Is that his presidency might actually precipitate the disintegration of the United States, says the inestimable Will Grigg.
Try as I might, I can't see why this would be a bad thing. Our current configuration is not a reflection of some divinely ordained design, after all. There's no reason why several "Americas" wouldn't be able to share the same continent, engaging in peaceful commerce and otherwise minding their own business. And it's difficult to see how such an arrangement would be "un-American"; those who truly love America would want the world to be blessed with not one, but many of them.
Given the unfortunate outcome last time a group of American states decided to quit the "Union" club, it's clear that the dangers of political fission are great. But remaining artificially yoked together in a bankrupt, increasingly untenable Union would most likely be fatal to liberty.
To the true libertarian, the only appropriate political recourse to tyranny is not a new election but peaceful secession. Of course, as Mr. Grigg points out, the State could hardly be expected to allow the disaffected to simply walk away from it. Think about that plain little fact the next time you try to argue seriously that the government merely exists to keep us safe.
As much as I admire Ron Paul for his adherence to constitutional principles and truly limited governance, and as much as I would love to see the majority of voters embark on a course of sanity instead of the opposite, I do not vote.
Whether my political views are correct or not is irrelevant; I have no right to impose my beliefs and affiliations on anyone else -- least of all through the cowardly practice of doing so through a surrogate so as to be free of the repercussions I would suffer for forcing my will upon others on my own.