Comment: Yes

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Okay - a hypothetical for you (see in situ)

Yes

A vote for liberty is meaningful to my conscience, and that is more important than winning. If Rand wins, he has clearly stated that he will work to decrease some people's liberty. Who wants a President who believes some people's liberty is more important than others? As libertarians, supposedly we believe every person's liberty is uniquely important. A mixture of rose petals and poop still smells pretty bad.

Let me ask you a question: What if Rand runs, wins the nomination, and then LOOSES the general election? All that time we told Republicans that a "liberty candidate" could win the general election. They would always use the election loss as proof that we shouldn't run liberty candidates in the future. Yet that's a fallacy, because Rand ISN'T A LIBERTY CANDIDATE. Ron could've won the general election in 2012. Judge Nap could win the general election in 2016. Rand is more problematic, precisely because he "plays the game" and comes across to liberty oriented liberals and independents as an unprincipled Republican hack. Are you willing to take the risk of nominating Rand Paul, who arguably would be a weak candidate in the general election, have him lose, and then have the liberty movement forever shut out of the Republican party? As a purely practical matter, I am not willing to take that risk.