Sure he maybe going for a more socialistic approach
Huh?
Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarianism is kind of like anarchism. (I must admit I didn't even know all that much about it until a while ago; apparently it's predominantly US-centric.)
He's the opposite of a socialist.
but whats so bad about that?
Nothing's wrong with a social government. But if you want one, vote for a democrat! Don't vote for Ron Paul, because he wants to steer America into the opposite direction.
Speaking of which, I have yet to understand why getting rid of stuff like the FDA and education system and social security and the federal reserve and so on would be at all beneficial. Ron Paul's supporters keep gushing about that shit over and over but I have yet to see any of them explain why any of that would be good at all.
I'm also unsure (because, as you say, this isn't explained in detail very often), but I think that the general argument is simple: they say the government cannot be trusted to do an as good job as the free market. In reality, the advantages you gain by increasing the competition over these areas will not outweigh the negative consequences. After all, these are essential services we're talking about here that people cannot go without. You can't trust privatized companies to always do a good job, especially when their services are
required by a great part of the population.
For example, what if HIV treatment medication suddenly became ten times as expensive? Think about it for a moment. Yes, we would probably immediately see posts on Digg calling for a worldwide boycott of HIV medication. But in reality, people will keep buying them, because if they don't, they'll
die. Would a libertarian government care, or even be able to do anything about that? Maybe they can, you know, I'm not sure; but the point is that a libertarian government, a minimalist government that keeps its hands off of as many things as possible, won't regulate the free market, and we know by know that this will inevitably conclude with the people being impoverished.
In my example, the government could just say "just wait for a different company to start selling HIV medicine". Which can take quite long, especially when you consider that many forms and ingredients of medication are covered by patents. Or maybe someone actually will start a company that sells cheap HIV medicine, but then who's going to be sure they're of good quality?
This is the danger of an unregulated market.