Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The L Word. Again
No, not lesbian. Dammit.
Libertarian. Make that Libertarian, the way the NYT uses it in this update on Ron Paul's doings in Iowa:
He just opened a campaign office in downtown Des Moines and started to advertise his anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian message on radio, television and in the newspapers.
Sigh.
This hobbles an otherwise interesting little dispatch relating that Paul's supporters evidently intend to take Mitt Romney's free buses to the Iowa straw poll and then vote for Paul.
Guess if that works the Times would write, "In Ames a surprisingly strong showing from Libertarian Ron Paul in the Republican straw poll marked...."
Bring on the lesbians.
Former Perot Voter|8.10.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Jim, I had Just turned 18 when Ross Perot ran the first time and did not know much about libertarians or Libertarians at the time. I voted for him because I could tell the two major party candidates were corrupt. I later became libertarian. People just need to be educated, that is all.
VM|8.10.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Syloson -
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!
then we'd all sound like that twaddlenock "Neu" (although all he's
read was John Fiske's "Introduction to Communication
Studies")
Kip Esquire sums it up best about Paul ici
(defensively clutches Levinson's "Pragmatics")
|8.10.07 @ 6:42PM|#
"Bring on the lesbians", Jeff urges. But does he offer a Friday Fun Link??? Sigh.
cls|8.10.07 @ 6:43PM|#
How can we blame the New York Times. We have libertarians all ga-ga over Paul as the great white hope of libertarianism. He has called himself a libertarian, etc. We have libertarian party candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to hate homosexuals. We have libertarians who are in favor of walling in America. We had an elected LP official want to pass a law penalizing private businesses if they don't see official documents from people they hire. Apparently the word doesn't mean much these days and some of us have become so in need of support that we'll take anyone who uses the label no matter how statist or bigoted they might be.
Vagitarian|8.10.07 @ 6:59PM|#
candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to
hate homosexuals
WTF?
libertreee|8.10.07 @ 7:13PM|#
some of us have become so in need of support that we'll take anyone who uses the label no matter how statist or bigoted they might be.-cls
Unless you don't vote and work only for libertarian anarchy,
supporting any politician will only result in some dissappointment.
If libs are going to make inroads in the "system", you can't expect
purity in the process...I would like to know, however, who some of
these particular folks you reference are.
uncle sam|8.10.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Well, I don't see RP as a great hope for libertarianism, but his appears to be a great hope for a lot of people looking for something quite different from the current major party offerings.
x,y|8.10.07 @ 7:27PM|#
...anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian
message...
Well, that's *one* way to put it. Sounds like someone at the
Times is scared of Dr. Paul.
|8.10.07 @ 7:44PM|#
He just opened a campaign office in downtown Des Moines and
started to advertise his anti-tax, anti-abortion rights,
Libertarian message on radio, television and in the
newspapers.
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this description of Ron
Paul's message.
Ron Paul on the issues: from his website
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of
the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative
record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life
principle."
"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit
all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for
ourselves about our lives."
He once ran as a Libertarian.
So he seems to have an anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, libertarian
message...right?
VM,
What does the term semiotics symbolize that you fear?
|8.10.07 @ 7:50PM|#
VM,
although all he's read was John Fiske's "Introduction to
Communication Studies"
Never read Fiske.
Mainly Eco, Sperber & Wilson, Grice, and Delany with good
helpings of Peirce, Derrida, Saussure, & Baudrillard.
|8.10.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Some of Levinson's stuff is interesting too...
You should read his chapter in this one...
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521596599
(~_^)
Edward|8.10.07 @ 7:57PM|#
The whole point of this post is that the NY Times has mentioned Ron Paul. Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as giddy as some fat, geeky kid who's learned he's been invited to the prom queen's party. It's fucking pathetic.
x,y|8.10.07 @ 7:59PM|#
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this description of
Ron Paul's message.
Ron Paul on the issues: from his website
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of
the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative
record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life
principle."
"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit
all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for
ourselves about our lives."
He once ran as a Libertarian.
So he seems to have an anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, libertarian
message...right?
