needs insurance now) and then offsetting problems (insurance companies get new members, but can no longer discriminate. Some people are too poor to afford insurance, so use the tax breaks and existing medicaid system to cover them at lower cost). It's already doing exactly as it was designed to do: get more coverage to more people. People no longer have to go without preventative treatment because they're afraid of what they might find. Isn't this a good thing?
The NSA spying story is something where my actual response was, "didn't we already know this?" Is it ideal? No, but I also don't see this as the beginning of internment camps for everyone. Why? Because it's impractical. Step A: everyone goes into camps. Step B: ? Why? The government doesn't really benefit from that. The evil corporations don't benefit from that. Banksters don't benefit. So, if no one benefits (except some hypothetical God-King that has decreed this), then why assume it'll happen? What to do about it? Shut it down, and if it were a perfect world, send people to jail. Is this the greatest concern right now? Not when Congress wants to cut SNAP funding by $5e9. That will hurt people now. Although your concerns on the NSA are justified, they are not hurting people now, and do not justify hurting more people in the name of "freedom."
For your final list, how do you fix that? Do you try to elect new members of Congress that are not beholden to external interests, and more interested in governing than voting 40+ times to stop a single program that might help people, or do you claim that the whole system is broken, and must be burned down to the ground and destroyed? When your car runs out of gas or gets a flat tire, do you push it off the road and set it ablaze? Besides, why not talk about government programs that work? Hurricane relief, the interstate road system, college grants, the head start program ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... ), NASA, Social Security, the TVA, NIH, etc.