Ron Paul may very well be the most honest Congressman, but are any of his ideas really practical in increasing freedom? I agree with him that we don't need more government, but I don't think we need less either; we need more direct and accountable government. Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but from the debates and from his books that I've read, these are part of his political philosophy: He thinks any kind of "arms" control is unconstitutional (i.e. including bazookas, tanks, and possibly WMDs), that people who CAN afford health insurance yet have life-threatening preexisting conditions and are denied access should either find a charitable organization or drop dead, that a 19th century style gold reserve would actually increase consumer confidence, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional despite being established law in later Supreme Court cases, that tort reform can solve global warming/pollution, and on and on. Just think about the pollution example. If a multibillion dollar corporation pollutes a river and affects a group of Average Joe's livelihood as fishermen downstream, what are the chances of them winning a court case? Against the corporation's team of seasoned lawyers who cite contradictory science, blame other corporations, etc? Tort reform already exists and is very ineffective; given his disdain for international law, suing Japan for tsunami debris would be a laughing matter. What else but the government can rein in such a corporation?