Comment: Why shouldn't he have to defend his position?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well, Okay, You Are Right (see in situ)

Why shouldn't he have to defend his position?

Smiley and West are coming from a perspective that if the government would step in and look out for minorities, they would be better protected and able to pursue prosperity and happiness. Interventionism is their long-held view. Paul's view is new to them and completely foreign; this is a third option for them that they likely didn't know existed. Believe it or not, these people are learning too. They don't assume to have all the answers.

So Paul's answers about treating people as individuals will only be accepted if that approach can stand the test of objections. They had questions about it; there were no "gotcha questions", and they weren't trying to paint him as racist. They were kicking the tires. It may seem disrespectful to the dealer for you to kick a car's tire, but if it can stand, you'll buy the car.

In the same way, there are many who question the merits of libertarianism. Those people are going to ask the questions THEY want to know about, not the ones YOU want to tell about. So don't be so easily offended. Tell them what they need to know.

I am one of the co-founders of the Christian game design studio Renewal Corporation. For our philosophy and upcoming product updates, please see our blog: