You say that as if I have stated some fringe position. AFAIK, my rejection of Paul's governing philosophy is in line with a large majority of Americans. That doesn't mean I'm right, but I don't understand your reaction.

I also don't understand why you think I haven't listened to him. I have listened to him and read about him. His ideas make no sense to me. Of course, what I don't know about monetary policy would fill volumes, but I have yet to see anyone explain why a commodity-based monetary system is such a great idea. So, maybe I've drunk the mainstream economic kool aid, but Paul just hasn't made the case on those issues, IMO.

His unusual views on monetary policy are just the beginning of the problem, though. His historical description of medical care before Medicare and Medicaid is fictional. He says that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional and that he would get rid of them if he could. That is f'ing insane. On Social Security, he claims that the "numbers just aren't there" or some such nonsense. That is just not true. He only says that because he is ideologically opposed to Social Security, which is entirely insane. Social Security is an unqualified, unambiguous success. It is one of mankind's greatest accomplishments (I mean that literally). He wants to get rid of it.

In foreign affairs, he's generally correct about our foolish military misadventures, but his isolationist approach is not the America I want to have.

More generally, his minimalist view of the federal government goes too far, IMO. For all its faults, our federal government has done an incredible amount of good for the country. Look, for example, at how much suffering there is during this economic downturn compared to the 1930's. Do you see any soup lines? Shanty towns? Anything of the sort we read about in the history books about the Great Depression? What changed, other than the federal government? I'm not saying that DC hasn't become a cluster you-know-what, but Paul's view is a complete nightmare by comparison. IMHO.

Can you cite any countries who have applied Paul's economic policies? Is there any evidence that his ideas would work?