Rand Paul Highlights Libertarian Legal Philosophy in Filibuster

Credit: Gage Skidmore / Foter.com / CC BY-SACredit: Gage Skidmore / Foter.com / CC BY-SAThe central focus of yesterday’s epic filibuster by Rand Paul was on the Obama’s administration’s controversial domestic drone strike policy, but the junior senator from Kentucky had many hours to fill, leading him to touch on a number of related issues. Among them was the question of individual liberty versus majority rule, and whether the Constitution protects a broad range of unenumerated rights that are not subject to the whims of democratic decision-makers. On this point, Paul made a case drawn straight from libertarian legal philosophy.

Via South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, here’s a portion of the unofficial transcript from hour two of Paul’s filibuster, where he turns his attention to these issues:

What I’m trying to say, though, is that the rights of the Constitution, the rights of the individual that were enshrined in the Constitution are important things that democracies can’t overturn. So when you get to the Lochner case, the Lochner case in 1905. The majority rules 5-4 that the right to make a contract is part of your due process. Someone can’t deprive you of determining how long your working hours are without due process. So President Obama’s a big opponent to this, but I would ask him, among the other things I’m asking him today, to rethink the Lochner case. Because the Lochner case is really what precedes and what the – the case Buchanan v. Warley is predicated upon. Buchannan v. Worley is a case from 1917. Interestingly, it comes from my state, from Louisville, Ky. There’s a young African-American attorney by the name of William Warley. He’s a Republican, like most African-Americans were in Louisville in those days. He was the founder of the NAACP. And like most founders of the NAACP, a republican. And so what they do in 1914 is they sue because the Kentucky legislature, by majority rule, by Democratic action, passes a law saying a white person can’t sell to a black person in a white section of town or vice versa.

So this is the first case the NAACP brings up. Morefield story was the famous – I think he was the first President of the NAACP famous attorney. Him and an attorney by the name of, I think Clinton blankey. But they go forward with this case and they win the case. It actually passes overwhelmingly. But interestingly, this case to end Jim Crow is based on the Lochner decision. So those who don’t like the Lochner decision, I’d say, go back, we need to reassess Lochner In fact, there’s a good book by Bernstein from George Mason talking about rehabilitating Lochner. The thing is, is that with majority rule, if you say we’re going to give deference to majority rule or we’re going to have judicial restraint and we’re going to say, well, whatever the majority wants is fine, you set yourself up for a diminishment of rights.

I go back to the – the discussion of the Constitution limits power that is given to Congress but it doesn’t limit rights. The powers are enumerated, your rights are unenumerated. The powers given to the government are few and defined. The freedoms left to you are many and undefined. And that’s important. And what does this have to do with Lochner? The case in Lochner is whether a majority rule, a state legislature can take away your due process, your due process to contract. Can they take away your life and liberty without due process. And the court rules, no. I think it’s a wonderful decision. It expands the Fourth Amendment and says to the people that you have unenumerated rights.

Here at Reason we’ve been making many of those same arguments for years. In 2007 I profiled Moorfield Storey, the libertarian NAACP co-founder and president who argued and won Buchanan v. Warley, while in 2011 I took President Obama to task for his historical illiteracy about the Lochner case.

Read more about Rand Paul’s filibuster 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.

  • robc||

    Unenumerated rights?

    But...but...that means the government cant do whatever it wants to us?

    Crazy 9th amendment supporting bastard.

  • $park¥||

    It can do whatever it wants as long as enough people support it.

  • sarcasmic||

    It can do whatever it wants as long as enough people support no one stops it.

    ftfy

    And considering that government by definition is the last word in violence, no one can stop it. The only thing that stops government is the self restraint of people within government. You know, like George Washington stepping down after two terms, when he could easily have remained in office until his death. Can you imagine anyone in political office doing that today?

  • $park¥||

    Meh, six in one hand, half dozen in the other.

  • ||

    The only thing that stops government is the self restraint of people within government.

    Well, that or the actions of people/groups deliberately set up in opposition so as to create tension. Not that there are any good examples of such a structure or anything.

    ON Washington: I had a friend who made the profound observation that it is never the first democratic election that matters, but the second, scheduled one.

  • sarcasmic||

    Let me consult my abridged copy of the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to do anything necessary and proper to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare.

