The L Word. Again

No, not lesbian. Dammit.

Libertarian. Make that Libertarian, the way the NYT uses it in this update on Ron Paul's doings in Iowa:

He just opened a campaign office in downtown Des Moines and started to advertise his anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian message on radio, television and in the newspapers.

Sigh.

This hobbles an otherwise interesting little dispatch relating that Paul's supporters evidently intend to take Mitt Romney's free buses to the Iowa straw poll and then vote for Paul.

Guess if that works the Times would write, "In Ames a surprisingly strong showing from Libertarian Ron Paul in the Republican straw poll marked…."

Bring on the lesbians.

Comments

[Jim Walsh]

People also called Ross Perot and Lyndon LaRouche libertarians. Sigh indeed...

[Syloson of Samos]

Perhaps we all need a course in semiotics.

[Stevo Darkly]

Screw that. For me it's full otics or nothing.

[Former Perot Voter]

Jim, I had Just turned 18 when Ross Perot ran the first time and did not know much about libertarians or Libertarians at the time. I voted for him because I could tell the two major party candidates were corrupt. I later became libertarian. People just need to be educated, that is all.

[VM]

Syloson -

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

then we'd all sound like that twaddlenock "Neu" (although all he's read was John Fiske's "Introduction to Communication Studies")

Kip Esquire sums it up best about Paul ici

(defensively clutches Levinson's "Pragmatics")

[Kevin]

"Bring on the lesbians", Jeff urges. But does he offer a Friday Fun Link??? Sigh.

[cls]

How can we blame the New York Times. We have libertarians all ga-ga over Paul as the great white hope of libertarianism. He has called himself a libertarian, etc. We have libertarian party candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to hate homosexuals. We have libertarians who are in favor of walling in America. We had an elected LP official want to pass a law penalizing private businesses if they don't see official documents from people they hire. Apparently the word doesn't mean much these days and some of us have become so in need of support that we'll take anyone who uses the label no matter how statist or bigoted they might be.

[damaged justice]

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/pulpcovers/a/PulpCovers1.htm

[Vagitarian]

candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to hate homosexuals

WTF?

[libertreee]

some of us have become so in need of support that we'll take anyone who uses the label no matter how statist or bigoted they might be.-cls

Unless you don't vote and work only for libertarian anarchy, supporting any politician will only result in some dissappointment. If libs are going to make inroads in the "system", you can't expect purity in the process...I would like to know, however, who some of these particular folks you reference are.

[rm2muv]

Whew! I thought someone was being called a "liberal" again.

The OTHER L-word.

[fishfry]

I'm votin' for the lesbian libertarians all the way.

[uncle sam]

Well, I don't see RP as a great hope for libertarianism, but his appears to be a great hope for a lot of people looking for something quite different from the current major party offerings.

[x,y]

...anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian message...

Well, that's *one* way to put it. Sounds like someone at the Times is scared of Dr. Paul.

[Taktix?]

Lenghty?

[Neu Mejican]

He just opened a campaign office in downtown Des Moines and started to advertise his anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian message on radio, television and in the newspapers.

I am not sure I see what is wrong with this description of Ron Paul's message.

Ron Paul on the issues: from his website

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives."

He once ran as a Libertarian.

So he seems to have an anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, libertarian message...right?

VM,

What does the term semiotics symbolize that you fear?

[joe]

Those are three different items in a list. I don't get it.

[joe]

VM is always on the lookout for antisemiotism.

[Neu Mejican]

VM,

although all he's read was John Fiske's "Introduction to Communication Studies"

Never read Fiske.

Mainly Eco, Sperber & Wilson, Grice, and Delany with good helpings of Peirce, Derrida, Saussure, & Baudrillard.

[Neu Mejican]

Some of Levinson's stuff is interesting too...
You should read his chapter in this one...

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521596599

(~_^)

[Edward]

The whole point of this post is that the NY Times has mentioned Ron Paul. Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as giddy as some fat, geeky kid who's learned he's been invited to the prom queen's party. It's fucking pathetic.

[x,y]

I am not sure I see what is wrong with this description of Ron Paul's message.

Ron Paul on the issues: from his website

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives."

He once ran as a Libertarian.

So he seems to have an anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, libertarian message...right?

In reverse order:

1. Small "l" libertarian would be proper. Capital "L" implies the LP. Though he did once run on the LP ticket, he's now running as a Republican. The author used "Libertarian" to modify "message." It would make infinitely more sense if he used a lowercase "l."

2. RP is not "anti-tax." That incorrectly implies that he's against taxes generally. He's not. He's against the income tax and the IRS withholding system. Let's say someone put too many meatballs in your sandwich. Are you anti-meatball for wanting fewer meatballs?

3. "Anti-abortion" is a weak-ass slam. I'm guessing this author doesn't refer to pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." Moreover, while RP is personally pro-life, his political message is federalist. Let's keep in mind he's running for a political office, not a moral office. He doesn't believe the federal government has the authority to set abortion policy. RP believes this should be handled at the state level. As Scalia notes, this position is substantively neutral on abortion.

[Neu Mejican]

Of course... if you branch out to DA more generally, then try

Teun A. van Dijk, Talmy Giv?n, Charles Goodwin, Art Graesser, Michael Halliday, Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Adam Jaworski, William Labov, George Lakoff...

Oh the list goes on and on...

[Neu Mejican]

x,y,

Why don't you believe Ron Paul's own words as to his position?

Paul: "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn...As an OB/GYN doctor, I've delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion . "

[x,y]

I do believe his own words. But a more accurate characterization of his views would include the caveat (if you will) that his federalist views are substantively neutral on abortion. What the NYT did is akin to quoting someone out of context. What you say might be true in some respects, but it doesn't capture the whole picture.

[Edward]

The only thing that could make Ron Paul's exceedingly slim chances of not comimg a distant last even slimmer would be to get an accurate account of his views widely known.

[Fluffy]

Edward, why does your guy Richardson hate homosexuals?

[Steven Horwitz]

Vagitarian asks:

candidate who put out literature on why Congress ought to hate homosexuals

WTF?

I can't be sure, but it probably refers to this guy.

[Edward]

I advise trolls not to repsond to Fluffy.

[Edward]

I believe homosexuality is a sin, and under the U.S. Constitution, the states are free to make it a crime. I agree with Jefferson, that capital punishment is not appropriate for the crime of homosexuality (Jefferson advocated castration). But a society that tolerates homosexuality is headed away from civilization into barbarism. --Kevin Craig

It's interesting to noe that the states could be a lot more repressive than the federal government. Someone has pointed out that before the fed started collecting income tax, the states were imposing all sorts of property and head taxes. Look how the southern states, when left to their own devices, oppressed African Americans.

[Syd]

Why do you want people to call Ron Paul a lesbian?

[Paul]

Derrida, Saussure, & Baudrillard.

I knew it...

[jh]

Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as giddy as some fat, geeky kid who's learned he's been invited to the prom queen's party. It's fucking pathetic.

Bad childhood flashback, Edward?

[libertreee]

It's interesting to noe that the states could be a lot more repressive than the federal government. Someone has pointed out that before the fed started collecting income tax, the states were imposing all sorts of property and head taxes. Look how the southern states, when left to their own devices, oppressed African Americans.-Edward

Yes indeed--and there are several of the several states I wouldn't care to live in even today. But, at least I do have the choice to not do so, and at the same time, live in the US of A. With modern technology and transportation, it is easier to escape a bad state law then the overwheening bad federal law.

[Cesar]

Libertarians? Well, I'd be one too, if only I beleieved in roads

Seriously, my father has told me before, "Bill O' Reilly, I guess hes kind of a libertarian like you right?"

[M]

Paul's third-tier Republican candidacy makes libertarians as giddy as some fat, geeky kid prom queen who's learned she's been invited to the prom queen'sfat, geeky kid's party. It's fucking pathetic charitable.

[RC]

Wow, a quick Google search for "'Ron paul' lesbian" turned up

[Mike Laursen]

Paul's supporters evidently intend to take Mitt Romney's free buses to the Iowa straw poll and then vote for Paul.

Wouldn't that make them free riders, literally.

[crimethink]

There ain't no such thing as a free bus.

[crimethink]

M,

That's just stupid. Find something of your own to say, don't edit someone else's post.

[crimethink]

The suggestion that Paul supporters catch Romney buses and vote for Mr. Paul is being widely debated on the Internet ; some see it as smart while others see it as dishonest.

So, Romney is essentially trying to buy the poll, but Paul supporters riding on his buses would be dishonest?

[rm2muv]

Liberal lesbian libertarians unite! Right now! Both of you! and post it online. Hurry...

[jf]

That lipstick lesbians for Ron Paul thing was easily the funniest video I've seen today.

[Fullotics]

Screw that. For me it's full otics or nothing.

This, btw, won the thread very early in the thread. All the rest were buy merely sad echoes in the shadow of its brilliance.

[Neutral On Abortion]

But a more accurate characterization of his views would include the caveat (if you will) that his federalist views are substantively neutral on abortion.

Ron Paul: "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them. "

[Neutral On Abortion]

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states, "...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide..." The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a "bright line" between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are "expendable," and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a "distinction" made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical "distinction," I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

[Neutral On Abortion]

Ron Baul: "The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government."

[wayne]

Oh the list goes on and on...

Uh oh, I guess we are going to see the rest of this semi-idiotic list.

[Neu Mejican]

Wayne,

I guess you failed to see the sarcasm implied by one-upping VM's name dropping.

Oh well...

[Goldwater Conservative]

Am I the only one wondering what life would be like right now if Pope Murrary Rothbard were around? I wonder if Paul would be excommunicated. from L(l)ibertarianism.

[M]

@crimethink 10:49 pm

Sorry you didn't like my post. Always willing to take suggestions, I've now composed the same thought in my own words:

Have ye not read this scripture? The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner.

Kisses!