drspecial

I got caught up in a nice friendly discussion about Libertarianism again on Facebook. Guess I've got that Christmas spirit! Here's my long-winded rebuttal to a Ron Paul fan, who asked who'd be better:

Well, yes, Obama is the obvious choice, since he’s already there. I’m not saying he’s the best. He’s got brains at least, if not balls. For living leaders, Carter, either Clinton, even Daddy Bush have better sense of responsibility to the country than Paul, even if they are misguided in oh so many ways. Of course the superior list of dead presidents is very long. Washington and Lincoln are obvious, and I'd say the last honorable Republican was Eisenhower. Maybe Ron Paul would be like the oft-quoted Jefferson, who contradicted his previous convictions once he took office. There’s always hope.
Even better might be the leaders who don’t want the job, like Powell, or Jon Stewart. Paul Krugman, or anyone who at least listens to him. They believe, like many others, that it’s in the public interest not to sell everything owned by the people to the highest bidder. Anyone who even values the word “public interest” instead of spitting on it is on my side. It seems to me that there are many people who think “freedom” just means the right to shoot whomever you want, with complete lack of responsibility for the community.

• It’s my right to do whatever I want.
• Leave me alone -- don’t ask nothin’ from me.
• Off my lawn or I shoot!
• Let the sick guy buy his own damn doctor! Let him die. Yeah!
• Homeless from a hurricane? You’re on your own.
• Sharing costs for the greater good? Evil.
• It’s my right to rip off the little guy. Best not regulate my polluting abilities or business practices with expectations of fairness.

And so on. I don’t want to suffer just because you refused to consider anyone’s well-being but your own. The Libertarian ideal has no room for public roads, schools, hospitals, parks, laws, financial protections or safety nets, etc. Which would you keep?