Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Anti-Necrophilia Candidate
Cato's David Boaz takes one glance at Mike Huckabee and asks "What fresh hell is this?"
Huckabee told the AP that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle," and called for isolating people with AIDS. That was a position, by the way, that the venerable Reagan had firmly rejected five years earlier. In 1997, then-Arkansas Gov. Huckabee pushed for a reaffirmation of the state's sodomy law, and in 1998 he compared homosexuality to necrophilia.
Huckabee says his rise in the polls can only be attributed to God's will. He endorsed the Southern Baptist Convention's declaration that "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." He says he entered politics to "take this nation back for Christ."
Huckabee is the least libertarian candidate in this race, and the whole column is worth a read. That said, Huckabee's christian universalism does lend itself to some libertarian-friendly positions. Despite the loathsome rhetoric he has adopted to placate the Tancredo/Dobbs cabal, Huckabee has more liberal instincts on immigration than any Democratic candidate. He is also the least likely drug warrior of any candidate other than Paul; Huckabee believes in redemption and he is not fond of locking up entire populations of young men. Here's the Houston Chronicle:
Dana Reece, another defense lawyer, told of one client who received a life sentence for selling six grams of crack cocaine. "He'd still be in prison today if it weren't for Governor Huckabee," Reece said. "How many politicians, she asked, would stick their necks out for a crack dealer?"
"This was a political hot potato, and he knew it," Cory Cox said of his former boss. "But he had a conviction that people could better themselves, and he was open-minded to the idea that a poor black man from east Arkansas convicted by an all-white jury just may have been a victim of injustice."
This seems like a good time to link to Radley Balko's "The Case of Cory Maye."
VM|1.8.08 @ 12:58PM|#
FUCK HUCK '08.
fuck you Huck supporters.
Huckabee's Paul's christian[ity]
universalism does lend itself to some
libertarian-friendly positions
|1.8.08 @ 1:04PM|#
It's good to know that if he gets the nomination that's as far
as he'll go.
I hope.
|1.8.08 @ 1:10PM|#
"He is also the least likely drug warrior of any candidate other
than Paul; Huckabee believes in redemption and he is not fond of
locking up entire populations of young men."
But he is anti-drug war for all of the wrong reasons. It is not
like Huckabee beleives in any sort of personal autonomy or
individual right to chose. Yeah, he doesn't want to lock people
forever for drug offenses. Instead, he would no doubt want to send
them to some faith based snakehandling drug in lieu of prison.
Thanks, but considering that alternative a few years in a real real
locked up pound you in the ass prison all of the sudden doesn't
seem so bad. Further his redemption view of criminal justice won't
just let petty drug offenders out of prison. As we have seen with
his record as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee would let a lot of
dangerous people out of prison. Like I have said before
"Hallaluhah, Jesus has saved his soul!!" is not much of a criminal
justice policy.
|1.8.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Despite the loathsome rhetoric he has adopted to placate the
Tancredo/Dobbs cabal, Huckabee has more liberal instincts on
immigration than any Democratic candidate.
Did you mean "Republican" there? Bill Richardson and Obama support
drivers licenses for Paperwork-Deprived America-Joiners.
Russ 2000|1.8.08 @ 1:12PM|#
and he is not fond of locking up entire populations of young
men.
Unless they're gay.
Robert|1.8.08 @ 1:13PM|#
I don't feel threatened by Huckabee the way I do by Giuliani,
Clinton, or McCain, because Huckabee's adverse policy prescriptions
are so far from the table that I don't think they'd ever be
significantly acted on, while the good stuff is moderate and
eminently doable.
To me the desideratum is that Paul do very well without getting
elected POTUS, while none of the above (or Edwards) except for
Huckabee get elected either. I'd be OK with Richardson, Obama,
Romney, or Hunter too.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 1:16PM|#
He is also the least likely drug warrior of any candidate
other than Paul
Wouldn't one have also thought the same about Reagan? Whoops.
|1.8.08 @ 1:16PM|#
I may be misjudjing the American people, but here goes.
Huckabee might charm the ignorant yahoos in Arkansas*, but it won't
fly outside of the bible belt.
* Before you complain, I'm well aware that all of you Arkansans
aren't ignorant yahoos. But most of your neighbors are.
|1.8.08 @ 1:17PM|#
"Huckabee's adverse policy prescriptions are so far from the
table that I don't think they'd ever be significantly acted on,
while the good stuff is moderate and eminently doable."
