The host failed to ask the doctor if he worked for free if he considered health care a right. The answer would have been interesting…

IMHO, I think you got it half right. Libertarians want the troops home because they believe in non-intervention; that much is true.

Liberals want them out of Iraq simply because the current occupant of the White House has an “R” after his name. If Bush switched to the Democrats the moment he was declared the winner of the 2000 election, but did everything else exactly the same, the same “liberals” would be calling him FDR reincarnated. And ironically accurately so.

“The trouble is that the more people who might vote for RP under the impression that he is going to safeguard all their precious welfare programs…”

I recently spoke to someone who participated in a Ron Paul mini-rally outside an establishment that was hosting a liberal venue. When I questioned the soundness of such an idea, the individual said that there was no harm in it, because both groups were against the war.

Remembering that it was just a few years ago that this individual switched from being a liberal to a Libertarian, that they have repeatedly declined my suggestions to read some basic literature, and that they frequently blur the lines between the two philosophies, I said that there were differences in the thinking of the two groups concerning the war in Iraq. For example, libertarians want the troops home because they believe in non-intervention, whereas many liberals want them out of Iraq so that our tax dollars and soldiers can be redeployed; i.e. for government programs and Darfur respectively.

So, I concur with what you say. For many people, this has become a one-issue campaign; but there are a number of motivations surrounding that issue. Unfortunately, many people do not wish to acknowledge this.

Leviathan runs these areas in its sole interest, i.e. to extract the maximum personal benefit for the “elected” bureaucrats and their gangs, in full disregard to the users’ rights and interests, always at consistently higher costs and lower quality level.

And, most pathetic, the vast majority of the population candidly believes that gov’t manages their tax money better than they would themselves do.

Sometimes I like to joke on my statist- collectivist minded friends and colleagues like this: – would you hand over 35% of your gross income to your brother-in-law to manage, invest and decide what’s better for your children’s education, health, transportation, security etc.?
Most guys would indignantly answer something like “- Are you nuts???”
So I knock them down with the words that normally end up the subject: – If you don’t trust your wife’s brother for this job – you know him, he’s a nice guy -, why on earth do you trust politicians and other professional robbers for taking care of your tax money? You’d better keep it and allocate in the best way for your personal benefit (hadn’t you merrily voted your own rights out…)

As far as I can see, in so-called developed countries like Norway, USA and Canada, the Leviathan still gives a certain fraction of the expropriated money back in services – sometimes even with a reasonable quality level, if you don’t take into account the issue about who’s paying the bill and how long will this fairy tale last; however in Brazil we do pay over 35% of GDP in taxes but get absolute trash for that.
If you’re an average middle-class professional with a minimum conscience level, you MUST sacrifice +/- 15-20% of your earnings for a good private healthcare plan and an additional 30% for private school for your children, then try to live with the rest of it…

In summary, what the world needs *is* actually to let the private sector run all areas “like a business” – that simple measure would render an era of great prosperity and freedom.

The Force Be With LvMI!!

RHU, Mech. Engineer, Rio de Janeiro

Unfortunately RP and his supporters are pandering to them somewhat by saying things like, “Don’t worry if we can just end this war there will be a lot more money for things like that”, and “He would never be able to touch those programs in the short time he’ll be in office so you can vote for RP knowing that important [sic] federal programs are safe”.

I wish RP supporters would tell them more often, “All those government programs suck – they’re nothing but pyramid schemes that are going to bankrupt the country faster and more certainly than any George Bushian foreign intervention.”

The trouble is that the more people who might vote for RP under the impression that he is going to safeguard all their precious welfare programs, the less of a moral mandate he’ll have to make meaningful changes, and the more resistance he will meet. It would be far better to give people the straight dope and not get elected than to sweet-talk them into voting for the fantasy of a foreign-affairs dove who believes in unlimited welfare at home.

I believe that a big reason for this resistance is *control*.

More precisely, the average person thinks that if business controls these things, they have no ‘control’ over stuff. (you know, ‘big business’, etc). However, if government controls things, then they (the average person) would have control, because they vote and the politicians do what the voter wants.

Of course, that’s all nonsense, but I really think that is a big aspect of the resistance to free market running things, and I don’t know of anyone who has really looked into it from that aspect.