Sex, Gold, and Raw Milk

Tucker Carlson writes a funny, perceptive profile of the Ron Paul campaign for The New Republic. Here's the key passage:

Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

Most Republicans, of course, profess to believe it too. But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody's paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. "I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says.

And here's my favorite part:

The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands.

A couple of hookers show up, too. Whole thing here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Dressed in red, her Dolly Parton hairdo and 36DDs at full attention, she sidled up to Lew Moore, Paul's campaign manager, and made her pitch. "Hi," she said. "I'm Air Force Amy, and I'd like a picture with Ron Paul." I knew right away it wasn't going to happen. "I've got a concern, I've got to be honest," Moore said, tense but trying to be nice. "If that picture surfaces, it could be very damaging to him politically."

    Like a picture with a prostitute is going to hurt Ron Paul more than a picture of him with the latest two-bit Grand Kleagle.

  • ||

    Leave it to an asshole like Tucker Carlson to invite hookers to a political rally.

  • iowan||

    Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed to your right not to be.

    This is the only kind if messanger that has a chance of taking libertarian philosophy mainstream.

  • ||

    But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk.

    As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul on this whole-heartedly

  • ||

    The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a hooker, but doesn't know the stranger at the Value Voters summit runs Stormfront.

  • Jesse Walker||

    What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the Nazis that stay in uniform?

  • iowan||

    The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a hooker,

    Having seen cathouse, I can attest that nearly all sapient beings will quickly recognize that air force amy is a hooker.

  • Russ 2000||

    How many voters would understand the question?)

    A: More than you think, but still not enough to make a difference.

  • ||

    "I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says.

    I'll have a tall Laudanum, please.

  • ||

    When I was a teenager in the '70's my father used to periodically drive out to a farmer in the country and get gallon jars of raw milk, straight from the cow. (It was purely decadent; I still remember the butterfat floating on the top three or four inches.) We knew completely that the milk was unpastuerized and we were taking our own risk. I'm sure that you aren't legally allowed to make a purchase like this anymore.

    I mean, if you can't allow people, under any circumstances, to consume food that hasn't passed through a battery of health inspectors, should we outlaw hunting and fishing?

  • severin||

    Legalize Milk!

    Unpasteurized milk is why I love Ron Paul! (well maybe not the milk, but the idea behind it, certainly is).

  • ||

    ChicagoTom said:

    "As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul on this whole-heartedly"

    Him there! Yes! He's the one! Drinking raw milk!
    J'Accuse!

  • KipEsquire||

    "But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk."

    No, he introduced a bill to end federal regulation of unpasteurized milk. There's a difference.

    Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to states that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

    So we see, yet again, that Paul does not love liberty. He merely hates Congress. No libertarian would suggest that banning unpasteurized milk is perfectly hunky-dory at the state level, just not at the federal level.

    If you want to argue that an anti-federalist is better than "business as usual," then fine. But please stop with the "Ron Paul is a libertarian" idiocy.

  • Chucklehead||

    We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with marijuana," he said.

    LOL - I love this guy!

  • robc||

    KipEsquire,

    Last time a checked, Paul was a federal congressman. He has no ability to control state laws. As he is both a federalist AND a libertarian, he wont use the power of the federal government to make states more libertarian. I would be willing to bet that if he was in the Texas state house, he would vote in favor of unpasteurized milk.

  • Kolohe||

    "I've never gotten around to killing anything."

    This is the most zen statement I have ever heard from an elected official.

    And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing work like this may disuade me of that notion.

  • douglas gray||

    If calves are fed an exclusive diet of pasteurized milk, they succumb to illness and die within six months, whereas if they drink unpasteurized milk , they remain healthy. Check out Dr. Mercola's Website to see the virtues of raw milk. I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

    Just try drinking Organic Pasture's raw milk for awhile, and notice the difference (available only in CA)

  • ||

    KipE,
    In nearly 30 years of voting, I've voted for every Libertarian on the ballot. I've never pulled the lever for an D or an R.
    Immigration is my #1 issue - I'm an "open the borders, end of discussion," guy.
    And yet, Ron Paul is the first candidate in all those years to really give me a small glimmer of hope - not that he will win, but that his campaign might spur something important.
    So to hear someone declare that Ron Paul is somehow just not libertarian enough, to me is what smacks of idiocy.
    I just hope he's still around when my state's primary rolls around so I can take that R ballot for the first time. I'll feel dirty for about three seconds.

  • ||

    @ KipEsquire

    Really, he doesn't love liberty just because he is a federal represenative of the people of texas and he proposes a bill that is of a purely federal nature as stipulated by the constitution. That is as much as the constitution allows with regard to this issue. How do you know that if he wasn't a state senator in texas he wouldn't propose a bill legalizing raw milk in Texas? There is nothing saying you can't be a states' rights libertarian.

  • Rhywun||

    Maybe it's just that I'm a child of the 70's but there is no fucking way I would drink raw milk with junk floating on top. I like my milk watery, just like I like my meats packaged in a box. Preferably frozen.

  • ||

    I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

    It amazes me how many people seem to be completely oblivious to the idea that the national government is one of limited, enumerated powers, and that banning raw milk is not one of them.

  • ||

    You are free to drink raw milk. You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated medical condition. Check.

  • toddb||

    KipE,
    So you are saying that pushing top-down dictates from the federal level is MORE libertarian than consistently preventing the use of federal power to dictate to folks at the state and local level? That seems kind of crazy.

    By the way, fresh, whole milk rocks. Had a cow on the farm as a kid and it took a long time after I left home before I could drink that thin store-bought stuff!

  • ||

    Mom used to drive out to a farm and get the still warm jugs of milk. She'd bring em home and set em in the fridge overnight for the cream to rise to make butter with. I would get outta bed before everyone else and skim enough of that sweet cream to pour over my Golden Grahams. MMMMMMM

  • ||

    What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the Nazis that stay in uniform?

    Good one. ;-)

  • alan||

    A true libertarian in a legislative body, like Paul, recognizes that he must work within the framework (here the Constitution) that gives the legislative body any semblance to legitimacy as a contract between the people and that public body.
    Ron Paul does not support an expansionist definition of the commerce clause as he would have to do if he were to be a 'real libertarian' in your sense of using the word.

    However, Paul is part of a much older tradition of libertarianism, Jeffersonian classical liberalism, that I can't help but noticing has been around much longer than the left libertarianism of many of Paul's critics who wish to condemn him and show him the gate.

  • ||

    A pro-life position is simply not consistent with libertarianism.

  • LarryA||

    Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

    So utterly simple.

    Now, how can we get the other 99.9999999999999% of the media to understand?

    I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

    So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul works, should force state legislatures to accept raw milk? How is that "libertarian?"

    Apparently it's not just the media.

  • ||

    And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing work like this may disuade me of that notion.

    This article made my day. Kudos to Carlson for doing a great job of showing who RP is and what he stands for. Positive without gushing.

    [Dennis] was there in ten minutes, in an enormous stretch limo with a BunnyRanch logo on the side. He'd brought two of his girls, Brooke and Air Force Amy, as well as his driver, a middle-aged man in a cowboy hat and Western wear. It was a conspicuous group.



    The thought of T. Carlson amongst this "conspicuous" group caused some coffee to hit the monitor.

  • ||

    smacky,

    Aw, no you didn't!

    It is on! It is on like Donkey Kong!

  • ||

    smacky,
    maybe you would like to use this can opener on that worm container.

  • toddb||

    smacky,
    Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

  • Edward||

    With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....

  • ||

    yes it is This good

    http://my.break.com/Content/view.aspx?ContentID=421034

  • ||

    SugarFree & Randolph,

    Hee hee...I didn't even mean to troll this thread. It just comes naturally.

    toddb,

    I don't care about his personal pro-life position. I'm simply pointing out that advocating that some parts of the country should be allowed to oppress women with statist oversight is not compatible with true love of freedom. Just because it's not federal, does not make that kind of governmental invasiveness ok. Just sayin'.

    I don't want to argue abortion today, anyway. I think Abortion Debate Friday is next Friday. Today is regular biz cas Fri.

  • ||

    My favorite passage from the article (read the whole thing, it's great):

    Dennis is built like a linebacker and was dressed entirely in black. Brooke and Air Force Amy looked like hookers because they are. All three slapped on Ron Paul stickers ("we could use these as pasties," Air Force Amy said, giggling) and sat near the front. Pretty soon, Paul showed up and did his 15 minutes on liberty and Austrian economics. If he noticed there were prostitutes present, he didn't show it.

  • Shane||

    robc @12:54- stating the obvious for the oblivious

    smaky @1:17- related to this article how? And only about 1/2 of libertarians would disagree with you on that one.

  • ||

    Shane,

    Just like those other "libertarians" who are anti-2nd Amendment rights or pro-WOD? Heh. And I wonder how those so-called libertarians would be split amongst gender lines.