Oh but he is a big time leftists socially. He loves to tax and to
spend money. Further, since he is a Republican he could get away
with going along with whatever piece of socialism a Democratic
Congress dreamed up in the name of "bi partisianship". Yeah, he is
not going to be locking up anyone with AIDS or enacting a national
sales tax, but he could make one hell of a mess of things by
granting a Democratic Congress a wishlist of social programs.
|1.8.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Paperwork-Deprived America-Joiners.
As euphemisms go, that one doesn't pass muster. ;-)
|1.8.08 @ 1:20PM|#
And don't forget his love of state control and beleif in the government's ability to stop vices. His Christian do gooder view of morality and government power would fit hand in glove with nanny-state liberals on about 90% of the issues.
BakedPenguin|1.8.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Huckabee says his rise in the polls can only be attributed to God's will.
I can only hope that in a month or so, we'll be hearing about him
blaming his meteoric crash in the polls on Satan.
|1.8.08 @ 1:24PM|#
* Before you complain, I'm well aware that all of you
Arkansans aren't ignorant yahoos. But most of your neighbors
are.
My...my momma was from Texas.
I meant those other assholes. The ones who used to beat the shit
out of me.
|1.8.08 @ 1:28PM|#
So the man is convinced that the will of God for him is to ignore the conversion of lost souls to be head of a constitutionally Godless government? makes perfect sense.
|1.8.08 @ 1:30PM|#
"So the man is convinced that the will of God for him is to
ignore the conversion of lost souls to be head of a
constitutionally Godless government? makes perfect sense."
Yes because Jesus cares more about whether you smoke in front of
children than he does about your immortal soul.
|1.8.08 @ 1:32PM|#
"Wasn't Jimmy Carter kind of religious? Discuss."
Yes he was, but Democrats are allowed to be religous and invoke God
in the name of their causes.
|1.8.08 @ 1:32PM|#
And what part of Christianity was it that told Huck a national
smoking ban was like, a holy calling again?
My roommate here in the Trailer Park of Baghdad is from Arkansas,
and he says every day "not Huckabee...do you have any idea what
that man did to our state? What is wrong with America?"
And I can just shake my head and go "I dunno..."
I think that the candidates for President on the "R" side are
really interesting because they represent just about every faction
of the R coalition:
Paul's the conservo-libertarian
Mitt's the big-business K-Street Republican
Huck's the social/compassionate conservative
McCain's the militant/war-now, war-forever 'conservative'.
Giuliani's a Rockefeller Republican.
I hope this means that the Republican Party is headed for a
break-up. How much fun would that be? I would drink every night and
watch the party fragment....ahhhh....
|1.8.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Wasn't Jimmy Carter kind of religious? Discuss.
Proving that religiosity can also contain the seeds of ignorance,
asshole-ishness and fucktardery.
Apparently Carter's answer to "what would Jesus do?" is "wreck the
economy."
|1.8.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Carter wrecking the economy was the will of God so Reagan could be the new massiah.
|1.8.08 @ 1:38PM|#
"I hope this means that the Republican Party is headed for a
break-up. How much fun would that be?"
Loads of fun when you end up with a Democrat with a filabuster
proof majority in the Senate. Oh yeah, socialized medicine alla
Cannada and the UK, national bans on transfat and control over our
eating, trial lawyers suing and looting entire sectors of the
economy out of business. Yeah that would be so much fun. I would
just love to make the good old USA into New Labor Britian. Not that
I would I want the Republicans to have it all their way either, but
there are virtues to divided government.
|1.8.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Apparently Carter's answer to "what would Jesus do?" is
"wreck the economy."
Ahh, yes...Christ was the favorite philosopher of which popular pol
again?
I must have missed Matthew 99:14 "Go therefore and make war in all
nations, in the name of DEMOCRACY and WMDs and Mission
Accomplished"
Turn the other cheek indeed.
TLB|1.8.08 @ 1:40PM|#
More great journalism from Kerry Howley, truly one of the great thinkers of our times.
|1.8.08 @ 1:41PM|#
"I must have missed Matthew 99:14 "Go therefore and make war in
all nations, in the name of DEMOCRACY and WMDs and Mission
Accomplished"
That part comes right after "Invade Iran with 8 helicopters and
refuse to turn the lights on on your Christmas tree in order to
smite the infidels."
