I think about this sometimes when listening to opponents use Ron Paul's talking points. And one of the reasons it's difficult to understand where he's coming from is this: in a limited time format, Ron can only present pieces of the jigsaw puzzle or, if you will, leaves on a tree. Plenty of candidates have leaves, they just don't seem to have a tree, a core philosophy, which supports the leaves.
So many liberals will agree that big pharma and the military industrial complex are not good. But they don't seem to make the connection that if these groups did not have access to the pockets of politicians, costs for meds, hospital visits, and insurance would go down so that nobody would bother talking about Obamacare. They don't see that if the costs were lower and the IRS didn't exist, that people would have control of their pay checks to use for what was important to them. Many people can't see the tree for the leaves. I would challenge those open to considering Ron's positions to study how his positions that seem so untenable taken in isolation, are all supported by a coherent, rational philosophy of liberty.
