While privatizing many things usually does not turn out well in our crony-capitlistic society, neither does entrusting every service to be government run. Dr. Paul though isn't so much "privatize everything" so much as he wants to start cutting government spending, including domestic departments and militarism in parallel to cutting taxes on everyone; returning government spending to 2006 levels.
Basically, to operate more in the Constitutional limits and protect our civil liberties. Not to triple troop deployement, expand the wars, endorse legislation that curtails civil liberties and national autonomy (ie NDAA, Patriot Act, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA), bailout big banks and corporations, and let the Fed toy with the economy.
He's not a revolutionary in the sense that our founding fathers already fought a revolution for the ideals he represents. And, while I may be nitpicking semantics, the inflammatory newsletters in question were not signed by him; the author is unknown. James Kirchick, who has brought to light the most cited of these newsletters, has never released the last page that contains the byline; i.e. who has written the articles in question.
there are a few things to point out with respect to Obama and Romney. They have the same stance on:
Drug legalization Ending; NDAA and the government's supposed authority to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorism; Ending the Patriot Act; Cutting military spending; Ending corporate welfare; Ending the nation's activist policies of invading other countries; Eliminating the Presidential "kill list"; The Federal Reserve.
While I do believe there is a difference in philosophy at the local level between Republicans and Democrats, as you climb the political ladder, these differences become grayer and grayer. That fact is, the international wars that the Left doesn't approve of couldn't happen without their approval and the welfare the Right doesn't approve of couldn't happen without their approval.
Very few members of our House and Senate aren't in the pockets of special interests or have a consistent message and record to back that up. The special favors that are done with respect to corporations (big business, big pharma, big banks) are carried out by both Parties on a regular basis and that is what is driving the country into the ground.
Besides, can anyone tell me why we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Japan and Germany? What are we doing? Why did it take a decade, trillions of dollars, thousands of American soldier lives, and millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis to kill one man (Bin Laden)? A man who we armed and trained (along with his Mujahideen fighter) in the 80s against Russia and whose family ties with the Bushes go way back? I mean, we have, by far, the largest and most effective military in the world. And now that he is dead, we're still there! For what?
It comes down to what you believe should be the scope of government. If you believe a few hundred politicians have the authority to create bureaucracies that hire their buddies to regulate the lives of 330 million Americans, or if you believe in a limited government as outlined in the Constitution. The problem is, no matter how well intentioned a program may be, it inevitably degenerates into a monstrosity when run by the government. Sure, we may endorse a President or congressman that knows whats best for us and wants to ban sugar drinks because their bad for us. But once that power is granted, the next congressman may want to ban pornography because he believes its bad for us. Why concede our liberties to Big Brother?
We need to take an honest look at our candidates and really ponder if they're doing whats best for us, especially if they have the same stance on the big issues.
One thing is for sure, Romney is not the answer to Obama. There really isn't appreciable difference between these two.