You really need to compare him to the baseline politician. In that comparison, Ron Paul in general has advocated quite a record against tyranny and rights violations, including standing up to privacy violations, government control of printing money, and conducting war to expand power and violate rights. In fact, almost the exact opposity of tyranny and rights violations.
Definition of tyranny according to Wikipedia.
"an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty"
His support of state rights was always (this is my perception) based off: in theory, the constitution and in practice, the idea that government at the lowest levels (and free movement between governments) is the best way to fight tyranny and support human rights.
The nuttiness (and what disqualifies the Pauls and other big-L Libertarians from serious consideration, IMAO) comes in where they refuse to recognize any possible benefit from having a federal government at all.
For instance, Ron is famously on record as saying he opposed the civil rights laws because they were enacted at the federal level.
In his ideal world, there would be no unifying authority between the states, making things as simple as driver's licenses a pain in the ass, let alone the recent rights fights we're having now.
Imagine what you'd be losing - all constitutional rights gone. Full faith and credit clause, gone.
We go from being the United States of America to the States of America. Without a federal government, it's just a collection of countries who happen to share the same landmass.
Definition of tyranny according to Wikipedia. "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty"
His support of state rights was always (this is my perception) based off: in theory, the constitution and in practice, the idea that government at the lowest levels (and free movement between governments) is the best way to fight tyranny and support human rights.