  • Shane||

    smaky- i think the abortion thing goes abit deeper than either of those, and to be honest i've met a lot of pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, but none so far that have voiced an opinion against the 2nd or for the WOD.(donderooooo doesn't count)

  • ||

    Anyway, Ron Paul has my support. I just think his pro-life political position (even if it decentralized) is seriously inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs.

  • ||

    * Sound of can opener opening said can of invertebrates *

    smacky -- how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that pesky Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal government dictate to the states how they administer a contentious social issue about whose rights take precedence, a fetus' or the woman whose body is keeping it alive? Yeah, yeah, the Supreme Court, in a split decision, said the federal government can do that. News alert -- something isn't constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, it's only constitutional if the Constitution says it is.

    It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-choice. It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-life. It's way libertarian to say it's none of the fed's damn business, so butt out already.

    * Sound of duct tape resealing said can of invertebrates *

  • Brandybuck||

    A close friend of mine is a cheese fanatic. Any kind of rare and stinky cheese delights him to no end. He once got ahold of a wedge of Stinking Bishop. Nasty stuff, but to him is was an epicurean delight. One of his pet peeves is the extreme difficulty he has in getting young raw cheeses.

    He is a progressive and a Green Party registree. But he once told me a few months ago that he's leaning more and more libertarian over the silly food regulations he keeps running into. He also aked me what Ron Paul's policy was on raw cheeses. I told him it was probably too minor of an issue for Dr. Paul to have formalized a policy position on it. "Oh well," he said, "I might reregister Republican and vote for him if he did."

    Now I read this today! A quick search and there it was, Ron Paul has a formalized policy position on the transport of unpasteurized milk and milk products! I forwarded this on to my friend. I think we now have a new Ron Paul supporter.

  • ||

    Shane,

    My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.

  • Shane||

    Personally, i support the right of the preborn to defend themselves with firearms while smoking what they'd like to. Zygotes for Liberty!

  • Neu Mejican||

    smacky wins the thread.

    Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

    You need to look more closely at Paul's positions on abortion toddb...

    To quote Dr. Ron Paul (on his website): "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

    HR 1094 and HR 1095 are active attempts to use federal power to promote Paul's pro-life stance.

    Removing the federal check on state-level tyranny is not the same as promoting liberty (as, I believe, has been mentioned).

    Paul's political strategy on abortion is the opposite of his position on raw milk.

    Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop states from ALLOWING it.
    Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states from BANNING it.

    It is an important difference.

  • ||

    how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that pesky Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal government dictate to the states how they administer a contentious social issue


    prolefeed,

    You (and any other pro-lifers) are framing the question incorrectly. Pregnancy is not a "contentious social issue", (you must be a man), it is a personal, individual or familial issue. It has nothing to do with "social" or "society", you collectivist.

    It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-choice.

    Yes, yes it is. It is libertarian because pro-choice is the only viewpoint that offers freedom from governmental intervention. Nice mental gymnastics you were attempting, though.

  • Shane||

    "My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman."

    Last line was somewhat uncalled for but not unexpected. I and more than a few other's(including, shock, women) believe that protection from force or fraud is a legit function of the governemnt(in the u.s. that would be the State government as outlined in the constitution) and that all human beings(even those who haven't yet obtained or manage to hold onto that status we refer to as "personhood" have an inalienable right to life. so as long as we are picking who's a libertarian and who isn't based on this i would say that you, as a person who accepts people being murdered as long as the murderer is the mother or her physician, is the inconsistent one.

  • ||

    So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul works, should force state legislatures to accept raw milk? How is that "libertarian?"

    I don't think it is unlibertarian to use the power of the federal government to not allow states to limit the rights of the people who live in those states.

    Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.

    I would be very happy to see a bill the say refuses ag-subsidies (since we haven't been able to do away with them) to any state that restricts people from buying/selling raw milk

  • Shane||

    "Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop states from ALLOWING it.
    Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states from BANNING it.

    It is an important difference."

    No, it's not, the whole point is removing the power from the Feds, not what they could or couldn't do with said power. They shouldn't be allowing or banning anything.

  • ||

    Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

    Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he wants states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is it justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my opinion

  • toddb||

    smacky,
    I'm ambivalent on the abortion issue...I think you can make rational arguments across the whole spectrum on this issue and no consensus will ever be reached. That's why I like the decentralized approach.

  • ||

    Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.


    QFT - I defer to ChicagoTom.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    So ALLOWING and BANNING are now equivalent?

    Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases liberty while banning something (taking away your right to do) reduces liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty, then it is an important difference.

    But smacky has already covered this point, so...

  • robc||

    ChicagoTom,

    States determine what is or isnt murder now. In some states it would be murder (or some form of homicide) if I shoot a robber in my house without attempting to flee first.

    In my state, it isnt.

    It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it isnt the Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state crime. (Excluding things involving multiple states or federal officials)

  • ||

    His position on gay marriage is another non-liberty/freedom position.

    He personally opposes it, and regardless of the fact that he believes government should be out of the marriage position, he argues that states shouldn't have to recognize other same sex marriages.

    Sure he doesn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he does support giving states the power to discriminate.

    He seems more of a federalist than a libertarian.

  • robc||

    Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.

    This is correct. However, libertarianism has to work within the federalist constitution that we have. The system isnt inherently libertarian. It is inherently federalist. This libertarians need to work at all levels. On the federal level, we can only do what is allowed, pushing everything else down to the states for the libertarians there to work on.

  • ||

    Rhywun, How do you like your cancer, heart disease, and diabetes???

  • robc||

    ChicagoTom,

    The constitution gave the states the power to descriminate. Following the constitution (which all federal officials took an oath to do) REQUIRES not making that decision at the federal level, no matter what your views on it are.

  • ||

    It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it isnt the Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state crime. (Excluding things involving multiple states or federal officials)

    I agree, but that is a Federalist argument, not a libertarian argument.

    A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray area, but an aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of your right to life, is it not?

  • Sulla||

    Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he wants states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is it justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my opinion

    I do not know Ron Paul's position on the matter, but some people, myself included, believe that the state should not ban something merely because it is immoral. As robc pointed out, states have different limitations on what is "murder." Some states have such broad protections for homeowners defending their property that in some cases, what I would consider murder goes unpunished. This bothers me, but I believe that on balance, the importance of allowing people to defend themselves and their homes justifies some such broad protections.

  • Shane||

    Neu Mejican, smacky, ChicagoTom-

    Are you stating that the Federal government has or should have a say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?

  • ||

    On the federal level, we can only do what is allowed, pushing everything else down to the states for the libertarians there to work on

    And that means using the same incentives that are currently used to remove freedoms, in order to protect freedoms (see my subsidy example above).

    All I am saying is that just because someone is a federalist doesn't mean that person is a libertarian.

    And since the power of the feds is in fact expanding, there is nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding power to protect and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and in discriminatory ways

  • ||

    "Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you."

    ChicagoTom, I agree with you in principle, but not in application. Telling the federal government that it's OK to ignore the Constitution if the supporters of some legislation think it's about protecting people's rights as those supporters define rights opens the door to all sorts of unpleasant federal powers that you would vehemently oppose. The "right" to an immigrant-free society? The "right" to protect fetuses?

    The solution is not to ignore the federal Constitution's severe limitations on power (the Tenth Amendment in particular), and cross your fingers that The Right People will be the ones passing the laws. The solution to tyranny is to preserve the strict limits on the feds, and rewrite state Constitutions to impose equally stringent limits on state powers ... and rewrite local city charters to impose stringent limitations ... and move from states that don't have these protections against abuses, to states that do.

  • toddb||

    ChicagoTom, Neu Mejican,
    I'm the last person to debate this one...as I said above, I think this is an issue too complicated to ever find reasonable consensus. That is why I NEVER use it as a litmus for a candidate's reason/intelligence/liberality/etc.

  • iowan||

    9-month-long state-mandated medical condition

    This is probably the most de-humanizing definition of pregnancy that I have ever seen.

    The question at hand is not the meaning of libertarianism, it is the nature of a fetus.

    If the fetus is a human life deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then using the power of the state to protect the fetus is not un-libertarian.

    If the fetus is property (if it's not a human life, then it must be property), then letting the state interfere with the owner's disposition of that property wouldcertainly be un-libertarian.

    To claim that those that do not share your world view regarding the nature of a fetus cannot be libertarians is a form of bigotry.

  • Shane||

    "there is nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding power to protect and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and in discriminatory ways"

    that's not libertarian, that's lefty as far as i can tell.

  • Shane||

    prolefeed @ 2:03 said it better than me...

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be involved.

    Crime & food safety - both have an important role.

  • Sulla||

    A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray area, but an aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of your right to life, is it not?

    (please note the concious use of big L)

    Should a Libertarian disregard the Constitution and act in a manner consistent with Libertarian core values at all times?

    I really enjoy H&R and I hope people do not mind me posting, even though I'm not a Libertarian, and more generally in favor of limited government. The main reason I'm not a full-fledged Libertarian is that I often get the feelings that Libertarians want to impose Libertarian morality on people, just as the many on the religious right wants to impose christian morality and the many people on the left want to impose their version of morality.

