Ron Paul: What does he say the government ought to be involved with?

[NewUser]

Hi all, I've read 80% of Ron Paul's 'Liberty Defined' and he mentions what things the government ought to not be involved in. However, he doesn't list what the government should be involved in.

Where has Ron Paul stated what the government ought to do?

Thank you!

[Natural Citizen]

Why, on Earth, would a new user here have a neg rep status after only 56 posts?

NewUser where did your neg reps come from? On what issues?

[Spikender]

Why, on Earth, would a new user here have a neg rep status after only 56 posts?

NewUser where did your neg reps come from? On what issues?

NewUser comes back every once in a while with a topic where he feigns ignorance on a subject and then asks an obvious question.

This is yet another in a long line of such topics.

[The Free Hornet]

Why, on Earth, would a new user here have a neg rep status after only 56 posts?

NewUser where did your neg reps come from? On what issues?

Well, I up-rep'd NewUser and it is still red. My rep power is only 1. It may be possible to learn how many neg reps NewUser got...

[belian78]

Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution. Pretty simple.

[MRK]

NewUser is a clever asset used to drive wedges in the minds of nascent board lurkers so that they think libertarianism is irrational and abandon adopting its ideals before looking further into things.

Eventually each thread is hashed out in detail to explain the sometimes complicated questions posed by NewUser, and the principles of libertarianism become clear after some posts.

However, I positive repped him at least once. I like when RPF diverts away from being an echo chamber where the same opinions and viewpoints get repeated over and over again.

That being said, unless NewUser is intentionally being a consistent devil's advocate by posting threads that use a Socratic-like method to teach people that libertarianism has an answer for X, Y and Z edge cases, then it can be assumed that he is definitely not looking out for the best interest of the libertarian movement, and is actively seeking to undermine it in a subtle but conclusively obvious way. It's kind of entertaining to me personally, but I'm unsure if his presence is a net benefit for it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Note that the libertarian movement is not the same as the liberty movement in all cases.