Why is this guy, who speaks very well (maybe he's the son of a rich family) saying that the Libertarian Party is socialist? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Scenario One
Ron Paul doesn't do work on a deserted island where the other presidential candidates do work.
Guy's scenario: Ron Paul freeloads and gets food from the others for freeloading. That seems like socialism or at least a socialist welfare policy. The video maker isn't taking a Libertarian view so his scenario is void.
Actual libertarian scenario: (1) Ron Paul gets no food from anyone and he dies or (2) Ron Paul gets gifts of food from the other presidential candidates out of the kindness of their hearts.
Scenario Two
Smoking costs society money (health care, loss of productivity).
Guy's scenario: Smoking costs people money through health care costs and loss of productivity costs. He leads one to believe that Libertarians would support the liberty of the smoker, which is true, and "society" would pay for healthcare costs and loss of productivity costs, which is not true. Libertarians would view the smoker as being required to pay for his own healthcare costs and that private companies could fire or discipline the smoker for smoking (thus privately "taking away" his liberty to smoke).
Actual libertarian scenario: People who smoke pay for their own healthcare costs and can be fired for smoking.
Final Words
Taking the libertarian party line to an anarchist conclusion is intellectually dishonest. Taking the libertarian party to a socialist conclusion is also intellectually dishonest. The guy looks like he put a lot of work in, which is great, but I think he needs to rethink his views on what is Libertarianism (him being a college libertarian notwithstanding... it's great when people in college join the party because they want to legally smoke weed though).
