A panel of economists (60 or so, I think) were asked if a return to the Gold Standard was a good idea. 0 felt it was, and most strongly disagreed with the idea.

I'm in agreement with this; the Gold standard is completely insane for a large number of reasons, and this alone demonstrates that Ron Paul - and his followers - don't understand modern economics. They think money is meant to be a store of value, but it isn't - the economy hinges on money being used to transmit value, not store it, so it continues circulating through the economy.

I'd go into specifics on why fiat currencies are not only beneficial but necessary in a modern world, but it would take an awfully long time. Suffice it to say that money has value as long as the United States accepts it as payment for taxes. This is a grossly oversimplified answer, but it's the basic premise behind a fiat currency.

Paul's other big problem - the Fed - is actually incredibly important. Many people don't realize it, but Ben Bernanke actually prevented our recession from becoming a full-on great depression due to his by-the-book monetary policy. What Bernanke did is exactly the same thing any student of Macroeconomics is taught to do during a similar crisis: drop interest rates to allow the economy to retain liquidity and keep from having severe deflation, which tends to absolutely destroy average people. Simply put, everything he's done is in keeping with established macroeconomic theory - and his ability to enact that monetary policy, something that would not have existed if the Fed had been abolished, is an important safeguard against our money supply being out of our control. In short, Central Banks are necessary.

Finally, regarding politics, Paul's position isn't one of protecting people from oppression: this is misdirection. Paul preaches "states' rights", the same thing preached by the segregationists and before that the slaveowners - essentially, that the Federal Government doesn't have the right to prevent the states from oppressing their citizens. Ron Paul says he supports Liberty, but if his agenda were passed, there'd be no Federal Government interference to keep many southern states from banning abortion entirely, teaching Creationism in schools, and establishing Christianity as the official religion of the state. Paul himself has admitted that he's a creationist, and doesn't believe in evolution, which is part of his platform; he thinks states should have the right to teach religion in science class.

All in all, while many other candidates are more reprehensible (Santorum, for example) Paul is actually the most potentially dangerous. In this modern world, our Government needs to be large enough to provide (and pay for) services the states can't, because the states can't print money.