That would be the point, as I said a couple of the conflicts in his personal views.
Libertarianism itself is idealism and the reason we are all here reading dilbert comic strips is because we're people who a long time ago realized that idealistic things just don't work on this world, as such Libertarians are crazily trying to implement things that will not work because those things (I.E. a Laissez-faire styled free market) just isn't in sync with how reality actually works.
@RxF -- The libertarian philosophy is not the opposite of fascism. The libertarian philosophy is the opposite of communism, which is inapplicable to a large state but not necessarily bad as a philosophy.
I log in to comment here very rarely, but the Libertarian subject is one I'd like to comment on. Firstly, I think you need to look at the core belief of Libertarians before you declare them nutcases or off the rails: you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not impede another's right to do so. Whatever you might perceive as nutty after than can only be based upon an irrational mind's interpretation of such a thing as most people are, in effect, sheep - many Libertarians included. It's not a popular political party because if your mind is only capable of accepting what you are told you should be thinking, things quickly look insane to an outside observer and then the person will revert back to "I don't really care about all this political crap, I just want to live my life without having to defend it" and go back to another party. In effect, you get two types of Libertarians: the highly intelligent, and the stubborn nutcases, the latter being far greater in number as the former are a very limited subset of the Human population without even counting political affiliation. Secondly, in respect to Ron Paul's stance of letting state's decide on a matter rather than the federal government - yes, states are still government, and yes a limited federal government is ideal - but there are inherently things that must be written into law, and there are two major factors that play into a law being written at a state level, rather than a federal level: different groups will lay down different methods to reach the same logical ends (ie: no man has the correct answers in full, by extension no party does, by applying the lessons of evolution to government - with states competing for citizenship - we gain as a nation) - and different methods of dealing with legal matters leads to people having the choice to go where they want without leaving their country - we aren't totally fascist yet, and travel from state to state is still viable - though the borders are becoming far less discernible and hence we are losing our edge by consolidating state power into federal power and losing our diversified strength in the process.
If Paul were a true libertarian, he would be pro-life and leave the decision to the individual (note omission of the word "state" here). This, in-effect is what the pro-choice movement believes. This is where the libertarians go off the rails. State government is still government.