Rand Paul

Is Rand Paul Becoming Less "Libertarian-ish?" Seems So, But He's Still the Most Interesting GOP Candidate for President. By a Long Shot.

|

The Daily Beast

A week-and-a-half ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., that what America needs is a good old-fashioned religious revival. Literally:

"We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what's going to happen if we don't reform."

You can watch video of the comments via the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody here. Brody enthused that Paul's evangelicalizing was very much about stepping away from the views that had brought him this far:

The focus of the prayer breakfast was a chance for Sen. Paul to discuss his views on religious freedom, the church and U.S.-Israel relations, faith and public life, and the essential role the church plays in the U.S. government….

Rand Paul IS going to get a chunk of the evangelical vote. On the surface, he may not be the guy you might think would appeal to evangelicals but take a deeper look. He'll have a pretty good appeal to millennial evangelicals and his talk of spiritual revival resonates.

Plus, he's going through great lengths to show how pro-Israel he is despite some who might question him on that. And remember this: this is not some "crazy libertarian" who wants to distance himself from faith and government issues. He understands the connection and he's willing to talk about it in public.

More here.

Brody is doubtless correct that Paul, a graduate of Baptist college Baylor and never shy to talk about religion, can snare some "chunk of the evangelical vote." He's wrong, however, to suggest that such votes necessarily come at the expense of the "crazy libertarian" bloc, which is far more pronounced among millennials (roughly, voters between the ages fo 18 and 34) than old-style Religious Right politics. Millennials are the most secular cohort in America and they are driven less by fears of "a moral crisis" (Paul's term) than anger over governmental invasion of privacy, mismanagement of entitlement spending, prohibition of pot and gay marriage, and endless wars. Millennials aren't automatic libertarians by any stretch of the imagination, but both voting groups are highly skeptical of government's efficacy and centralized power. There's a lot of meaningful overlap between the two groups and evangelicals, too, especially when it comes to loosening the grip of the federal government over many areas of everyday life.

Like his father, former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rand has never hid his religion under a bushel basket when courting libertarian voters because he doesn't have to. Arguably alone among large swaths of the American electorate, even atheist libertarians tend to respect the ways in which religious organizations and communities fill vital roles in civil society. Indeed, even as outspoken an atheist and libertarian as Penn Jillette is quite open to the ways religious groups benefit society.

And yet there is also no question that the ways in which Republicans tend to placate the Religious Right and social conservatives generally that alienates not just libertarians who might otherwise vote for them but also many centrist or independent voters. Talking about moral crises during times of record-low crime and teen pregnancies and swearing uncritical fealty to Israel is no way to court non-traditional GOP voters, that's for sure. Failing to directly address and answer runaway government spending or, worse, calling for cuts to food stamps while pushing for massive increases in defense spending is a good way to alienate lots of voters who are sick of big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.

For the most part, Paul has been far, far better in pushing a small-government, libertarian-ish agenda than any of the other likely GOP presidential candidates. He has called for getting the federal government out of pot prohibition and marriage (though he's getting wobbly on the latter). He's published budgets that call for year-over-year spending cuts and he hasn't put forward a terrible tax plan that blows open the budget again to give bigger child tax credits to all Americans regardless of income while also limiting the deduction for the poorest parents (that's Marco Rubio). He has staked out a general foreign policy direction that is non-interventionist in principle, even if he's getting more and more enamored of making exceptions to the rule. He fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy, drones, and government surveillance. Unlike Ted Cruz, he doesn't come across as a political panderer who seems less interested in winning meaningul political battles than in engaging in vestigial displays of rigid principle. Paul is actually trying to reach out to new audiences for himself and the GOP more broadly.

Which isn't to say that he's not sending mixed signals to libertarians. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Paul may be calling for offsets to pay for vastly increased and unncessary military spending, but the fact that he's calling for it at all is problematic to me and to many libertarians. And as I told the Washington Post for a story that ran yesterday:

"To the extent he sounds more like every conservative Republican, he sounds less interesting to libertarians. I don't see what he picks up by being a version of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio," two other freshman senators who are in the mix for the Republican nomination for 2016.

As Paul gets ready to officially announce his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination this week, how far he strays from the generally libertarian thrust of his general political identity will bear close watching. Small "L" libertarians comprise somewhere between 13 percent and 25 percent of the electorate, depending on various conditions and definitions. Evangelicals are about 25 percent of the vote, according to various estimates,  but represent a static or sharing shrinking share of the electorate. The Republican brand is sinking fast among millennials and there's simply no way a traditional social-con, big-defense politician is going to recapture younger voters now or in the future.

Dispositional libertarians are almost certainly looking for a major-party candidate whom they can get behind in a general election. Since winning his Senate race in 2010, Rand Paul looked like he was that candidate. To the extent that he separates himself from the other Republicans in the primaries by asserting libertarian bona fides and explaining how reducing the size, scope, and spending of government will benefit most if not all of the traditional Republican interest groups, he still may be.

RELATED: Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul in Presidential Vids—Do you want a "blessing" or a "different kind of Republican"?

Last summer, Rand Paul told Reason TV the Republicans can only win if "they become more live and let live":

Advertisement

NEXT: Will an apology be forthcoming from U. Va. president Teresa Sullivan?

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.

  1. Vomit. Why, oh why, can’t we have candidates that embrace secularism? WTF, rand… C~

    1. Maybe Rand is not a secularist? Beyond that, he is certainly not rejecting secularism.

      1. Anytime a major political figure says the people of america need religion they are rejecting secularism.

        1. Depends. As long as he is rejecting government promoting or worse mandating religion, he is still embracing secular government and that is what counts. He could be an open atheist and it wouldn’t bother me as long as he understood government has no legitimate power to restrict people’s religious freedom. In the same way, he could be a holly roller and I would be fine, as long as he doesn’t see government as a weapon in the crusade.

        2. Not loving is hating!

        3. It’s one thing to comment on one’s belief that people need religion, another to have the gov’t mandate it. Paul may believe it, but the question is, will he use gov’t to mandate it? I can see Cruz, Hukabee, et al., thinking gov’t has a role to mandate religion. I worry less about that than his sliding on issues.

        4. I think everyone would be better off being in proficient in algebra and taking a basic accounting course. Not everyone will agree with that. Either way, I wouldn’t make it mandatory even if that were within my power. I see Rand’s comments about people needing religion in a similar light. I’ve never heard anything gout of the man that leads me to think otherwise.

          From past experience I know a number of Reason readers are very anti religion. Even so, I think Rand is still your guy.

        5. “Secularism”, by which I assume you actually mean the moral superiority of liberty, is not opposed to religions that likewise value liberty. Certainly the religious beliefs of many of the US founders fall in that category.

          I read Rand Paul’s call for a Great Awakening to be such a moral awakening.

          1. Secularism has nothing to do with liberty in any dictionary I checked.
            The #2 definition is anti-religion.

            Yeah, people will get together in rent revivals to TALK ABOUT the “moral crisis” of our time.

      2. He does just that by denying that separation of church and state is the stated intention of the Establishment Clause.

        1. I suppose the Free Exercise Clause isn’t real?

          He never said we need re-education camps, dumbfuck. He said we need revivals…where people voluntarily show up and voluntarily decide to accept or not accept the gospel.

          Kinda the opposite of what the left wants, which is little more than forced acceptance and acquiescence to their belief structure.

          1. “The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government,” he told a group of pastors at a private breakfast on Capitol Hill on March 26.

            He has become just another religious whackjob – enabling religious power in our governments.

            1. Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern? Is Judeo-Christian morality not a big part of the basis for western culture and law?

              Could he not be directly referring to the overriding standards of right and wrong? Like, forgiving people the way the bible says we should when they commit minor drug offenses. Or would you prefer those people rot in jail like Obama has been ok with until very recently? Not very Christian, is it?

              1. Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern?

                Yes. All christfags should fucking hang.

                1. Yes. All christfags should fucking hang.

                  Behead those who say that Islam is violent!

              2. Judeo-Christian morality is certainly NOT a basis for our law or Constitution. And we pro-science secularists certainly have the right to reject Christo-fascism. We failed in 2000 and it got us the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, Faith Based spending, and the Dept of Homeland Security.

                1. Judeo-Christian morality is certainly NOT a basis for our law or Constitution.

                  You need a time machine so you can go back and tell Adams and Washington that. It would surprise them. Hell, the Constitution goes so far as to recognize the Sabbath:

                  “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it.” (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 7, Paragraph 2)

                  1. sloopyinTEXAS:

                    Judeo-Christian morality is certainly NOT a basis for our law or Constitution.

                    You need a time machine so you can go back and tell Adams and Washington that. Hell, the Constitution goes so far as to recognize the Sabbath:

                    Adams and Washington?

                    Treaty of Tripoli. Negotiated in Washington’s second term, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate in the 9th year of our republic

                    “..the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

                    Do we believe, Jefferson, Adams and the entire US Senate, or …the Cult of Paul?

                    1. You could reconcile this apparent contradiction by interpreting the Treaty of Tripoli as meaning that the US did not establish any state religion as consistent with 1A, and consistent with a Christianity that does not compel belief.

                      It is a separate question as to where the US founder’s morality came from. Judeo-Christianity is most certainly a significant source, as well as derivatives by those such as John Locke.

                    2. Our sense of justice came from ISLAM!
                      (aggression vs self-defense)

                    3. that the US did not establish any state religion as consistent with 1A, and consistent with a Christianity that does not compel belief.

                      I like your last clause. I’ve been amused for 40 years or so that these people assume ALL Christians are theocrats, which tells me where their mind is. They’re only a minority, even in the Christian Right.

                      Judeo-Christianity is most certainly a significant source, as well as derivatives by those such as John Locke.

                      That’s part of it. But the negatives also count. The (un)Holy Inquisition was committing church/state atrocities until roughly our civil war. We had our Salem witchcraft trials. And, of course, they CAME here to escape religious persecution.

                      When the Danbury Baptists asked Jefferson what the founders intended –leading to his “wall of separation” letter — they were asking as potential VICTIMS of church/state persecution.

                      The majority of Christians have no interest in church and state combined, simply because their own denomination was persecuted. They’ll support the theocrats politically mostly because even this atheist can see the war on religion (not as bad as the hysteria)

                2. Pro-science secularists? They have those?

              3. sloopyinTEXAS|4.6.15 @ 10:32AM|#
                Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern/

                Evasion. They should not impose their religious beliefs by force. A principle for nearly 50 years, No, it is NOT purity, so don’t even try.

                We seem to be outing some theocrats today.

              4. Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern?

                Evasive

                Is Judeo-Christian morality not a big part of the basis for western culture and law?

                Evasive

                Could he not be directly referring to the overriding standards of right and wrong?

                To an illiterate.

                Rand uses the same lie Ron has used for years: “separation” does not appear in the constitution or any writings by the founders “… which is a psycho-level lie of the Christian Taliban.

                Was Jefferson a founder?
                Presiden t Washington?
                President Adams?
                The entire US Senate in the 9th year of our republic?

                Jefferson, as educated people now, said the founders intent in the first amendment was to build a “wall of separation” between church and state. ”

                I have Jefferson, you have nothing

                Washington administration negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli in his final year. President Adams signed the Treaty, which was unanimously ratified by the Senate as the supreme law of the land. Article 11.

                “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

                http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t…..r1796t.asp

                Clear enough?

                The lies can get totally insane. My favorite is that’s a bad translation … which assumes the Adams signed, and the Senate ratified, the Arabic language!

            2. He has become just another religious whackjob – enabling religious power in our governments.

              Hi WeigelPenis!

              1. Is that pronounced “wiggle”?

                tee hee hee

            3. “The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government,” he told a group of pastors at a private breakfast on Capitol Hill on March 26.

              Um…perhaps he believes that, because that’s what 1A actually says, you fucking moron. Have you ever actually read 1A, Shitstopper?

              Here, give it a shot:

              Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              1. Um…perhaps he believes that, because that’s what 1A actually says, you fucking moron. Have you ever actually read 1A, Shitstopper?

                Francisco boldens only half of 1A’s religion clause, assuming nobody will notice the glaring falsehood. But the truth comes from Jefferson, Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.

                For anyone who does not know, the Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated in Washington’s final term, signed by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate in the 9th year of our republic

                ..the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

                Do we believe, Jefferson, Adams and the entire US Senate, or …

                fucking moron … Shitstopper?

                Tough decision, eh?

                Have we outed another extreme social conservative?
                Another one trying to bully us into submission — by disgracing Christ?

            4. No, he hasn’t. You’re just venomous towards anyone who rejects your one true God. The State.

        2. BUUUUUUTTTTPPLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUGG

          1. Not one of Opie & Anthony’s best bits, but still pretty hilarious. 🙂

    2. What do you mean by “secularism”? Do you mean the “muscular” kind pined for by the Council on Secular Humanism (former CODESH) & practiced by France & sometimes Turkey? That is, where gov’t goes out of its way to make sure they can’t be seen as endorsing religion by any interpret’n of endorsement, such as by allowing people to wear religious garb on gov’t property? Or disestablishes religious holidays as official, moving them to some other day? Or disqualifies gov’t officials if they mention religions or make religious statements?

      Or do you just mean “candidates who have no discernible religion”?

      1. Robert, Your “examples” ignore 50 years of libertarian history.

        Or do you just mean “candidates who have no discernible religion”?

        I thought you were around for Reagan, a glaring example of the best answer.
        Candidates, or congresscritters can be immensely religious, and this atheist welcomes them … but they don’t try to impose their religious preferences at gunpoint. I welcome ANY public official who lives their values, whatever they are, as long as they don’t seek a new Inquisition.

        Reagan, for example, was the most vocal Christian in my lifetime. For example, very anti-baortion, but never tried to impose that by law — which enraged the Moral Majority leaders (but not their followers)

        PLUS. just before announcing his 1980 campaign, he was one of THE most outspoken defender of gay. Said forcefully (paraphrased) “Homosexuality is not a choice, and it’s not a communicable disease like measles.” In fact, Reagan’s action against the Briggs Initiative led to the collapse of the nationwide Anita Bryant Crusade,

        He was attacked by Robertson and Falwell for talking a good talk but nor supporting their agenda. Umm, that’s exactly what very Christian libertarians have always done … curiously missing from your examples,

    3. Embracing secularism means also distancing oneself from religion and religious freedom. I’d rather a candidate support freedom, than one religion or another, including the religion of secularism.

      1. More Freedom,
        In my own experience, supporting freedom is totally separate from anything else.
        I can see it in the deeply religious. (See Ronald Reagan)
        I can see it in both secularists and atheists.

        The problems arise when either of those tries to impose their own views by force.
        And it goes both ways. Even this atheist sees a “war on religion” — though not nearly as big as the hysteria mongers claim.

  2. “Why, oh why, can’t we have candidates that embrace secularism?”

    Because candidates who want to win elections try to avoid alienating large numbers of people who vote.

    1. “Why, oh why, can’t we have candidates that embrace secularism?”

      I am ashamed to see that concept on a libertarian website here, repeatedly — which can mean rejecting religion entirely.

  3. Notice on the “revival” comments he made, he believes people should come to God willingly? The opposite of what the hardcore SoCons say and what the Proggies on the left say about their beliefs. They all want people forced to follow their dogma.

    As for his support of Israel: perhaps he values our relationship with the only sane democracy in the region and knows its demise will all but cause a nuclear war, plunging the entire world into chaos.

    As for military spending increases: let’s not assume his motives. He’s spoken in the past about bringing many of our soldiers home and closing overseas bases. Perhaps this is an extension of those proposals, as I’ve never heard him backtrack on them. Maybe he realizes its expensive to bring people back, close bases and build new/expand old facilities here.

    Or, you know, we could get all butthurt and nitpick the candidate most aligned with libertarianism by a wide margin. Based on history, I’m expecting this outcome.

    1. he believes people should come to God willingly? The opposite of what the hardcore SoCons say and what the Proggies on the left say about their beliefs. They all want people forced to follow their dogma

      Coming to God has NOTHING to do with it.
      Rand Paul repeatedly tries to impose dogma by law.
      It’s not about “coming to God willingly” — but being allowed to live your life without mandated dogmas.

      Go visit Rand’s US Senate website. It’s all there for Kentucky voters.
      Do you REALLY believe he wants to hold Tent Revivals to TALK ABOUT the “moral crisis” of our time?

  4. Notice on the “revival” comments he made, he believes people should come to God willingly? The opposite of what the hardcore SoCons say and what the Proggies on the left say about their beliefs. They all want people forced to follow their dogma.

    As for his support of Israel: perhaps he values our relationship with the only sane democracy in the region and knows its demise will all but cause a nuclear war, plunging the entire world into chaos.

    As for military spending increases: let’s not assume his motives. He’s spoken in the past about bringing many of our soldiers home and closing overseas bases. Perhaps this is an extension of those proposals, as I’ve never heard him backtrack on them. Maybe he realizes its expensive to bring people back, close bases and build new/expand old facilities here.

    Or, you know, we could get all butthurt and nitpick the candidate most aligned with libertarianism by a wide margin. Based on history, I’m expecting this outcome.

    1. I agree Sloopy. Maybe he thinks we are better off being allied with a democracy rather than theocratic dictatorship. And maybe he would like to bring the military home and spend the money to update and improve it. Just because you want a strong military doesn’t mean you support using it all of the time.

      1. The US is allied with at least one theocratic dictatorship.

    2. I’m with you, Sloopy. I haven’t seen a candidate this close to my values since I started voting. I don’t need to match up 100% to support a run.

  5. He is not the “most interesting” whatever that means. He is by far the best candidate in the GOP field. I think Cruz and Walker would both make decent Presidents and be massively better than Obama or Hillary. Paul would be better. Paul, by being much more forthright and forceful about issues like government spying and the horrors of the federal justice system would go a very long ways as President not only to fix those issues but to pull both parties in that direction. A Republican President who actually gave a shit about civil liberties and abuse of government police power would be torture for both the cop loving Republicans and the various Democrats who seem to only think abuse of government power is a problem with it isn’t their side doing it. That would be a very good thing.

    1. Who is more interesting then? On the right, I’d argue for Donald Trump or Ben Carson, but mostly because they’re interesting in that they’re idiotic and/or insane.

      On the left, Hillary is interesting as a candidate because she’s all but admitted to committing a series of felonies while giving the middle finger to the media, the Congressional oversight committees tasked to ensure her work is in accordance with our laws and the American public in general. Interesting because she’s a megalomaniac that’s a crook.

      Unfortunately, Gary Johnson is not interesting. But Non-interventionism rarely is.

      1. I do have a sort of ghoulish interest in seeing what else Hillary can get away with and how far the media will go to protect her, but ghoulish interest isn’t a reason for someone to be president.

        1. I have an interest in Hillary the same way Ramsay Bolton had an interest in Theon Greyjoy.

          Except, you know, her lady part stopped working on their own a long time ago.

          1. You want Hilary Clinton to perform body servant duties for you?

            Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but…

            1. I was thinking she needed to be flayed. But you’ve turned my stomach to the point that I want to retract my statement.

        2. I think it will be interesting to see that if she does begin to separate herself from this current administration and criticize it on various issues, how the media will cover that.

          1. how the media will cover that.

            They know the score. Cloumbia School of Journalism made sure of that.

            1. “how the media will cover that.”

              They will observe what happened to Senator Menendez and act accordingly.

        3. I do too. I can’t help but have a morbid curiosity about just how corrupt and incompetent a Hillary administration would be. She would like Obama be totally immune from press scrutiny. She has already made her time as Secretary of State a fund raising operation for her “foundation” and committed systematic and blatant obstruction of justice to cover it up. If she were elected President even after doing that, how far would she go? I honestly can’t imagine. Who knows. You can’t help but have as you put it a “ghoulish” curiosity about just how bad it would get.

          1. Yeah, but she is guaranteed to beat any Republican. Hillary will offer cash in hand and promises to keep the money flowing to all the groups that matter. Millennials will get their student loans forgiven. So what if she embodies the corrupt Clinton Machine?

        4. ghoulish interest isn’t a reason for someone to be president.

          There are worse things. Good intentions, for example.

      2. Ken, you should try and watch Miracle Hands sometime. While Ben Carson’s politics may be idiotic and insane, the man is a genius, without doubt.

        1. A skilled surgeon, without a doubt. Only a fool would doubt that. I’d love for a man with his talents to operate on Baby Reason when the time comes this summer (which we’re dreading).

          But his politics are off the rails.

          1. He would be great in a health care related position in a Paul administration.

            DHHS

            DHS

      3. I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean he isn’t the most interesting. I mean the fact that he is is not what is important. What is important is that he is the best. I should have said “Not only he is the most interesting but more importantly he is the best.”

        My sloppy language.

        1. My sloppy language.

          Don’t let it happen again!

    2. I haven’t seen a proposed budget from Cruz, and his hawkish stance doesn’t bode well for the budget. Cruz also doesn’t appear to oppose the NSA spying on us, or the police state in general.

      At least Walker has a record of keeping spending flat and being a fighter against the government unions. But Walker to be a big supporter of military intervention and against ISIS, which doesn’t bode well for the budget or our safety. Every time we get involved in civil wars in the Middle East, we end up supporting a corrupt and oppressive government, and make enemies of the other side. Then when we leave, we make enemies from the side we supported, by leaving them. And the civil war re-erupts leaving things worse, in spite of the US lives and treasure lost for the military meddling.

  6. Honestly, I don’t think Dr. Paul is becoming less libertarian so much as the position he’s long staked out, that he’s not libertarian so much as libertarian-leaning is becoming more noticeable as the election approaches. That still makes him one of the more libertarian politicians in American politics today. And certainly the most libertarian with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency in a few decades.

    1. He’s a stalking horse for the Christian Theocrats, just like his Dad. They both use liberty-sounding rhetoric for ideas that make no sense.

      They promote the same perverted phony federalism as Orval Faubus, George Wallace, David Duke, and all the other southern racists.

  7. Abortion.

    SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT.

    1. You had one this weekend? I didn’t even know you had been raped.

      1. Fist has one a week whether he needs it or not. You probably don’t, you white cishetero-privileged shitlord.

        1. That’s a lot of flights of stairs.

          1. +1 or several coat-hangers.

            1. Couldn’t he use the same one over and over again? Like Mister Rogers, but with dead fetuses instead of sportcoats.

              1. No. You taxpayers are funding them, so I get a new one every damn time, suckers.

                1. Coat hangers tend to melt in the autoclave,

        2. I’m pretty sure your getting enemas and abortions confused.

          1. “The doctor said I wouldn’t have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there.”

      2. Turns out, I had. Fucking Indiana and their confusing laws.

    2. Since we’re going down this road.

      DEEP DISH IS NOT PIZZA.

      1. +1 Foreskin

      2. +1 Artisanal pus, errrr, mayo.

      3. But it sure is yummy.

    3. Cake Baking!!!!

  8. Always have to laugh at suggestions that there is some type of accommodation that can be made between the Christian Right and Libertarians. The last sentence says it all:

    “Last summer, Rand Paul told Reason TV the Republicans can only win if “they become more live and let live”:

    Because that is exactly what the Christian Right believes…live and let live.

    Right.

    1. Who was more “live and let live” in L’affaire Memories Pizza? If you can answer that honestly you don’t need to bother yourself with anxieties about the Christian Right trying to run your life.

      1. I’m much more concerned with movements such as Dominionism, part of the Christian Right, than I ever will be if a business doesn’t get to pick and choose what sexual orientation they want to do with business.

    2. The Christian Right is certainly more live-and-let-live than the cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      1. You are incredibly stupid then. The Christo-fascists have been gradually losing influence since the Puritan days but they still hate liberty with a passion.

        1. Dynamite drop-in Monty.

        2. BUUUUUTTTTPPPPPLLLLLUUUUUUUUGG

        3. You’re presumably willing to send armed men to extract money from a septuagenarian woman, under threat of death or imprisonment, for the crime of refusing to provide floral arrangements. But, yes, tell us all about these other fascists.

          (Also, you must know the Puritans are your moral ancestors. Moldbug could tell you, or even Jonathan Franzen: http://www.newyorker.com/magaz…..on-capture)

        4. No. YOU hate liberty. If I had a gun to my head and head tochoose to live under SoCon rule or you turds, I would pick them in a nanosecond.

      2. My issue was whether or not there was an accommodation between the Christian Right and the live and let live philosophy of libertarians. And there isn’t.

        I KNOW there isn’t an accommodation between the acceptance of science and live and let live libertarians…well, at least the so-called libertarians who comment here.

        1. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          1. Which word?

            1. science

              1. I know exactly what it means:

                “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

            2. A consensus among scientists is not science, no matter how hard you want it to be.

              Get back to me when you’ve got an actual application of the scientific method with regards to climate change. Until then all you’ve got is consensus, which is not science.

              1. Note above that science is part of both observation and experimentation. Both have been used in the theory of AGW. Both. And to by far and away most SCIENTISTS (and all SCIENCE organizations), AGW has been proven and is a problem.

                It was in fact the scientific method that proved AGW to the large majority of scientists (surely you don’t believe National Academy of Sciences doesn’t understand what the scientific method is).

                But you are right…science isn’t consensus. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t one…and clearly there is. You just don’t like what the consensus of science says.

                1. (surely you don’t believe National Academy of Sciences doesn’t understand what the scientific method is)

                  I believe they understand which side their bread is buttered on.

                  And that’s the part about this that I find to be most interesting. Heretics and blasphemers who dare to question the consensus are immediately attacked based upon the source of the funding. It must be funded by teh evul corepourrayshuns, and therefore it cannot be trusted because all they care about is icky profits. Yet when you apply that same logic to the AGW folks, as in funding comes from people in government who cannot be trusted because all they care about is power, the AGW folks cover their ears and sing a song.

                  1. Well, I for one could not care less about the funding. I have said here that the whole Willie Soon brouhaha is ridiculous. The man’s work will fall or stand on its own merits, has nothing to do with funding. In fact, funding didn’t dissuade Richard Mueller from stating what the science was telling him. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t believe NAS is providing answers based on funding and you do.

                    1. I don’t believe

                      just another fundie

                    2. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t believe NAS is providing answers based on funding and you do.

                      Well the incentives are certainly there. They’re not being paid to find out what is causing the climate to change, they are being paid specifically to find human causes. That’s not scientifically honest because they are assuming both their premise and conclusion to be true. That’s what’s called Begging the Question.

                      Now if it is obvious that science funded by corporate interests may seek certain answers because they are profitable and give them more money, why isn’t it equally obvious that government interests may seek certain answers because they justify legislation that gives them more power?

                    3. I already said I don’t believe science will get swayed by corporate interests. Its you who believes that money is the root of all evil, not I.

                    4. Its you who believes that money is the root of all evil, not I.

                      Um, no. I didn’t say that. I said that people respond to incentives. If you deny that people respond to incentives then you’re stupid or obtuse.

                    5. They do indeed, but over 90% of climate scientists aren’t doing that. If you believe that, well then….

                    6. Governments have a practical monopoly on the funding for climate “science.”

                      That alone should say something.

                    7. It is the root of some evil though.

                2. Show me the data that points to the proven theory of AGW. I want to see the the actual experiments that have proved the theory. If the scientific method has proven AGW then there must been a number of repeatable experiments that have proven the theory.

                  And again, consensus of science is not science. At one time the consensus was….

                  The Earth is flat
                  The sun revolves around the Earth
                  Bacteria didn’t exist (No need for doctors to wash their hands before surgery)
                  And any number of other scientific facts that have been proven false.

                  1. And any number of other scientific facts that have been proven false.

                    At one point the scientific consensus was that molecules were held together by little hooks on the atoms. Seriously. And we certainly can’t forget eugenics which was quite the popular consensus until some Austrian-German guy took it to its logical conclusion.

                  2. I want to see the the actual experiments that have proved the theory.

                    While I take the side that AGW is poorly understood, the measurements are inconsistent and disputed, and that the models have failed spectacularly, experimental science is not the only science. There is also observational science, which has done pretty well with cosmology and paleontology.

                    A theory cannot be proved, only disproved. See: Popper. Karl, not John.

                  3. If you wish to be accurate in that comparison, the correct way to state it would have been this:

                    At one time, there was no correlation (according to science) between man-made CO2 and the earth warming. It was barely accepted except in the minority. But as the science around it became more robust, many of those skeptical scientists became convinced.

                    Yes, there are flat earthers today, who are clinging to their old beliefs, and its not the 93% of scientists who are warning you about the dangers of AGW.

                    As I said above, science is never conducted by consensus. It doesn’t mean there isn’t one. In fact, Reason loves the consensus of science on GMO’s.

                    “In sharp contrast to public skepticism about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.”

                    http://geneticliteracyproject……l-warming/

                    1. At one time, there was no correlation (according to science) between man-made CO2 and the earth warming. It was barely accepted except in the minority. But as the science around it became more robust, many of those skeptical scientists became convinced.

                      Yes, there are flat earthers today, who are clinging to their old beliefs, and its not the 93% of scientists who are warning you about the dangers of AGW.

                      Bullshit, followed by bullshit “statistic.” Joe, you are an ignorant sack of shit. Or thoroughly dishonest. Your choice.

                    2. Prior to the 1990s, exactly how many science organizations were warning you about AGW? Try none. And today? All of them.

                      Keep trying.

                    3. Prior to the 1990s, exactly how many science organizations were warning you about AGW?

                      They were warning us about cooling. Oops.

                      Seriously, stay away from talking about science. Of all the areas where you’re ignorant, this is probably the top one.

                    4. Not one science organization issued a statement on global cooling, like many have on AGW. Not one.

                    5. Not one science organization issued a statement on global cooling, like many have on AGW. Not one.

                      Bullshit. Yet again.

                    6. Google “NASA,” Joey. They were once a science organization.

                    7. Consensus is not science.

                      Besides, when the funding is coming from government officials with an interest in the results promoting excuses for policies they’ve been itching to implement for decades, it’s no surprise that the research yields the desired results. If it didn’t yield the desired results, then the funding would get pulled.

                      Keep trying.

                    8. Jesus tap dancing Christ Joe. All you have left is AGW. After Obama made you a liar about every other issue, this is all you have left. You won’t talk about civil liberties or abuse of government power or foreign wars. You have nothing to say about those subjects anymore, not that your inane and mendacious opinions are missed. Nope, none of that matters now. It is all about preaching the AGW gospel. I guess you figured out illegal wars and government spying were just great as long as Obama is doing it.

                    9. I didn’t bring it up here, sarcasmic did. But reading has always been a weak spot for you.

            3. Which word?

              Nearly all of them?

    3. JackandAce
      Because that is exactly what the Christian Right believes…live and let live.
      Right.

      With the help of the Paulista Cult they have resurrected the phony federalism of southern racists. But as Reagan proved, only a small minority follows the hate-agenda of their leaders.

  9. Rand is a politician? Who’d of thunk it?

  10. Team Red has had plenty of presidential aspirants over the years who were Socons that paid lip service to ideas of limited government and individual freedom. Now we finally have a libertarianish candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House paying lip service to the Socons.

    1. But he has become a NeoCon lite and now doesn’t support drug legalization now – the two LPish things a president has the most impact on.

      So he is like a Barry Bonds who cannot hit anymore. What good is he?

      1. BUUUUUUUUUTTPPLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGG

      2. “But he has become a NeoCon lite and now doesn’t support drug legalization now – the two LPish things a president has the most impact on.”

        I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the drug thing. As long as he’s sticking with his “let the states decide” position and not calling for a federal clampdown on the weed-legal states, I’m not gonna raise a fuss.

        The defense spending thing, however… if he’s gonna couple that with welfare reduction, he’s dead in the water. The MSM will eat him alive over that.

      3. So he is like a Barry Bonds who cannot hit anymore.

        “This 8-time Gold Glover can’t hit! What good is he?”

      4. Phrenology used to be a thing too.

        1. Oops. Meant that as a response to another comment above. My iPad is fucking with me again

  11. Talk of a religious revival doesn’t really bother me. I’d like to see more people in church myself. If more Christians took a more active role in community support and charity, instead of clamoring for government to redistribute wealth, then we’d be in a better place as a country. It doesn’t have to be Christians doing that, and it doesn’t have to come from a religious motivation, but so what if it does?

    The problem will be if Rand starts letting his religious convictions influence his policy preferences in inappropriate ways. I don’t think he has done that yet. The rhetoric might turn some people off, but he can believe what he wants to believe, so long as he doesn’t try to pass laws to force those views on others.

    1. Talk of a religious revival doesn’t really bother me. I’d like to see more people in church myself

      It’s when they leave the church, where some of them become fascists,

      he can believe what he wants to believe, so long as he doesn’t try to pass laws to force those views on others.

      He already has, and he’s promised even more abuses.

  12. As if on cue, I just got an email from Rand2016 asking me to sign a right to life petition. Gillespie, are you in cahoots?

    1. Isn’t the right to life in accordance with the NAP?

      1. Yes yes, I’m a pro-life libertarian. The timing was just uncanny.

      2. Isn’t the right to life in accordance with the NAP?

        Nope. Sounds like Ron Paul bullshit.

    2. Gillespie, are you in cahoots?

      He’s the Propaganda Minister

  13. Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason, agreed: “To the extent he sounds more like every conservative Republican, he sounds less interesting to libertarians. I don’t see what he picks up by being a version of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio,” two other freshman senators who are in the mix for the Republican nomination for 2016.

    Then again, Gillespie added, “he’s not a doctrinaire libertarian. He’s libertarian-ish. He’s not his father.”

    Nick is correct. He can’t win being just another SoCon.

    1. BBBUUUUUUUUUUTTTTPPPPPLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGG

  14. The Mike Hihn signal has been lit. Expect this thread to be corpse fucked.

    As much as people like PB and Jackass Ace hate Rand, this leads me to think he must be the superior candidate. They are terrified of him. As they should be. He will start to push the Reps to a more liberty viewpoint and start stealing the fiscally conservative Dems.

    1. I hate that Rand has become a SoCon. Or always has been one depending on your perspective.

      Religion poisons your worldview. The worst of all is Islam with Christianity second.

      I believe in free markets AND free minds. Many here do not.

      1. You believe in free minds, just not free minds that freely choose belief systems with which you disagree. Got it.

        1. You’re free to believe anything you wish. And I have the duty to disparage ridiculous anti-liberty belief systems in an Open Society.

          In open societies, the government is purported to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible. Advocates claim that it is opposed to authoritarianism.

          Wikipedia

          1. In open societies, the government is purported to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible.

            And this is supposed to be Libertarian? No defense of Rights, or mention of Liberty, simply a promise of what you may as well call “smart government”, an oxymoron? Should government be limited in anyway in your shit society? Only by what is claimed to be “efficient”? You claim to support the Free Market. What you describe above is under no obligation to stay out of it. As long as their runaway inflation is “responsive” they could set price and wage controls?

            Did you really mean to out yourself in such an obvious fashion? It isn’t like anyone here has ever believed your “classic liberal” bullshit but, basically socialist talking points?

            Would your “open society” tolerate Religion? No one would believe in religion because one of the first things your society would do is kill all the religious people, because religion is dangerous and “secularism” is Utopia?

            It is terrifying when one thinks how many people believe as you do. You are truly a piece of shit.

      2. I think you believe 8% of what you say.

      3. I believe Rand has always been a social conservative, but unlike others with that label, he’s not choosing to go full nannystatetard with his beliefs. He’s got a fighting chance if he can remain balanced like that.

    2. To be accurate, I don’t hate Rand. In fact, I came here originally in the last election because Gary Johnson interested me. And some of the things that Rand supposedly stands for, I agree with…reduction of the military budget, end to foreign interventions, pot legalization. and more.

      But here is the problem…I think he being proven to be a phony on many of these things, unlike Johnson. Don’t believe me? Its exactly what Nick is alluding to in the above article.

    3. Private FUQ|4.6.15 @ 10:43AM|#
      The Mike Hihn signal has been lit. Expect this thread to be corpse fucked.

      This is how most of the Rand Paul cult talks. Like the Inquisition our Founders took action to prevent. (not all of Rand’s supporters are in the cult)

  15. Fuck that nigga.

    1. Best comment of the day.

      You, sir, win the entire internet.

    2. Racist, Racist, RACIST

      Never mind that you’re barely out of your teens and just lost a huge game and ruined an almost perfect season and your emotions are at an all time high.

      Never mind that every rap song says nigger about a hundred million times

      Never mind that young black men say nigger to each other in the same way white guys say dude or man.

      Never mind anything, I’M FREAKING THE FUCK OUT AND DON’T KNOW WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      (I’m a massive UK fan and I said a lot worse thing about the whole damn Wisconsin team and the state of Wisconsin. FUCK YOU WISCONSIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

  16. As to the question of whether an accommodation between libertarians and christian conservatives is possible, I’d say it likely is possible, but the christian conservatives just aren’t there yet. Fundamentally (pardon the unintended pun) there’s nothing in the belief system of most christian conservatives, as far as I can tell, that inherently rejects the libertarian argument. When you argue with them, they rarely reject libertarian first principles. Their argument comes down to a “well, yeah, but….”. As it becomes increasingly clear that they’ve lost the culture war, I suspect more and more of them will discover the value in fencing off increasing portions of private life from political decision-making.

    1. Their argument comes down to a “well, yeah, but FAMILYYYZZZ!!!1”.

      FIFY

    2. Anyone with any sense should already rarely politicize anything. I’m not saying Christian conservatives don’t have sense, I’m making a general statement.

  17. I don’t see any substantial way that Rand Paul’s views have changed. Like any politician, he emphasizes different parts of his views depending on who he’s talking to, then allows people to form conclusions based upon their perceptions. Rand is a religious, Evangelical Christian. He’s also libertarian. Though these may not often go together, contrary to popular belief they aren’t completely incompatible. In fact, proper understanding of the Bible (which most Evangelicals, the Pauls excluded, don’t have) can easily lead a Christian to believe he or she can’t be anything but libertarian.

    It’s perfectly possible to be religious without being a theocrat; indeed, most religious people aren’t. Only prejudice of Ayn Rand-following, objectivist libertarians leads them to believe it’s not possible, and this is in turn due to near total absence of religious instruction in homes of most Millenials, which has made Christianity almost as alien to them as Islam or Hinduism and caused them to think televangelists and guys like Rick Santorum represent authentic Christianity. The fact is a person can have serious moral concern about a particular trend in society without automatically concluding the solution must be to have government assert greater intrusive influence over people’s lives. Considering how immoral government is to begin with, most Christians don’t feel comfortable promoting their values through it anyway.

    1. Well said.

    2. Plenty of millenials got religious instruction at home. Many people reject Christianity after learning more about it.

      “proper understanding of the Bible”- which of course, is YOUR understanding!

      My no-true-Scotsman detector just beeped.

  18. An attitude of moral apathy and social permissiveness is not a prerequisite for being a libertarian: one only needs to believe that religious organizations do not have the right to use the force of government to compel others to follow their teachings against their will, while simultaneously supporting freedom of religion, both to practice (or not) and to affiliate with a particular church or other organization (or not). Persuasion and the lawful, peaceful exercise of freedom of speech, as well as leading by example, ought to be the modus operandi of religions?not forced conversion, which neither helps nor saves anyone. Some religious organizations and individuals (including many atheists) fail to understand this principle, but others do.

    In any case, being a moral relativist who thinks that right and wrong are subject to personal interpretation is not conducive to the establishment of a libertarian society. There has to be personal accountability, self-restraint, and a commonly understood and accepted moral code that people voluntarily choose to follow to prevent libertarianism from descending into destructive, chaotic anarchism. Religion, when divorced from government, provides this foundation, and much more. A libertarian leader should therefore not be criticized for being religious, or for promoting religious values outside of a political and legal framework. You may not agree with him, but as a libertarian, you certainly ought to respect his beliefs and position.

    1. objective morality is an impossibility

      1. Objective morality is an impossibility if you do not believe in God (then again… in rights or entitlements you believe you have become a figment of imagination… subject to be given and taken away at a whim by the mob). If you do believe in God… then objective morality is a certainty. If you don’t respect the latter, then you create a chasm between believers and non-believers. Objective morality, means objective law, means absolute and inalienable human rights, which means a foundation of stone. Why give fallible men the power to give and take away?

        1. So what is OBJECTIVism? Chopped liver?

    2. A commonly understood and accepted moral code? Try the Libertarian Party Platform:

      https://www.lp.org/platform

      Gods did not invent morality.

  19. Yes, Rand is head and shoulders above every other serious candidate – which amounts to saying next to nothing. There is no way on earth anyone can seriously say they believe in liberty if they don’t believe in self ownership and Rand, like all the rest, clearly does not believe in self ownership.

  20. Am I the only one who thinks he looks like little finger/ carceitti in that picture?

  21. NO NO NO. Our Libertarian Candidate must be PERFECT. He must be a robot, programmed only to follow the LP platform.

    Or we don’t vote. So nyeah nyeah…we don’t voooote….we looooossse….

  22. There you go again Nick…. The only flavor of Libertarianism is one that does not include Religious Conscience. The dogmatic secular libertarian cult needs to learn to accept people of faith and understand that that faith does not rob secular people of their liberty to abstain from God.

  23. If this guy gets the nomination then I will vote for the first time in my life(I’m 28). I would have voted for his father but he never got the chance.

    I don’t agree with everything the guy says but I do agree with a lot of what he says and that’s a hell of a lot more than what I can say for any of the other pieces of shit running for office.

    What I’m really looking forward to is the rant from Hihn about how the Paul’s are the AntiChrist and will cause children and kittens the world over to die. They may even be the key piece to beginning the Great Tribulation, i don’t know, only Hihn knows.

    1. What I’m really looking forward to is the rant from Hihn about how the Paul’s are the AntiChrist and will cause children and kittens the world over to die.

      Typical nonsense from the Cult of Paul. Never deal with the issue (which they’d lose)

  24. Hi nick,

    I guess that when you are in a cult and the leader of that cult does things that are completely anathema to the values of that cult there still will be cult members willing to defend you. I’m sure that if l. Ron Hubbard announced that he was in therapy twice a week and was experimenting with LSD, there’d still be scientologists willing to say that he was all Clear.

    Nick, I’m going to vote for the candidate that is against the drug war, against a large-scale commitment to fight ISIS or the enemies of Israel, is pro-choice, and for marriage equality, etc., etc. and doesn’t change his positions because of political expediency. What kind of libertarian are you voting for?

    1. So you’re definitely not voting for a Democrat, right? (I already know Republicans are out, just wanting to judge your hypocrisy. I’m betting on a 10/10 level)

      1. Nope, not a Democrat and the most principled man in the Senate.

        1. I admit then that I stand corrected. I was honestly expecting you to say some hack Democrat candidate. Guess I’m the asshole.

        2. Who are you referring to as the most principled man in the Senate? I’m assuming you’re talking about Rand but I might as well ask.

          1. You think rand paul is principled? How come you guys have to apologize for him every 2nd article.

            No. I’m referring to Bernie sanders.

            1. Holy shit, you think Bernie Sanders is principled? Well I tried to be polite and a decent human being to you but I should have known better.

              I’m not sure whether I should just ignore you from henceforth or treat you with as much contempt as I do Tony.

              Bernie Sanders may be an Independent but he is a hardcore Democrat hack. 10 out of 10 on the hypocrisy scale as I initially presumed.

              Good ole socialism: greed, envy, class warfare, jealousy, lies, propaganda, deceit, it’s so wonderful.

            2. I think Rand is the most principled person running for office.

              Sanders has two principles. Steal from people and force them to live by divine right of kings.

            3. The communist. Figures.

          2. Sucker! I had a feeling he was describing another self identified socialist.

            Socialism is all about Principles. The principle of enslaving your fellow human beings.

  25. The thing to remember is that most people who are identified in polls & to a lesser extent by their own statement, as libertarian are what you might call libertarianish. They’re not radicals, so why need their favorite candidates be?

    1. Robert
      The thing to remember is that most people who are identified in polls ? as libertarian are what you might call libertarianish. They’re not radicals, so why need their favorite candidates be?

      Many fallacies and misstatements.
      Cato’s detailed survey found the exact opposite.
      The Paul Cult says the definition of libertarian for 50 years is “radical” or “purist”
      “Libertarianish” means fiscally and socially conservative.

      59% identify themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” (Cato)
      Only 5.3% as “libertarian”
      So we should ignore the 59%?

      Here’s the problem.
      Extreme social conservatives are far more numerous than the 5% libertarians.
      So promote “libertaranish” social conservatives, expand your audience, and proclaim a “libertarian moment.”

      That’s like Wiccans pandering to Muslims, expanding their audience, and proclaiming a “Wiccan moment.”

      FACT: The libertarian Establishment has no clue how to communicate with our own majority, never has. But tens of thousands of 59% (Nolan) libertarians are in public office, expanding liberty in tiny but real ways for decades, by connecting with the libertarian coalition for purely local office. You can only imagine how much fun it is. And productive.

      IQ test. WHO has driven the cultural shift to greater individual liberty.
      a) The libertarian 5%, as claimed by Nick Gillespie?
      b) The libertarian 59%?

  26. Are you kidding me? Has he ever been Libertarian..ISH? I am certain I am not the only one that has been screaming this for the last 4+ years.

    Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for this sick fascination Nick et al. have for Ol’ Same as the Old Boss Randy.

    1. Who do you like, or at least tolerate then?

  27. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  28. RP has two options.

    Stay fairly libertarian and definitely not get nominated

    Sell out and have a small chance at the nomination.

    Which one is more likely?

  29. Gillespie would defend Rand Paul no matter what Rand did. The libertarian moment right?
    And look at all the authoritarian abuses by Ron Paul — including his attempt to forbid the defense of constitutional rights by homosexuals (prohibit constitutional challenges to DOMA) — the return of Orval Faubus! We no longer enjoy fundamental rights!! Oh well.

    1. The libertarian moment right?

      Didn’t you post like a million times in the other thread how 99.999999% of Americans are Libertarians just like yourself? I thought you were arguing that the country was Libertarian? Nolan Chart!!! Gallop Poll! Just not a libertarian “moment”?

      Oh, well, like I said in the other thread, I am not fluent in ‘tard.

      1. Your dismissal of the evidence was VERY persuasive!

      2. Marshall Gill

        Didn’t you post like a million times in the other thread how 99.999999% of Americans are Libertarians just like yourself?

        No. I cited a Cato survey, their definition. This link MAY refresh your memory.

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5207384

        Gillespie would defend Rand Paul no matter what Rand did. The libertarian moment right?

        I thought you were arguing that the country was Libertarian? Nolan Chart!!! Gallop Poll! Just not a libertarian “moment”?

        The poll was Cato, not Gallup
        It found 59% are fiscally conservative and socially liberal
        Rand Paul is fiscally and socially conservative.

        If 59% of the electorate are Nolan libertarians, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, how can a “libertarian moment”be generated by extreme social conservatives?

        Oh, well, like I said in the other thread, I am not fluent in ‘tard.

        The irony is hysterical! Check the link … but you’ve now made the same error in three different threads.

        1. Yes, the country is libertarian.
          We can prove it.
          We can have polls with 3 question or political quizes with a few more and “prove” that the country is libertarian.

          Problem is – when we use an actual example like the State of NH – arguably the most “libertarian leaning” place in the nation – and look at how their average citizens are reacting to the so-called “free state project”, we get a different view.

          “My 3 words for all free Staters: go somewhere else.”

          “Peel back the rhetoric, and underneath libertarianism there beats a fascist heart. Libertarians have little regard for democracy–it tends to interfere with their quaint notions of “freedom””

          “If they had the courage of their convictions and any sense of integrity, they would run for office openly and honestly as Free Staters and not pretend to be a Republican or a Democrat to get elected. Apparently they believe in “any means necessary” to accomplish their goals.”

          “Free Staters are Free Takers. They come here when others have done all the work for them and decide not to contribute anything. They remind me of the communists who would infiltrate neighborhoods and towns under fake identities and join clubs and civic groups and run for elections”

          “N.H. Government controlled by Free Staters!! No thank you! Pay attention folks to whom you vote for because they hid behind the Republican party”

          Yep, country is libertarian….right?
          You guys are silly….

          1. Yep, country is libertarian….right?

            That’s the absolute most stupid thing I’ve ever read. It’s like asking Richard Dawkins to explain the divinity of Christ!

  30. Rand Paul introduced “Life at Conception” Act in 2013. (This is on his Senate web page.) This would amend the Constitution to ban all abortions, and probably open the door to banning most forms of birth control. This proposal, which would give government the power to invade people’s private lives, is definitely anti-libertarian.

    1. Rand Paul introduced “Life at Conception” Act in 2013

      Rand’s Senate Page is even wackier. He has recently hid the page but I found it.

      http://www.paul.senate.gov/abo…..ty-of-life

      All this on the same page.
      1) Brags of sponsoring a federal can on all abortions.
      2) But abortion should be a state issue.
      3) He will do everything he can, as a federal Senator, to ban all abortions.

      His dad plays the same game. Perhaps one had to actually see it in the late 50s, by southern racists They did all they could to ban equal rights at any level of government.

      That’s exactly what Ron Paul does — Rand s less explicit for now. They have both tried to deny marriage equality at both the state and federal levels … mostly by lying about the constitution to their goobers

      My favorite is when Ron growls, “The word ‘marriage’ is not mentioned in the constitution.” That’s WHY no level of government has EVER been delegated ANY power over marriage! But his goobers swallow it, and the bigots sound respectable. He legitimizes bigotry.

  31. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He is a fake. He is a right-to-lifer. He supports big-government in your doctor’s office, and big government in your genitals or if you are male, in your wife’s or sister’s or mother’s genitals. He supports having big government reach into your body (or your wife’s body or your sister’s body or your mother’s body) and tell you what you may do there. He supports government enslavement of pregnant women.

    If “libertarian” doesn’t mean pro-choice on abortion, then it doesn’t mean anything. It’s time to run Rand Paul and all right-to-lifers out of the Libertarian Party, and tell them never to come back.

    “An embryo has no rights… a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”–Ayn Rand.

    “Abortion is a moral right?which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered.”–Ayn Rand.

    1. But….an unborn child has inheritance rights in the courts. Also if a pregnant woman is murdered the offender is charged with two counts of murder. As you can see US law says the unborn has rights.

      DNA says it’s human, and by science’s own description of life, it’s alive. Only a self serving narcissist would refuse to acknowledge that others might see abortion as the ending of a human life. And what’s more “libertarian” than the defending of another person’s right to life?

      You’re not being very rational or scientific.

      1. BTW…who gives a shit what Ayn Rand said?

        1. The Founders agreed with her. States allowed abortion at the time of the Founding.

          1. Everybody “allowed” abortion, going back thousands of years. Only recently have socons dared to reject the woman’s unalienable right to liberty.

      2. You’re not being very rational or scientific.

        Let’s see.

        As you can see US law says the unborn has rights.

        So does the woman. Precisely equal

        And what’s more “libertarian” than the defending of another person’s right to life?

        Not “more” but “equal” to defending another person’s right to Liberty.
        Not one fundamental right is worth “more” than any other, which would unleash unspeakable moral atrocities at the level of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, to name just a few,

        BTW…who gives a shit what Ayn Rand said?

        Why do you not give a shit about what our founders said?

      3. “DNA says it’s human, and by science’s own description of life, it’s alive”

        Hmm, so is the skin that is flaking off your body, your sperm that you waste in a tissue and the eggs that end up down the toilet…let alone many other living parts of our bodies.

        And since when did you guys believe in science?

        1. You have the right to destroy your own body or parts of your own body. You do not have the right to destroy others’ bodies (I suppose, without their consent).

          That’s not hard to understand, right? I mean, that’s a big part of NAP.

          1. Ace, the NAP does not protect trespassers. If a trespasser refuses to leave your property when ordered off, then you are entitled to drive him off your property using aggressive force against him, even deadly force if necessary, and the NAP does not and should not protect him from you.

            If the trespasser is located inside your body, rather than on your external property, then even more so, because body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, more intimate form of ownership than ownership of property.

            I hope that’s not hard to understand.

            1. Ah, so the unborn are “trespassers”. Didn’t know they had the option to quit being a “trespasser”.

              In fact, the only response to the “aggression” shown here by a tiny human (who didn’t ask to be created) is a proportional one, not a disproportional one like you insist is necessary.

              If someone fell on your property, half-dead, and couldn’t be moved (for whatever reason) for months and would die if you moved them, you would kill them to get them off your property, right?

              The cult of the child killer is a strong one, lacking in so very many ethical principles. You can’t even keep NAP straight, how will you learn to “do unto others”?

              1. Ace, according to libertarian principle, your property is your property. You are entitled to drive off anyone you don’t want there, even a half-dead person who “can’t” be moved (unless you have previously agreed to a binding contract allowing him to use your property). You are entitled to use force, even deadly force, to do so. His need does not entitle him to use your property, just as a starving person’s need for food does not entitle him to steal your money to buy food. That’s libertarianism 101. If your body, rather than your property, is in question, then even more so because body-ownership is a stronger, deeper, more intimate form of ownership than property-ownership.

                You do not seem to understand libertarianism, or the NAP. You need to go back and reread your Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and Murray Rothbard. Perhaps the first and foremost principle of libertarianism is that you don’t owe anyone else a living. Another person’s NEED does not entitle him to take what he needs from you.

                You should learn what libertarianism is before you post about it.

                1. Actually, my understanding of proportional response (justice) comes from Rothbard.

                  Also, just because it’s in your body, doesn’t mean it’s yours. If I swallow the Hope diamond that doesn’t make it mine. As what’s inside her is more valuable than a simple diamond (a human being with rights of its own), the point is even more important.

                  You don’t own the little one just because it’s in you. You don’t owe it anything, perhaps (certainly), but you may not kill it. Killing it is aggression.

                  If she really wishes to be rid of it without killing it, there are plenty of women I know of who would take it for her.

                  1. RE: “If I swallow the Hope diamond that doesn’t make it mine.” Bad analogy–you are not allowed to swallow the Hope diamond in the first place (unless you buy it first). You are right that stealing something and then placing it in your body doesn’t make it yours, but that’s because stealing it in the first place is forbidden. In any case this whole argument does not apply to a fetus, which does not exist before you conceive it in your body.

                    RE: “You don’t owe it anything, perhaps (certainly), but you may not kill it.” WRONG! If the trespasser refuses or fails to leave when ordered, then you are entitled to use deadly force to expel it. Libertarianism 101.

                    If your objection is based on the killing vs letting-die distinction, then you should support medical abortion. Medical abortion has no direct effect on the embryo or fetus, but merely detaches it from the mother and leaves it to die on its own. None of the three drugs used in medical abortions has any direct effect on the fetus or embryo. RU486 affects only the uterus and the interface between uterus and placenta. Methotrexate affects only trophoblastic tissue which is growing to be placenta (pre-placental tissue). Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract. None has any direct effect on the fetus.

                    CONTINUES BELOW

                    1. CONTINUING:

                      RE: “If she really wishes to be rid of it without killing it, there are plenty of women I know of who would take it for her.” Unfortunately, this would require her to endure full-term labor and delivery, which is a major medical/surgical trauma, and is ALWAYS either very expensive or life-threatening if you don’t pony up the money for modern obstetric care. The fetus is not entitled to force the pregnant woman to endure this, and you are not entitled to force her to endure it on the fetus’ behalf, and neither is the government entitled to do so, and she is entitled to prevent it, even by using deadly force against her fetus. Just as YOU would be entitled to use deadly force against someone who tried to subject you to a similar medical/surgical trauma against YOUR will.

                    2. The little human got created against its will, and now you want to kill it (let it die) against its will. It is not a trespasser anymore than if you created an immobile (but completely formed) human on your own land and then decided you didn’t want it anymore and so shot it (or let it starve).

                      If you create it, you are indeed responsible to care for it until you find it someone else who will do it, or until it can care for itself.

                      The sad thing is, there are so very many who would be willing to relive the woman of her poor choices if she would only accept that her poor decisions created a human with unalienable rights. What she needs to do is so very little compared to actually raising the little human.

                    3. Let’s assume that the woman was raped, and she has no want of the little human. Fair enough, she was wronged. But she was wronged by the rapist, and not the little human. That one has done nothing to her, and she is now deciding that justice is… killing the innocent. In this case, the rapist can now be charged with rape AND “forcing the woman to go through a birth”.

                      It is quite sad to see that so very many people don’t understand that murder is quite important to NAP and that it is of a higher level than trespassing. If it’s really that big an issue, then send the little human a bill for time using the woman’s body plus interest.

                      Quid est Aequitas? Repayment. If someone steals from you, they repay it with interest. If they murder, then they repay it with their life. If they assault, the person may beat them.

                      If they trespass, you may not kill them unless they will not leave (not cannot leave) or threaten you. If you simply shoot them, especially when they have been dumped there, immobilized and against their will, you are guilty of murder.

                    4. ace_m82
                      her poor decisions created a human with unalienable rights

                      Same as the woman. Unalienable means, by definition the rights of the woman and the fetal child are precisely equal.

                    5. You are right that stealing something and then placing it in your body doesn’t make it yours, but that’s because stealing it in the first place is forbidden.

                      Interesting that you would give more importance to the thing owned than the owner. You made it, you deal with the consequences. It has rights as a living human, don’t murder it.

                      If the trespasser refuses or fails to leave when ordered, then you are entitled to use deadly force to expel it.

                      Even if this were true (it’s only true when there is no other recourse), it matters not, because the little one didn’t ask to be created inside her, and has no choice to leave. If you invite someone onto your property, then cut off their arms and legs, then demand they leave, you cannot kill them for failing to leave. Even if someone else cut off their arms and legs, you couldn’t kill them for failing to leave.

                      If your objection is based on the killing vs letting-die distinction, then you should support medical abortion.

                      Excepting that the person was involved in its creation. You decided to create it, now you don’t want it anymore. Too bad, it has rights. If you really want it out, then you still have to respect its rights (as it had no options in the matter) and give it to someone who will happily keep it alive.

                    6. Ace: RE: “If you invite someone onto your property, then cut off their arms and legs, then demand they leave, you cannot kill them for failing to leave.”

                      This analogy is bad; the situation where you invite someone onto your property is fundamentally different from conceiving a fetus. When someone accepts your invitation and enters your property, he GIVES UP something–the freedom and autonomy he was previously enjoying by being on his own property or on neutral property. When you cut off his arms and legs, you are damaging him, taking something from him, and making him worse off than he was before. This obligates you to restore his freedom to him, to compensate him for the damage, and to undo what you did by making him better off again. In contrast, conceiving a fetus does not make the fetus any worse off than it was before (it didn’t exist at all before), and takes nothing from it (before conception it has nothing to take, not even a self) and does not damage it in any way. Therefore, conceiving the fetus incurs NO obligation to give it more womb-time than the womb-owner chooses to give it.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    7. CONTINUING:

                      The fetus’ short life from conception until abortion is just so much gained for it–it has no legitimate basis for a complaint. It’s better to have a short life than no life at all! Donating blood does not obligate you to also donate the next transfusion the patient may need; similarly, giving a fetus a short life inside your body does not obligate you to also give it a longer one.

                      RE: “It has rights as a living human” Those rights do not include the right to take material from your bloodstream, nor the right to inject toxic metabolic end-products into your bloodstream, nor the right to subject you to full-term labor and delivery. No human being, born nor unborn, has the right to do those things to you, except by your continuing, ongoing consent, which may be revoked by you at any time.

                    8. You have no legitimate basis for complaint if you are killed as your “short” life (in the span of eternity) is meaningless.

                      Donating blood isn’t analogous as your blood is voluntarily given (or sold) and not a whole, just a part. Try again.

                      The little human has no choice in the matters of “taking” material, the woman is actively giving it. The only one who has the ability to inflict their will here is the woman, and to remove the immobile human inside her = killing it (when it hasn’t voluntarily done anything to her) which is murder.

                      If someone were to bump you in the street, could you kill them? Because your argument would have to be “yes”, they took your time, perhaps even bruised you, and you may value that time and injury infinitely. Well, unfortunately for your thought process, you may only demand back what was taken from you, and perhaps some interest. You may not kill because you were inconvenienced.

                      (No-one forced the woman to make the child, excepting in cases of rape. In that case, only the rapist did this to her and he must pay, not the innocent one. Punishing the innocent may make everyone feel better, but isn’t justice.)

                    9. Again, you have failed to read further, because I predicted this charge and answered it already. What if another took your arms and legs (or tied you up)? I have no right to kill you if you fail to remove yourself from my property.

                      And, excepting the case of rape, the person who invited you there was the property owner, and the owner knew beforehand that you would be unable to leave for 9 months.

                    10. WRONG! If a trespasser refuses or fails to leave your property because some other person has cut off his arms and legs, you are entitled to say “well then go sue that other person, but you must get off my property now.” And if the trespasser cannot leave, you are entitled to carry him to the edge of your property and dump him on the other side of that edge. Even if doing so causes his death. The guilty party in this case is not you, but the person who took his arms and legs from him. YOU DO NOT OWE HIM A LIVING. Libertarianism 101.

                    11. You don’t owe that man a “living”, you owe it to him not to kill him, as creating him and then leaving him to his death would be.

                    12. ace_m82
                      Too bad, it has rights. If you really want it out, then you still have to respect its rights

                      Too bad, the woman has rights which are precisely equal, but you feel some power to deny hers?

                    13. You have no right to aggress. Even if that other human is inside you, you cannot aggress them.

                      You cannot blame the human for being there, because you put it there.

                    14. Ace, it’s not a question of blame; it’s a question of ownership.

                      And no, you did not “put it there”. You CREATED it there. If you had “put” it there, you would have taken something from it–its autonomy from being outside of there–and would therefore have incurred an obligation to it. But creating it there did not take anything from it, and therefore incurs no obligation to it. Its short life from creation until abortion is just so much gained for it. It should be grateful, not demanding. Giving someone a short life inside your body does NOT obligate you to also give it a longer one.

                    15. Actually, you have more of an obligation to that which you have created. The created didn’t ask to be created and if you cut it off from its only chance of survival you have subjected it to a very short life of suffering (nasty, brutish, and short as Hobbes would have said).

                      In fact, those who are suicidal are often that way due to pain (of whatever type) and would likely agree with me, that it would have been better not to have been created than to be subjected to a short life of nothing but pain.

                      You have the obligation to not cut that human whom you have created off from its only method of survival.

                      Let us assume the mother gives birth to a child, and the child is disabled, but a genius (Stephen Hawking level of disabled and genius). If that mother keeps him on her property his whole life, and then decides to simply allow him to starve to death because she’s sick of it, has she violated NAP or not?

                    16. Actually, you have more of an obligation to that which you have created. The created didn’t ask to be created and if you cut it off from its only chance of survival you have subjected it to a very short life of suffering (nasty, brutish, and short as Hobbes would have said).

                      In fact, those who are suicidal are often that way due to pain (of whatever type) and would likely agree with me, that it would have been better not to have been created than to be subjected to a short life of nothing but pain.

                      You have the obligation to not cut that human whom you have created off from its only method of survival.

                      Let us assume the mother gives birth to a child, and the child is disabled, but a genius (Stephen Hawking level of disabled and genius). If that mother keeps him on her property his whole life, and then decides to simply allow him to starve to death because she’s sick of it, has she violated NAP or not?

                    17. squirrels

                      That is all.

                    18. Once again, Ace, libertarianism is notoriously ambiguous and problematic on the question of children.

                      In your example, I would say the mother has an obligation to allow her disabled child to leave and seek its own fortune in the world, but not an obligation to take care of it if it declines to leave.

                    19. So, you have an obligation to allow him to leave, but what if he’s unable? Is she required to get him somewhere he can live or can she just leave him there to die of starvation/dehydration?

                    20. I think libertarianism would allow her to just leave him there to die of starvation/dehydration–she doesn’t owe him assistance or a living. But again, this whole area–obligations to children–is a notorious problem for libertarianism. And again, your example has very little to do with the abortion question, because the disabled child is not located in anyone’s body and is not taking material from anyone’s bloodstream and is not injecting toxic metabolic end-products into anyone’s bloodstream and is not preparing to subject anyone to major medical/surgical trauma.

                      Here’s a counterquestion: suppose your child needs a transplant or transfusion from your body in order to survive, and you are the only compatible donor, and there is no other way for your child to survive. Suppose your religious injunction or personal preference is NOT to donate. Should you be forced to donate? Should health-care professionals or law-enforcement professionals be allowed to strap you down and take the life-saving donation by force? In other words, when your body-ownership rights conflict with your child’s right to life, which should win? Why?

                    21. I think libertarianism would allow her to just leave him there to die of starvation/dehydration–she doesn’t owe him assistance or a living.

                      Bit the bullet on that one, right? Now if he’s 3 months old?

                      And again, your example has very little to do with the abortion question, because the disabled child is not located in anyone’s body

                      Meaningless, as we keep saying where it’s located has nothing to do with it’s rights. When we take that one point out (swallow them, implant them inside a human), you say it doesn’t matter.

                      not taking material from anyone’s bloodstream and is not injecting toxic metabolic end-products into anyone’s bloodstream

                      The only point you can make, to which I say is along the contract you had when you had sex. You might as well say that I don’t owe the person I invited onto the land the actual land to hold them up from gravity on their way out. I created them, so I owe them safe passage out (not to kill them trough surgical trauma).

                      suppose your child needs a transplant or transfusion from your body in order to survive, and you are the only compatible donor, and there is no other way for your child to survive.

                      Fair enough question. 2 part answer.

                      #1, I always find it difficult to require someone to use tech to save someone. In other words, if it’s not required in 1800, then it’s not required now. Food and water are not technology.

                      continued

                    22. #2, There are different requirements to keeping someone alive when they are in you verses when they are not. If you do nothing when the child is in you, and the child dies, then you have not aggressed. (The human body usually does a good job of keeping the little human alive.) If do something to end its life, then you have. If you do nothing (other than standard sustenance) when it’s outside you, even knowing that the child may die from your lack of action, you still have not aggressed. You may be a poor parent, even morally reprehensible, but have not aggressed them.

                    23. RE: “(The human body usually does a good job of keeping the little human alive.)”

                      Hardly! Again you display your ignorance about the basic facts of human reproduction. Something like one in four known pregnancies ends in miscarriage, and an enormous number of pregnancies self-terminate before the woman knows she is pregnant (it’s hard to measure exactly how many do this because it happens without the pregnant woman’s knowledge, but the estimates are as high as fifty percent.) A woman who is trying to get pregnant calls in complaining of a “brown vaginal discharge”; the first answer in the differential diagnosis is “early miscarriage”.

                      Really, you need to learn more background facts before you continue debating this issue.

                      RE: “if it’s not required in 1800, then it’s not required now.” So if your newborn gets a life-threatening infection, you’re saying you’re not required to have it treated with modern antibiotics? You’re only required to use 1800’s technology to save it? Is that really your position? Again, you need to think your ideas through before you post them. Are you a high-school student, or a freshman in junior college, or what?

                    24. Something like one in four known pregnancies ends in miscarriage

                      75% is usually, unless you use a different dictionary than I do.

                      So if your newborn gets a life-threatening infection, you’re saying you’re not required to have it treated with modern antibiotics?

                      Required, no. Should, yes.

                      You’re only required to use 1800’s technology to save it? Is that really your position?

                      Once again, you either have a reading comprehension problem or are purposely misunderstanding. Food and water is not technology. It wouldn’t matter if I said 1800 or 10,000 BC, tech isn’t required.

                      Bonus survey question, did you go to government school?

                    25. RE: ” tech isn’t required.” “Tech” includes modern antibiotics. You are really saying it’s ok to let a newborn die rather than treat it with modern antibiotics? U R CRAZY.

                      To answer your question, no, I went to medical school and graduate school in chemistry.

                    26. “You are really saying it’s ok to let a newborn die rather than treat it with modern antibiotics?”

                      Not that it’s OK, just that use of force isn’t called for. It’s immoral, yes, but not aggression.

                    27. RE: “we keep saying where it’s located has nothing to do with it’s rights. ” What utter nonsense. Where you are located has EVERYTHING to do with what your rights are. Your rights are different when you are on your property from what they are when you are on my property, and different again when you are on neutral or public property. If you are located inside another person’s body, your rights are still different. Again, you are posting without thinking about what you post.

                      CONTINUES

                    28. CONTINUING

                      RE: “…is along the contract you had when you had sex. You might as well say that I don’t owe the person I invited onto the land the actual land to hold them up from gravity on their way out. I created them, so I owe them safe passage out (not to kill them trough surgical trauma).”

                      This is the last time I’m gonna explain this to you: those two situations–where you create someone inside your body and where you invite an already-existing person onto your property or into your body–are as different as East and West. In the case where you invite someone in, your invitation constitutes a binding contract with him, to which he agrees by accepting your invitation. By accepting it, he GIVES UP something–his autonomy from being on his own property or on neutral property. This is what obligates you to him: the fact that he gave up something and accepted an agreement. In contrast, the person you create gives up nothing and accepts no agreement (does not exist prior to creation, so cannot accept an agreement) and therefore creating him does not incur any obligation to let him occupy your body longer than you wish him to do so.

                      Do you finally understand this, now that I have explained it to you more than five times, or are you a moron? There is no third possibility.

                    29. This is the last time I’m gonna explain this to you: those two situations–where you create someone inside your body and where you invite an already-existing person onto your property or into your body–are as different as East and West.

                      Technically correct (the best kind of correct) though not in the way you want it to. When you create someone, they have no say in it. When you invite someone, they have a choice.

                      You’re right that the one you created accepted nothing, therefore you owe them more than the one who accepted something. And yet, you think that the one who had a choice has more right to safe passage out than the one who had no choice in the deal.

                    30. RE: “You’re right that the one you created accepted nothing, therefore you owe them more than the one who accepted something.”

                      So you’re saying that entering into a contract with someone somehow LESSENS the obligations you have to them??? Do you live in Looking-Glass Land or what?

                    31. “So you’re saying that entering into a contract with someone somehow LESSENS the obligations you have to them???”

                      Entering into a voluntary contract with someone requires less obligation than creating someone. You owe the one you created more than the one who can actually bargain.

                      To put another way, the unwritten contract of conception is stronger than the written contract of invitation onto property.

                    32. RE: “You owe the one you created more than the one who can actually bargain.” No, you don’t. Creating the person is doing him a favor because it is better to exist for a short time than not to exist at all. Doing favors, and making someone better off than he was before, does not incur further obligations.

                      RE: “….the unwritten contract of conception is stronger than the written contract of invitation onto property.” No it isn’t. It’s not even clear that there’s an unwritten contract at all. It’s not clear that you can make a contract, written or unwritten, with something (or rather with a nothing) that does not exist yet and will not exist for at least 24 hours after you (supposedly) make the contract. And if there is an unwritten contract, it only covers the time it takes the womb-owner to learn she is pregnant and to get an abortion, NOT nine months. Ask any abortion patient what sort of contract she agreed to with her not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be by having sex. If she understands the question at all, she will agree with me.

                    33. “Creating the person is doing him a favor because it is better to exist for a short time than not to exist at all.”

                      Nope, many people disagree. Also, a slow death of malnourishment by the hand of the one who created you would take that all away (see my example of the small child and adult who can’t provide for themselves nor escape).

                      “No it isn’t. It’s not even clear that there’s an unwritten contract at all.”

                      Neither is it clear that entering my land by invitation implies an unwritten contract. So I can shoot you if you enter my property cause those are the rules here… Can you really not see the logical implications of your arguments?

                      “And if there is an unwritten contract, it only covers the time it takes the womb-owner to learn she is pregnant and to get an abortion”

                      You “begged the question”, assumed it to be true and then “proved” it. Also, if you don’t think there’s a contract there, then you would be the last one to comment on what it entails. Again, the adoption contract (referenced earlier) only transfers rights/responsibilities, it doesn’t create them. So yes, there is an unwritten contract, at least as powerful as any adoption contract could be. Pieces of paper create no rights.

                    34. Where you are located has EVERYTHING to do with what your rights are.

                      False, you still have the same amount of rights as other places (the right to not be aggressed against). Your understanding of rights is lacking.

                      If you are located inside another person’s body, your rights are still different.

                      Not according to you, only if you created it and it’s still inside the woman.

                    35. So are you saying that you are entitled to the same rights when you are on my property as you are entitled to when you are on your property? Is that really your position?

                    36. For instance, when you are on your property you have the right to smoke tobacco if you wish. When you are on my property, you have no right to smoke tobacco unless I give you permission (which I don’t).

                    37. “For instance, when you are on your property you have the right to smoke tobacco if you wish.”

                      Sort of true, I have the “right” to smoke because I have the right not to be aggressed against.

                      You have the right to tell me to pound sand if I’m on your property and I do it because I’m aggressing you (your property) by doing it. Perhaps it was covered in the contract or you just assumed it, it doesn’t matter.

                      What does matter is that you cannot shoot me just for smoking on your property, unless that’s specified out in the contract. Even though I “aggressed” a bit by doing it (probably unknowingly), you cannot use nuclear intervention against me.

                    38. “So are you saying that you are entitled to the same rights when you are on my property as you are entitled to when you are on your property?”

                      Yes, the right to not be aggressed against (the only right that exists).

            2. Intelligent Mr Toad|4.7.15 @ 3:36PM
              “I hope that’s not hard to understand.”

              But irrelevant. The Woman has an unalienable right to Liberty. That’s it. And much shorter!

              1. So does the little human. Much shorter.

                1. No, Ace, the little human has no rights at all when it is located inside your body. Inside your body there are no rights for anyone, except those rights which you choose to grant. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

                  1. So if I were a giant and swallowed your newborn, that newborn has now no rights because it’s inside me?

                    Anyone inside me (or on my property) still has rights. Just because it’s my property doesn’t mean you don’t have rights.

                    If what you say is true, then I can invite people onto my property and then kill them (without aggression) because it’s my property.

                    NAP encompasses libertarianism and while that implies most property rights, it first implies rights of the individual. You cannot kill just because someone is on your property, especially if you invited them.

                    1. RE: “So if I were a giant and swallowed your newborn, that newborn has now no rights because it’s inside me?”

                      I have already answered this. Swallowing my newborn is already a forbidden violation of the NAP, a violation which obligates you to sustain the person you swallow and to vomit him up again and to make restitution. By swallowing him, you have ALREADY violated his rights, giving him a claim against you.

                      You need to read more carefully. I resent being asked to repeat myself for you. Maybe you are reading-impaired?

                      RE: “Anyone inside me (or on my property) still has rights.” WRONG! Inside my body there are no rights except those I choose to assign (unless I kidnap you and put you in my body, in which case I have already violated your rights and incurred an obligation to you.)

                      RE: “Just because it’s my property doesn’t mean you don’t have rights.” By posting this, you are again showing that you are not libertarian and do not know what libertarianism means.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    2. CONTINUING:

                      RE: “If what you say is true, then I can invite people onto my property and then kill them (without aggression) because it’s my property.” WRONG! By inviting someone onto your property, you enter into a binding agreement to let them leave unharmed. That’s implied in your invitation.

                      You do not seem to be able to think these things through in a clear-headed way. I get the impression you are just posting whatever comes into your mind without thinking carefully about it. I think you should give serious consideration to the possibility that you may not be smart enough to think clearly about complicated philosophical issues like rights, freedom, and medical autonomy. Don’t be embarrassed–some people have the basic mental equipment necessary for this, and some don’t. There’s no shame in being one of the ones who don’t.

                    3. By inviting someone onto your property, you enter into a binding agreement to let them leave unharmed.

                      By creating someone on your property, you enter into a binding agreement to let them leave unharmed.

                      You don’t seem to be able to understand what sex is, it’s a choice. If someone makes the choice for you, they suffer for it, not the one who is unwillingly created due to the act.

                      Do not aggress. Killing the invited is definitely aggression, the only place you could have an argument is in the case of rape.

                    4. RE: “By creating someone on your property, you enter into a binding agreement to let them leave unharmed.”

                      WRONG! Creating someone does not take anything from him, or make him worse off, or damage him, and therefore incurs no obligation to him.

                      You are suggesting that willing participation in sex means that the woman issues some kind of tacit invitation or consent to the not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be. But how can you issue an invitation to something (or rather to a nothing) which does not yet exist??? If you could, how would it accept such an invitation? To accept invitations, one must first exist.

                      But let’s set that aside and agree that willing participation in the sex act implies some sort of invitation to the not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be. Today, in USA, that implied invitation is limited and restricted in scope. If it were written down, it would read as follows:

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    5. CONTINUING:

                      “IF, as a result of my willing participation in sex, you form in my uterus, oh not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be, you are invited to remain there for precisely as long as it takes me to learn that I am pregnant and to get to an abortion clinic. Longer than that only if I so choose. If this limited invitation or consent displeases you, oh not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be–if you cannot deal with the fact that I may decide to abort you–then feel free to decline this invitation, bugger off, and go get yourself conceived in a more welcoming environment.”

                      Ace, you may not approve of this limited, restricted invitation, but it is all the invitation which the sex act itself implies in USA in the 21st Century.

                    6. Actually creation does imply (some) obligation. You have caused them harm, by starving them or through other violent act. They had no choice in the matter.

                      Yes, I’m saying that outright, just as you said there was an unsaid agreement not to kill the person you invited (turnabout is fair play). You can issue an invitation to something that doesn’t exist when you’re creating it.

                      In your view, yes, that’s what it says. However, in my invitation to my property, it says “I invite you onto my land until such a time as I decide to kill you, and then good luck.” It is no different than what you say.

                      You may not approve of this limited, restricted invitation, but it is all the invitation which the dinner invitation implies in (ancient times).

                      Appeal to modernism is a fallacy.

                    7. Ace, if you invite someone onto your property saying “I invite you onto my land until such a time as I decide to kill you, and then good luck,” and the person you invite is foolish enough to accept your invitation, then you ARE entitled to kill him. He has accepted this condition by accepting your invitation. He has given you permission to kill him.

                    8. Swallowing my newborn is already a forbidden violation of the NAP, a violation which obligates you to sustain the person you swallow and to vomit him up again and to make restitution.

                      No it’s not, because you just claimed that anything within your body is yours. If the newborn never left anyone’s body, and you swallowed it (eww), you’d have to say that it has no rights. It’s not my fault you’re logically inconsistent.

                      If property rights trump individual rights, you can invite people onto your property and then shoot them. It’s your property.

                    9. You’re not allowed to swallow a newborn in the first place. That’s a violation of its rights, which obligates you to it. I have written elsewhere that if you invite someone into your body (as we invite proctologists to enter our bodies for medical examinations), his acceptance of your invitation is predicated on the assumption that you will let him out again. Your inviting him constitutes a binding agreement on your part. This is the only exception to the rule that you are entitled to kill anything inside your body. I have written and posted this exception many times.

                      RE: “If property rights trump individual rights, you can invite people onto your property and then shoot them. It’s your property.” Once again, WRONG! By inviting them onto your property, you have entered into a binding agreement (or unwritten contract) to let them out again. That’s implied by your invitation. I feel sure that I have explained this to you before….

                    10. You’re not allowed to swallow a newborn in the first place.

                      Why not? You have stated that if it’s inside you it has no rights. What changed?

                      Your inviting him constitutes a binding agreement on your part.

                      Just as inviting an unmade person does. In fact, you owe the unmade person more, as they had no choice in the deal.

                      This is the only exception to the rule that you are entitled to kill anything inside your body.

                      Every rule that requires an exception is suspect and you know that. There is no reason you give to make this one an exception and that makes your argument shaky, at best.

                      By inviting them onto your property, you have entered into a binding agreement (or unwritten contract) to let them out again. That’s implied by your invitation.

                      By creating a human, you have an unwritten contract to care for them until they can take care of themselves, or until you find another to do it for you. That’s implied by your invitation. Turnabout is fair play.

                    11. Ace, most or all rules have exceptions. Exceptions are simply parts of the rule. The NAF has an exception–you are allowed to aggress against trespassers who refuse to leave. The rule of freedom has exceptions–your freedom is limited by the rights of others and by binding contracts and agreements you enter into. The right to life has exceptions–you are not allowed to continue living by stealing blood or organs from unwilling donors.

                      I challenge you to cite even ONE rule which does not have exceptions.

                      Exceptions to a rule are like domains of functions–part of the rule. Go back and re-take Philosophy 101.

                    12. Ace, most or all rules have exceptions.

                      But the exception of “you can do whatever you want with your body as long as you aren’t carrying a little human in it” isn’t one of them? Why not?

                      The only rule for civil action is non-aggression, not property rights. Property rights are implied by non-aggression, not the other way around. Therefore, if your claim to property necessarily aggresses on another, especially one you created on your property, then you cannot claim that as part of your property rights.

                      I challenge you to cite even ONE rule which does not have exceptions.

                      As of yet, the rule of speed of light comes to mind.

                    13. Ace, stop making stupid arguments. Just because rules admit of exceptions doesn’t mean you can just say whatever you want is a rule and call it an “exception”.

                      If I were like you, I could say “You are entitled to your property, but there’s an exception: you have to give it all to me.” That’s not an argument, and neither is your suggestion that a fetus is an exception to body-ownership.

                      Speed of light is a physical law, not an ethical rule.

                    14. Just because rules admit of exceptions doesn’t mean you can just say whatever you want is a rule and call it an “exception”.

                      Why not? You’re the one who brought the whole “exception” idea into play. I was playing by your rules.

                      I could say “You are entitled to your property, but there’s an exception: you have to give it all to me.”

                      Yep, that’s why you must be careful with exceptions. Like how you must be very careful to not make the wrong exception that results in you becoming guilty of murder.

                      Speed of light is a physical law, not an ethical rule.

                      Not what you asked, but fair enough. Considering we’ve been arguing ethics this whole time, and that I’m convinced there is (in essence) only one ethical principle – do not aggress humans – that is almost a vacuous truth. Of course, as arguments over ethics always come down to the definitions of words, I could just redefine what words I’m using until there were no exceptions, but that wouldn’t help.

                2. ace_mb2: So does the little human. Much shorter.

                  Shorter refers to the very lengthy comment I responded to.

                  You say that here, but deny the woman’s rights entirely everywhere else on the page. Which is it?

                  1. You have a right to destroy your own body, not kill another. As inviting a human on your property means you will allow them to leave unharmed, creating a human means you will allow them to leave unharmed, even if it takes them 9 months to do so (through no fault of their own).

                    Just as you cannot leave your 8 year old child in the wilderness to die (because you don’t want to provide for them anymore), you cannot simply remove the child from your body to die. You created it, you actually do owe it something. If you don’t like that, don’t create it.

                    1. WRONG! Creating it does not take anything from it nor make it worse off than before, and therefore incurs no obligation to it. Giving a human a short life inside your body does NOT obligate you to also give it a longer one. Its short life is just so much gained for it, and it should be grateful, not demanding.

                      You are like a patient who receives a blood transfusion, and then goes to the donor saying: “I need an organ transplant so get ready to donate. You are responsible for my need, because you donated blood to me. If you hadn’t done so, I would be dead, and would not now need your kidney. Since you are responsible for my need, you MUST donate the kidney, whether you want to or not!” The proper answer is a slap in the face. The blood donation is just so much gained for the patient, and does not obligate the donor to make further donations. In the same way, giving you a short life in my body is just so much gained for you and does not obligate me to give you a longer one.

                      I am sure I have explained this to you before, but you don’t seem to get it. Ace, you should seriously consider the possibility that you may lack the basic mental equipment necessary to think about complicated philosophical questions like rights, freedom, and medical autonomy.

        2. craiginmass|4.7.15 @ 9:27AM|#
          And since when did you guys believe in science?

          Umm, when did women lose the equal, unalienable and/or God-given right to Liberty??? All fundamental rights are equal. That means Life and Liberty, Find a dictionary.

          And for Christian heretics, are there any other rights that God has suspended or changed His mind about? If so, which rights, temporary or permanent, and where do we learn this?

          1. You have the right to do all but aggress against another, including murder. If the person has no choice but to stay on your property, you may not aggress against them (but may charge them rent, I suppose).

            That you don’t understand the difference between willful trespass and being dumped immobile on someone’s property is quite telling. It’s the same difference as an accidental death and a murder – intent and will matters.

            1. Ace: WRONG! According to libertarian principle, it doesn’t matter WHY a trespasser is on your property–voluntarily or involuntarily. It doesn’t matter what will happen to the trespasser if he leaves your property. It doesn’t matter whether the trespasser is there by necessity or by choice. All that matters is that the property is yours and that the trespasser is refusing or failing to leave when ordered. In that circumstance, libertarian principle (the Property-Ownership Principle) says you are entitled to use deadly force against the trespasser. The trespasser’s “intent and will” do NOT matter one single solitary damn.

              Again, you do not seem to understand libertarianism, or even to know what libertarianism is. You clearly need to take a refresher course in Philosophy of Freedom. You need to read (or reread): Everything written by Ayn Rand, everything by Murray Rothbard, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA by Robert Nozick, everything by John Locke, John Stewart Mill, and Kant. Come back and post here again when you have finished doing this; until then, stop pretending to be a libertarian and stop pretending you know what libertarianism is.

              1. You’re wrong on every count. You cannot invite someone onto your property and then shoot them (violate their rights) just because “that’s in the rules on my property, the owner can shoot you whenever he pleases”.

                If you found a man tied up on your property, you would say that you’ve not aggressed against him if you ordered him off your property and then shot him when he failed (was unable) to leave.

                You need to re-read Rothbard concerning justice. An eye for an eye, not a life for an eye.

                1. RE: “You cannot invite someone onto your property and then shoot them (violate their rights) just because “that’s in the rules on my property, the owner can shoot you whenever he pleases”.”

                  That’s because by inviting him, you enter into a binding agreement to let him leave unharmed. That’s implied by your invitation. If he refuses to leave when you ask him to, then you CAN expel him with force, even deadly force if necessary. A guest who refuses to leave when ordered is just as much a trespasser as someone who enters unbidden.

                  1. You invited this person for 9 months, you entered into a binding agreement to provide for them until they were able to survive off your property.

                    If you violate this agreement, because of the nature of the agreement, you’ve murdered, the greatest violation of NAP.

                    1. No, you have not invited anyone. Before conception, there was no one to invite. Also, if there were an invitation, it would not be for 9 months, but only for as long as it took to learn of the pregnancy and get it aborted. That’s all the invitation the sex act implies in USA in the 21st Century. And if you ask any abortion patient, she will tell you that she has NOT entered into any sort of binding agreement with her fetus.

                    2. Creation and the invitation happened at the same time.

                      To turn your example around, my invitation onto my property was only by the second, and if you fail to run the 200 yards off my property in that second, I can shoot you.

                      Just because it’s modern doesn’t mean it’s right.

                      Of course they’d say that. They would be calling themselves murderers otherwise. People usually don’t condemn themselves.

                      Fascinating note, your whole premise would allow the following act:

                      After birth, you could take the little one to the edge of your property (in the middle of no-where) and leave them there to die. You owe them nothing, right? Also, you’d say you could shoot them if they failed to remove themselves from your property when ordered. You don’t just believe in abortion, but in 4th trimester abortion!

                    3. RE: “Creation and the invitation happened at the same time” You clearly do not know much about reproductive physiology. The zygote does not get created until a considerable time after sex–first the sperm must slime its way through the uterus into the fallopian tube; then it must encounter and penetrate an egg, and then the head of the sperm (containing the paternal DNA) must pass through the cytoplasm of the egg into the nucleus of the egg. Only when this process is complete do you have a functional zygote making proteins from the father’s genes. The process of the head of the sperm passing through the egg’s cytoplasm into its nucleus takes AT LEAST one day.

                      You should not be posting opinions on reproductive subjects without first doing research and learning the basic facts of human reproduction. All you succeed in doing otherwise is showing your ignorance and embarrassing yourself. You are like the Jimmy-Carter-era “No Nukes” activists who were very sure that nuclear power was evil and dangerous, but who knew nothing whatsoever about what nuclear plants do and how they work.

                    4. I’m quite well aware of how sexual reproduction works, thank you very much. Yes, they don’t occur at precisely the same time, but around the same time, just as the marriage vows occur “at the same time” but not at the same Planck time. If you were to run away from the altar (or the marriage contract table) after one party signed, but before the other one signed, the contract would be meaningless. The one still isn’t yet held to it if the other hasn’t signed.

                      I notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my other charges, so I’ll ask directly: Is it a violation of NAP to leave your 8 year old in the wilderness to die by themselves or do you “owe” him something due to you having created him?

                      To ask it another way, if the 8 year old isn’t biologically yours, but you adopted him, do you “owe” him something due to the adoption contract? If so, is that contract more binding that the creation “contract”? If you signed that adoption contract with the creator (mother and/or father) did they confer rights/responsibilities to you that they didn’t possess themselves? Where did those rights/responsibilities come from?

                    5. Ace, one of the problems with libertarianism–one might even say a flaw–is the question of children. Do/should children have the same rights as adults? What sort of requirements may government place upon the parents of small children without the government exceeding its proper scope and violating the intrinsic rights of the parents? This is a well-recognized problem with libertarianism.

                      In any case, however you resolve these problems, the situation with an eight-year-old on your property is fundamentally different from a fetus in your body, because body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, and more intimate form of ownership than ownership of external property. Whatever the obligations to an already-born eight-year-old may be, your body-ownership still entitles you to kill anything, including a fetus, which is inside your body (unless you have entered into a binding agreement to sustain it, or put it in your body by abduction or trickery).

                      We do not force parents to make life-saving blood donations or organ donations to their children. A parent who lets his child die rather than donate is called a bad parent, but cannot be forced to donate. This can only be for one reason: we recognize that the parent’s right to control the contents of his/her body overtrumps the patient’s right to life. This same principle gives the womb-owner the right to an abortion.

                    6. In any case, however you resolve these problems, the situation with an eight-year-old on your property is fundamentally different from a fetus in your body,

                      Why? Just because that one has experienced being outside the body?

                      You have “begged the question”, deciding that you must be outside the body to have rights, then coming to that conclusion.

                      Whatever the obligations to an already-born eight-year-old may be, your body-ownership still entitles you to kill anything, including a fetus, which is inside your body

                      So, you swallow it. Why does it not have rights anymore?

                      body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, and more intimate form of ownership than ownership of external property

                      Which is why the right to life is listed first in the Declaration (Lockean rights). But that means that life is over property, as it is closer in existence to NAP.

                      We do not force parents to make life-saving blood donations or organ donations to their children.

                      There is another who could give it (and other ways to survive, speaking of probability). Once the little human is implanted in the mother, we cannot (yet) separate them without killing the little one.

                      In fact, the reason we believe it’s a parent’s responsibility to not leave the 8 year old to die on their own is due to the amount of effort it would be to find a new caregiver. Removing the little one from the womb is a death sentence.

                    7. RE: “Why? Just because that one has experienced being outside the body?”

                      No, it’s because that one is outside of the body NOW.

                      RE: “So, you swallow it. Why does it not have rights anymore?”

                      It does. You’re not allowed to swallow it in the first place. That’s a violation of its rights and obligates you to restore its freedom to it. I have explained this to you several times. I will not answer your questions any more if you ignore my answers and continue to repost the same already-answered questions over and over again.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    8. RE: “You have “begged the question”, deciding that you must be outside the body to have rights, then coming to that conclusion.” You seem to be asking for a foundation, or justification for body-ownership rights. I’m not gonna give you one. You can go on asking “why” forever. If I give you a basis for body-ownership rights, you will ask for a basis of the basis, and then a basis for my answer to that. I can do it too: you say fetuses have a right to life? Ok, WHY do they have a right to life? And whatever your answer is, WHY is that true? And whatever your answer to THAT is, WHY is that true? Sorry, young man, as the old woman said, but it’s turtles all the way down. Some things are just true, only a looney denies them. One of those things is that you own your body and its contents.

                      RE: “There is another who could give it (and other ways to survive, speaking of probability). ” Suppose your child needed a donation, and you were the only compatible donor, and there were no other way for the child to survive. We still would not be allowed to force you to donate! So your argument, if it is an argument, is a bad one.

                    9. You seem to be asking for a foundation, or justification for body-ownership rights. I’m not gonna give you one.

                      Because the basis of that is non-aggression, which doesn’t support your cause.

                      You own your body. The little human owns theirs. If you create a little human, you owe it time to survive the trip out, just like you owe the invited human on your land the trip out, or a mini submarine a trip out (a la Fantastic Voyage).

                      Ok, WHY do they have a right to life? And whatever your answer is, WHY is that true?

                      My answer to that is always “God was, and is, and is to come” but I suppose you won’t accept that answer. Good luck on your quest of finding where rights come from, though. I hope you get there someday.

                      Suppose your child needed a donation

                      Define “need”. Like 99.99999% chance of dying? Because the separation from the mother is 100% chance of dying.

                      Also, I always try not to base morality upon invention. As this tech, actually working, that is, is less than 150 (ish) years old, I cannot say that it would have been within their obligation today, but not 150 years ago. If the child is outside your body, then you aren’t required to give them anything from inside yours.

                      To answer my earlier charge on obligation to the 8 year old, you are obligated to either care for them or find someone who can and drop them there. Interesting that you didn’t suggest that.

                    10. BTW, I saw FANTASTIC VOYAGE in the theater, when it first came out. I still have nightmares about Donald Pleasance shouting “Get me out! Get me out!” as he gets phagocytosed.

                    11. No, it’s because that one is outside of the body NOW.

                      Once again, you assume it to be true, and the try to prove it from that assumption. You fail to show me the actual difference.

                      You’re not allowed to swallow it in the first place.

                      Why not? If it never left a human body, then by your definition, it has no rights, so why can’t I swallow it? Why can’t the mother or the mother’s representative? Why not put it in a biomechanical tank until it dies of old age or the mother gets tired of it?

                      I will not answer your questions any more if you ignore my answers and continue to repost the same already-answered questions over and over again.

                      You answer along the lines of “it has no rights until it’s out of the body” and then completely fail to show any reason for this claim. Then you say “it’s different” and I bring up reasons why it isn’t in any other case. Then you whine about me asking stupid questions…

                    12. Ace, I have shown you the “actual difference” several times. You are being willfully obtuse–pretending not to understand.

                      RE: “Why not? If it never left a human body, then by your definition, it has no rights, so why can’t I swallow it?”

                      Maybe I misunderstood you–I thought you said I swallow someone who has already been born and HAS left the human body.

                      RE: “You answer along the lines of “it has no rights until it’s out of the body” and then completely fail to show any reason for this claim.” No reason is necessary. Body-ownership rights are primitive postulates. Anyone who rejects them is a looney or a slaver, and certainly a non-libertarian. I’m not going to play the “why-why-why” game with you.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    13. CONTINUING:

                      RE: “Because the basis of that is non-aggression, which doesn’t support your cause.” Yes it does. The fetus is engaged in THREE violations of the NAP against the womb-owner (taking stuff from her blood without permission; injecting toxic stuff into her blood without permission, and preparing to subject her to full-term L&D against her will) and she is entitled by the NAF to defend herself with deadly force against her fetus.

                      RE: ‘My answer to that is always “God was, and is, and is to come” but I suppose you won’t accept that answer. ‘ You are right. If your opposition to abortion is based on your belief in your imaginary friend whom you call “God”, then it is binding only upon those who believe in the same god you believe in, and worship him/her/it in the same way you do. Not upon those of us who know better. Just as Shari’a law is binding only upon pious Muslims, not upon you.

                    14. The fetus is engaged in THREE violations of the NAP against the womb-owner (taking stuff from her blood without permission; injecting toxic stuff into her blood without permission, and preparing to subject her to full-term L&D against her will)

                      Perhaps she shouldn’t enter into contracts when she doesn’t understand the ramifications of them. The little human has no choice, as it didn’t ask to be created.

                      You are right. If your opposition to abortion is based on your belief in your imaginary friend whom you call “God”, then it is binding only upon those who believe in the same god you believe in, and worship him/her/it in the same way you do.

                      Actually, my basis for NAP comes from there, not simply my opposition to abortion. As I’ve stated, NAP is the (singular) primary ethical postulate, it is completely consistent with Christianity. One need not violate NAP to be a complete Christian.

                      I do not hold you (unbelievers) to anything like the moral requirements I hold believers, to “do unto others as you’d have them do to you”. NAP is basically the “silver rule” and I attempt to follow the “golden rule” (which, properly understood, never violates the silver rule). BTW, I often fail to follow the golden rule, in case there is any confusion.

                      The only thing I require of you is that you don’t aggress against me or anyone else. That’s the only thing I will use force against.

                      You, however, cannot explain where morality comes from.

                    15. Neither can you. An appeal to “God” is not an explanation.

                    16. So, your position is that completely failing to try is more noble than to come up with a plausible answer?

                      An appeal to God is an explanation if there is a God.

                      I note you’ve stopped answering a few of my questions, BTW.

                    17. Maybe I misunderstood you–I thought you said I swallow someone who has already been born and HAS left the human body.

                      True, I did. However, I changed it later (perhaps without enough explanation) to show precisely why it didn’t matter. Just because the little one touched air doesn’t mean it magically has rights. When the fetal surgery is required, the little one is “out” for a very short time, but neither of us thinks their claim to rights increases or decreases because of that fact.

                      No reason is necessary. Body-ownership rights are primitive postulates.

                      I deny that. The right to not be aggressed against is the primitive postulate; there is only one, and there will only be one, as if there are more than one, they will inevitably come into conflict (as evidenced by this entire conversation). Your claim to body-ownership is found in NAP, but when you explain it, you explain it in such a way that is sometimes (rarely) inconsistent with NAP. This entire conversation is actually an argument about what is supreme, NAP or body ownership!

                    18. RE: “I deny that [body-ownership rights are primitive postulates.]”

                      Then you are not libertarian.

                    19. NAP is at the heart of libertarianism, not body ownership. Body ownership is implied by NAP, but not in the say you understand it.

                      To turn your phrase, if you don’t believe NAP is central, then you are the one who isn’t libertarian.

                      (I don’t actually believe that, I just believe you are just a pretty good libertarian, and not yet complete.)

                    20. Actually I’m not such a good libertarian. I have several quarrels with libertarianism, the most important of which is, I believe government should fund basic scientific research with money collected by force (taxes).

                      Without basic science there would be no tech sector, we would be a peasant nation, and we would have lost World War 2 (the enemy would have gotten the bomb first) and all subsequent wars. Without basic science we would not have been able to build our world-dominating car industry, or be the first in computers, or had the internet emerge in USA rather than elsewhere, or built our new-drug industry. However, basic scientific research cannot be funded in the private sector because 99% of basic-science measurements and discoveries yield no direct profit and therefore cannot offer investors a return on their investments. Libertarians believe basic science should be funded through charity, but this is too unreliable and too small to meet our basic-science needs. Therefore it must be funded by government. This position cannot be reconciled with libertarianism, so I am not, strictly speaking, libertarian.

                    21. I am, however, a VERY good libertarian when it comes to civil liberties. I am pro-choice, pro-free-speech with very few restrictions, pro-freedom-of-religion, anti-military-conscription (which is not really an issue now but was when I was draft-age) and I believe that the law-enforcement sector of government is way too powerful. The fact that judges and prosecutors are immune from civil lawsuits, and almost completely immune from oversight and legal punishments when they malpractice, is an outrage to me.

                      I am not such a good libertarian when it comes to the gun question. There are way too many guns in USA and it is a public-health hazard. Libertarians argue that if we outlaw guns, criminals (who disregard laws anyway) will still be able to get guns illegally, but that would not be true if we were to kill the gun industry. Make it illegal to manufacture, or import, more guns than are needed by law-enforcement, and criminals would NOT be able to get illegal guns because there would be none for them to get. At the very least, we should impose severe additional penalties (like 50 years in jail) for using a gun in a crime or committing a crime while carrying a gun.

                    22. “that would not be true if we were to kill the gun industry”

                      I’m not sure the statistic right now, but there are approximately 1.0 guns per American right now. Getting that number to go down, even assuming no new firearms (or imports) would take a darned long time.

                      “Make it illegal to manufacture, or import, more guns than are needed by law-enforcement, and criminals would NOT be able to get illegal guns because there would be none for them to get.”

                      That’s assuming that you can’t print/machine guns. That’s also assuming that cops won’t sell them to criminals and that they aren’t criminals themselves. You ought to read more Reason articles if you have so much faith in them.

                    23. “I believe government should fund basic scientific research with money collected by force (taxes).”

                      Thanks for your admission.

                      “Without basic science there would be no tech sector”

                      Perhaps you should Google who does more basic science research, Federal funding or industry (it’s industry, BTW).

                      “Therefore it must be funded by government.”

                      Even if true I disagree (not to get into another discussion or anything). I would be happy if the Constitution actually were a “suicide pact”. I’d rather be free and die than be oppressed in any way, at all.

                      You, of course, are free to want the opposite. I used to believe the same as you (on defense and whatnot) back when I was a Conservative.

                    24. RE: “Just because the little one touched air doesn’t mean it magically has rights.”

                      Yes it does. Once the little one is outside the womb-owner’s body, and is no longer engaging in body-fluid exchange with her, and is no longer preparing to assault her by subjecting her to full-term labor&delivery;, the NAF kicks in and the little one acquires rights.

                    25. “Once the little one is outside the womb-owner’s body, and is no longer engaging in body-fluid exchange with her, and is no longer preparing to assault her by subjecting her to full-term labor&delivery;, the NAF kicks in and the little one acquires rights.”

                      Ah, so which one is it, the “being outside the body” or no longer requiring sustenance from her? (Or is there somehow a difference between sustenance and body fluids that I don’t see?)

                      Long story short, if it’s being “outside the body” then my “giant swallows baby” comes into play and you’ve basically admitted it’s not true. If it’s sustenance, then my “leave the 3 month old on property to die of lack of food/water (milk/formula)” comes into play – the one you haven’t answered. Either way, it’s once again check, and very close to checkmate.

                      So, going back to the “3 month old dying of lack of sustenance” story, if I leave the child on my porch, and put up signs saying “trespassers will be shot”, can I shoot all the people who come onto my property to save the baby from starvation? Because I think you have to say that it’s within my rights to do so.

                    26. For the third time, the whole question of children, what rights they have, and what requirements the government may place on parents with respect to their children without government exceeding its proper scope is a knotty, unresolved problem for libertarianism. I’m not gonna try to solve it here!

                    27. “‘I have answered three questions, and that is enough,’
                      Said the father, ‘Don’t give yourself airs!
                      ‘Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
                      ‘Be off! Or I’ll kick you downstairs!'” –Lewis Carroll.

                    28. Of course you won’t try, because the only way to solve it is to admit you’re wrong. Whereas, I will “solve” the equation and you’ll complain because it doesn’t fit in with your worldview.

                    29. Ace, I have shown you the “actual difference” several times. You are being willfully obtuse–pretending not to understand.

                      Let’s assume I don’t know precisely where you demarcate the difference, what is it? It’s not “inside the body” because being in my stomach would be the same thing.

                      Is it because it’s “inside the body” and never having been out? Or it is because it’s taking sustenance from you? Or another option?

                      (Not playing stupid, BTW; I really don’t know. We can talk in circles all week if I don’t know where you’ll pin the difference.)

                    30. RE: “if the 8 year old isn’t biologically yours, but you adopted him, do you “owe” him something due to the adoption contract?”

                      That depends on what is written in the contract! DOIOIOIOIOIOI!

                    31. Read further. In order to have the rights/responsibilities given in the contract, the biological parents already have to have them. They cannot give what they don’t have.

                      So, if I were to write that in an adoption contract, I would already have to have them in order for them to exist once the contract is done.

                      What you are saying is that they are responsible only if it’s in the contract. No, they have to predate the contract or they don’t exist at all.

            2. That you don’t understand the difference between willful trespass and being dumped immobile on someone’s property is quite telling

              Save the stupid property analogy. The Constitution is clear enough.

              One more time:

              Umm, when did women lose the equal, unalienable and/or God-given right to Liberty??? All fundamental rights are equal. That means Life and Liberty, Find a dictionary.

              And for Christian heretics, are there any other rights that God has suspended or changed His mind about? If so, which rights, temporary or permanent, and where do we learn this?

              1. The Constitution is clear enough.

                I thought we were arguing NAP, not the Constitution. If the Constitution, then you fail on Amendment 8 and 14 grounds.

                You have rights, actually just one right, to not be aggressed against. By creating and starving a little human, you have aggressed, and therefore violated NAP.

                God doesn’t change his mind. No rights (or right) has been conferred that has been removed, save when you die.

                1. I thought we were arguing NAP, not the Constitution.

                  Same thing, in this case.

                  If the Constitution, then you fail on Amendment 8 and 14 grounds.

                  Neither applies, and I’m laughing.
                  Umm, you keep denying the 9th and changing the subject.
                  On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?
                  Unalienable means precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life.

                  You have rights, actually just one right, to not be aggressed against.

                  On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty, by committing aggression on her?

                  God doesn’t change his mind. No rights (or right) has been conferred that has been removed, save when you die.

                  Seventh request on this page:
                  When did God change his mind and cancel or suspend the woman’s unalienable right t Liberty?.
                  Are there any other rights that God has suspended or changed His mind about? If so, which rights, temporary or permanent,
                  and where do we learn this?

                  Simple question. Where?

                  1. Same thing, in this case.

                    Not even close.

                    Neither applies, and I’m laughing.

                    Perhaps you should do some reading. “Cruel and unusual”, “privileges or immunities”, and “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

                    On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty, by committing aggression on her?

                    On the fact that she first aggressed. NAP 101.

                    When did God change his mind and cancel or suspend the woman’s unalienable right t Liberty?.

                    He didn’t.

                    Are there any other rights that God has suspended or changed His mind about?

                    He didn’t.

                    Simple question. Where?

                    All over, if you care to search and Bible reference for the word “rights”.

                    “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8 and 9

                    “If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still.” Ecclesiastes 5:8 (what government does to your rights).

                    1 Samuel 8 (more of what government does to your rights).

                    “He does not keep the wicked alive but gives the afflicted their rights.” Job 36:6

      4. It doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus is a person. What matters is not WHAT it is, but WHERE it is. If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, even if it’s a person. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

        You wrote: “What’s more ‘libertarian’ than the defending of another person’s right to life”? Defending the “right” to life of a TRESPASSER is not libertarian. If a trespasser on your property refuses to leave when ordered to do so, then libertarian principle gives you the right to drive the trespasser off your property, using deadly force if necessary. If the trespasser is located inside your body, rather than on your external property, then you are even more entitled to get rid of him, because body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, more intimate form of ownership than ownership of mere external property.

        CONTINUES BELOW

        1. CONTINUING:

          Furthermore, the unwelcome unborn is engaged in several violations of the Non-Aggression-Principle against the mother. Specifically, the unwelcome unborn is stealing nutrients, water, and oxygen from her bloodstream, and it is injecting its toxic metabolic end-products, including CO2 and creatinine, into her bloodstream, without her continuing permission. These are two forbidden violations of the NAP. Also, the unwelcome unborn is preparing to subject her to the major medical/surgical trauma of full-term labor and delivery, which is another violation of the NAP against her. The Self-Defense Principle entitles her to defend herself, even by using deadly force against her fetus, even though the fetus may be a person with rights. Even if the fetus were fully conscious, sitting up in the womb and writing poetry, the womb-owner would still be entitled to defend herself against him/her.

          BulletGibson, YOU, not I, are failing to be rational and scientific.

        2. Intelligent Mr Toad|4.7.15 @ 3:32PM
          It doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus is a person. What matters is not WHAT it is, but WHERE it is. If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, even if it’s a person

          Thus showing that the extreme pro-choice folks are just as bad as the extreme pro-lifers.

          Assume two persons, each with rights. Those rights include the fetal child’s right to life, AND the woman’s precisely equal right to liberty. That’s from our founders. I’m afraid to ask the source of the barbarities you suggest.

          It also shows that debating “personhood” is bullshit. Irrelevant.

          BulletGibson, YOU, not I, are failing to be rational and scientific.

          If that was rational, today is Christmas.

          1. You call my argument “extreme” but you cannot refute it. Right-to-lifers always respond to the Body-Ownership/Abortion-as-Justifiable-Homicide argument with expressions of disgust and loathing, because they FEAR this argument. They know there is no answer to it.

            If ALL the human beings in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD were assembled inside your body, then you would be entitled to holocaust them, or just to kill some of them, according to your wish or whim, for any reason or for no reason, and your doing so would not be murder, but justifiable homicide. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

            There is only one exception: if you invite an already-living person into your body (as we invite proctologists to enter our bodies for medical examinations), his acceptance of your invitation is predicated on the assumption that you will let him out again, and thereby restore to him the freedom he gives up by entering your body. This exception does not apply to a fetus, which does not exist outside your body, accepts no invitation, and gives up nothing by being conceived there.

            1. You call my argument “extreme” but you cannot refute it.

              You don’y seem to understand what I said … which totally demolished your “argument.”

              Right-to-lifers always respond to the Body-Ownership/Abortion-as-Justifiable-Homicide argument with expressions of disgust and loathing, because they FEAR this argument. They know there is no answer to it.

              That’s delusional. I tore it to shreds.

              Right-to-lifers

              Pro-lifers deny the woman’s unalienable right to liberty.
              Pro-choicers deny the feat child’s unalienable right to life.

              People are not property!
              And you’re not Napolean.

              1. Michael, you have not “demolished” my argument, nor “torn it to shreds” nor even refuted it. All you did was write: “Assume two persons, each with rights. Those rights include the fetal child’s right to life, AND the woman’s precisely equal right to liberty.” And what you wrote is wrong. The “fetal child” (a contradiction in terms) has no rights while it is located inside the womb-owner’s body, unless she chooses to assign rights to it. That’s part of the meaning of the word “her” in the phrase “her body”. Also, the “fetal child” has no right to raid the womb-owner’s bloodstream for nutrients, oxygen, and water, without her continuing consent. The “fetal child” has no right to inject toxic metabolic end-products (CO2, creatinine) into the womb-owner’s bloodstream without her ongoing permission. And, the “fetal child” has no right to subject the womb-owner to the major medical/surgical trauma which is full-term labor-and-delivery, unless the womb-owner consents to endure same. The womb-owner is entitled to resist and prevent these violations, even by using deadly force, just as YOU would be entitled to use deadly force against anyone who tried to subject you to the same violations.

                You have a very strange idea of what it means to refute an argument. You argue (so far) like a high-school student.

  32. Rand Paul also favors massive increases in defense spending at a time when no foreign power threatens our country, and opposes legalization of marijuana.

    1. Sort of. I think the defense spending issue was covered in a Reason article last week. He would only support it contingent upon balancing cuts to pay for it. I’m less clear on his MJ position. Regardless, I doubt he will appoint anyone like Bill Bennett to run the DEA.

  33. “the essential role the church plays in the U.S. government” is to shut the fuck up when discussing policy.

    Empirical standards have permanently trumped theological and literary FOR A REASON.

  34. Is Rand Paul Becoming Less “Libertarian-ish?

    Probably. You can scare the 80% of Republicans who already believe you and your daddy are die Wolkenkuckucksheim

  35. Not really important, but who is the girl to Rand’s left in the photo at the top of the article?

  36. Listen up you die hard libertarians. Before you dump on Rand (which is what the status wants) he is the best possible chance for a some what libertarian/constitutionalist to make this far in a hundred years. Back in 1979 when I was 12 I hung on every word Reagan said. When I was disappointed at something he said, my father who I thought was conservative (was actually libertarian) told me that he (Reagan) has to say certain things to get elected. This country was taken down incrementally, it has to be brought back up the same way. Don’t cute off your nose to spite your face. It effects us all.

    1. Skydog, your argument can be used to support ANYONE. You could just as well say, vote for a Socialist, or for someone who believes in the divine right of kings, because he agrees with libertarianism on SOME issues (free speech, perhaps, or legalizing marijuana) and incrementalism is necessary.

      Rand Paul is no libertarian and no constitutionalist. He’s a fake. If we allow ourselves to be snookered by him, he will betray libertarianism and allow government to reach into our personal lives and tell us what to do and what not to do.

      1. Both Pauls lie through their teeth about the Constitution. Their apparent purpose is to make bigots and theocrats sound respectable. But they use liberty sounding language and SOUND libertarian.

        And they’ve brought massive numbers of Christian Taliban in the movement, just as they infiltrated (and destroyed) the GOP.

  37. Rand Paul is following the Obama model for radicals getting elected. Pretend to be centerish, but your base knows what really lies beneath. The difference is that Rand Paul is libertarian, not anti-American. He’s not going to be the one who lets the military go into decline.

    1. The difference is that Rand Paul is libertarian,

      GREAT! Since when?

      He’s not going to be the one who lets the military go into decline.

      So he’s a fraud on that too?

    2. Obama is center-ish.
      Paul is a joke – he goes wherever the money or power is. Period.

      Obama at least has some sort of an inner guide and vision….Rand is just fungible (a populist) who would sell his soul (if he was actually religious – but he’s probably a pretender) for more power.

      That’s dangerous.

      Let’s see how Rand carefully explains to those who are benefiting from the ACA why they should be happy to have it removed. Or, more accurately, why they should let him rename it and keep most of the same programs…that’s the populist way.

      Heck, even Forbes is now singing the praises of the ACA.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/br…..een-worse/

      1. Heck, even Forbes is now singing the praises of the ACA.
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/br…..een-worse/

        That’s shameful, even for you. The “contributor” does not reflect the opinions of Forbes. Says so. Forbes is not the Christian Taliban. They actually print all sides of most issues. (gasp) One more bad bluff.

  38. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  39. Ah, the Kochs are starting early with their “he’s not really a libertarian but we GOPers are the next best thing” saturation.

    Being as they pledged 900 million or more to this race, you are likely to see some big wins by Rand – I doubt the Kochs would prefer Cruz…..although they will jump on whoever they can get to beat those big bad ACLU liberty loving Dems and Libs!

    Rand has already given up 50% or more of his supposed world view. Mark my words – he will deny evolution and give up most of the remaining 50% before he makes it to the end of Primary season. Then he will stump for Israel and entertain the warmongers if he makes it to the general.

    He has the perfect makings of a Fascist – because, in the end, he listens to only money. Now, it may be that modern libertarians believe that’s the “free market” and that listening to the money always end in a perfect society, but I’d beg to differ. Money can be used to spread propaganda to the extreme and to buy off those forces which would normally disagree or be aligned against you.

    It will be fun to watch. I see blowback in NH against the Free State Movement already (from residents) and if he can’t make it there by a really serious margin, he can’t hope to make it anywhere.

    1. You’re crazy as a loon on the $900 million.
      And even wackier on the Free State Project, as documented here:

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5212955

  40. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  41. Sorry Rand. If Hillary does as the Democratic Media has already instructed her, and promises a Jubilee of all student loans, she will get the Millennial vote. Other issues cannot compete with cash in hand.

    1. For Millennials, Rand would rank at the very bottom along with Huckabee, Cruz and any other deniers of individual rights. Is Santorum gonna run?

      1. Who is “Santorum”? The name of the man you are thinking of is Man-on-Dog. –Posted by a former Pennsylvanian.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.