    Nope. Doesn't look like there are any limitations there at all. Unlimited power.

  • Tim||

    Unenumerated rights = cross to a statist vampire.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I wonder how many U.S. senators could just riff, fairly coherently, on any topic while including SCOTUS case references and whatnot.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I was going to suggest a few that could probably riff on Citizens United, but then I remembered the "coherently" part.

  • ||

    Certainly not the constitutional lawyer, public organizer, ex-senator from Illinois.

  • Tony||

    Can he rattle of court cases that don't have anything to do with arguments supporting his long-held libertarian doctrine?

  • Jordan||

    Citizen Nothing: I wonder how many citizens could name any SCOTUS cases to support their arguments.

    Tony: Oh yeah, well Rand Paul can only name some court cases.

    Derp.

  • Tony||

    Rand Paul is clearly an idiot. But he's a functional idiot. He has memorized all the arguments for his silly cult beliefs, because that's what has obsessed him for many years. Is he capable, though, of even entertaining alternate ideas?

  • $park¥||

    Hello pot, this is my friend kettle.

  • Jordan||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Let us know when you achieve self-awareness.

  • Nuked||

    Tony is clearly an idiot. But he's a functional idiot. He has memorized all the arguments for his silly cult beliefs, because that's what has obsessed him for many years. Is he capable, though, of even entertaining alternate ideas?

  • Loki||

    We all know the answer to that question. Interesting that during the actual filibuster yesterday I didn't see his special brand of idiocy poop on any of the threads. I guess he had to synch up with the prog-tard hive mind and download the talking points first.

  • Tony||

    Due process is an enumerated right. It takes a court, in many cases, to determine whether it's been violated. Rand Paul here seems to be cheering the theory of the living constitution. Kudos.

    A spectrum of rights that exists totally apart from enumeration is problematic, because it can consist of whatever someone claims it does.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is that a problem? Must my right to travel to the grocery store and purchase food for dinner be enumerated? Since it is not specifically stated somewhere that I have been granted that right by your god government, does that mean I do not have that right?

  • Tony||

    Freedom of movement under United States law.

    That's not mere assertion on your part, that's a right protected by a series of legal acts.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about my right to purchase frozen broccoli?
    Where is my enumerated right to purchase frozen broccoli?
    Unless there is a law that specifically grants me the right to purchase Berkley and Jenson's frozen broccoli, then by your "logic" I am a criminal.

  • Loki||

    And my lady, she went downtown
    She bought some ber-ra-ccoli
    She brought it ho-ome...
    She's chop'in broccoli
    Chop'in brocco-li
    Chop'in brocco-la
    Chop'in brocco-laa-aa

  • Jordan||

    A spectrum of rights that exists totally apart from enumeration is problematic, because it can consist of whatever someone claims it does.

    That's why government powers are enumerated. Well they were until fascists like you came along.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe in unenumerated government powers either.

  • sarcasmic||

    This comment of yours highlights how you are so fucking brain-dead that you can't comprehend the distinction between positive and negative liberty.
    Then again since you believe inaction is action, it is no surprise that your feeble intellect cannot comprehend the difference between rights that simply require others to leave you alone, and "rights" that require a threat of state violence.
    Please do the world a favor and kill yourself.

  • Tony||

    Nothing in your post is remotely relevant to anything.

  • Nuked||

    It is simply Tony: You believe that human beings do not have rights unless they are specifically given to them by your god government.

    You are truly the greatest example of a political sheep.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe people have rights by virtue of mere assertion. I believe rights are licenses to be free from certain things or to do certain things. They are either tangibly available or they are not.

    You want to claim a typical North Korean has all the same rights you do, and I'm the crazy one?

  • $park¥||

    Can you tell me where I am granted the right to take a piss? I kinda have to go.

  • Nuked||

    He does have all the rights that I do, as a human being. The fact that the Government is denying him his rights does not mean he does not have them.

    Your logic is akin to arguing that a person never have a right to life if he is murdered. Might makes right to you Tony.

  • Tony||

    It doesn't mean anything to say someone has a right that he doesn't actually have any ability to enjoy. And it's good that rights are written down and agreed upon. Otherwise I have exactly the same justification for asserting a right to murder others as someone has for asserting a right to be free from murder.

    Why have laws at all if everything is supposed to be universally understood?

  • $park¥||

    Otherwise I have exactly the same justification for asserting a right to murder others as someone has for asserting a right to be free from murder.

    Did the blind squirrel just find a nut?

    Why have laws at all if everything is supposed to be universally understood?

    Indeed!

  • sarcasmic||

    Otherwise I have exactly the same justification for asserting a right to murder others as someone has for asserting a right to be free from murder.

    That you cannot comprehend the difference between the right to live without interfering with others and the "right" to use force on people shows a staggering degree of stupidity.

    Absolutely staggering.

    Do you wear shoes with Velcro? Because I would be shocked if you can manage to tie laces.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It doesn't mean anything to say someone has a right that he doesn't actually have any ability to enjoy.

    So terminally ill cancer patients don't have a right to life simply because the government is incapable of providing it or forcing someone else to provide it. Therefore, their right to life is moot and we can dispose of them at the will of the State.

  • Nuked||

    It is not the same to say it is equally legitimate for someone to claim a right to life and for another person to claim the right to take someone's life.

    The former requires nothing of anybody else. The latter requires the initiation of force.

    The fact that you claim that both assertions are equally valid until the government/majority has told you which one is the *valid* one is a testament to how irrational you are. You are not a reasonable person, you are hell bent on your own destruction.

  • H. ReardEn||

    What rights do you have that a N. Korean does not have? Why is it that the N. Korean does not have those rights?

  • Jordan||

    Are you kidding? Tony envies North Koreans since Dear Leader provides everything for them and shields them from crazy rightwing wreckers.

  • ||

    I don't believe people have rights by virtue of mere assertion. I believe rights are licenses to be free from certain things or to do certain things. They are either tangibly available or they are not.

    Please, then, explain the 9th amendment.

    Let me post it for you, as I'm sure you haven't read it before:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

  • sarcasmic||

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

    Thing is, Tony feels that the founders were all wrong. The language of the 2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it. Yet Tony feels that that right is granted by government. So in reality he despises the constitution and the founders.

  • H. ReardEn||

    He also hates the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

    It doesn't mean anything to say someone has a right that he doesn't actually have any ability to enjoy


    So there are no unalienable rights. Only those rights that those with guns have determined that we are free to enjoy (to be revoked without warning).

  • Tony||

    The 9th amendment simply clarifies that the fact of enumeration is not meant to imply that these are the only available rights. Or what it clearly says in plain English.

  • H. ReardEn||

    Exactly, Tony. But you seem to think that this is 'problematic.'

    A spectrum of rights that exists totally apart from enumeration is problematic, because it can consist of whatever someone claims it does.
  • Tony||

    Meaning states and localities and Congress can come up with new rights. They still have to be codified to mean anything.

  • ||

    The 9th amendment simply clarifies that the fact of enumeration is not meant to imply that these are the only available rights. Or what it clearly says in plain English.

    Herpa derpa doo.

    Contradict yourself much?

  • Fluffy||

    In the excerpted section, Paul clearly is talking about the unenumerated right to contract which was the issue in Lochner.

    In the middle of an extemporaneous 13 hour speech about due process rights, you might get the words "due process" on the brain, and insert the words "right to due process" where you meant "right to contract".

    Especially when the fucking SCOTUS itself has muddied the waters on this issue by focusing on the due process clause of the 14th amendment, to the detriment of the privileges and immunities clause, when acting to defend individual rights against infringement by the states.

  • Tony||

    Lochner is widely condemned as an example of judicial activism--the imposition of extreme right-wing dogma. And it's a perfect illustration of my point. Freedom to contract (especially as opposed to the ability of governments to enact labor laws) is not enumerated, and existed only as a claim on the part of a particular economic ideology. You're doing what I said you'd do. You want this thing to be the law of the land, even though it's not, so you claim that it exists somewhere in the aether.

    Now imagine if a socialist wanted to claim a right to free healthcare out in the aether. Why are you right and he is wrong?

  • Fluffy||

    First of all, I was responding to your 10:48 claim that the Lochner discussion was about enumerated rather than unenumerated rights.

