Ron Paul

[Maineiacs]

The title is "Ron Paul", and yet there are two pages saying things OTHER than "...is a dumbass".

I'm confused.

To be fair, on this forum there should have been a page of "is a dumbass" and a page of "walks on water".

[Dempublicents1]

I am well familiar with Ron Paul's record. With the exception of H.J.RES.46, (repealing birth-right citizenship) and H.J.RES.80, (the flag-burning bill, which I think he submitted so he could show how retarded flag-burning bans were - he spoke against it in the Congressional debate), I either agree with his bills or don't give a shit about them (the whole abortion crap falls in that category).

So you think the states should have essentially unlimited power to infringe upon religious freedom, to defy the 14th amendment, and to invade the privacy of its citizens?

[Dempublicents1]

In my view, majority vote is not an unlimited permission to do whatever the fuck you want.

I agree! And this is why I oppose Ron Paul, who pretty much thinks that a majority vote is permission to do whatever the fuck you want, so long as the vote takes place in a state government.

[The_pantless_hero]

The title is "Ron Paul", and yet there are two pages saying things OTHER than "...is a dumbass".

I'm confused.

To be fair, on this forum there should have been a page of "is a dumbass" and a page of "walks on water".

Followed by two pages of each "Page 1 people are dumbasses" and "Page 2 people are dumbasses" ad finitum.

[Dempublicents1]

So your point is, Libertarians must be compliant with YOUR magical definition of libertarianism? There's plenty of pro-life libertarians.

Well, for the sake of argument, wouldnt the Government regulating the female reproductive system be a little anti-libertarian?

Ahh, but Ron Paul doesn't want the Federal government regulating the female reproductive system...
He wants the state government to do it.

No, just the state governments.

Oh, and the federal government, when he decides that his anti-abortion agenda is more important than his pledge not to vote for anything he finds to be unconstitutional.

[The_pantless_hero]

No, just the state governments.

Oh, and the federal government, when he decides that his anti-abortion agenda is more important than his pledge not to vote for anything he finds to be unconstitutional.

That makes me think of a new name for Ron Paul followers - Paulbertarians. They are libertarians and Constitutionalists except for the Constitution and libertarian systems interfere with their personal beliefs so they decide their personal beliefs are more important.

[Gift-of-god]

And that sort of 'libertarianism' completely ignores the fact that the fetus is doing something to another human being without the other person's consent. Very consistent.

Unless it was rape, you know what you're getting yourself into.
....

This assumes that once one gives consent to one thing, one also gives consent to all actions that could possibly (not necessarily, just possibly - note the difference) arise from that action.

By the same logic, if a woman consents to have intercourse with a aman and halfway decides she no longer wants to, she would have to continue the intercourse, i.e submit to rape.

Is that sort of logic consistent with libertarianism?

[Dempublicents1]

The argument is since he believes an unborn child is still a person, that unborn child has rights, one of them is to not be murdered. That's his personal view, possibly from delivering so many babies.

However, he is on record as saying the Federal Government should have no say on this issue.

Of course, he's also on record voting for a federal law banning an abortion procedure - a law that he himself stated was "constitutionally flawed", thus making it clear that he will subjugate the Constitution for his own personal ideology.

Not to mention that, as a doctor, he should have known better. The bill in question won't stop a single abortion from happening. It's sole effect is to endanger the lives of women.

[Allanea]

By the same logic, if a woman consents to have intercourse with a aman and halfway decides she no longer wants to, she would have to continue the intercourse, i.e submit to rape.

This seems very peculiar to me.

[Grave_n_idle]

Furthermore, these so-called "investments" aren't necessarily good investments.

As a general rule, politicians spend money where it will benefit politicians--which may not be the most productive use for the money. The most productive use for the money is best found in the market, where people have a vested interest in finding the best return. Politicians are only interested in delivering votes.

Government caused the problem, and only the market can fix it.

If they are paying back with profit, in what way is that NOT a good investment?

Businesses don't always repay immediately - there are long term and short term investments. Sometimes, investment is purely strategic - but that doesn't make it less of an investment.

It's too early yet to see fruition of the whole concept, but we've started seeing fruit borne from the investments already - so I'm not willing to call the whole thing off as a bad job.

Government didn't cause this problem, and 'the market' won't fix it. Debt caused this problem - and the government is just one actor in that scenario.

[Grave_n_idle]

So your point is, Libertarians must be compliant with YOUR magical definition of libertarianism? There's plenty of pro-life libertarians.

You can't be pro-life and libertarian. You're one or the other. Call yourself both only if you're prepared to be called a liar and a hypocrite.

Well, to be fair. A libertarian could say the un-born child has a right to live...

They could, sure. That's not the part that makes their claim to libertarianism false, though - THAT is the part where they argue AGAINST the liberty of the mother.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ron Paul in charge of U.S=



In every country in the world.

What? Is that because he warned of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars BEFORE 9/11? Is that because of his non-interventionist foreign policy? What exactly are you saying? You don't make sense.

I warned of war in Iraq, Afghnaistan (and Iran) before 9/11, too. The information was already out there, if you were willing to look. That doesn't make Ron Paul a prophet or a visionary, it just means he read the PNAC material that his OWN party were circulating.

[Grave_n_idle]

And that sort of 'libertarianism' completely ignores the fact that the fetus is doing something to another human being without the other person's consent. Very consistent.

Unless it was rape, you know what you're getting yourself into.

Like I said, I don't accept the premise that a fetus is a separate human being in its own right. But if one does, opposition to abortion is perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

No, it's not - because it necessitates stripping liberty from the person involved.

[Dempublicents1]

And that sort of 'libertarianism' completely ignores the fact that the fetus is doing something to another human being without the other person's consent. Very consistent.

Unless it was rape, you know what you're getting yourself into.

Like I said, I don't accept the premise that a fetus is a separate human being in its own right. But if one does, opposition to abortion is perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

No, it's not - because it necessitates stripping liberty from the person involved.

Don't be silly. Women aren't people! Only men and unborn babies are people!

[Leistung]

A bigger government also has more capability.

And since all government ever do is oppress, that's a bad thing.

Besides, public jobs are just as, well, job-providing as private ones.

Except those jobs generally don't produce anything of quantifiable economic value, meaning that if there are too many of them compared to private-sector jobs consumption will outstrip production--which is clearly unsustainable.

Doesn't Denmark employ 30% of the population in the public sector?

[Bluth Corporation]

And that sort of 'libertarianism' completely ignores the fact that the fetus is doing something to another human being without the other person's consent. Very consistent.

Unless it was rape, you know what you're getting yourself into.

Like I said, I don't accept the premise that a fetus is a separate human being in its own right. But if one does, opposition to abortion is perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

No, it's not - because it necessitates stripping liberty from the person involved.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it doesn't any more than banning outright murder does.

I don't have any intrinsic obligation to provide for another person, but that doesn't prevent me from being bound by an explicit agreement to that effect I might agree to. If the sex was consensual, and you believe that a fetus is a person in its own right, it's the same thing.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it doesn't any more than banning outright murder does.

I don't have any intrinsic obligation to provide for another person, but that doesn't prevent me from being bound by an explicit agreement to that effect I might agree to. If the sex was consensual, and you believe that a fetus is a person in its own right, it's the same thing.

If your (libertarian) argument is that the fetus has a right to the uterus, and thus can somehow trump the woman's claim...

Well, the woman surely has at LEAST as good a claim to rights to that uterus.

Life begininning at conception is irrelevant.

I'm not sure where you're going with 'banning murder'... there is no crime involved.

[Bluth Corporation]

In the future, please pay attention to the ENTIRE POST before you respond to it.

Thanks!

[Dempublicents1]

No, it's not - because it necessitates stripping liberty from the person involved.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it doesn't any more than banning outright murder does.

No, even if you believe that life begins at conception, abortion is only murder in the same way that refusing to donate an organ or otherwise use your body to sustain someone else's life is.

I don't have any intrinsic obligation to provide for another person, but that doesn't prevent me from being bound by an explicit agreement to that effect I might agree to. If the sex was consensual, and you believe that a fetus is a person in its own right, it's the same thing.

When you agree to sex, you've made an agreement with the person you're having sex with. Any agreement with the hypothetical fetus can only be made when said fetus exists.

Meanwhile, even if such an "agreement" were made, it is pretty clear from the rest of the law that one can withdraw the use of one's body at any time. As someone said earlier, it would be like arguing that, once a woman has consented to sex, she can't decide she wants to stop in the middle.

[Grave_n_idle]

In the future, please pay attention to the ENTIRE POST before you respond to it.

Thanks!

The irony of this not being connected to anything is leaving me reeling.

[Mortshnefran]

it s totally internally consistent to be libertarian and pro-life. an individuals rights only extend to the point to where interfere with the rights of another. i am personally pro-choice because i do not believe a tiny collection of cells with no consciousness has rights, but if you believe rights begin at conception and are a libertarian you must in fact be pro-life as no individuals rights trump another's.

comparing the right of a woman to have an abortion and her right to consent to sex is disingenuous.

[Grave_n_idle]

it s totally internally consistent to be libertarian and pro-life. an individuals rights only extend to the point to where interfere with the rights of another.

You don't see a conflict there?

That's inconsistent - since the fetus' rights end at the point where it occupies someone else's uterus.

[Melkor Unchained]

In the future, please pay attention to the ENTIRE POST before you respond to it.

Thanks!

An exercise in futility, to be quite sure. Not that I've been paying any particular attention to this thread, but ignoring large sections of one's post is endemic to this and (I suspect) most other internet forums. I don't know or care really whether sections of your post have been ignored, but it's something that happened to me fairly consistently and I suspect you're just going to have to deal with it.

I'm not going to get too far into this since most of you already know where I stand (and the "Ron Paul hates freedom" arguments are pretty loltastic) but I don't think I've ever seen anyone make the point that probably the best argument against abortion is that it denies the father any reproductive rights. Legally speaking, males cannot create a life: only the woman can. A male can create a fetus, but it only matures into a human being if the mother wants it to.

Let me put it this way: if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, tough shit: he ain't gonna get it. The decision, as it stands, is entirely hers and despite having (theoretically) an equal share in its creation, the male has little or no say in the final decision whether or not to have the baby. If the situation is reversed and the male doesn't want the baby but the female does, guess what? You've got to either get married or pay child support for the next eighteen years.

I don't put much stock in the "baby murder" arguments and I of course agree with the principle that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it's worth noting that as things stand right now, males have essentially zero in the way of reproductive rights, primarily on account of abortion procedures. There's probably some middle ground somewhere, but since I've never seen anyone point this out, I doubt we're going to find it any time soon. People love to talk about "equal rights" and all that happy horse shit, but the real issues (and their possible compromises) get overlooked about 95% of the time whenever you politicize an issue like this.

That is all.

[Mortshnefran]

it s totally internally consistent to be libertarian and pro-life. an individuals rights only extend to the point to where interfere with the rights of another.

You don't see a conflict there?

That's inconsistent - since the fetus' rights end at the point where it occupies someone else's uterus.

and that is what you believe and that is what i believe. but it is subjective
if you believe that a newly fertilized egg is just as deserving of the full scope of human rights then it's right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.
i would argue that it does not if fact have full human rights, but holding that view is not in and of itself anti-libertarian.

[Grave_n_idle]

it s totally internally consistent to be libertarian and pro-life. an individuals rights only extend to the point to where interfere with the rights of another.

You don't see a conflict there?

That's inconsistent - since the fetus' rights end at the point where it occupies someone else's uterus.

and that is what you believe and that is what i believe. but it is subjective
if you believe that a newly fertilized egg is just as deserving of the full scope of human rights then it's right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.
i would argue that it does not if fact have full human rights, but holding that view is not in and of itself anti-libertarian.

It isn't a matter of what you or I 'believe'. If the fundamental tenet is that my rights END where yours begin, then the fetus has NO claim on the uterus, because it's mere existence is exerting a claim that MUST 'end' where it 'begins'.

That's not 'belief', that's applying logic to the premise about liberty and 'rights'.

That's why libertariansim and anti-abortionism are incompatible.