In reverse order:
1. Small "l" libertarian would be proper. Capital "L" implies the
LP. Though he did once run on the LP ticket, he's now running as a
Republican. The author used "Libertarian" to modify "message." It
would make infinitely more sense if he used a lowercase "l."
2. RP is not "anti-tax." That incorrectly implies that he's against
taxes generally. He's not. He's against the income tax and the IRS
withholding system. Let's say someone put too many meatballs in
your sandwich. Are you anti-meatball for wanting fewer
meatballs?
3. "Anti-abortion" is a weak-ass slam. I'm guessing this author
doesn't refer to pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." Moreover,
while RP is personally pro-life, his political message is
federalist. Let's keep in mind he's running for a political office,
not a moral office. He doesn't believe the federal government has
the authority to set abortion policy. RP believes this should be
handled at the state level. As Scalia notes, this position is
substantively neutral on abortion.
|8.10.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Of course... if you branch out to DA more generally, then
try
Teun A. van Dijk, Talmy Givón, Charles Goodwin, Art Graesser,
Michael Halliday, Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Adam Jaworski,
William Labov, George Lakoff...
Oh the list goes on and on...
|8.10.07 @ 8:10PM|#
x,y,
Why don't you believe Ron Paul's own words as to his
position?
Paul: "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action
to restore protection for the unborn...As an OB/GYN doctor, I've
delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an
unshakable foe of abortion . "
x,y|8.10.07 @ 8:18PM|#
I do believe his own words. But a more accurate characterization of his views would include the caveat (if you will) that his federalist views are substantively neutral on abortion. What the NYT did is akin to quoting someone out of context. What you say might be true in some respects, but it doesn't capture the whole picture.
Edward|8.10.07 @ 8:33PM|#
The only thing that could make Ron Paul's exceedingly slim chances of not comimg a distant last even slimmer would be to get an accurate account of his views widely known.
Steven Horwitz|8.10.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Vagitarian asks:
candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to hate
homosexuals
WTF?
I can't be sure, but it probably refers to
this guy.
Edward|8.10.07 @ 8:44PM|#
I believe homosexuality is a sin, and under the U.S.
Constitution, the states are free to make it a crime. I agree with
Jefferson, that capital punishment is not appropriate for the crime
of homosexuality (Jefferson advocated castration). But a society
that tolerates homosexuality is headed away from civilization into
barbarism. --Kevin Craig
It's interesting to noe that the states could be a lot more
repressive than the federal government. Someone has pointed out
that before the fed started collecting income tax, the states were
imposing all sorts of property and head taxes. Look how the
southern states, when left to their own devices, oppressed African
Americans.
|8.10.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as
giddy as some fat, geeky kid who's learned he's been invited to the
prom queen's party. It's fucking pathetic.
Bad childhood flashback, Edward?
libertreee|8.10.07 @ 10:10PM|#
It's interesting to noe that the states could be a lot more
repressive than the federal government. Someone has pointed out
that before the fed started collecting income tax, the states were
imposing all sorts of property and head taxes. Look how the
southern states, when left to their own devices, oppressed African
Americans.-Edward
Yes indeed--and there are several of the several states I wouldn't
care to live in even today. But, at least I do have the choice to
not do so, and at the same time, live in the US of A. With modern
technology and transportation, it is easier to escape a bad state
law then the overwheening bad federal law.
|8.10.07 @ 10:12PM|#
Libertarians? Well, I'd be one too, if only I beleieved in
roads
Seriously, my father has told me before, "Bill O' Reilly, I guess
hes kind of a libertarian like you right?"
M|8.10.07 @ 10:17PM|#
Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as giddy as some
fat, geeky kidprom queen who's learned she's been invited to theprom queen'sfat, geeky kid's party. It's fuckingpatheticcharitable.
|8.10.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Wow, a quick Google search for "'Ron paul' lesbian" turned up
Don't know if y'all have seen it already, but, damn, this is
weird.
Mike Laursen|8.10.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Paul's supporters evidently intend to take Mitt Romney's
free buses to the Iowa straw poll and then vote for
Paul.