    I pointed out that this is false, because:

    a) Lochner was about an unenumerated right, the right to contract

    b) the SCOTUS uses the due process clause of the 14th amendment to defend individual rights against state-level infringement, making SCOTUS protection even of unenumerated rights a due process issue (at least since the 14th was ratified).

    So I guess we now agree that we're talking about an unenumerated right. Great. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

    If you now want to start a different discussion - about whether or not unenumerated rights make any sense - great, we can do that below.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    If you now want to start a different discussion (Tony)...


    Et tu, Fluffy?

  • Nuked||

    You really can't see an moral difference between freedom of contract vs. the government forcing someone to provide you with *free* health care?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No he can't

  • Tony||

    I see complete moral consistency in your views on these matters: whatever benefits employers, property owners, and wealthy people are sacrosanct rights, and whatever benefits workers, the poor, or the sick are evil handouts.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That's D-grade trolling. Fuck off.

  • Tony||

    It's absolutely true. It's the most basic function of laissez-faire theory: to protect the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

    You dress it up in nonsense about positive vs. negative rights, without realizing that the wealthy and powerful don't need as many "positive" rights, being that they have most of the wealth and power already. They just need to be "left alone" (with exceptions made of course for taxpayer funded police forces and armies to protect their interests).

  • sarcasmic||

    Pathetic appeal to emotion is pathetic.

  • Nuked||

    So you believe in forcing somebody to provide you with *free* healthcare? You dress it up in nonsense about rich vs poor without realizing that forcing anybody to provide you with *free* healthcare is to essentially force that person into servitude.

  • Tony||

    Then the same goes for property rights. Are all police officers slaves too?

  • sarcasmic||

    Are all police officers slaves too?

    Police officers are officers of the court who are tasked with bringing people to court where conflicts can be resolved without violence. This, along with national defense, is the most basic function of government.

    Though it does not surprise me that you cannot comprehend such a simple concept.

    Fucking moron.

  • Tony||

    So the most basic function of government is a contradiction to the very principles you're saying are prior to government. It takes taxpayer money to fund courts and the police. You're saying they're basic functions doesn't change that fact. So you have to ditch the whole taxes=theft and government agents=slaves stuff, I think.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not the healthcare provider who is forced into servitude. It's the people who are forced to pay for it under threat of being kidnapped at gun point. But that's OK because those people are rich. You are supposed to hate and envy the rich. They don't have any rights. They're not even human.

    Best to just murder them all, confiscate their property, and give it to the poor. Right Tony? Let's have a great purge, like your hero Stalin.

  • ||

    Goddamn you are a mendacious fuck.

    This is simple. If you cannot understand it you are either a fucking retard or simply refute reason.

    A negative right is on which requires NOTHING on the part of another individual. IOW, unless you are infringing upon the right of another, you have the right to do it.

    A positive right can only be given as part of the founding document establishing the government. WHY? Because it does require action on the parts of others. That document is the Constitution. The rules the country has agreed to play by. And I see in there taxpayer funded police and armies. What I don't see in there are free healthcare, a retirement plan or the right to a pony.

    So which is it ass-clown? Are you retarded or do you simply reject reason?

  • sarcasmic||

    He starts with the most basic of animal moralities: Might makes right.

    From this premise there is no difference between positive and negative rights. As long as you are on the side of might, it doesn't matter. Act without interfering with others, or murder them. What's the difference if you're on the side of might? No difference at all. And if might makes right, is murder wrong? Nope. Neither is rape or anything else. No principles. No right or wrong. Just might makes right. That is the basis of Tony's morality. The same as an animal. He is not a human being. He is an animal.

  • ||

    Utilitarian. Just like Tulpa. Just that they value different ends.

    And people don't get it when we say there is no difference between conservatives and progressives?

  • Tony||

    So the constitution--a legal document--makes the contradiction of your most basic principles okay? If the constitution said healthcare was as much a right as national defense, you'd be okay with it?

  • Nuked||

    Please point me to where anybody has claimed that a human being has a right to force somebody to protect them from aggressors.

    Please just point me to the link.

  • Tony||

    It's entailed in property rights. Without legal enforcement, you have only personal enforcement. I.e., might makes right. That thing sarcasmic hates so much.

