Ron Paul is a loon. By that I mean that he believes in radical positions that are not only rejected by mainstream academia, but also that his radical positions are poorly thought-out, rely on unscientific or unreliable methodology, or are simply just wrong. Of course, this doesn't mean that Ron Paul is wrong on everything, as even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while, but rather his approach to issues is so unscientific and irrational that even if he comes to the right conclusion, he's right for the wrong reasons. However, he's still wrong consistently enough that the label 'loon' is applicable.
In short: Ron Paul believes in pseudoscience.
Lets study the evidence.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution.
That's right, the good doctor, despite his training in medicine, doesn't believe in evolution and furthermore, doesn't understand the concept of a 'scientific' theory. Lastly, he doesn't even think that a solid grasp of reality is important for the most powerful position in the world.
I don't know Seneca's position on evolution or science, and I don't want to allow this debate get dragged down in the details of the evolution-creation 'debate', but hopefully it is needless to say that evolution is as close to a fact that is possible in science and creationism is a fringe belief among scientists and highly-educated individuals. Those who do not believe in evolution are considered either loonies or grossly ignorant, and considering Dr. Ron Paul's scientific background, I don't think ignorance is a valid excuse for him.
Conclusion A: Ron Paul's rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is a strong sign that he is a loon.
Exhibit B: Ron Paul's love of psuedoeconomics (Austrian Economics).
It is no secret that Ron Paul is deeply committed to Austrian economics. If Wikipedia is to be believed, he has pictures of Fredrick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig Von Mises hung up in his office in Washington (that sort of idolation should itself be a clue as to his looniness). Austrian economics has become something of a household name for people with a passing knowledge of economics, unfortunately the fact that Austrian economics is considered psuedoeconomics by the majority of professional economists hasn't also become common knowledge. It would be considered a separate field entirely if they didn't try to explain the same phenomenon. Actually, it wouldn't be a field at all if it weren't for a few vested interests (see von Mises institute) keeping the school of thought alive in the layperson's mind.
Before getting to the heart of Austrian economics, the historian in me compels me to make a few disclaimers. The Austrian school has a long history, and did provide the economic world with some brilliant economists such as Carl Menger in the past before its philosophy was discredited. However, where the Austrian school of economics has stood still the past century, mainstream economics has adopted more rigorous and scientific methodologies. My criticism is centered at modern Austrian economists not at the historical figures in the Austrian school that were writing prior to the adoption of the scientific method in economics. More precisely, this criticism is directed at Austrian economics as defined by Von Mises and Rothbard (which is the 'hard-core' school that Ron Paul subscribes to).
So now, what separates mainstream economics from Austrian economics, and why is the latter unscientific and utterly rejected?
Mainstream economics operates quite similarly to how the physical sciences operate: through both theory and observed data. Theory guides hypothesises and general laws that describe economic phenomenon, and data is used to test hypothesises and provide insight as to how economic theory can be improved. The process of testing hypothesises in economics is done through a branch of statistics called 'econometrics'. If I write an economics paper on a certain phenomenon I think should exist in the economy, regardless of how convincing my argument may seem on paper I'll (or someone else) will be expected to find and measure that phenomenon in economic data using econometrics.
This relationship between theory and data is known as the scientific method.
Austrian economics reject all of this. Their approach is grounded in 'Rationalism', which is basically the belief that one can acquire all true knowledge using 'a priori' logic. What this means is that you can discover 'truths' about the world using nothing but deductive logic. An example of this is actually my signature, which is a mock of a more famous argument to prove the existence of God using deductive logic alone.
Those who are knowledgeable in philosophical history will know that 'Rationalism' hasn't been a serious philosophical position since the 18th century, and those who are even more knowledge will note that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is held in such high regards precisely because it is considered a death blow to Rationalism.
In short, Austrian economics is grounded in a philosophy that has been de facto dead for 2 centuries.
A consequence of this philosophy is that no Austrian theories are falsifiable. This is the trademark characteristic of a non-scientific, or pseudoscientific, belief.
This outdated philosophy guides Ron Paul's approach to almost all of the issues he talks and cares about. He has even written 6 books about Austrian economics, illustrating how dedicated he is to this lunacy.
Conclusion A: Ron Paul's complete dedication to a discredited and pseudoscientific approach to economics is a very strong sign that he is a loon.
End Conclusion: Given Ron Paul's rejection of the scientific method in numerous areas, and his complete dedication to pseudoeconomics, it is fair to describe Ron Paul as a 'loon'.