  • robc||

    A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder

    I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I believe that a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.

  • Brandybuck||

    you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.



    On the other hand, libertarianism is not nihilism. Freedom, not free-for-all. You do not have the right to initiate force against another the life of another human being. If a fetus is a human being then the libertarian position must be that one cannot initiate force against that fetus. The mother has the right of self-defense, but she does NOT have the right to murder. The key question is when a fetus becomes a human being. Pro-life libertarians believe it starts earlier than pro-abortion libertarians.

    In addition, there is also the legal principle of meeting force with equivalent force. You may not slay a trespasser you find on your property if he is not threatening you. For example, if come home to find a robber passed out on your living room floor, you may not put a gun to the sleeping head and pull the trigger. Thus, even if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is trespass, you are still not justified in killing the unborn human being. Only when the mother's life is in jeopardy is abortion justified.

    http://www.l4l.org

  • ||

    Are you stating that the Federal government has or should have a say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?

    I am saying that since the federal government does have a say on things (whether you agree with it or not) the libertarian thing to do is to act in a way that protects freedoms of people even if it means stopping a state from discriminating.

    Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the marriage business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it easier for states to say "well you are married in Mass. but we don't recognize it in Kansas". That's a bullshit policy that allows discrimination and limits freedom regardless of it happening at the state level.

    I am saying that Federalism is not inherently libertarianism. Federalism is merely a check on central authority not a check on improper authority as a whole.

    (I;m going out to lunch now, so sorry if I drop out of the conversation.)

  • robc||

    Sulla,

    No, a Libertarian shouldnt violate the constitution to act in a Libertarian manner. There is a constitutional amendment process that is available.

  • ||

    Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases liberty while banning something (taking away your right to do) reduces liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty, then it is an important difference.

    Neu Mejican -- so ALLOWING someone to murder you increases liberty, while BANNING such murder reduces liberty? ALLOWING someone to dump radioactive wastes on your property increases liberty, while BANNING that dumping reduces liberty?

    Allowing and banning, depending on the framing, can be applied to either side of any issue.

    Increasing liberty consists of allowing you to do whatever you want (or banning others from stopping you from doing whatever you want), so long as you don't initiate aggression or harm another person.

  • ||

    iowan,

    LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all. It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity. It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy. And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies.

  • prolefeed||

    Dammit -- preview -- close italics tags. My bad.

  • Shane||

    "Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be involved."

    How is taking away the federal involvement not in line with that goal? How is allowing the federal involvement, even if to limit the state involvement, in line with that goal? Seems to me that the logical place to start would be the level that weilds the most power and work your way down the ladder.


    "Crime & food safety - both have an important role"

    But what are the differences between the Federal role and the State role. Does the federal government in the U.S.A. have a legitimate role in either the sale of pastuerized milk or abortion as a crime or abortion as a health issue?

  • robc||

    For example, if come home to find a robber passed out on your living room floor, you may not put a gun to the sleeping head and pull the trigger.

    That kind of thing varies by state. I would have to look up the KY laws to try to figure out that scenario for sure, but I might be okay since he is inside the house. Passed out in my yard - no, in the living room - maybe yes.

    Not that I would shoot someone in that situation, but I "legally" might be allowed to.

  • ||

    even if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is trespass


    Brandybuck,

    Way to dismiss and gloss over an important point. Oh wait, it's "silly". Women are silly, aren't they? Tee hee

  • ||

    Edward | December 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

    With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....


    Hey Ed.....wheres my fucking lawsuit?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Brandybuck,

    This is an example where life is more complicated than the simplistic axioms of libertarian philosophy.

    The question is not just about "human being" or not. The point at which that being becomes autonomous is more the crux of the issue. While still in the womb, the baby is part of the mother's body. She has control of her body, so she gets to decide what happens to that part of her body.

    At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part of the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate dividing line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."

    It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide. The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for you.

  • Dr. Phibes||

    I gotta start working on a uterus extraction/re-installation procedure to eliminate this issue once and for all

  • Shane||

    smacky- our bad, should have noticed from your first post on the issue that you weren't interested in a discussion. bigots, yes we're bigots, end of conversation, you don't have to go any further than bigots, and "women-haters" if that helps.

  • ||

    LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus children as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus child at all. It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity. It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy childhood. And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies whether to abandon their children by a roadside or kill them if they're posing inconveniences.

    Carried your argument a few months further, smacky. Still good with that formulation? Or willing to admit that its not as cut and dried as you posit?

  • Jay D||

    smacky,

    Ron Paul is 100% reproductive freedom. He has no interest in telling anyone they must reproduce or must not reproduce.

    Once the reproduction process has, in fact, been initiated however...

  • ||

    smacky -- feel free to substitute "infant" for "child" in my 2:19 post, if you want to limit the scope to just newly born infants incapable of surviving on their own.

  • Shane||

    "At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part of the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate dividing line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."

    It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide. The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for you."

    Or it could be argued that Ron Paul believes that the state doesn't have the inherit power to decide who is viable or not, who's life is worth protecting or not. He might see it as protecting all human beings regardless of viability, personhood status, autonomy, or current contribution to society, from harm/force. No different than keeping a coma pateint from being raped, or an alzheimers patient from being used for medical experiment without their consent, even if they are already dying or have a great possibility of dying. wether someone is likely to survive without assistance isn't sufficient justification to allow to be murdered, you are not talking about allowing them to die, but of actively bringing about that death.

  • robc||

    prolefeed,

    Algebra. Everyone knows you can abort until they can do algebra. Higher math causes the soul to enter the body.

  • Pro-state? Stay away from my ||

    Without a state, there absolutely would be abortions.

    Now, if you want to frame the question as homicide, you have to ask yourself if there would be more homicides WITH a state or WITHOUT one. I'm gonna reflect on the 1940's and modern Africa before I answer that one...

    WITH!

  • ||

    smacky,
    It's ladies like you that made me run for this position.
    To stop alien invaders:
    Keep yer fookin knees closed!

  • Neu Mejican||

    prolefeed,


    How that is framed, of course, matters.

    We are talking about two particular acts by Ron Paul. I framed them very carefully to highlight the distinction in how those particular acts differ.

    If you want to switch it around go ahead, but the distinction remains. In one case Paul is on the side of increasing individual liberty, in the other is his on the side of reducing individual liberty. The two positions are not equivalent.

  • ||

    Shane,

    I'm not the one who started with the accusations of bigotry. And my comments weren't implying the label of "women-hater", I was just saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so obviously lack a grasp of the concept of pregnancy.


    prolefeed,


    Wow, what can I say? Other than I am not impressed with your completely off-the-mark attempts at having a point.

  • robc||

    From a very picky and technical reading of the KY statutes (which is how I hope a DA would do it in this case), I can use physical force, but not deadly force, against the dude passed out in my living room.

    Physical force is allowed against someone committing criminal trespass, burglary, robbery or other felonies involving force.

    Deadly force is allowed against someone commiting burglary, robbery, or other yadda yadda yadda.

    I guess once he passes out, he is no longer doing any of the other things so is only, at that point, trespassing.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    If that is what Paul believes (he does), then he should do whatever he can to restrict the rights of mother's to have an abortion (he does).

    His position is smart, tactical, and very much about finding a way to use state power to limit a specific right that is currently protected with federal power.

  • ||

    No different than keeping a coma pateint from being raped, or an alzheimers patient from being used for medical experiment without their consent, even if they are already dying or have a great possibility of dying.


    Shane,

    Yeah, it is way different. I'm not having this discussion anymore. I'm sick of these idiotic scenarios posited by brainwashed pro-lifer scum.

  • prolefeed||

    Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the marriage business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it easier for states to say "well you are married in Mass. but we don't recognize it in Kansas". and that's a bullshit policy that allows discrimination and limits freedom regardless of it happening at the state level the government, at all levels, should quit arbitrating who is or is not married, leave that up to individuals and/or their church of choice to decide for themselves, and treat us all as individuals.

    You can't increase freedom by giving the federal government more power over this issue (or pretty much any other issue).

  • toddb||

    Wow...if this thread doesn't illuminate the pointlessness of discussing abortion as a political issue, nothing does. Here you have a group of intelligent people who are mostly of a mind with regard to their beliefs in protecting the rights of the individual and their interest in avoiding abuses of the state...and they can't even agree on the basic DEFINITIONS pertinent to the discussion.

    That's why I like decentralization as the most rational default on this question.

  • ||

    O M F G !

    I can't even see straight now.

    > takes ball and trundles home---

  • Shane||

    "I was just saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so obviously lack a grasp of the concept of pregnancy."

    Well i am a young man, the father of 2 other males,a nd the lover of a women is is studying to be an ebryologist and works at a local obgyn.

    i'm also a reasonable person.