Bingo|1.8.08 @ 1:42PM|#
AR: It's already broken up, they just like the perks that come
with being part of 1 of the 2 mainstream parties.
The differences between the people that support Romney vs Huckabee
vs Paul could not be greater. Compared to the Dems, the GOP is
fragmented and divided along very strong ideological lines.
|1.8.08 @ 1:43PM|#
oh yeah, socialized medicine alla Cannada and the UK,
national bans on transfat and control over our eating, trial
lawyers suing and looting entire sectors of the economy out of
business.
Oh John...
As opposed to massive agricultural subsidies, Medicare Part D,
NCLB, massive raids on MMJ dispensaries, a significant decrease in
the transparency of government, a war that had nothing to do with
Terror, secret wiretaps, the aforementioned GITMO and
waterboarding, ridiculous amounts of deficit spending, the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security, the federalization of the
nation's airports, the signing and made-up constitutionality of
BCRA...
Do I need to go on?
The Republican Party needs culled and cleansed. I don't care if the
nation suffers in the short term. It's time conservatives went off
into the wilderness and figured out what the Old Republic was
supposed to be about!
Jacob|1.8.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Since when were free handouts to illegal, non-tax paying immigrants a libertarian position?
|1.8.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Layoff Jimmy Carter. He is, by all accounts, a nice guy and a good neighbor. Yeah, he was an utterly incompetent president. Just consider him a sterling example of the Peter Principle.
|1.8.08 @ 1:48PM|#
"The Republican Party needs culled and cleansed. I don't care if
the nation suffers in the short term. It's time conservatives went
off into the wilderness and figured out what the Old Republic was
supposed to be about!"
Wonderful, you can clense it and it can become the new libertarian
party and get 2% of the vote every year. Further, even if you got
your dream Republican Party, you could never undo the damage done
in the meantime. Once healthcare is socialized it will never go
back. God knows how many people it would kill. Further, show me one
shred of evidence all of the things you mentioned wouldn't just get
worse under the Democrats? I don't see it. Surely you are not dumb
enough to beleive the Democrats will pull out of Iraq? Like I said,
I wouldn't want anyone in charge completely. But if you kill off
the Republicans, you will end up with a one party liberal
democratic state. If you think Labor Britian is so swell or no
worse than the US, go live there sometime. The US for all its
faults is still substantially freer and better run than Europe. It
wouldn't be if the Democrats were allowed unchecked power.
|1.8.08 @ 1:51PM|#
"Layoff Jimmy Carter. He is, by all accounts, a nice guy and a
good neighbor."
A friend of mine's father is a retired Navy Seal. He drew the short
straw of having to teach the then first family how to scuba on one
of their vacations. For what it is worth, he Carter was the rudest
most disrespectful foul mouthed person he had ever dealt with. Yes
foul mouthed. I guess in private Carter swears like the sailor he
once was. Also, Carter was natorious for being nasty to secret
service agents. I really don't think Jimmy is a very nice guy.
|1.8.08 @ 1:51PM|#
As opposed to massive agricultural subsidies, Medicare Part
D, NCLB, massive raids on MMJ dispensaries, a significant decrease
in the transparency of government, a war that had nothing to do
with Terror, secret wiretaps, the aforementioned GITMO and
waterboarding, ridiculous amounts of deficit spending, the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security, the federalization of the
nation's airports, the signing and made-up constitutionality of
BCRA...
Do I need to go on?
No. That pretty much describes the accomplisments of the Bush
administration. It is also worth noting that for 6 years he was
aided and abetted by Republican majorities in the house and
senate.
Paul|1.8.08 @ 1:56PM|#
"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant
leadership of her husband."
HAA! Proof that this guy is a crackpot. Everyone knows that's the
role of the husband.
Fluffy|1.8.08 @ 1:57PM|#
John -
Somehow I doubt your commitment to "divided government" was as
outspoken when Karl Rove was slurring Max Cleland.
I find myself thinking that your paeans to divided government are
only sung when a bunch of shitty Republican candidates are about to
[deservedly] lose
During the 2002 midterms, were you out there campaigning for
Democrats for the House and Senate in order to maintain divided
government? Or were you whooping it up and delighting in the fact
that Bush and Cheney had timed the run-up to the Iraq War to
provide maximum benefit to the Republican Party?
|1.8.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I see, John, so I should support the Republicans because they're
an effective counterbalance to the same as
Democrats?
