I saw him on the Daily Show. This guy is a class act, awesome in a ton of ways. I'm keeping my eye out on him.

This thread and his Daily Show appearance are all I've seen of him. So far, he's got my vote.

It's too bad he's not better known and the media doesn't care about him - Hannity and Colmes and the other pundits all try to beat the crap out of him. He holds his own, but media exposure is essential for politics.

Impressive. I'd vote for him.

Except, what you're missing is that he used to be Ru Paul.

Despite being an ideal candidate, he has two huge (probably insurmountable) hurdles in his way:

• He is clearly not part of the party machine. True honesty is not tolerated by either major party. They'll see to it that he won't make it past the primary.
• He doesn't have a gimmick or an angle. He doesn't "clear brush on his ranch" or play the sax on Arsenio, and most people vote for the guy they'd want to have a beer with.

Obviously, I'd be overjoyed if he miraculously became the Republican nominee. Sadly, I just don't see it happening.

I watched the debates and unfortunately Ron Paul isn't as smooth and strong as he looks in those edited clips. He comes off as very soap-boxy... every issue is about pulling out of Iraq. Sure this isn't a hell of a lot different than every issue being about 9/11 like with the rest of the candidates, but the fact that it's different makes it a bit more conspicuous.

And watching the Democratic side, I can certainly see why people think of them as wishy-washy. No one answered any questions, but the Republicans at least made it look like they kinda got close.

The most interesting debate was on gays in the military. The Democratic line was, of course, "let people be openly gay." The Republican line never seemed to say that it's not OK to be gay, but rather that this is not the time to be dicking with social policy since we're in the middle of a war, and that makes sense. But the question is, if not now, when? It's not like this war is going to be over any time soon. I was surprised the Republicans were so fond of one of Clinton's policies.

I turned it off after I got sick of candidates spending half their answer time thanking the families of the war dead for their sacrifice and bravery and service.

Also, Guiliani came off as a stubborn prick. Like Bush, he spoke over the moderator and insisted he finish his answer regardless of alloted time, but unlike Bush he didn't even try to be charming about it.

Libertarians are just Republicans who don't want to get locked up for having freaky sex.

That said, I hope the media machine gives him the exposure he's due.

What is it about internet-geeks and libertarianism? You go over to Digg and it's like a Ron Paul circle jerk. I'm not saying this thread is that way - it's not at all - it's just a phenomenon that I've noticed a lot lately.

I'm surprised at how many techy/nerd type people identify themselves as libertarian...it seems to be far disproportionate to the population at large. Any thoughts on why?

As an unreconstructed liberal I find troubling the libertarian view that individual rights are so precious and all-important that societies shed any responsibility for taking care of their less fortunate members. Any action to work collectively for the common good using government resources apparently violates the core principles of libertarianism, and I can't accept that as my personal belief.

As for Ron Paul, he seems like a straight-forward guy and I can certainly appreciate that. Though his view that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is "a decent policy" makes me wonder whether his reverence for individual rights only applies to heterosexuals.

If you're a techy/nerd you're most likely a white male, which tends to the more "conservative" side of the spectrum, and you're young which tends to the more "libertarian" side of the "conservative" spectrum. Not only that, if you're a techy/nerd you're most likely educated and make more than the median income level.

Also, techy/nerds have a huge "anti-hippie" streak to them. Many people tend to the libertarian view as away to fight back against hippies who attack people for doing well. I'm not refering to most people who are liberal. But, one of the reason I'm more open to the libertarian view point, is a backlash against having to deal with hippies at school.

Actually, it's closer to the belief that government shouldn't make it a legal requirement to give to a corrupt and wasteful charity be run by the same government. It's also an admittance that private groups do pretty much everything better than the government and more people would give to private groups if their money wasn't taken by force by their government and then wasted.

I'd have no problem giving more money to government programs if I thought they worked.

I guess it is more that there shouldn't be a legal requirement to give (at all). Basically, it's small-government conservatives without the desire to legislate morality.

But the government has been so deeply involved for so long I don't think we really have an example of a totally free medical market to compare it to. And in general, medical costs have increased as they've become more complicated and effective.

It's also a little difficult to defend against malpractice when the government doesn't set any legal requirements. If you need life-saving medical treatment and there's no regulation on it whatsoever, there's nothing stopping a corporation from charging you the absolute highest amount of money they can get out of you, while at the same time forcing you into exploitative contracts and waivers. If the only game in town says you need to sign away your right to sue if the surgery goes wrong, you're kind of stuck.

I know it's simplistic, but I always felt that doctors got paid so well because it is so important that they don't screw up. If they fail in that to the patient's detriment, then I don't see why they shouldn't be sued.

Then again, if these contracts weren't as standardized, there could actually be a market for doctors who would or wouldn't force you to waive the right to sue if they give you leperousy or something.

Occasionally, doctors do make mistakes. Occasionally, the mistakes are due to gross incompetence (removing the wrong arm, etc.). Yes, people can and do make frivolous lawsuits, but if it becomes standard practice for patients to sign away their rights to sue, it gives the doctors the right to butcher people without fear of reprocussion. And yes, if a doctor sucks people will go to someone else, but if ALL doctors suck, everyone's SOL.

Malpractice law was put in place to protect patients.

You will always need some kind of malpractice insurance to compensate people for losses. You can put the cost on the doctors, the patients, or society overall, but it's got to come from someplace. You can't just have people killed or maimed by a doctor's negligence and tell the patients, "tough sh!t- you deal with your inability to earn a living and go off and rot in poverty." That's not a realistic outcome.

The trouble with removing tort law as method of deterrent against bad doctoring is that you have to replace it with something better. As Paleocon notes, the licensing system doesn't work. And there is no system for doctors like there is the NTSB for pilots. Pilots complain all the time about the NTSB, but overall the NTSB does a pretty good job of understanding why they have bad outcomes in flying, making suggestions on procedures that will avoid bad outcomes, and identifying the causes of accidents.

So if there was some limitation of doctor's liability, we should also be talking about additional changes to the system that would identify what constitutes a compensable injury and sets up an investigative unit to identify high-risk procedures and weed out bad doctors at the national level.