    I think i can talk about when life begins and when rights are afforded to individuals.

    i believe a human being has inalienable right from the moment of existence as a member of the human race and that those rights can not be seperated from that individual at any point of that life, not pre-birth, not after brain damage, not after going senile.

    Everything i know about science, biology, and bioethics, tell me that a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a child, are all the same organism at various stages of life, and to claim that rights are not afforded to that human being at certain stages of that life has no place in consistent libertarian philosophy.

    to me at least.

    I don't need to be a woman to have a say about humanity, reproduction, natural rights, or life and death.

  • Neu Mejican||

    toddb,

    The most decentralized position is to allow the individual to decide.

    Ron Paul supports a position way up the ladder from the decentralized position.

    He wants to allow a central authority to decide, rather than leaving it up to the individuals involved.

    The current federal law protects the decentralized solution.

    Full stop.

  • ||

    You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated medical condition.

    Hey, you're always free to hurl yourself down a staircase.

  • Shane||

    "Yeah, it is way different. "

    How and why? again, i'm trying to have a discussion and you hit me back with "idiotic" and "brainwashed scum", after you state you are not goiung to continue the conversation. so you refuse to defend your position, call me names, and then leave.

    nice.

  • ||

    well at a minimum, carlson's article is lightyears better than anything chapman has written for reason so far

  • ||

    I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I believe that a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.

    And I believe that position is anything but libertarian.

    The state should not be allowed to kill people, even people who have killed others. Nor should it turn a blind eye to those who have had their right to life violated.

    The state's role is to protect the rights of its people and protect it's peoples rights from being violated by others.

    Not to violate rights as long as it's done at the local enough level.

  • Sulla||

    The most decentralized position is to allow the individual to decide.

    smacky, neu mejican, any other abortion rights supporter-

    Do you support an unlimited right to abort until a fetus is born?

    I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy (the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible choices considered.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree to disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently oppose -- so that, at best, you will have freedom about half the time, and at worst, far less than half the time (assuming politicians from both major parties are intent on increasing their own power at our expense).

    I used to hold similarly benign views about federal power, before the Republicans started spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, abrogating habeus corpus, etc. That snapped me out of partisan mode after a period of increasingly strained rationalizations. I suppose if the Democrats wind up controlling the White House, the House of Representatives, and get 60+ votes in the Senate, the inevitable excesses might snap you out of your notion that leftish politicians can be trusted with lots of power, unlike those sumbitches on the right.

  • ||

    I support a mother's unlimited right to abort her child until the moment of birth.

    After birth I support both parents right to abort the child.

    At least until the little bastard gets a paper route.

  • toddb||

    Neu Mejican,
    Yeah...got that, and that's why my own personal position would probably come closest to the same conclusion. But, given that I think reasonable arguments can be made for many positions and that consensus is impossible, I never pay a lot of attention to this issue to judge a candidate. As long as RP is advocating a general roll-back of the massive scope, intrusion and expense of the federal government, I can easily overlook whatever his position is on a no-win, contentious issue like abortion.

    Gotta run...enjoyed the conversation all.

  • ||

    All very interesting on a Friday. But isn't anyone going to link to Air Force Amy?

  • Shane||

    I can't help but laugh, someone who probably agrees with me on 90% of the issues will call me "brainwashed scum" over the remaining 10%...

    now i feel like a "real" libertarian. :)

  • ||

    Warren,
    That's cold man.

    you should allow for grass cutting and babysitting imho.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Sulla,

    I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy (the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible choices considered.

    At some point, maybe. I think viability is a pretty good rule of thumb (and that gets earlier all the time). But I am not sure it is the state's job to punish someone who makes a very difficult choice that is different.

    The trouble comes in enforcement.

    If the child deserves protection from the mother while still in the womb, what other forms of protection are allowable? Can she be stopped from drinking alcohol? From smoking? Should she be forced to get prenatal care? To eat nutritious food? How much of the mother's autonomy can be sacrificed for the child's benefit?

    Leaving it up to the family and the doctors allows these decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

  • ||

    I'd love to see the overlap between animal rights advocates and those holding 100% pro-choice positions. IMRO, at some point a feus is a "person" and deserving of state protection. I reject the position that passing through the birth canal intact is that point.

    Yeah smacky, I'm a paternalistic, bigoted, misogynistic bastard if that will make you feel morally superior.

  • iowan||

    First I apologize for posting and runing, but I wanted to respond before I head out the door.


    LOL...

    Well, I glad I didn't offend you.

    you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all.

    We disgree, the fetus is the only point.

    It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity.

    The woman in question freely gave charity to the sperm that was permitted access to the womb.

    It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy.

    However, that charity results in a personal, moral responsbility for the end product of that charity.

    Again, "aliean invader" is about a de-humanizing as it gets.

    And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies.

    I view all people, women and men, as being fully equal in rights and responsibilities. You may choose to engage in any sexual behavior with anyone other adult at any time in any fashion.

    But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That goes both ways, for women and men.

    And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . . well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.

  • Neu Mejican||

    JsubD,

    That Venn diagram would look a lot like the pro-life, pro-death penalty one.

  • ||

    Shane,

    It's basically your libertarian bar mitzvah.

  • ||

    Sulla,

    I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of its mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.

    Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no primordial soup for you.

  • dhex||

    The question is not just about "human being" or not.

    the only thing i will put forth into the worm blender is that this is, i believe, really the crux of the issue.

  • Russ 2000||

    I have to agree with smacky here. I mean, everyone here already knows that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiying abortions isn't going to stop them, it'll just make them worse. That was basically the point made when states began to allow it - the same logic used in the argument against alcohol and drug prohibition.

    The inconsistency in libertarianism isn't nearlay as bad as the inconsistency in pragmatism.

  • Shane||

    "I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of its mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.

    Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no primordial soup for you."

    so self-sufficiency is the yardstick we use then?

  • ||

    ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree to disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently oppose

    prolefeed,

    we agree more than we disagree. I agree with much of what you were saying. I too am leery of giving the feds too much power. But I also want to limit the states power to do things I wouldn't want teh feds doing either.

    Furthermore, I guess I feel that -- considering the system we have and the reality of what it is, I don't believe that there will be a successful rollback of fed power. The next best thing to me would be to get people in there who are willing to work withand do things to protect the rights of individuals.

    Finally, let me add that, with regard to Ron Paul, even if he does think,as you do, that it's better/safer to take a federalist stance with regards to his voting and the bills he supports and restrict the power of the fed and not use it to protect rights, I still believe that in order to consider him libertarian, he should at least be espousing/pushing the idea that it's wrong for states to do these things as well.

    Instead his public statements have been typical federalist positions that don't push the idea of freedom and liberty from the tyranny of government, but merely from the tyranny of federal government.

    That is what I find the most disappointing. At a time when he has one of the biggest platforms ever, his message seems to be merely a federalist one rather than a libertarian one.

  • Shane||

    "I mean, everyone here already knows that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiying abortions isn't going to stop them, it'll just make them worse."

    That still depends on if we are talking about an individual or property. If you are someone who believes it to be the murder of another human being then that's not much of a rationalization as you would have to apply that same logic to other forms of murder.

  • Brandybuck||

    At some point between the conception and birth, the fetus becomes a human being endowed with the same unalienable rights as all other human beings. It is my contention that any born or unborn child past that point has the unalienable right to life, and that if government has any legitimate roles at all, one of them must be to defend that life.

    To some people that point is conception. To others it is when the baby is fully clear of the birth canal. To most, I suspect, it is somewhere in between. But regardless of when that is, the libertarian philosophy is opposed to any initiation of force against that entity after the threshold of humanness been reached.

    Therefore the blanket statement that libertarians must be pro-choice in regards to abortion is misguided. Libertarians can legitimately hold a pro-life position.

  • ||

    But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That goes both ways, for women and men.

    And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . . well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.


    J sub D,

    You were saying something about moral superiority?


    So now the government's in charge of enforcing personal responsibility, Brandybuck? Are you sure the pro-life movement is not just a little bit of schadenfreude courtesy of the morally superior? I do wonder...

  • ||

    Smacky reminds me of a kid who when it becomes obvious they're losing a game of checkers decides to swipe the board off the table and trundle away in tears.

  • ||

    Akhbar,

    Ha, that's a very cute analogy. Shane reminds me of someone who uses contorted and dissimilar analogies to morally browbeat a -- oh, wait! That is what he's doing.

  • ||

    If I believe that the female of the species is of no value to humanity until she is able to reproduce said species, can I kill them at will? If not, why not. If not, what govt. office should regulate my will to kill the useless girls?

  • Neu Mejican||

    So for those who are supporting a government role in this decision...

    What crime is appropriate?
    Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?
    Manslaughter?

    Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?

    How would you enforce it?

    Do the doctors also get punished?
    Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?

    Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?

  • Shane||

    "Shane reminds me of someone who uses contorted and dissimilar analogies to morally browbeat a -- oh, wait! That is what he's doing."

