For that goal, success could be defined as using the incredibly, indescribably, unimaginably corrupt democratic system to spread a libertarian message subversive to that system. If people think there’s something immoral about voting, or about voting for anyone who is less than 100% perfect according to one’s morals, then it seems to me that they must concede that it’s okay to use a presidential candidacy and its inherent exposure for the sole purpose of spreading ideas and exposing uninformed people to those ideas, without the purpose of getting elected and controlling the criminal Leviathan that is the State.

The average non-libertarian voter does not read libertarian web pages or go out of their way to expose himself to much of anything out of the mainstream. Therefore, I think success for Ron Paul would be making a large number (whatever that means) of people think about the issues that only he brings up and convert some substantial proportion (whatever that means) of those people to the cause of liberty. For him, two presidential campaigns against a bunch of basically interchangeable cogs stamped with “R” or “D” are the best way to expose and convert people, and I think he’s doing a pretty good job. I hope he continues to improve in accomplishing those things.