You're not making sense. I fell in love with the Republicans when
they talked about smaller government and individual responsibility.
The party betrayed me, and that pisses me
off.
They need to lose to find themselves.
Here's what's funny, John: I doubt you'd attack me with the same
vitriol if I wished for a Democratic crack-up. I don't care,
really, which party cracks-up, but I'm tired of the
Democan/Republicrat squishy center supermajority that rules our
lives.
|1.8.08 @ 2:11PM|#
"Here's what's funny, John: I doubt you'd attack me with the
same vitriol if I wished for a Democratic crack-up. I don't care,
really, which party cracks-up, but I'm tired of the
Democan/Republicrat squishy center supermajority that rules our
lives."
True because I am Republican and am convinced they would do less
damage. But I am not going to pretend they wouldn't do damage. They
would basically do the same thing the Democrats would do, loot the
treasury so thier buddies back home will get rich. I don't object
to the war in Iraq, so your whining about "needless wars for
nonexistant WMDs" doesn't mean shit to me and I can't really argue
it without highjacking the thread to rehash Iraq, which would be
pointless.
"Somehow I doubt your commitment to "divided government" was as
outspoken when Karl Rove was slurring Max Cleland."
Karl Rove never slurred Max Cleland. Max Cleland was a sellout to
the unions who wanted to make it impossible to fire anyone from DHS
and so the public employees unions could get their piece. Just
because you serve in or get wounded in a war doesn't make you right
about everything or above criticism.
When you guys get your dream Democratic government, you not going
to get any releif from the things you hate so much about
Republicans. The Democratic Congress knew full well about things
like wiretapping and waterboarding and approved of them until
politically expedient to object to them. I got a bridge to sell you
if you honestly think that a Democratic President and the media and
the Democratic establishment isn't going to suddenly fall in love
with all of the exectutive power they have been yammering about
Bushhitler abusing for the last five years. Further, since when are
Republicans more likly to go to war than Democrats? Last I looked
it is about equal. Hell at least Bush had 9-11 as an excuse. What
was Clinton's excuse for Kosovo?
|1.8.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Wasn't Jimmy Carter kind of religious? Discuss.
Yes, he was. But he was not a theocrat. At least, I can't think of
any political positions he held that demonstrated a desire to use
his political position to impose aspects
Christian, theocrat.
White guy, white supremacist.
'Kay?
|1.8.08 @ 2:14PM|#
"...aspects of his religion upon our politics, or to treat his co-religionists any better than anyone else."
|1.8.08 @ 2:16PM|#
That part comes right after "Invade Iran with 8 helicopters
and refuse to turn the lights on on your Christmas tree in order to
smite the infidels."
Carter never invoked religion as the reason to do either, nor
claimed to have divine authority.
|1.8.08 @ 2:18PM|#
And if every seat in Congress was held by Democrats, we wouldn't have a British/Canadian-style National Health program, but a French-style modified single payer system with private health care.
|1.8.08 @ 2:24PM|#
If Huckabee were to be president, what are the odds we'd get four blissful years of gridlock?
|1.8.08 @ 2:27PM|#
"If Huckabee were to be president, what are the odds we'd get
four blissful years of gridlock?"
Not very good. Granted the Democrats would never go along with his
whacked out evangelical crap, but they would love his nannyism.
They would find lots of ways to work with him to save the children
and the world. God help us all.
|1.8.08 @ 2:32PM|#
the Democratic establishment isn't going to suddenly fall in
love with all of the exectutive power they have been yammering
about Bushhitler abusing for the last five years.
Yes, John, but what party created that power to begin with?
What was Clinton's excuse for Kosovo?
Well, first of all, 9-11 isn't an "excuse" to invade some random
country a year and 1/2 later. Secondly, who cares what his excuse
was? Republicans validated that action with Iraq. Thanks a lot,
John.
I don't object to the war in Iraq
Fine and dandy. There's a whole laundry list of Republican-led
policies, laws and actions I listed for you.
They would basically do the same thing the Democrats would
do
Duh...so what difference does it make if I want one to crack-up? I
think that Republicans need to go off in to the wilderness and come
back stronger, with a focus on smaller government and individual
rights.
Greg Balzac|1.8.08 @ 2:35PM|#
"Huckabee has more liberal instincts on immigration than any
Democratic candidate."
You spoke too soon, Broseph. The Washington Times Reports:
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children
born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming
American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate - a
radical step no other major presidential candidate has
embraced.
duster|1.8.08 @ 2:36PM|#
'He is also the least likely drug warrior of any
candidate....'
It's like saying 'out of those 6 steamy piles of shit, the one in
the middle stinks the least.'
How can she be so sure? From 1 pardon?
Franklin Harris|1.8.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Not very good. Granted the Democrats would never go along with his whacked out evangelical crap, but they would love his nannyism. They would find lots of ways to work with him to save the children and the world. God help us all.
Based on the last 30 years of experience, gridlock only works with
a Democratic president and GOP Congress. The growth of government
under Bill Clinton was slower than under any other president during
that period, excepting, I think, Carter, who had a terrible economy
holding down growth of everything and who actually doesn't get
enough credit for passing more substantive deregulation than Reagan
did (e.g., the airlines).
|1.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#
the Democratic establishment isn't going to suddenly fall in
love with all of the exectutive power they have been yammering
about Bushhitler abusing for the last five years.
Executive power is a huge issue for me in this election. It's why I
ruled out Hillary and Joe Biden a long time ago, and why I
supported Dodd and Richardson, two men who look like overgrown
state reps - because I expect they would play nice with Congress.
Obama's history as a legislator - not just being one, but how he
operated - suggests to me that he would be good on that issue as
well.
So I'd say it depends on which Democratic establishment you're
talking about.
|1.8.08 @ 2:54PM|#
"Duh...so what difference does it make if I want one to
crack-up? I think that Republicans need to go off in to the
wilderness and come back stronger, with a focus on smaller
government and individual rights."
I am not unsympathetic to that argument. I also think that in some
ways, the Democrats have to win in order for Democrats to stop
subverting the war against radical Islam. But, who is to say they
would walk off into the Wilderness and come back small government?
I think what is just as likly to happen is the evangelicals and
Huckabee takeover and the Republicans become the religous left and
combine all of the worst aspects of both parties. What will you do
then? I would rather have a divided government, preferably a
Republican President and a Democratic Congress (it will be at least
10 years before the theiving bastards that are the Republicans in
Congress are fit to hold any sort of power beyond the fillabuster
again). Really the only hope for a Democratic Goverment would be
that it get so out of control that people turn against big
government all together. But to me that is like hopeing for a small
terrorist attack in hopes the people stand up to prevent a big one.
Better to fight the fight now.
Also, if this is true, I think REason and Ron Paul have some
explaining to do.
James Kirchik of The New Republic has just written an interesting
and entrepreneurial story about Ron Paul's history of
pamphleteering:
[T]he newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were
published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles
(except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the
byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression
that they were written by him-and reflected his views. What they
reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy
for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry
against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron
Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters
believe they are backing-but rather a member in good standing of
some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American
politics.
01/08 02:31 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
|1.8.08 @ 2:58PM|#
john, that Ron Paul thing's been blogged about like, five times
on Hit&Run, man.
Do you pay attention?
Rye-guy|1.8.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Not gonna lie, I got love for the Fair Tax (probably because I'm really cheap and don't really spend on any luxury save high-speed internet). That alone would probably lead me to vote for him if he got through to November.
|1.8.08 @ 3:03PM|#
"john, that Ron Paul thing's been blogged about like, five times
on Hit&Run, man.
Do you pay attention?"
Not really to be honest because I think Paul is a whackjob. To me
that seems pretty damning and the New Republic while liberal is not
exactly the World Net Daily. What is Ron Paul's excuse?
|1.8.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
It may in fact be that the evangelicals are going to sell their
souls to big government and embrace big goverment liberalism with a
religous twist. If that is the case, the country is in a lot of
trouble. The evangelicals combined with the traditional liberals
who love big goverment just might be over 50% of the population. We
could end up with socialism and elections decided over whether you
want to vote for the party that wants to ban gambling and lock up
homosexuals or the party that wants to enforce PC orthadoxy but
with both parties embracing socialism and the power of the state.
That would truly be a new form of hell.
TLB|1.8.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Jacob writes: Since when were free handouts to illegal,
non-tax paying immigrants a libertarian position?
This is a libertarian site in name only. Reason is actually
basically just Corporate Welfare Queens.
|1.8.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Huckabee has more liberal instincts on immigration than any
Democratic candidate.
Perfect! Uncontrolled immigration AND a massive welfare state. I
don't see what could possibly go wrong there.