Wouldn't that make them free riders, literally.
|8.10.07 @ 10:49PM|#
M,
That's just stupid. Find something of your own to say, don't edit
someone else's post.
|8.10.07 @ 10:55PM|#
The suggestion that Paul supporters catch Romney buses and
vote for Mr. Paul is being widely debated on the Internet ; some
see it as smart while others see it as dishonest.
So, Romney is essentially trying to buy the poll, but Paul
supporters riding on his buses would be dishonest?
|8.10.07 @ 11:12PM|#
Liberal lesbian libertarians unite! Right now! Both of you! and post it online. Hurry...
|8.10.07 @ 11:33PM|#
That lipstick lesbians for Ron Paul thing was easily the funniest video I've seen today.
|8.11.07 @ 2:44AM|#
Screw that. For me it's full otics or nothing.
This, btw, won the thread very early in the thread. All the rest
were buy merely sad echoes in the shadow of its brilliance.
|8.11.07 @ 2:48AM|#
But a more accurate characterization of his views would
include the caveat (if you will) that his federalist views are
substantively neutral on abortion.
Ron Paul: "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to
persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the
contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to
sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual
freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because
individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for
libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of
political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons
within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses
that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology
whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are
founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly
stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently
without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are
both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young
people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority
to impose its will on the individual.
A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor
misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief
about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of
abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the
issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.
Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every
individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor
any other person, can violate those rights without committing an
injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State
to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us
has rights.
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom.
And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of
obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on
demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares
that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore
not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the
"right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected
the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover,
by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian
regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are
spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in
freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which
forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing
abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has
enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents
in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect
principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed
libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on
a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman
conclusions of an argument, rather than question their
premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about.
He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from
her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or
her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner
has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises
from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is
whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the
unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to
obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the
beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of
liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals,
diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an
abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in
debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not
freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further
eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them. "
|8.11.07 @ 2:50AM|#
Ron Paul:
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about
abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious
sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life
that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent
culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an
obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a
necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution
to a social problem.
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or
contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming
the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the
continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong
evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia
and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within
the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of
protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a
ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That
would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal
laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that
Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the
lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems
surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of
Roe v. Wade.
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not
only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.
Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion
procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not
further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious
principles into both our culture and legal system.
For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states,
"...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure]
will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and
infanticide..." The question I pose in response is this: Is not the
fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the
pro-life community? By stating that we draw a "bright line" between
abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the
dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we
as human beings can determine which members of the human family are
"expendable," and which are not.
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate
commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning
partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of
interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce
clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our
federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates
but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R.
760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into
every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the
interstate commerce clause.
H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a "distinction" made by the
Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which
establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under
law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this
illogical "distinction," I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before,
ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system,
rather than refutes them as it should.
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility
of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I
fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments
of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than
good.
|8.11.07 @ 2:52AM|#
Ron Baul: "The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state
should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our
times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution.
Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local
decision-making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal
solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional
limits on government. The result is a federal state that
increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large
segments of the population.
This federalization of social issues, often championed by
conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It
simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more
closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the
federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision,
we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical
issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win
politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture
must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to
agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting
the federal government completely out of the business of regulating
state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground
up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as
purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded
culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as
individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government."
|8.11.07 @ 3:14AM|#
Oh the list goes on and on...
Uh oh, I guess we are going to see the rest of this semi-idiotic
list.
|8.11.07 @ 3:28AM|#
Wayne,
I guess you failed to see the sarcasm implied by one-upping VM's
name dropping.
Oh well...
Goldwater Conservative|8.11.07 @ 4:55AM|#
Am I the only one wondering what life would be like right now if Pope Murrary Rothbard were around? I wonder if Paul would be excommunicated. from L(l)ibertarianism.
M|8.11.07 @ 8:13AM|#
@crimethink 10:49 pm
Sorry you didn't like my post. Always willing to take suggestions,
I've now composed the same thought in my own words:
Have ye not read this scripture? The stone which the builders
rejected is become the head of the corner.
Kisses!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245