    So counter it! If my arguements are flawed or illogical or just stupid, then show me where and show me up. I'm not claiming superiority over anyone, and if i'm mistaken in my beliefs then please point out where you think that is. I'm not the one calling names and quitting.

    I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think they should be protected from harm just as much as other humans.

    Not trying to brow beat, just showing where i'm coming from.

  • ||

    Whoa, somebody went off of their meds today. And I don't mean me.

  • Chucklehead||

    Aw man... this thread has become crap. And on a Friday. Before the holidays, even.

  • ||

    Well, people might be a bit nicer if you didn't resort to immature name calling and throw hissy fits when things don't sem to b going your way. I tgought you said you were done with this thread anyway? Anywho, here's a nice article from Gene Callahan that puts up a god defense of the anti-abortion libertarian position. You'll probably find it reductionist but it's a good read none the less. http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html

  • Chucklehead||

    Planning on moving to China brotherben? ;-)

  • Neu Mejican||

    re: punishment

    The compromise position...given a state-mandated medical condition.

    Abortion is illegal.

    Punishment, time served.

  • Chucklehead||

    I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think they should be protected from harm just as much as other humans.

    That'll cause the tax rates to go up.

  • ||

    chucklehead,
    nah, just picking an arbitrary position on murder. that would make me pro-choice.

    imho, life beginning at conception is the only morally defensible position in the abortion debate.

  • ||

    The problem is that libertarians, a lot of them, anyway, tend to believe the Constitution is an important document to take seriously. In reality, the real question is not what level of government has a right to prohibit, but what form of government will do the least prohibiting. Always pushing for state's rights and decentralization is one strategy for achieving this, but not necessarily the only strategy. The argument is over strategy.

  • Fluffy||

    Shane:

    There's a pretty simple reason that the pro-choice position is the libertarian position.

    If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply because the fetus is in a position of complete dependence - and if the state can use the police power to enforce that obligation - then it seems to me that all of us would be obligated to care for any and all persons in a state of dependence, and that the state would be entitled to use the police power to enforce that obligation. But that would make state socialism enforced by terror the most moral form of government. Since I don't want to be trapped into that conclusion, I am forced to posit that the woman does not in fact have such an obligation.

  • Shane||

    "What crime is appropriate?"

    Murder

    "Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?"

    yes

    "Manslaughter?"

    no, murder.

    "Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?"

    Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.

    "How would you enforce it?"

    With evidence presented at trial.

    "Do the doctors also get punished?"

    Yes

    "Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?"

    Depends on their role, but i would imagine it would be murder.

    "Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?"

    Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.

    Whatever you would charge someone who killed a 9 year old, 6 year old, 3 year old, or newborn is what i think you should charge someone who kills or helps to kill or hires to kill a preborn. If it ain't in self-defense it's murder.

  • Fluffy||

    Shane,

    Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will starve to death this year?

    They would live, if only you would feed them. Maybe you can hook yourself up to a really long placenta whose other end is in the Sudan.

  • Shane||

    "Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will starve to death this year?"

    We're talking about termination not neglect. You can't charge me for not supplying them food, You can charhe me if i dismemberone or more of them, even if a doctor helps me to do so.

  • Dave D||

    Brandybuck hit the nail on the head.

    Smacky, I am rabidly pro-choice. But that has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. If a Libertarian thinks that a fetus is a person and thus part of the "social contract," then of course it should be protected from violence.

  • Jay D||

    Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive!



    Don't forget the complimentary "I survived an abortion and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" T-shirt.

    When the child grows up, she should have something to remember this tender loving moment with.

  • ||

    What crime is appropriate?

    Furthermore,

    what about a pregnant mother engaging in behavior like riding a horse, or speeding or drinking while pregnant?

    If a fetus has the exact same rights as a human, then any action a mother takes that may or does cause a miscarriage would be a variation of manslaughter?

    The position that a fetus has the exact same rights as a born person leads to inane outcomes.

    If it ain't in self-defense it's murder

    Until the baby is viable, it is equivalent to a parasite. It cannot exist without feeding off of the mother. If the mother doesn't want a parasite feeding off of her, could that not be self defense?

  • Fluffy||

    Shane -

    It would be pretty straightforward to reconfigure most early pregnancy abortions as removals, not dismemberments. Not to mention the fact that RU-486 does not involve surgery at all.

    What then?

  • Shane||

    "If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply because "

    before we get to "simply because", does she have an obligation to care for her offspring? What's the libertarian position on child abuse/neglect? Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function of the state to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and food to my minor children?

    If the answer is yes, and i and/or their other parent are legally and ethically obligated to provide care for our minor children, then why should it be any different for this woman?

  • ||

    Did anyone see that episode of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia where it turns out that Charlie survived an abortion attempt? I don't know but for some reason this thread reminded me of it...

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    Thanks.
    We are clear on your position.

    Now, how do you feel about punishing mothers who assault their children by drinking alcohol, or smoking?

  • ||

    Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility?

    Adoption?

  • Shane||

    Neu Mejican-

    I guess it would depend on what amount of harm was caused, or if you can even prove harm was done. Drinking around children causes no physical harm that i know of, though a parent forcing a child to drink against their will could and should be prosecuted. A parent allowing a child to drink or smoke, not my concern as i don't really see that as "causing harm" unless you're talking about use of force.

  • Shane||

    "Adoption?"

    Well adoption isn't murder or neglect is it?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    By the way, I am very much on your side when it comes to the concept of rights being inextricably linked to responsibilities.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    I am talking about drinking or smoking while pregnant. The link to harm is well established.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    So that would be...

    How do you feel about punishing a mother for assaulting her child by forcing them to drink which harms their development?

  • Dave D||

    One other note - I always find it strange when someone wants to ban abortion but is willing to make an exception for rape or incest. I mean, if abortion is murder, how can it be justified just because the mother was raped? Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE". If (like me) you do NOT see abortion as murder, why should it be any rarer than any other birth control method? Granted it's a bit pricier.

    Abortion is one of those issues where I understand the extreme positions, but not the "moderate" ones.

  • Fluffy||

    Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function of the state to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and food to my minor children?

    There are a number of different ways in which citizens can legally abandon their children. So I guess the answer is No, huh?

  • Shane||

    Fluffy- Use of RU-486 would be too difficult to prove, and i'm not for banning or restricting possession of it, but if it can be proven that is the method used to kill the individual then yes, prosecute.

    removal not dismemberment: You are still describing an action that has been taken with the purpose of ending a life, not feeding the sudanese is not an action intended to cause them death.

  • Neu Mejican||

    not feeding the sudanese is not an action intended to cause them death

    Talk about your philosophical slippery slope.

    Defining the nature of action.
    Tough.

    Isn't making a choice that you know will lead to a particular end morally equivalent no matter the nature of the acts involved?

  • Shane||

    "How do you feel about punishing a mother for assaulting her child by forcing them to drink which harms their development?"

    Well, i'm not a lawyer so i don't know how a prosecutor would procede with something like that. I would guess it would be a matter of intent. Sort of like if you knowingly pass HIV to someone else who wasn't aware that you were doing so.

    I'm not a lawyer, judge, or law maker, so i don't know what laws would be applied or how, besides that, to me how you would enforce those laws are secondary to ensuring the protection of life.

  • Shane||

    "There are a number of different ways in which citizens can legally abandon their children. So I guess the answer is No, huh?"

    "legally abandon" being the code phrase here. A mother can drop off a newborn at a safe haven without fear of prosecution, if she lives a newborn in a dumpster or on a park bench and harm comes to that newborn she will be prosecuted, no?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    Doesn't the warning label on the bottle/pack or cigarettes get rid of that defense? The mother has to be knowingly harming the child (unless she can't read perhaps) when she engages in the activity (ignoring, for the moment that the consequences are complex).

  • Neu Mejican||

    Anyway,

    I am outta here.

  • ||

    Wanted:
    One exceptionally wealthy benefactor to purchase a block of time on a major broadcast TV network and finance the production of a medical documentary showing the various surgical procedures implemented to remove unwanted fetuses from human women.

  • Brett||

    Damn, saw the H&R post, read the Carlson article (which was excellent, IMHO), then hit the comments section for what I thought would be a nice, Friday RP love-a-thon. Then...BAM!

    What toddb said at 2:32pm.

  • Shane||

    "Doesn't the warning label on the bottle/pack or cigarettes get rid of that defense? The mother has to be knowingly harming the child (unless she can't read perhaps) when she engages in the activity (ignoring, for the moment that the consequences are complex)."

    Again i'm not a lwayer, law enforcer, or judge, but i would venture yes, if it was reasonable to assume her actions would lead to the death or harm of another person, if she knowingly infringes on the liberty of another person, she should be prosecuted for doing so.

  • Shane||

    "Isn't making a choice that you know will lead to a particular end morally equivalent no matter the nature of the acts involved?"

    agreed, that is a slippery slope.

    I would say that some common sence and reason would be used here. Did my actions have a direct result of harming someone else? was it reasonably foreseeable to me that harm would occur to another person as a direct result of my actions or inaction?

    Do i have more of an obligation toward my 3 year old than i do toward the homeless guy i see on the freeway? i would think so.

  • Brandybuck||

    So now the government's in charge of enforcing personal responsibility, Brandybuck?



    Do you even bother to read my posts before responding? Sheesh...

  • ||

    Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE".

    It's easy to understand it if you just look at it the right way. It's a turn of phrase to keep people from feeling uncomfortable about it -- and prevent pro-lifers from labeling people who want aboriton legal (and those who get them) as advocating abortion as a form of birth control.

    Most people believe in keeping abortions legal. They also find the concept icky. The point of this is to reinforce the notion that abortion is a painful decision that people make and is a big deal and not merely a form of birth control.

    Personally, I have known many people who have had abortions, and none of them did it callously nor did they find it an easy choice to make. They weren't sluts or irresponsible people overall. And it was the most heart-wrenching decision they ever had to make.

  • Shane||

    "The point of this is to reinforce the notion that abortion is a painful decision that people make and is a big deal and not merely a form of birth control."

    But why? if it's not a real person and it's about as morally questionable as clipping a toenail or getting a tumor removed, why would it be such a painful or heart-wrenching experience. getting my tooth pulled isn't, neither is using a condom. why is abortion so distasteful?

  • ||

    why is abortion so distasteful?




    Maybe you're just not using the right seasonings.

  • Shane||

    smacky again with the smartass non-answer.

    think i'm done with this today.

  • ||

    Shane,

    It's NOT a painful, heart-wrenching experience for plenty of people. I'm sure for SOME people it is, some people even wince when they have to kill a pest that has intruded into their living quarters. And for others it's not.

  • ||

    My catch-all solution - morning after pills provided by a local charitable organization. If they were available discreetly and for free/low cost, no more market for abortions.

    Who wants to start a non-profit?

  • ||

    But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That goes both ways, for women and men.

    And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . . well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.

    J sub D,

    You were saying something about moral superiority?


    A) That wasn't from anything I posted.
    B) It is the way I've lived my life.

    If the rubber breaks (and when you're hung like me that is a constant worry :-P ) I'm possibly fucked. Y'know, taking responsibility for your own actions? Many do it.
    I'm not a 100% pro-lifer by any means.
    A zygote is not a person.
    A fetus at eight months developement is.

  • Dave D.||

    "It's a turn of phrase to ... prevent pro-lifers from labeling people who want abortion legal (and those who get them) as advocating abortion as a form of birth control."

    I guess that's what I find strange, as I DO advocate abortion as a form of birth control. Actually, by definition it is a form of birth control whether I advocate it or not. Granted, it's preferable to use a condom or whatever, but that is due to cost (and of course the inherent risk of any medical procedure), not due to any moral issues.

    Then again, I'm not a woman. I would imagine most women are hard-wired to want to protect their fetus; millions of years of evolution is pretty good at that kind of thing. So I can see how it would be a wrenching decision on a personal level. I just do not see why society in general would want to reduce the number of abortions.

    On a related note, it REALLY annoys me that one can be charged with murder/manslaughter if one assaults a woman and ends up killing her fetus. Either a fetus is a person or it isn't. Now, I wouldn't mind having a special law against destructing someone else's fetus that carried mega jail time, or even life in prison, since destroying someone's fetus is very traumatic to the mother. But calling it murder is inconsistent with being pro-choice.

  • ||

    Heh. Ultimately, I see no difference between the topics of abortion and Terry Sciavo.

    Yes, a zygote is a living entity. So is a liver fluke. Whether life begins at conception is irrelevant, because status as an organism is not a meaningful factor in the debate. Status as a human individual is the crux, and it's a terribly hard line to draw, and erring on the side of caution might be reasonable; so I fully understand the pro-life libertarian position.

    Yes, a pregnant woman is harboring a parasite. That's what a fetus is. Just because it's a parasite which is generated by her own body and is probably capable of becoming a human, does not necessarily mean it is a human yet. I wonder if anyone else remembers a Monty Python skit with the Catholics singing, "Every sperm is sacred!" because they might be people one day too. Even beyond this, the position that one individual has no inherent duty to care for another at personal cost is reasonable; so I fully understand the pro-choice libertarian position.

    Frankly, I'm with Warren on this one. But regardless of my personal opinion, the most important fact is that there are divergent opinions on this matter, all of which arise from principled consideration. This being the case, Paul's position on the matter (make these decisions as locally to the concerned individuals as possible) strikes me as the only pragmatic policy solution.

  • ||

    What crime is appropriate?
    Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?
    Manslaughter?
    Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?
    How would you enforce it?
    Do the doctors also get punished?
    Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?
    Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?

    Those questions should be struggled and dealt with by those who advocate "personhood" for a fetus. Myself included. It would, and should be, a long passionate discussion.

    For all those who have the morally certain 100% answers on abortion, I envy your surety. Don't necessarily respect your critical thinking though.

  • ||

    That first part should have indicated a Neu Mejican post. Oops.

  • Mr. Lechter||

    Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE".

    Me neither. I prefer medium-well myself.

  • Dave D||

    I do find it annoying that RP voted for the federal ban on partial birth abortions, with him being Mr. States Rights and all. He says he did it to counteract Roe v. Wade, which he sees as a bad ruling (as do I). That, IMHO, is pretty lame: RP claims to only vote for things authorized by the constitution, which in this case he obviously didn't.

  • Pedant||

    This being the case, Paul's position on the matter (make these decisions as locally to the concerned individuals as possible) strikes me as the only pragmatic policy solution.

    As has been pointed out up-thread, this is not Paul's position. Paul supports having a government make the decision. As close to the concerned individuals as possible is the "pro-choice" position. Paul is not pro-choice.

  • ||

    For all those who have the morally certain 100% answers on abortion, I envy your surety. Don't necessarily respect your critical thinking though.

    Well, for some of us (read: women), the practical issues might be a weighty consideration. Weighty like carrying a bowling ball around in your abdomen for a few months, accompanied by violent illness.

    It would, and should be, a long passionate discussion.

    A private medical decision "would, and should be" a long and passionate discussion for others? I really don't think it's anyone else's business.

  • ||

    Dave D,

    For what it's worth, I recall an interview with Paul (I believe it was the News Hour one) in which he said that his vote on the partial-birth bill was a hard choice for him, and he's not entirely sure he made the right decision.

  • Neu Mejican||

    JsubD,

    So you don't like my "time served" solution.

    And here I thought I had solved the whole abortion debate in two simple words.

    Damn...

    Back to the drawing board.

  • ||

    I'm simply pointing out that advocating that some parts of the country should be allowed to oppress women with statist oversight is not compatible with true love of freedom.

    Our system is (supposed to be designed) to protect freedom in a more global sense, by limiting the power of the federal government and reserving some/many issues to the states. Whether to criminalize abortion is an issue that, at first blush, is a state issue, not a federal issue.

    It becomes a federal issue if, and only if, criminalizing abortion violates one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Regardless of the merits of the abortion issue, its very hard to see that it does (Roe being a famously flawed opinion, what with its emanations of penumbras and all).

    Now, on the merits:

    A pro-life position is simply not consistent with libertarianism.

    This is well-plowed ground. If you believe that at some point a fetus becomes a person (and of course that's the Big If of abortion), then abortion is a violation of that person's rights, and the state can step in to criminalize abortion. This is a principled position consistent with libertarian philosophy. The argument is over the Big If, an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

    Most people agree that:

    A zygote is not a person.
    A fetus at eight months developement is.


    So maybe the real issue isn't the Big If, but the Big When, as in when do we deem a fetus to be a person.

  • David D||

    A private medical decision "would, and should be" a long and passionate discussion for others? I really don't think it's anyone else's business.

    Smacky, that's begging the question. the "long, passionate discussion" is to determine IF abortion is indeed a private medical decision, or if it is murder.

    Loved the seasoning comment, btw.

  • ||

    What's red and white and screams a lot?






    a peeled baby in a salt bag.

  • ||

    As close to the concerned individuals as possible is the "pro-choice" position.

    Only if you do not consider the fetus to be one of the concerned individuals. Many do, for the principled reasons I described above.

  • ||

    Raw Milk is catching on - it was once the "good milk" until a government and shitty milk company campaign changed people's age old perceptions of what "good" and "bad".

  • ||

    Why in the world is Tucker Carlson writing for The New Republic? I thought the magazine was on the rebound, but between this and giving Johah Goldberg a weekly platform to appear as a "serious thinker" it seems clear that this is not the case.

  • ||

    Brandybuck,

    Crap. Sorry about that. I accidentally attributed a comment to you that iowan had in fact made.

  • Dave D||

    Smacky's touchy-feely descriptions of pregnancy reminded me of this Onion article from a few months back.

  • Neu Mejican||

    tejon,

    Only if you do not consider the fetus to be one of the concerned individuals.

    That's a nice try...

    The fetus's family has a closer connection to the child than the state, no?

  • Shane||

    "Just because it's a parasite which is generated by her own body and is probably capable of becoming a human, does not necessarily mean it is a human yet. I wonder if anyone else remembers a Monty Python skit with the Catholics singing, "Every sperm is sacred!" because they might be people one day too."

    Understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. A sperm is not a human it is a part of a human. A fetus might be considered a parasite, but it is not seperate species, at the least it's a parasitic human. a fetus is not "generated by her own body", the egg is, just as the sperm is generated from the males, whent the two haploid cells merge to become the 1 diploid cell what you have is no longer an egg or sperm but a seperate and new living organism, one that is human, not "one that has the potential to be human" that makes no sense. if it's not human what sepcies is it? a table leg?

    A new zygote and an 8 month old fetus are the same organism, the same, the only difference being developementally.

    So you can argue whether it is a "person" yet, but to deny that it is human is to deny established fact. It is human.

  • ||

    Neu Mejican,

    The father who rapes his daughter has a close connection too.

  • ||

    Okay, this is absolutely hilarious. I've got both camps arguing with me now, because I had the nerve to address both camps' arguments as valid and principled.

    Way to miss the point, guys.

  • Neu Mejican||

    tejon,

    I am pretty sure that there is wider agreement that the father raping his daughter is committing a crime than there is on the abortion issue.

    I thought we both agreed that the decentralized solution was motivated by the controversial nature of the act.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    You don't need to give us the biology lessons.

    We all understand the basics.

    Re: you position of RU-486... since what it does is prevent implantation, is it the same as abortion after implantation?

  • David D||

    The decentralized solution is for non-controversial stuff too; there is no reason to have a federal law banning a father from raping his daughter, to use your example.

  • ||

    A new zygote and an 8 month old fetus are the same organism, the same, the only difference being developementally.

    So you can argue whether it is a "person" yet, but to deny that it is human is to deny established fact. It is human.


    That is why I used the word person. Terry Schiavo was human until she passed. She had stopped being a person long before.

  • Neu Mejican||

    David D,

    True that, but we are talking about degrees of decentralization. The more controversial the issue, the more important that the solutions be left decentralized.

    For things that everyone agrees upon, the centralized solution steps on fewer toes than in the controversial cases.

  • ||

    Okay, this is absolutely hilarious. I've got both camps arguing with me now, because I had the nerve to address both camps' arguments as valid and principled

    That is a major impediment when discussing the issue. People get on their moral high horse and denigrate the morality of those that disagree. Compromise is verboten, and platitudes carry the day.

  • Neu Mejican||

    David D,

    And strangely, it is the most central segment of the government that protects the decentralized solution in this case, by limiting the power of the government actors that might interfere with the decentralized decision making.

  • Dave D||

    Terry Schiavo was human until she passed. She had stopped being a person long before.

    Sort of getting off topic here, but I was actually with the parents on this issue, assuming they were going to pay for her care. Schiavo was, for all intents and purposes, a breathing corpse, so it is not like she "cared" if she was kept alive or not. If the parents want to pretend that she sees them and smiles at balloons and all that, why not let them keep her around?

  • Neu Mejican||

    David D,

    To clarity.

    The federal law banning the father's raping of his daughter is federal power acting against an individual.

    In the case of federal abortion rights, the power of the central government limits the powers of government, not individuals.

    It is an important difference.

  • Shane||

    "You don't need to give us the biology lessons.

    We all understand the basics.

    Re: you position of RU-486... since what it does is prevent implantation, is it the same as abortion after implantation"

    im sure you are, i had my doubts about tejon whose post i was referring to.

    RU-486 before implantation: still murder, though you'd never get away with banning it for that reason nor should it be( after all, RU-486 doesn't kill people, people kill people). as far as law enforcement, i would think that would be too hard to enforce any ban on that pill or to come up with the evidence needed to charge anyone with a crime. I'm sure there is much more to it, but i honestly havent look too far into RU-486.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Shane,

    RU-486 doesn't kill people, people kill people

    I am sure that your average pro-choice libertarian agrees with you on both clauses in that statement...but for different reasons.

    I don't think you were going for a play on words, but my mind went right to it.

  • God||

    I bestowed the decision onto the woman carrying the fetus. Nuff said.

  • ||

    NM: Yes, there is a wider agreement over incestuous rape than over abortion (ironically more because of the incest than the rape, but I digress). I don't think that makes it a poor analogy. It can easily be called a precedent.

    All I'm saying here is that it can be argued by reasonable people in a principled manner that there is no obvious place to draw a line between humanity and mere fetushood, so we must err on the side of caution and protect the fetus as we protect other humans.

    I can't easily argue with this. I don't like it, but I can't just brush it aside. This is a difficult topic filled with gray, and nobody holds the moral high ground. Both camps are validly trying to protect someone's interest.

  • Shane||

    not to sound like an idiot but how do i use italics.

  • ||

    It's HTML, you can use either (emphasis, defaults to italic on most browsers but configurable by the user) or (italics).

    Just be sure to use a
    or tag at the end, otherwise you'll have italics to the end of your post (see my previous post). :P

  • ||

    Holy crap, Preview converted the escaped characters to real ones in the text box. That's annoying as all hell. :D

    Those were <em> (emphasis) and <i> (italics).

  • Shane||

    btw, i'm not trying to to take any type of moral high ground or anything, just presenting my case. This conversation about abortion came up because someone had the balls to say you can't be pro-life and be libertarian, i think we've at least covered that there is a libertarian defense for the pro-life position.

    also, i like raw milk, that stuff in the supermarket is nothing but sugar.

  • shane||

    tejon- thanx

  • ||

    </em> or </i> to close, too.

  • ||

    Shane,

    There's a defense for any sort of incorrect position. That doesn't make it right, or libertarian, for that matter. I was already well aware what the defense was.

  • Shane||

    There's a defense for any sort of incorrect position. That doesn't make it right, or libertarian, for that matter.

    I know, and so i forgive you for your defense of genocide knowing that at least you believe it to be consistent with your worldview.

    peace.

  • Shane||

    and yes, that was me taking the moral highground on that one.

  • ||

    Shane,

    You just keep on using the state to force your beliefs on the bodies of other people. Just try not to do this in the name of freedom.

  • Shane||

    ditto

  • ||

    shane - how is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg murder? Are you one of the "onan spilled his seed, so he murdered billions" school of thought? Or would he have had to get all onanistic over a steaming bowl of eggs for it to be murder?

    I guess the point I'm making is that this is all arbitrary line-drawing, and of course as with any arbitrary limit issue (drinking, age of consent, etc.) no one can ever be correct.

  • Neu Mejican||

    tejon,

    My problem with the rape to abortion analogy is the fact that in one case the central authority is acting against the individual (don't rape) and in the other against the state government (don't outlaw abortion).

    For that reason alone, I think it is inapt.

    But I think we are really pretty close on the issue.

    There are principled reasons on both sides of the issue.

  • Shane||

    Randolf Carter- see post @ 5:23pm

  • ||

    ok, understood - but isn't it true that during the first few days (I'm talking days 1 and 2) of pregnancy, there's no way to tell that a person's pregnant? If that's true, how can you kill something whose existence can't be proven?

    I am generally pro-life, so I'm not asking this in a needling way. I just think the morning after pill is the best idea in the world and should go out in cereal boxes. No more unwanted pregnancies!

  • Shane||

    "but isn't it true that during the first few days (I'm talking days 1 and 2) of pregnancy, there's no way to tell that a person's pregnant?"

    true, you don't know if you are killing something or not at that point, like shooting into the dark, but if the bullet hits...

  • ||

    I think it's more like being told that you've shot the invisible man but it can't be proven that you've shot him because he's invisible. Pretty tenuous.
    So just to be clear - you think that "life" begins at the moment of conception, and from that point on any attempt to stop it from becoming a baby is murder?

    Should there be a 3-day waiting period after sex for women so they can figure out if they're pregnant or not before they smoke or drink?

    I think your position is logically consistent and all, I just disagree.

  • Elemenope||

    The most hilarious part, of course:

    A fairly well-written piece by a fairly consistent blow-hard in a bow-tie about possibly pot-spiked brownies, prostitutes and the Federal Reserve on the campaign trail leads to a...

    GOD DAMNED MIRTHLESS discussion of fetuses, federalists and women and whether any or all of those three categories are human beings deserving of human rights (whatever the fuck those are).

    I read the article, and I laughed. I read the thread, and I cried. Roe v. Wade ruined American politics for two generations, for precisely the reason playing out here...that all the ethical thought and political platitudes and pragmatic instinct in the world are utterly useless in divining the moral valence of Abortion. Even the proverbial wisdom of Solomon would not avail against this Gordian knot.

    On second thought, Solomon would probably just cut the baby in half. See? Solomon's wisdom: radically pro-choice.

