He's meant as a positive step for freedom in the US.
He won't be. What he'll be is a large consumption of time and money that would be better spent elsewhere.
Look, he's gonna get 1-1.5% of the vote. This is what is going to happen whether he gets a nom nom nomination or not. He'll gank up the Libertarian vote, which, while statistically insignificant and will probably be directed at another useless jackoff like Bob Barr, would probably leech less money from people.
Also, "Positive step for freedom" is probably not true. If you've got a bus scheduled to drive a group of people toward the edge of a cliff, and during the trip you replace the driver who is making a steady 55mph with Ron Paul, who is willing to slow down to 10mph, you're still gonna fly off the edge of a fucking cliff, man. It'll just take longer and everyone will blame Ron Paul supporters when it happens.
You get off of the fucking bus yo.
This whole thing is nothing but another ancap/minarchist fight hidden behind the excuse of Ron Paul.
If you're a minarchist and think that voting will help you, there's probably no better choice than Ron Paul.
If you're a market anarchist or anarchocapitalist or voluntaryist or leavemethefuckaloneian like me or whatever word applies this week, who thinks it's a sucker's game and a waste of time, you'll spend your money on something more important. Like socks or pickles or a new dildo with a wiggly rabbit on it or whatever.
The idea that people will find more freedom from politicians stealing their money by giving money to a politician hurts my fucking brain.