I object to Mr. Koerner’s argument against “orthodoxy” due to my own perception of the example of Dr. Paul’s journey with Ronald Reagan starting in the 70’s and ultimately ending in disillusionment in the 80’s. For a libertarian like Dr. Paul to support a popular politician who spouted some libertarian themes prior to sitting in office, he seemed to attempt to forego libertarian orthodoxy for inclusiveness and electoral success. When reading Dr. Paul’s thoughts on this period you can see hope turn to cynicism. The history of the Reagan years is replete with betrayals of the principles of liberty. To discredit libertarian orthodoxy is, in my opinion, is to discredit Dr. Paul, the man who never compromised on the principles and premises of liberty even when he was alone in the political wilderness. Obviously, it is necessary to tolerate differences of opinion when debating the opponents of liberty but one should never compromise on the premises of liberty. Many people, unfortunately, conflate tolerance of differing opinions with acceptance, even celebration. Ultimately, this leads to dilution, co-option, meaninglessness, mainly through abuse of language and (attempting to) get along to go along (See Ronald Reagan & Rand Paul). Liberty is not just another shade of gray.