Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I think these are great discussion points. There is no example of libertarian government anywhere in the world so we can't know how it would work in a real world scenario. But I do think both parties would do well to take some of the ideas and try to apply them. The Dems could take some of the fiscal issues of governing at a minimum (drug laws are easy but I think there are some bureaucracies that could be eliminated without causing the sky to fall) and Reps could take some of the social ideals (get the government out of the bedroom in all its permutations, for instance) and they'd steal independents, non-believers and the wishy-washy for their own. I don't think Ron Paul can win, probably not even the primaries, but I think if he plays his cards right he could impact the way some people look at government. And that has to be good.

I don't think there is any single party that has it right, not by a longshot. I also don't think that something espoused by one candidate means that it is really representative of the entire party. If nothing else, Ron Paul (who, I know, is not even a big-L Libertarian) gets people talking, but the guy stood up and said that you should let people die if they show up to the emergency room with no insurance. I often wonder if he is even serious, or just, well, trolling.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

The debt-paying of the deceased still does not require government intercession, unless the next of kin refuse to pay. You're confusing lack of government regulations and interference with lack of law. As to next-of-kin, if government stayed out of marriages, you would have to have a will/legal document declaring your spouse as next-of-kin, otherwise it would default to your closest blood relation (most likely). So, the next-of-kin would pay the debts, and would be sued if they refused, but that goes back to the "dispute over who gets what" that I mentioned above.

And what happens when debts exceed the value of the estate? The next of kin is stuck either paying them off him/herself or being slapped with multiple lawsuits?

My original point was that the spousal relationship grants certain specific rights that are not granted elsewhere, and that eliminating them brings up tons of other questions. Maybe there is a way to address all of those questions, item by item (marriage grants about 1500 rights, depending on your state), but it is complex and takes time.

I'm not arguing your philosophy (though I think we'd differ on many points), I'm arguing that Ron Paul can't just take government out of marriage and go on his merry way without addressing hundreds, if not thousands, of other issues.