I support both the Paul's but view Ron as the more pure ideologist then Rand. Ron's strength and weakness was his unwilling compromising views as to where Rand is more willing to compromise in order to accomplish something.


For example Ron voted against the patriot act and the ndaa on the grounds it creates vehicles for government to abuse against the public and infringe on civil liberties. Rand on the other hand has voted for lesser versions of the ndaa and simply voiced disagreement with parts of the legislation that are most likely to be abused.


Both have taken a strong anti-intervention stand on foreign policy which I support 100%.


Both are strongly pro-life and argue that one of governments legitimate roles is the protection of life. That's a big deal for me, I've Walked away from other libertarians that are more pro-choice leaning.


Both support decriminalizing pot but more importantly argue for changing the criminal justice system. Standing against the for profit prison system in bed with over legislated codes designed to create a constant flow of prisoners. Prison should be reserved for violent offenders that are a danger to society.


Both most importantly advocate auditing the private federal reserve, abolishing the irs, and changing the tax code to a consumption tax instead of production tax.


Ron was popular for being consistent and ahead of the curve for decades. Ron wasn't popular when warning about the housing crisis in the earl part of the decade, or the financial ramifications we where facing in the future during the 90s. Rand is trying to find that middle ground to accomplish change but it's a hard line to walk.

---