  • Nuked||

    Protecting your rights is your right. Your might dictates if you will be successful at defending yourself from the initiation of force by somebody else.

    Law enforcement by third party (police) is instituted to PROTECT your rights, not to establish them.

    Absent of third party law enforcement, you are your own law enforcement. Protecting your rights against someone initiating force against you is not "might makes right". You initiating force against me and then claiming it is right if you succeed is "might makes right". Do you understand that the initiation of force is wrong?

  • ||

    If the constitution said healthcare was as much a right as national defense, you'd be okay with it?

    Of course.

    While I wouldn't agree that it is something we should be doing, it would nonetheless be legitimate.

    Do you really not understand the difference between desire and legitimacy?

  • Tony||

    Do you not understand the difference between first principles and "it's in the constitooshun!"?

    Is the only real break in agreement between us the fact that you think the constitution should be amended in order for government to do things I think are perfectly constitutional?

  • Fluffy||

    Now imagine if a socialist wanted to claim a right to free healthcare out in the aether. Why are you right and he is wrong?

    For one thing, the individual items in your body of rights can't contradict each other, or they would become contingencies, and therefore could not be rights.

    Since a right to free health care would contradict your right to your property and your right to be free of involuntary servitude, there can not be a right to free health care unless we dispose of one or both of those other rights first.

    The right to contract, on the other hand, does not contradict either your right to property or your right to be free of involuntary servitude, but is necessarily implied and entailed by them. (If I own my property, I can dispose of it; if I own my labor, I can dispose of that too.)

    In addition, the Constitution expressly denies the states the power to set aside any obligation from a private contract. That prohibition strongly implies the existence of an underlying right to contract, which this prohibition is designed to protect.

  • robc||

    the individual items in your body of rights can't contradict each other, or they would become contingencies, and therefore could not be rights.

    This times infinity.

  • Tony||

    Of course you know that I don't believe the right to property to be what you might call negative--it necessarily entails taxpayer expense, same as a right to healthcare. Involuntary servitude is irrelevant. Nobody's forcing any doctor to work for no pay.

    Though I would say the right to contract, understood as a prohibition on government from making labor laws, facilitates "involuntary servitude" in meaningful, rather than metaphorical, ways. The hitch is the unbalanced relationship between employer and worker. We as a civilization figured out that you don't have decent working conditions without some laws protecting workers' interests. It's really no different from property rights at the most basic level: Our environment happens to be one in which people value personal space and security of private property. We also happen to live in an environment where people have to work for other people. So property rights and labor laws are both devised to maximize the well-being of people given their specific condition. If we lived like ants, things would be different. There's nothing "natural" about any of this.

  • Jordan||

    Involuntary servitude is irrelevant. Nobody's forcing any doctor to work for no pay.

    No, it's not irrelevant; it's a logical end of believing healthcare is a right. If you can't find anyone willing to treat you, you get to put a gun to the head of the nearest doctor to force him to stop violating your rights.

  • Tony||

    So in every industrialized country on earth, including this one, where healthcare is considered at least a de facto right, there is rampant slavery?

    Why not let's stop depriving words of their meaning and impact by exaggerating?

  • Fluffy||

    So in every industrialized country on earth, including this one, where healthcare is considered at least a de facto right, there is rampant slavery?

    No, but if healthcare was a right, if slavery was necessary to secure that right, you would be entitled to undertake it.

    If I have a right to life, that means that if I am on an island with 4 guys who decide they want to kill me, I am entitled to kill them to protect myself. That's my right to life.

    If I have a right to free speech, that means that if I am on an island with 4 guys who tell me that if I say something they don't like they will kill me, I am entitled to kill them instead and then say what I want. That's my right to free speech.

    If I have a right to health care, that means if I am on an island with 4 doctors and I have a boo-boo on my foot and they refuse to help me, I can make them help me using violence. It can't mean anything else, or we're not talking about the same thing when we say the word "right".

  • Tony||

    You're "entitled" by whom or what? Sounds like you're just asserting it. If the other guys disagree with you, what is your recourse? If you have no recourse, then what are you talking about?

  • sarcasmic||

    This may come as a shock to you Tony, but life preceded government. So did property. Life and property existed before law. It really did.