He is also the least likely drug warrior of any candidate other
than Paul; Huckabee believes in redemption and he is not fond of
locking up entire populations of young men.
How does that make him an unlikely drug warrior? He supports the
entire menu of drug laws we have currently, along with many other
vice laws. Sure, if someone finds Jesus in prison, he might let
them go free, but I really doubt he would lift a finger to keep
people from going to prison for drug use in the first place.
Keep on looking for the pony in the Huckmanure.
|1.8.08 @ 3:32PM|#
yeah, John, I think we're pretty close to that point...kind of
why I want the Rs to fall apart.
Sort of a Phoenix hope, really in that what rises from the ashes
should be stronger and better.
|1.8.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent
children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically
becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration
surrogate - a radical step no other major presidential candidate
has embraced.
Another one of Ron Paul's positions he's stolen! Unfortunately,
also one of the few Paul positions I don't like.
|1.8.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Since when were free handouts to illegal, non-tax paying
immigrants a libertarian position?
Since when should the freedom of movement and the rights of
association and contract be abridged because the government gives
handouts?
Knapp has a category for you guys: Stockholm libertarians. We gotta
hold rights hostage because of this other suspension of
rights.
Pathetic.
|1.8.08 @ 3:43PM|#
The logic of denying immigrants the right to live where they choose because of the welfare state is the same logic that would lead to restricting what people eat and drink if there were ever a government-run health care system.
M. Simon|1.8.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Hey. You left out Obama Jesus.
Here is a bit on Obama's Church:
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr.
Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at
the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ.
More at:
Trinity United Church of Christ
|1.8.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Ayn Randian,
It's the same reason we shouldn't abolish the income tax without
cutting spending first. If you partially implement libertarian
philosophy, you can create a disaster.
Open borders and a generous welfare state would be a friggin
disaster.
M. Simon|1.8.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Ron Paul used to have a very neat newsletter.
Damn shame no one reads it any more.
Ron Paul
|1.8.08 @ 3:47PM|#
"Open borders The right to eat as you please and a
generous welfare state government health care plan
would be a friggin disaster."
It's the same logic. Rights are rights.
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
"The logic of denying immigrants the right to live where they
choose because of the welfare state is the same logic that would
lead to restricting what people eat and drink if there were ever a
government-run health care system."
That is only true if you object to the concept of a nation state.
If a country cannot determine who can and cannot live within its
borders, then it is really no longer a country anymore. It is just
a sub state within some larger world sovereignty. My view is that
Mexicans or Brits or any other foreign national have only what
rights we chose as a country to give them. There is nothing that
says they have a right to live here any more than I have a right to
move to Britain or Mexico. Where does this right come from? It
hasn't existed for pretty much the entire history of man and exists
no where outside of the US and a few European countries now. Go try
claiming your right to migrate in Mexico or Saudi Arabia sometime.
Basically it is a right that people have invented in the last 40
years order to destroy the nation state.
It is subtle difference but it is an important one between saying
"immigration is a good thing we need to allow it" and saying
"immigration is a fundamental right and it doesn't matter whether
it is a good thing, you have no right to stop it". I generally
agree with the first proposition and loath the second. But, I loath
the idea of a world government or giving up American sovereignty.
Some people love the idea of killing national sovereignty. That is
their right, but I wish they would be more honest about it and stop
making it about just immigration.
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Open borders and a generous welfare state would be a friggin
disaster.
Then it's a damn good thing that the US doesn't give generous
welfare benefits to immigrants.
|1.8.08 @ 4:12PM|#
That is only true if you object to the concept of a nation
state. If a country cannot determine who can and cannot live
within its borders its own health care system, then it is
really no longer a country anymore.
What is it about free migration that makes arguing for it a threat
to sovereignty while arguing for other freedoms apparently isn't
such a threat?
|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"If a country cannot determine its own health care system, then
it is really no longer a country anymore."
That is true. What if the UN could tell countries that they had to
have a particular type of healthcare system regardless of the
wishes of the people who lived there? I would argue that at that
point, when people who live in a country can no longer through
their government make decisions for themselves, but have to bow to
a higher power, they are no longer a country in any sense of the
word. Whether it be borders or not.
smithson|1.8.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Although Americans would love to continue holding the position as the world's most powerful nation, it is time that they realize that we live in an ongoing and dynamic environment. Part of adapting to this trend called globalization, the US should embrace factors, such as immigration, which will help maintain a productive and innovative workforce. To see a few examples of what the US might be foregoing for having a closed border policy, read this article http://www.ilw.com/articles/2008,0102-immigrants.shtm
|1.8.08 @ 4:38PM|#
I would argue that at that point, when people who live in a
country can no longer through their government make decisions for
themselves, but have to bow to a higher power, they are no longer a
country in any sense of the word. Whether it be borders or
not.
