I like Ron Paul and believe he is (potentially) one of the strongest candidates in decades, but like all Libertarians half his views will be loved by partisans with the other half being seen as too radical ...
Essentially, Ron Paul (and I) would argue that an individual or organization can have freedom with personal responsibility and consequences for their actions or freedom from personal responsibilities and the consequences for their actions but they can not have both at the same time. Meaning (for example) you can have a system with a strong welfare state and strong laws against drugs (and other things) that can lead to people "failing", or you can have a system with no welfare state but freedom to do whatever you want, but a strong welfare state with no drug laws or a weak welfare state with strong drug laws are problematic. Unfortunately, while many conservatives will agree with limiting/reducing the welfare state they would never support weakening the welfare state, and many liberals would agree with limiting/reducing drug laws but would never support weakening the welfare state.