    I know you can't comprehend the idea of something existing before sorcerers in black robes put incantations onto paper conjuring them into existence, but it's true.

    And you accuse libertarians of believing in magic.

  • Tony||

    How does property precede law? Property defined as anything other than "I claim this land because I say so, and I'm going to defend it with weapons." In other words, might makes right.

  • sarcasmic||

    In other words, might makes right.

    OH MY FUCKING WORD! WAS TONY HONEST? WAS THAT A RARE GLIMPSE OF HONESTY FROM TONY! STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! TONY WAS HONEST!

  • np||

    How does a right to your own fucking property entail taxpayer expense?

  • Tony||

    Because you don't have the right until you have a system of legal protections in place to secure it. Otherwise it's just a claim to property, which someone with bigger guns than you has every legitimate right to take for himself.

  • Fluffy||

    Because you don't have the right until you have a system of legal protections in place to secure it. Otherwise it's just a claim to property, which someone with bigger guns than you has every legitimate right to take for himself.

    Not all assertions of a property right have equal validity.

    If I was transported back to northern Mesopotamia in 7000 BC, and I dug myself an irrigation canal, built an adobe and wattle house, and started a farm, all of those things would be rightfully mine, in any moral sense that means anything or is entitled to any respect. If I took steps to employ violence to protect my "property", that would be morally right. In fact, not only would government not precede property, but I would be inventing government at the moment I used violence to defend my just property claim.

    If some other assholes came along and said, "Hey, thanks for inventing agriculture! We're going to take your shit now, because there are more of us than of you!" their property claim would not be morally legitimate. They might have the ability or power to take it, but that would not confer a "legitimate right", as you put it.

    So my proto-state would be legitimate, because it would be defending a legitimate claim, and theirs would be illegitimate, because it would be defending an illegitimate claim. And I would be entitled to kill them. All.

  • sarcasmic||

    in any moral sense that means anything or is entitled to any respect

    Tony respects no morality other than might makes right. You own only that which someone cannot take by force. That is his only principle.

    Might makes right.

  • Tony||

    Says you. Your entitlement goes only as far as your arsenal. If theirs is bigger, then what? You gonna shout moral principles into the air? Legitimacy without a legal system in place means only "might makes right."

  • Nuked||

    They do not have a right to take it from you. I don't think you understand what a right is Tony.

    A person with a bigger gun may initiate force against you in an attempt to take your property but that does not mean it is morally correct and it definitely does not mean it is his "right".

    Rule of law is put in place to protect peoples rights, not to establish them.

  • sarcasmic||

    They do not have a right to take it from you.

    Yes they do. Might makes right.

  • Nuked||

    Oh yes, right!

    MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! NO LAND IS YOURS IF I CAN TAKE IT FROM YOU WITH MY GUNZZ!!! IT IS MY RIGHT!!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! NO LAND IS YOURS IF I CAN TAKE IT FROM YOU WITH MY GUNZZ!!! IT IS MY RIGHT!!!!

    Yup. Production or plunder? Who cares? In the end if I produce something or if I kill you and then take what you produce, I still have it. So what's the difference? So what if I kill you?

    You have no right to live if I can take your life from you. In fact, if I can kill you and choose not to, I have given you your life. You owe me your life for my not taking it from you.

    Might makes right.

  • Tony||

    You're making moral claims, things you don't think you have to back up by physical means. So what if someone comes along who disagrees with you? What makes you right and him wrong?

  • sarcasmic||

    At least you're being honest about your morality. That is refreshing.

  • Nuked||

    I don't care if somebody disagrees with me. They have the right to disagree with me.

    As soon as they attempt to initiate force against me, they are wrong.

  • Tony||

    As soon as they attempt to have sex in their own bedroom in a way I disagree with, they are wrong.

    Moral assertions are easy.

  • sarcasmic||

    As soon as they attempt to initiate force against me, they are wrong.

    You still don't get it.

    They can initiate force on you, they can rape you, they can plunder your possessions, they can even murder you in front of your children, and if might is on their side they are right.

    Tony does not believe that murder is wrong if the murderer has might on their side.

  • Tony||

    The murderer always has might on his side. What makes murder "wrong" is that the law say so. Non-legal morality also says so, but that's probably the easiest moral question there is.