  • Shane||

    So just to be clear - you think that "life" begins at the moment of conception, and from that point on any attempt to stop it from becoming a baby is murder?

    I think that life begins at the moment of conception, and from that point on any attempt to "terminate" the human being that now exists is murder.

  • Barney||

    I like it un-homogenized, but still pasteurized. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the USDA is keeping me safe.

  • toddb||

    I've been gone for 3 hours and I see that the arguments have moved less than a millimeter. Let's see how many people have changed their minds?...oh yeah, none!

    Here's a question in a slightly different direction: Given that RP is personally pro-life and may have been a little inconsistent with his vote on this issue, how many here who would otherwise vote for him would not give him their vote because of it?

    I think it's a boon that he is socially conservative (whether I agree with his position or not) on this issue because the only way he is going to get any traction with enough Republican voters is if he can convince the so-cons he's one of them on abortion.

  • Neu Mejican||

    toddb,

    I think Ron Paul's positions on the issue are not a problem while he is in the legislative branch.

    I have a problem with his views on judicial power and individual rights once he is in a position to start appointing Supreme Court judges.

  • ||

    I know a whole bunch of folks,(hundreds,) that will choose a candidate based upon that one issue.
    Yes it is that important to millions of people. Agree with abortion or not, it wins and loses elections.
    toddb, I agree it is the best way for Paul to get the attention of the right, as they are getting desperate for a seemingly righteous candidate.

  • toddb||

    Neu Mejican,
    I might agree with you if I thought the topic would be central to the judges he would select, but I have a feeling this is not a topic that would even come up. I think he would be more concerned with selecting judges that could more rationally interpret the interstate commerce clause and the definition of the "general" welfare.

    I wouldn't pass on a chance to have some of those judges on the possibility that they would disagree with Roe v. Wade!

  • ||

    Worth repeating:

    How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.

    Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
    By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
    By word gaming. As Lenin advised, "First, confuse the vocabulary."
    By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
    By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
    By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
    By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
    By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
    By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
    By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don't report his reasoning.
    By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
    With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.

    But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

  • toddb||

    brotherben,
    Agreed, hence the rise of Huckabee...so-cons are willing to ignore the fact that he is the kind of governor that gets an 'F' grade from Cato on fiscal responsibility because he is a Baptist preacher who flies the pro-life flag loudly. I have nothing against Baptists, preachers, or those who cannot make peace with the concept of abortion, but it drives me crazy that anyone would make this issue their litmus test for candidates. And by the way, ditto for those on the pro-choice side.

  • Neu Mejican||

    toddb,

    I have a problem with Ron Paul's views on judicial power more broadly than just on the issue of abortion.

    He wants judges that agree with his interpretation of the constitution. Those that disagree are labeled "activist." He sees the judiciary as promoting an "activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove."

    I don't see it that way, and think he is likely to appoint judges that are activist in an opposite valance.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

  • Neu Mejican||

    Sage,

    But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

    I would disagree.

    1) Even his well reasoned positions are not always popular.
    2) He holds positions that are no more or less consistent with his stated principles than your average politician.

    He ain't a bad candidate, but he is far from flawless.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And Sage,

    You can see an example of an honest and courteous technical debate on one of his positions in this thread (starting around 1:30pm or so).

  • Neu Mejican||

    toddb, Sage,

    Ron Paul: "they dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated..." (from the link above)

    I have a problem with any politician that supports the idea of a "strict constructionist" judiciary.

    Wiki has a nice quote from Scalia on the issue of strict constructionism...

    Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, has said that he is "not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be,"[5] and has called the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." In contrast, he claims to look for the ordinary meaning of words, not their "strict" meaning.

    Hope Sage is not confused by an honest courteous debate about flaws in Ron Paul's positions.

  • ||

    He ain't a bad candidate, but he is far from flawless.

    Oh, I agree. I, for example, part ways with him on immigration, and to a certain extent on foreign policy. I think people should be able to come and go as they please. I also think that our chess pieces are spread out pretty far and trying to bring them all back at once could leave us highly vulnerable.

    But keep in mind that he would be fighting a recalcitrant Congress in trying to acheive his goals. Still, two steps forward and one back is better than vice-versa.

  • toddb||

    Neu Mejican,
    We would probably disagree a little about the judges. Conservatives have railed against "activist" judges which they identify as being willing to buck the legislature when they overreach constitutional bounds to pass legislation popular with their ideological constituents. Progressives no doubt would have problems with different judges for the same reasons/different ideology. I don't see the point in having anything but activist judges playing their proper role of drawing some kind of constitutional line in the sand. The proper definition of that line is debatable, but in my opinion is way out of whack right now.

    Sage,
    I agree that any fear about an out of control RP is kind of funny...no way he gets almost anything through Congress...he would be the ultimate veto wielding brick wall - stalling and sometimes stopping the usual crap that Congress tries to dump on us. That would make him as close to the perfect POTUS that we could hope for in this day and age...grind them to a halt for a couple of years and give us some breathing room!

  • ||

    I should also point out that the copypasta I served up above was directed at the folks trying to railroad the discussion with 'teh nazi' crap. Stick with the issues, yes?

    I do think he could use the bully pulpit to expose just how much waste and pork we're paying for. As others have said, he's already gotten his main goal - providing much more exposure to libertarian ideas.

  • toddb||

    Neu Mejican,
    Just had a chance to read that linked article...I see what you are troubled by and sympathize with your point. You are always going to have mixed results, but overall I would rather see judges acting as a brake on the system...even if it sometimes has a perverse result, the alternative is to open the doors wide to whatever power the central government wants to assert...this is great as long as the "right" type of people are in charge, but I don't like the potential consequences of that approach.

  • toddb||

    Yep...more than we could have hoped for...at least his campaign has raised awareness that there is an alternative way of looking at things that doesn't involve endless growth of the federal government.

  • ||

    the argument that his has been a federalist and not libertarian position on certain issues is pretty much a non sequiter. Even if it is a federalist argument, that doesnt necessarily remove him from the libertarian pool, since people can be both. His opposition to the WoD is certainly a libertarian stance for example (while also argued in federalist terms)

  • Neu Mejican||

    raza,

    Even if it is a federalist argument, that doesnt necessarily remove him from the libertarian pool

    Some federalist positions are consistent with libertarianism, some are not. Paul's federalist position on raw milk IS, his positions on abortion are NOT.

  • raza||

    Dunno how to italicize here, so bear with me..

    >Some federalist positions are consistent with >libertarianism, some are not.

    Perhaps, however people were saying such and such shows hes a federalist not libertarian, which doesnt make sense.

    >Paul's federalist position on raw milk IS, his >positions on abortion are NOT.

    Without going into the abortion debate, is it impossible to believe that the fetus represents a human being, while being libertarian? Personally I dont think the fetus is a person debate has anything to do with libertarian philosophy. And if you happen to be on "yes" side of the fetus is a person debate, then the correct libertarian position would be that of Ron Paul's i.e. protect the human being from harm by another human being.

  • ||

    This was a great article.

    I read someone say libertarians can't be pro-life. I know that's untrue because I am a pro-life libertarian.

    The logic is this: the unborn has rights which the mother can't infringe upon by killing.

    You can disagree, but I disagree with you and don't assume you're right just because you think the mother has rights. We think the unborn have rights.

    And also we know all the arguments like zygotes and stuff. We just disagree with your conclusion that it isn't human life. My stand is always, "I'm glad no one messed my my zygote." or Reagan's "I've noticed looking around the room that no one here who supports abortion was aborted theirselve."

    Last, I agree with Paul (who we all know is an OB/GYN) that we wont ever have zero abortions because sometimes they're needed.

    In conclusion, I support the woman's right to chose anything... but in the case of abortion, the baby should get a say....

  • Neu Mejican||

    raza,

    This has all been covered up-thread.

    I never claimed that you can not hold a libertarian pro-life position. Ron Paul's position, however, isn't an example.

    See ChicagoTom's posts above.

  • raza||

    Neu Mejican

    Apologies, I didnt go through the entire thread. However I did just now go through ChicagoTom's posts, and dont really find anything in there that would specifically address how he has a non-libertarian view of abortion. Yes he makes federalist arguments in both of those instances (abortion and milk) however that shows that hes a federalist, thats it.

    One may feel that he couldve taken the oppurtunity to further the libertarian cause, but isnt that kindof indicated in the kind of things he raises these arguments against? End WoD, maybe argued in federalist terms, but libertarian issue. Arguing against regulation of raw milk, again a libertarian issue. Pushing for free markets, internet privacy, online gambling etc.. againlibertarian, sometimes argued in federalist terms (if there is federal regulation involved im guessing thats the most convenient line of attack)

    Im not at all conversant in the history of the libertarian party and all the splits involved and factions, but I do feel its a strange idea that an erstwhile libertarian presidential candidate is not considered libertarian enough, merely on the idea that he has argued for (often libertarian causes) in federalist terms.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement