Ron Paul's Roots - The Nation
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:30by Christopher Hayes | The Nation
posted December 6, 2007 (December 24, 2007 issue)
Although not a single vote has been cast, it's safe to say that Ron Paul has run the most successful libertarian presidential campaign in American history. Sure, the Libertarian Party nominates a candidate every term, but said candidate struggles to garner money and media attention. Paul, however, has become a legitimate phenomenon, if not a particularly likely GOP nominee. With his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq and a radical vision of a stripped-down state (though, oddly, one that still forces pregnancy), he's attracting large crowds at campaign events and polling at a healthy 8 percent in New Hampshire. In November he broke the single-day fundraising record with a $4.2 million haul.
So you would think that the circle of DC-based libertarians centered around the Cato Institute would be ecstatic. Not quite. "He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that's tapping into those elements of American public opinion that might lead towards a sustainable move in the libertarian direction," says Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey.
Continue reading at The Nation, and leave your thoughts below.
Forced Pregnancy.....
That sounds like fun.....is there a form to fill out to participate in that program. I bet there is a long wait (for the males, anyway). LOL!!!
Shep
Shep
In the first place, Dr. Paul
In the first place, Dr. Paul is personally pro-life, but he leaves it to the states. So this author is just flat wrong to begin with, not to mention his characterization of irresponsible sex that creates a baby being a "forced pregnancy." Boy, he doesn't believe in taking responsibility for himself in any circumstance. It is not HIS fault that he had sex at an inappropriate stage in life, it is not HIS fault that he chose to do it without protection, it is not HIS fault that they chose to do it at the time of the month when she would get pregnant, it is not HIS fault that she might keep the fetus. Nothing is HIS responsibility, he is helpless to control himself, he is helpless to think about what he is doing, he is helpless to think of anyone's welfare but his own. Man, when a girl picks this fella-she sure picks a winner.
Something that works with
the liberal blogs is to point out how they sound just like George Bush.
forced pregnancy?
This just cracks me up:
"(though, oddly, one that still forces pregnancy)"
The last time I checked, the VAST majority of pregnancies were a result of COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY SEXUAL ACTIVITY. So, other than in cases of rape, wouldn't pregnancy be considered a choice, or at the very least a likely side effect of having sex? Other than the obvious few exceptions, nobody is out forcing women to get pregnant, although 'The Nation' sure seems to be suggesting otherwise.
Isn't a pro-choice position really just allowing people to opt-out of personal responsibility for their actions in most cases? I certainly don't think I have all of the answers to what is an extremely complex question, but there are just so many flaws in most of the arguments put forward by most pro-choice advocates that it really makes me laugh.
Forced pregnancy - LOL - I groaned when I read that too
Some people really talk some crap.
"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night."
Lew Rockwell
Huh?
"He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that's tapping into those elements of American public opinion that might lead towards a sustainable move in the libertarian direction," says Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey.
What hoity-toity claptrap. Who is this bozo? Never heard of him, though I'm familiar with most who have truly contributed to advancing libertarianism. Vice-president of research? That's hardly the kind of jobette that lends credence to his opining on this matter.
Remember The Nation has a liberal bent
The Nation's liberal/progessive writer uses the term "forced pregnancy", which is rather bizarre, on top of being obviously biased.
Homicide is illegal in most cases, but not all. (For example, consider self-defense and death penalties.) Homicide laws are generally classifiable into man-slaughter and murder with different degrees of each. Even if you accept the notion that abortion is homicide, that does not make it murder.
I personally believe that embryonic / pre-fetal abortion is not really an act of homicide, since there is no identity or self-awareness. (Think of all the fertilized embryos that never implanted; why are there no funerals for these individuals?) I also believe that terminating viable unborns is a form of homicide, which might require its own state level laws.
All laws on violence are handled by the states. Why not include any abortions which might also be homicide, as decided by the legislature of that state? With Roe v Wade, states do not have that legislative power, and I believe this is wrong. I suspect writers on the left, including at The Nation, disagree.
As for the supposed hostile libertarian schism, I think this is greatly exaggerated. A person on the left, as this writer appears to be, likes the big welfare state and counts both paleolibertarians and all other forms as their idealogical opponent. This may well be a small attempt to draw a schism between libertarian factions for the supposed protection of the welfare state.
Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd
Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd
You sound just like Ron Paul!
naturally.
Very nice comment there. quite succinct and very convincing. I'm gonna clip it if I may. This issue will keep coming up during the campaign, and I need to add to my ahem, war-chest.
thanx!
capn mike
Goverment Forcing Pregnancy?
I dont have a big problem with abortion,, but if goverment forces fatherhood then why no pregnancy and motherhood. The other option would be for government not to force pregnancy and also not force fatherhood. The government should just simply stay out of it and let people make their own decisions.
Government Forcing Pregnancy? Reply to JaimeFL
JaimeFL wrote, "I dont have a big problem with abortion,, but if goverment forces fatherhood then why no pregnancy and motherhood. The other option would be for government not to force pregnancy and also not force fatherhood. The government should just simply stay out of it and let people make their own decisions."
I say amen!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." --Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." --Declaration of Independence
Beutiful document that Declaration fo Independence.
Unfortunately, here in the US a man can go to jail for owing 4000 dollars in back child support. However if you owe Citibank 2 million dollars you can go to bankrupcy court and get it discharged. Is there something wrong with this picture? Or am I crazy? I think not. That's why my wife and I live in her country. Just to get the government out of our backs. I feel more free in South America than here. Here the government knows everything about you. There , you just use cash all the time, nobody watching, get about your daily life as a normal human being. No mortgages. $75.00 property tax per year. God I feal sorry that america has fallen so low. If we can just get them to wake up, this will be the best country in the world. Thus hope I have for us. Ron Paul will win.
And for those who are voting for those other candidates who are not being honest. Please remember that you deserve what you vote for. I stoped voting for those Republicans in name only out of protest 11 years ago. Next year I'm moving abroad to become and expat. I was actually not going to vote this year for I though the republicans were lost in the low lands and the Democrats also, until I encounter Ron Paul. It was at that moment that I decided to support his campaign, not because it will benefit me directly since Im leaving the country. But a way to pay back the countless blessings given to me by the people of this country. You deserve better, you know it in your hearts. So do the right thing and Vote for Ron Paul.
God Bless.
Ron Paul's own words
Here is a great article by RP about the importance to liberty of being pro-life. It was written in 1981 but it's still an excellent read.
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html
I don't know (or care) about
I don't know (or care) about such irrational feuds. The point of libertarianism isn't trying to get everyone to agree with each other.
The LP, itself, only requires that one "does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving social or political goals." The whole idea is to allow people to have these differences and try to convert others to their views without beating them over the head with a government club.
IMissLiberty
You can reach voters in California, here: http://consequeries.com/California-voter-guide.php
Why Truth Matters
http://www.etherzone.com/2007/homc120507.shtml
Cato sucks...
...and so does the Nation. The idiot who wrote the article insists on adding in little half-truths about Ron Paul on abortion. ("...radical vision of a stripped-down state (though, oddly, one that still forces pregnancy)...")
What kind of crap is that? "Pro-life" is completely consistent with libertarianism. What kind of libertarian advocates the murder of babies? (Brink Lindsay and the Cato crowd, that's who...) He didn't even mention the federalist part of Paul's position. (States' rights issue).
There are SOME people at
There are SOME people at Cato who suport Dr. Paul. If you check out their blog "Cato@Liberty," there are occasionally posts (usually positive) about him. They even had a post last week about monetary policy...
They aren't all that bad, although some of them seem to be trying too hard to "mainstream" the movement.
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
No wonder the Libertarian movement didn't explode like it should
Have. I've been a libertarian for years and have always suspected that we have had incompetants at the helm. I no longer call my self a libertarian. I am now officially a "Ron Paul Republican". Let's take over the Republican party and kick out the neoncons and put in pro-life libertarians or at least libertarians who don't see it as a make or break issue. What could be more Libertarian than protecting a person in the womb? Granting the freedom of life and liberty to all is the point of libertarianism. I'm done with these Cato - 1 issue morons!
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi
here here
I am right there with you. I am looking at joining the Texas Liberty Caucus known as ''The Ron Paul Republican'' I read the Texas GOP party platform and agree with nearly all of it, therefore this is now my new home.
For some reason
following the constitution is a "radical vision".
No, Paul does not want a state that forces pregnancy
The state does not "force pregnancy". Pregnancy is almost always the result of voluntary acts and in the sole exception where it isn't (rape) the pregnancy is forced by a criminal person, not the state.
Whatever one's position on abortion, it would help if people discussed it honestly rather than with hyperbole.
Murder or negligence?
It is murder in the same way that me refusing a freezing homeless dude to shelter in my house is murder. Yes, he will almost certainly die without my help, and any moral person would give it, but it does not follow that anybody has a right to my property because they know a more moral use for it than I do.
If a right to life means a right to other people's property if necessary to preserve your life, then perhaps there is some sense in arguing against abortion. This is perhaps a defensible position but, I believe, not very libertarian. All kinds of complications follow when you try to apply this logic to other situations. For example, do I have a right to your food if it will make me live longer? To free medicine?
I am more worried about the indefensible position that the ordinary libertarian right to life, a right not to be killed, leads to the conclusion that abortion cannot be allowed. What abortion is is not a desire to have the child dead, but simply a desire no longer to have it grow and feed inside of you. I believe the difference is significant.
I therefore cannot equate abortion with infanticide. Abortion is asserting property rights and denying the child your food, with the result that the child dies. Infanticide is the taking of a life trough a direct violation of the property rights of the child.
Lastly, I cannot see how there can be an implied contract with somebody that doesn't yet exist. How can it possibly consent to a contract? You seem to take the peculiar position that existing for less than the normal lifespan of a human being is a lot worse than not existing at all, and that the child therefore deserves some compensation.
Forced pregnancy
The trouble with laws against abortion is, my trouble with laws against abortion is, that they do force pregnancy. It may have been voluntary once, some time ago, but now it is no longer. I believe it is a travesty that a woman under a supposedly libertarian regime can be coerced into involuntary servitude to feed and shelter a parasite that lives in her body.
What confuses most people, I think, is the fact that the baby would die if ejected and they see this as a terrible wrong. But should we therefore deny the mother's self-ownership? Many other parasites die upon removal as well. Even if I place one on my skin voluntarily, do I not have the right to remove it when I no longer like it feeding on me?
There is no way for the baby to survive other than the mother nurturing it at least until birth. Would you use the same fact to force a firefighter to save me, if that was the only way I could be saved, even if he had very good reasons for not desiring to enter the burning house? We might find him sacrificing some personal gain to save the life of another the morally better option, but I don't think he ever ought to be forced.
I do believe...
...that the resolution to the problem of "parasites", as you so graciously refer to them, would be to simply not get pregnant in the first place. You have rights and choices, but with those rights and choices come responsibilities.
It is quite libertarian to protect life, as life is a right. You do have self-ownership, and the "parasite" does rely upon you. But it does not follow that you, by extension, have ownership over the life of the "parasite."
However, I think it is disingenuous to compare developing humans to "parasites," as there is some inevitability of intelligence and self-awareness.
Put simply, it is murder, and the right to one person's life should be put above the right to another person's liberty (when those two people are connected through action).
Not to start a feud, but
Not to start a feud, but I've heard and thought about this argument, as it is the most compelling argument I've heard in favor of abortion rights. Here's my problem with it though. If a parent can't be forced by the state into servitude to care for their children under any circumstances whatever, then by the same argument, it would be perfectly legal for a parent to leave a 6 month old in the crib and take off for a week without telling anyone, leaving it to die. Forcing them to contact a charity to take the child for adoption would be involuntary servitude.
I think that there is an implied contract between parent and child to care for the child at least until it can be given for adoption. Just like at a restaurant when you sit down at a table, there's no written contract, not even a verbal one, but if you get up and leave without paying the check after they've begun serving you, you've absolutely committed theft. When you take action that might result in pregnancy, you are similarly are entering an implied contract to reasonably care for the child at least until it can be given for adoption.
With your logic, infanticide
With your logic, infanticide should be legal, as a baby and even a young child is totally dependent on his parents to feed and nurture him. Without nurturing, an infant will die.
Ahhhh
People will argue about this forever, while those who wish to rule us all contrive ways to kill off "some percent" of the earth's ballooning population with labratory-bred diseases.
As Ron Paul says, these are difficult problems which should be hashed out at the local level. I agree.
Twisted Logic
By your own standard that makes us all parasites on the planet. I now understand why liberals like Ted Turner want to reduce the population by 20 fold it is a sick form of PC genocide. It is a very slippery slope when human life is not given value, and is only considered a problem, it is only our actions that caused the problem not our mere being. And how can you even consider a being who has 50% of your DNA a parasite no wonder people don't care about anything anymore we don't even respect ourselves. I guess the training we all get in school has made us respect greed over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Rather to seek new kingdoms by their own work, than to slumber in peaceful subjection to the rule of others."
-Alaric Gothic Leader-