I would argue much the same thing.
But then why do you bring up sovereignty as an argument against
free migration when you don't bring it up as an argument against
universal health care?
R C Dean|1.8.08 @ 4:48PM|#
It's why I ruled out Hillary and Joe Biden a long time ago,
and why I supported Dodd and Richardson, two men who look like
overgrown state reps - because I expect they would play nice with
Congress.
Just want to point out that Bush campaigned on playing nice with
the Dems, and his record in Texas was one of quite good relations
with the legislature.
If you partially implement libertarian philosophy, you can
create a disaster.
A little liberty is a dangerous thing, eh? That pretty much sets up
the one-way ratchet to the Total State.
VM|1.8.08 @ 4:55PM|#
"the US should embrace factors, such as immigration, which will
help maintain a productive and innovative workforce"
and SCIENCE!
|1.8.08 @ 5:21PM|#
"But then why do you bring up sovereignty as an argument against
free migration when you don't bring it up as an argument against
universal health care?"
I hate universal healthcare and we have every right as a country to
say no to it.
|1.8.08 @ 5:46PM|#
I hate universal healthcare and we have every right as a
country to say no to it.
And proponents of free migration dislike immigration quotas and
visa expirations and believe the government has every authority to
get rid of them.
Bringing up sovereignty is simply a red herring.
|1.8.08 @ 8:42PM|#
"And proponents of free migration dislike immigration quotas and
visa expirations and believe the government has every authority to
get rid of them.
Bringing up sovereignty is simply a red herring."
No that is not what they argue. They argue the government has no
authority to keep them. There is big difference.
|1.8.08 @ 9:11PM|#
I would argue that government has no legitimate
authority to abrogate free migration, just as government has no
legitimate authority to abrogate free provision of health care or
to execute genealogically unfavored portions of the
population.
Government of course has the authority to do things. But that's a
positive fact, not a normative argument.
Can you provide or construct a definition of sovereignty that
admits arbitrary restrictions on migration but does not admit
domestic genocide? Because I can't.
If, as I suspect, you can't either, then the issue is not what
governments can do -- i.e., sovereignty -- but rather what
governments should do. Sovereignty is irrelevant to the
normative question.
LarryA|1.9.08 @ 10:51AM|#
So the man is convinced that the will of God for him is to
ignore the conversion of lost souls to be head of a
constitutionally Godless government? Makes perfect
sense.
"He says he entered politics to 'take this nation back for
Christ.'"
That doesn't sound like he's planning a "godless" government. The
folks he's preaching to believe that the founding fathers really
set up a Christian government which has been subverted by Darwin
and other scientists. They aim to correct that "mistake."
Huckabee told the AP that "homosexuality is an aberrant,
unnatural and sinful lifestyle," and called for isolating people
with AIDS.
He endorsed the Southern Baptist Convention's declaration that
"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership
of her husband."
Isn't it amazing that it's Ron Paul who is in trouble for being
intolerant?
It may in fact be that the evangelicals are going to sell their
souls to big government and embrace big government liberalism with
a religious twist. If that is the case, the country is in a lot of
trouble.
Absolutely. There have been Christian governments since 300 AD,
when Constantine I converted. Almost all of the thousands of
Christian martyrs during that 1700 years have been killed by said
Christian governments.
We could end up with socialism and elections decided over
whether you want to vote for the party that wants to ban gambling
and lock up homosexuals or the party that wants to enforce PC
orthodoxy but with both parties embracing socialism and the power
of the state. That would truly be a new form of hell.
Actually that would be the good result. Historically you're more
likely to end up with elections decided on whether the wine and
bread at communion symbolizes the blood and body of Christ, or
transubstantiation, where the elements actually become Christ. The
losers would face the death penalty, to save their souls of
course.
My favorite image of Jesus shows Him standing next to a door which
has no handle on His side. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock."
IOW it's your decision whether to let Him in.
Huckabee's vision is Jesus with a SWAT team and no-knock warrant.
Take him seriously.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245