    Your claim that the right not to be murdered comes from the universe is problematic because the murderer can make the exact same claim, and there is no way to tell who's right.

  • ||

    What makes you right and him wrong?

    Consistent principles.

  • ||

    Because you don't have the right until you have a system of legal protections in place to secure it.

    You mean the POSITIVE right provided by the Constitution?

    The difference, dipshit, is you claim positive rights that have never been granted to you.

    You want your free pony at my expense? Please amend the Constitution.

  • Tony||

    As far as I and our legal system are concerned, lots of things are okay with the constitution that you don't like. You saying they're unconstitutional doesn't make it so. You're not in a position to make that call.

  • ||

    Of course I am. I'm a citizen and I can read.

  • ||

    Troll-free Thursdays, guys. Talking to "Tony" about rights is possibly the most pointless thing ever.

  • $park¥||

    Your supposed right to tell people not to talk to trolls was not specifically granted by government and therefore doesn't exist.

    Also, you're not my mother!

  • Killazontherun||

    When the vagina bearer speaks and makes the most sense of all, we all lose a few inches off of our penises and a few minutes off of our staying power.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    But is she the boos of you?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I don't believe in unenumerated government powers either.

    Except that one about "the end justifies the means."

  • Duke||

    While I don't know Rand personally, all the southern physicians I've ever known are not members of the AMA, have been very critical of big government, all own guns and are usually big hunters and more or less espouse a libertarian political view. On the other hand, all the northern docs I've met are almost always pro big government, hate guns and hunting and love government controlling what we do. Rand Paul is a southern doc. Just an anecdotal observation.

  • robc||

    In some sense, Hamilton was right (in a very wrong way) in that rights dont need to enumerated at all.

    Powers were enumerated. If the government doesnt have the specific enumerated power to prevent you from doing X, then you have the right to do it.

    Plus, all rights ARE enumerated. The 9th amendment enumerates all the otherwise unenumerated rights.

  • Duke||

    Yeah. If you agree that the Constitution is the "chain that holds down the government," then I think you understand that your rights exist without government recognition, but that the constitution expresses what the government can and cannot do and those cans and can'ts are limited by what's on the piece of paper.

    Then again, if you are of the T o n y persuasion, the piece of paper is a source of inspiration on the one hand, and an object lesson on the other, on how pieces of paper don't really hold you down if you have the good of humanity in mind. Of course, one's notion of what's "good for humanity" changes with the winds, especially for people like T o n y.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Lindsey Graham and John McCain are on the Senate floor trashing Rand Paul's efforts as we speak

  • ||

    Go figure. The two biggest pieces of shit in the republican party disagree with due process and liberty.

    Amazing.

  • $park¥||

    Have either of them said "in a time of war" yet?

  • Jordan||

    You have to be fucking kidding me.

  • Jordan||

    Hey guys, remember when we were supposed to vote for McCain because he was the lesser evil? Good times.

  • Killazontherun||

    I didn't fall for that one.

    I was told straight up from an officer who served with him that to this day he feels like a chickenshit for not pushing McCain over the side of a carrier when he had the chance at a time of rough storm weather and McCain was behaving like an idiot on the deck.

  • Loki||

    I am Jack's complete lack of suprise.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    If you think Rand's filibuster was useless, read these comments.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ilibuster/

  • robc||

    McCain and Graham are upset that their dinner party got overshadowed, arent they?

  • Killazontherun||

    John Cusack dealing with butt hurt members of the Obama cult.

    JC
    Good question“@cenkuygur: Up to 8 Senators now joining the Rand Paul #filibuster. Where are the so-called progressive Democratic senators?”

    Christa Perone @MyPerone
    @johncusack My gut was that u would b more liberal, I don't know why; but I sense a real disdain for this admin?

    John Cusack @johncusack
    i AM more liberal -- thats why i bring this up...whats in a name i suppose - branded liberal? by msnbc or the real thing? @MyPerone

    Lisellecae @Lisellecae
    @johncusack Is it poss. to be disappointed/disgusted at drone program & cont. eroding rights without calling Pres a regressive corp warlord?

    John Cusack @johncusack

    when ukill innocent people without trial - i mprison them with no trial what would u call it?-used bush powers & exanded them @Lisellecae

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement