He's just terrible, even when -- which is often, once he's off the subject of the war -- I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.
But that's good news, in a way. Paul's doing better than anyone expected. It's abundantly clear that he's not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn't. Paul's flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas' appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.
Heh.
Paul is polling like 5% nationally. That's a victory?
Without Dr. Paul, we would only have questions about immigration policy, abortion and how are the candidates going to save the housing market.
God bless him.
I mean, the Democrats are arguing about who is going to spend more on medical care. There's not much vigor in their policy arguments.
Having said this, I *am* hopeful that he will do better than expected in NH. His fund raising indicates that GR is correct in saying that Paul has hit a strong chord among the American public. It also seems fairly obvious that MSM is making some effort to smear him (a reporter arranged for a brothel owner, the reporter's friend, to come out and support Paul; Luntz includes in a FOX "focus group" a known operative for Bush/Cheney who attacks Paul on air, a major TV reporter is accidentally taped on an inadvertently open mike saying to be sure to arrange the TV camera on him so that it doesn't include a large crowd of Paul supporters, etc.).
But Justin is also right. It is obvious that much of Paul's support is his non-interventionalist anti-war rhetoric, the very thing that alleged VC libertarians hate about him. I'd go further: Politicians have long realized (likely prior even to Machiavelli) that one way to drum up domestic support is too scare the hell out of their constituents about "foreign threats". The Republican worldview of safety through bombing, safety through war, safety through empire requires constantly playing to American fears. I think part of Paul's support comes from Americans who have wearied of this, who find Paul's view of safety through not intervening into other countries' affairs a breath of fresh air.
The lasting result will have nothing to do with Ron Paul's candidacy; it will instead permanently marginalize the role those 2 states heretofore played in presidential politics.
All you alleged VC/Reynolds "libertarians"need to quit hiding behind the label since all you really mean is "we're Republicans embarrassed that a large percentage of the party is bible-thumping morons."
"Well, what does the North American Union mean?" he asked. I told him it was this crazy theory that the US, Canada and Mexico are all going to get together and form one big government. He still seemed confused.
"Dad, remember the LaRouchies?" I said. "This is the guy they all support now." That, he understood.
He also gave a perplexing answer on abortion. He wants the issue returned to the states. Okay, fine. And he thinks abortion should be a crime. Okay, I follow him so far. But he doesn’t think that the woman obtaining the abortion should be punished because she isn’t the one committing the crime. Besides begging the question, I don’t understand his response. If abortion is immoral and should be made criminal, why shouldn’t the woman be punished as well?
Of course, since the other Republicans are for "not as big a government as the Democrats, just not less government", then the "less government" crowd really has no one else to turn to.
As for immigration, though I disagree with his position, there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about it. It depends on how large-scale your libertarianism is. If you're a "global libertarian," then it is unlibertarian. But if your version of libertarianism sees the US as the political unit, then there's nothing unlibertarian about keeping people out--even going so far as to build a 10-mile high wall and not let anyone in whatsoever. In Nozick's development of Utopia in ASU, the only freedom of movement across borders a libertarian state has to provide is the freedom to leave.
I would assume that he means there are two models for criminalizing abortion: the drug war model and the illegal gambling model. In the former, we lock up every person we can find who violates possession laws; in the latter, we only lock up people who organize the gambling rings, not the participants in the activity. Paul would apparently prefer the latter model for ciminalizing abortion. And I think that's more consistent with libertarian views (at least in comparison to the drug war model), at least to the extent that Milton Friedman et al. would endorse it.
mg
On immigration, the difference between national and global libertarian is artificial. There's no intrinsic logical reason for this distinction (any more than there is for an economic vs. noneconomic libertarian). It simply privileges nativism over libertarianism. Much like others might privilege national security over libertarianism. You can do that, but it's not libertarian.
GV_, it's a matter of moral agency. If you hire a hit man, who kills someone at your request, are you a murderer? The answer isn't so obvious. The common law does consider you guilty of murder, or at least of conspiracy to commit murder; but for instance Jewish law does not, because the hit man is a moral agent, and it was ultimately his decision, not yours, to commit the crime.
But the women is not a bystander; she "participates" in the doctor's crime. He couldn't do it without her. In any event, has Paul ever tethered his approach to criminalizing abortion to this view of moral agency?
After all, any nation-state can simply unilaterally drop all its tariffs and other barriers to trade without conditioning its actions on a treaty.
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5656
Both so true.
Modern American politics is a circle, the nuts on both sides hold similar views.
I'm curious: what makes this obvious?
But the women is not a bystander; she "participates" in the doctor's crime. He couldn't do it without her.
True. A better legal analogue might be dealing or prostitution. Under US law both the party offering the service and the party soliciting the service can be charged with varying forms of criminal wrongdoing. The situation only changes when one party attempts to force some sort of transaction against the other party's will.
Nobody stood up and said, "It should be the same as any other premeditated homicide."
This raises an interesting question: did anyone accurately prdeict in 2002 the results that we now see in 2007? Ron Paul certainly did not.
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5656
"Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result."
"More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best."
Maybe they expect some women to show up at the polls next November.
Huh?
Here's the thing about abortion: the baby doesn't get born.
The problem that's not addressed by this whole "moral agency" thing is that there's not always a doctor involved. Can you believe abortion is the murder of a human life, yet not want to hold criminally responsible a woman who performs an abortion on herself? This is particularly important because, if you start putting doctors in jail, there's going to be a lot more abortions that fit this description.
It is to me -- it's "yes."
But I'm intrigued that other systems draw a distinction. Do any other legal systems totally fail to criminalize murder for hire, or is it punished as something less than murder?
Right, of course if the abortion is actually performed there is no baby born; but presumably there would be lots of arrests and sting operations for "attempted" abortions and "conspiracy to commit" abortions, no?
Because once you introduce a bureaucracy, it is very hard to then later dislodge it, and in the meantime, it GROWS.
[Shudder] When I read this I had a vision of a Paul/Kocinich ticket....
On the issue of Iraq causing WW3 and nukes. Have y'all been hiding under the rock? Have you not heard every other GOP nominee endorse preemptive nuclear bombing of Iran?
A sting operation? Do you seriously intend to start setting up fake abortion clinics? Among other comments I could offer, that wouldn't be too bright if you're then going to decline to prosecute the women who come through the door on the grounds that you don't want to imprison expectant mothers.
Anyway, using this line of logic to justify a refusal to prosecute women following an actually completed abortion is just a dodge.
...So if the country wakes up on January 21st 2009 and see's his tiny shadow, how long before he's impeached and convicted by a Congress that has no affiliation with him whatsoever ? Pliny, the Elder, and Jay D have it exactly right. It's crazy. Americans have gone crazy before, but it doesn't last. So dream on, you odd assortment of lost causers and Truthers, Nazi's and sophomores. If you do get Dr. Paul elected...........Then the miracle happens !
I'm curious: what makes this obvious?
-----
Years of dedicated political thought and analysis? :-)
For one thing, most of the other positions RP takes are, to a degree, not unique to him. There are other Republican candidates who want to deal with Soc. Sec., offer Health Savings Accounts, "do something" about illegal immigration, favor trade, promote capitalism, support the second amendment, etc. One does not have to choose Paul to support these positions.
Granted, he is also against the Drug War. But I think the Drug War, sadly, is more popular among the Republican faithful than the Iraq War. In addition, there is a clear historical wing of the Republican party to which Paul can harken in defense of his position on foreign interventions, but his opposition to the Drug War is based on abstract issues of liberty alone. While it is perfectly defensible (dare I say obviously correct?), it does not resonate with Americans (or Republicans) the way opposition to the Iraq War does.
Now maybe some of his support is from racist, conspiracist "anti-North-American-Union" crazies. But 10% in New Hampshire? $10M in fund raising? I didn't realize crazies were so numerous and successful.
These are some reasons why it is obvious (to me) that "much" of Paul's support involves opposition to the Iraq War in the Republican heartlands.
------
Well, there are over 100,000 doctors in the USA, several of them regular posters on VC, all of whom, I suspect, would be happy to hear that everyone who refers to them as "Dr." belongs to a personality-cult devoted to him or her. :-)
There are only 100 Senators in the USA, so I'll tell you what bothers me:
One interesting thing I've noticed about Hillary Clinton is that her supporters consistently refer to her as "Senator Clinton." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something a little weird about that. I know she's a Senator and all, but it just rubs me the wrong way...something cult-of-personality-ish about it.
The only way Paul would get elected would be with an accompanying political earthquake, or "miracle." If there ever was such a thing as a President with mandate from the electorate, it would be Ron Paul. Congress would, I think, be too shell-shocked to consider impeachment for a certain length of time. Ron Paul might even be able to get some things done.
The original post included the answer to your complaint: people have not tended to do this with other politicians who are doctors, such as Dean (and Frist). They do commonly tend to refer to senators as "Senator X." Any other maddeningly obvious things you need pointed out today?
I don't intend to do anything, nor am I advocating outlawing abortion.
But, yeah, I think it is quite likely that if abortion were to be outlawed, there would be plenty of very, very zealous prosecutors and other LEOs who would go after doctors and women that they believed were trying to come to arrangement to perform/have an abortion. After all, if fetus = baby, you'd be remiss in your duties if you didn't try and stamp out what you view as premeditated murder for hire before the purported murder took place.
Without some sort of guarantee that pregnant women would not be prosecuted for attempted abortion, I can very easily imagine sting operations designed to tag women for "attempted abortion," which would result in the problem I noted above--pregnant women in jail. After all, police set up plenty of fake drug dealing operations now. If women could be prosecuted for seeking abortions, why wouldn't they set up fake abortion providers?
I'm attentive to these things-- after all I'm the MDJD(2B).
And Dr. Dean was referred to as such. As was Sen. Frist called Dr. Frist. It's a courtesy generally accorded to health professionals with a doctoral level degree (even chiropractors).
And no, it's not cultish.
But for some reason, most minsiters in politics drop the Rev. I am thinking of John Ashcroft, Mike Huckabee and Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton is an exception, but is he really a politician?
And I wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul over any other candidate in either party, even though I don't mind his being called "Dr." His political stands are virtually diametrically opposed to mine. Of interest is that he had a fine residency in OB/GYN (my specialty)-- his brain is of high quality, or at least was when he was a resident.
As anyone who has read his speeches knows, Paul is very well informed about the Middle East and understands better than most of the candidates the differnences between Kurds, Shia, etc. He is the best thing to libertarianism to happen in generations.
As anyone who has read his speeches knows, Paul is very well informed about the Middle East and understands better than most of the candidates the differnences between Kurds, Shia, etc. He is the best thing to libertarianism to happen in generations.
Kucinich already announced that he would consider Paul as a VP.
But most importantly, those of us who oppose abortion must understand that we are waging a moral war, and our success depends upon the having popular support for our position. Prosecuting women might work only to provoke opposition, as many see women as already having been victimized. For pragmatic reasons, I would not be opposed to (after Roe is overturned) prosecuting only abortionists for such a period until support for the protecting the unborn is somewhat cemented. After that, I might be receptive to prosecuting women, since they are moral agents (although, I would also prosecute any who pressured or coerced her as co-conspirators), but only if it would serve to further deter abortion. If prosecuting only abortionists would do the trick, then I see no reason to add fuel to the opposition by prosecuting the mothers.
So, I don't think Ron Paul's stance on prosecution is antithetical to a genuine anti-abortion stance.
Fair enough. But I guess it's just the unanimity with which his supporters use the honorific that I find a little creepy, not the honorific itself. It's as though they've been commanded from on high. For self-identifying libertarians, they sure are a uniform bunch.
"Clinton" is ambiguous, as others have noted.
"Hillary" is diminutive, even though it's the term she uses on her campaign signs. Anyone who has been around the block a few times knows not to open themselves up to the accusation that they are being disrepectful in referring to her by her first name because she's a woman.
"Senator" accurately describes her position and distinguishes her from her husband. "Senator Clinton" is accurate, identifying, and gender-neutral..
Soren's comments make no sense to me as a legal matter. The woman isn't the agent at all. Since when do we impose criminal liability on a real agent acting without discretion (the doctor), and not on the principal (the woman)?
If women are the "victims" of abortions, why have they demanded them for centuries? Self-destructive tendencies? How can that part of the argument stand without condescension toward the faculties of a woman?
I have nothing against the pro-life position as a matter of ethics, it's perfectly fine. We don't allow random people to destroy a fetus at any stage of development in the womb. But as a legal matter, we begrudgingly give the woman the right to do so because (1) it's her body, (2) our criminal justice system is poorly equipped to enforce an outright prohibition, and (3) an outright prohibition carries with it some serious social consequences that the majority of us would rather not suffer.
I've never heard Frist referred to as "Dr. Frist" in a casual context. "Dr. Dean", I do recall, although not nearly with the frequency of "Dr. Paul", and I agree that trend seems to be correlated with the degree of cultishness around the candidate.
I don't disagree that "Senator Clinton" is a fine moniker, but Gender-neutral? Why is that important?
But this is politics.
I haven't seen this for several years, but for at least a couple of decades since he came to power in Cuba the BBC and the London Times always called Fidel "Dr. Castro" ... apparently for his Doctor of Laws degree.
For example, no one refers to Bill Clinton as "former Governor Clinton" nor will anyone ever refer to the incumbent as "former Governor Bush." Nor will Bush41 ever be referred to as "former UN Ambassador Bush" or even "former Vice President Bush."
For that matter, most people will refer to John Ashcroft as "former Attorney General Ashcroft" because they are more familiar with him in that role than as "former Senator Ashcroft" or "former Governor Ashcroft," even though he held both those offices as well. However, no one will ever refer to John Ashcroft as "Reverend Ashcroft" because he is not an ordained clergyman. John Danforth, also a former U.S. Senator from Missouri, IS an ordained Episcopal priest--perhaps that was the confusion in listing Ashcroft's name in the previous post.
Which "die hard neoconservatives" are you referring to?
Possibly because "Senator" or "Majority Leader" are higher level social honorifics. Meanwhile Representatives are generally slightly more transient in nature and are usually not referred to casually as "Representative so and so," most people in the media use "Mr." for them. Since Ron Paul also is a doctor, and most of the time people will use that honorific if someone is qualified I can understand why ex-Senator Frist would be less likely to be referred to as "Dr."
Well, no one in this post particularly, though I've encountered that attitude among people at other forums I frequent. I do wonder, if it was a choice between Paul and Hillary who would YOU vote for? (I assume for the moment that you generally vote Republican)
I didn't say the woman was the "agent," as in the term of art "agent/principal" distinction. I said she was a "moral agent" - i.e., she is morally responsible for her actions.
Yes, it is unorthodox in law to impose liability on the agent and not the principle, but abortion is an unusual issue. I suppose it's no more unorthodox than the argument that women should be allowed to kill innocent third parties (i.e., babies) because otherwise they might hurt themselves (i.e., through illegal back alley abortions).
(Of course, anyone who has seriously consulted the statistics/evidence/admissions knows that the whole "thousands of deaths from back alley abortions" was completely false - but that is getting even further off topic [I mention it only so as not to perpetuate the myth in my use of it for purposes of argument], so I won't address the "victim" argument)
In sum: (1) Ron Paul is a dweeb, (2) glad he is stirring up libertarianism, but (3) hope he's not elected, but (4) no chance in hell, and (5) his position on abortion prosecution is not inconsistent with either libertarianism or anti-abortion sincerity.
"Reverend" Jackson also helps to distinguish him from his Congressman son Jesse Jackson Jr. I'm guessing the elder Jesse doesn't prefer to be called Jesse Jackson Sr.
The most appalling use of an honorific I've heard lately was on the radio last week when the sociopathic recess appointee John Bolton was interviewed about the upcoming Middle East
photo opconference. The radio host repeatedly called him "Ambassador Bolton."Of all the candidates, only Hillary and Rudy don't have their surnames in their campaign logos.
"Hillary" is also the label she uses almost EXCLUSIVELY on her campaign website. Aside from the URL, the name of her campaign committee, and quotations from others, the site seems to actively avoid the use of the word "Clinton" in favor of calling her simply "Hillary."
Perhaps the best example of this is in her biography section. In 5 pages, it uses the word "Clinton" just once (p.3), when it refers to when she wed Bill. The whole page on her Senate career never says "Clinton." Nor is it mentioned on the page about her time as First Lady.
And I don't think "Rodham" appears anywhere on the site at all. To wit, the very first line of her bio is "Hillary was raised in a middle-class family in the middle of America."
If I am aware that someone is a medical doctor I, probably better that 90% of the time, will use the title doctor.
Maybe it is because good manners and civility is still importatnt to me. Blame my parents, I guess. And my uncle, who attended the Citadel for a couple of years, who made a strong point that I use Ma'am when when speaking to a lady and Sir with a gentleman before me shipping out to Miss. State U.
I refer to my wife and daughter (10 yrs old) with yes ma'am.
Good manners, that's all.
I believe "babies" in the English language is predominantly used as a term for newborns and infants, not for fetuses. I gave three reasons why abortion is tolerated, and none of those three reasons would apply with respect to actual babies.
Conservatives who see government as a useful institution— people in the tradition of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt— believe that Dr. Paul's policies would be disastrous.
A policy of isolationism combined with disarmament would encourage our enemies. An abandonment of monetary controls afforded by central banking and dismantling of regulatory agencies will lead to the boom and bust cycle people came to know and love during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The country can survive Hillary Clinton better than it can survive Ron Paul.
Purple prose like Kendall's aside, conservatism (whether neo- paleo- or whatever) is not a sports team, but rather a descriptor of a collection of beliefs. If Dr. Paul calls himself a conservative, and so does William Kristol or John Neuhaus, it is still possible that Kristol or Neuhaus would find the views of Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Clinton closer to their own (though they do not call themselves conservatives) than those of Dr. Paul. This no more makes them traitors to conservatism than would a decision by Dr. Paul to support Kucinich over President Bush.
Even if a conservative's views were generally congruent with Paul's, Paul might espouse a single view that is a total deal-breaker for that conservative. Just as there are are people for whom abortion or gun rights is a litmust test, there are others for whom defense policy is a litmus test. they would oppose Paul even if they were otherwise in complete agreement.
BTW, the comments accusing various VC bloggers of insufficient fidelity to libertarian principles is odd, and sounds like the ideological battles within the Communist movement during the 20-'s through 40's. Libertarianism is a descriptor,and not a movement. People decide what policies should be espoused using a variety of criteria, and then the labels follow. Say someone who generally believes in economic and political libertarianism happens to think that civilized countries should intervene to stop genocide in Darfur, or that the government should aggressivley act to prevent industrial contamination of common resources like are or water. This can perhaps be criticized as incorrect, but it sounds cultish to criticize it as deviating from a libertarian party line.
My understanding has always been that every anti-abortion law (or, at least, every American anti-abortion law) was directed exclusively toward banning the performance of an abortion, not the reception of one. It was a crime only on the physician's part, and not the pregnant woman's.
Am I mistaken on this? If I am, could someone provide a counter-example?
I suspect there are two reasons.
First, the NY tabloids ujniversally use first names to identify them, and they are used to it.
Second, they have relatively unusual first names. Try "Mike for President" or :John for President" on for size. And "Mitt for President" sounds like you are trying to elect an article of clothing.
Exactly how is Ron Paul an isolationist? Ron Paul doesn't believe in nation building, nor does he believe we should attempt to maintain 30 thousand troops in Korea or 120 thousand in Iraq, and because of that he's suddenly isolationist?
What happened to "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
Ron Paul supports neither. He favors non-interventionalism, not isolationism.
Non-Interventionalism: Free trade with other nations. No unprovoked preemptive wars.
Isolationism: High tariffs on imported goods to protect American industries from foriegn competitors.
Even if by some miracle Paul got elected, I really doubt Congress would let him abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard.
"That's DOCTOR Smith," the witness snapped. Whereupon counsel took great sport at getting under this physician's skin once he realized how thin it was.
That said, I do think that if a person has a preferred (and earned) honoriphic, whether it be "Doctor" or "Governor" or "Reverend" or whatever, then common courtesy suggests the preferred honoriphic be used. It doesn't cost anything.
If Ron Paul prefers to be "Dr. Paul" rather than "Congressman Paul" or "Representative Paul," that is fine by me and I will call him whatever he prefers. That doesn't mean I support him. It just means I am being polite.
I guess when I discovered a candidate who was against both abortion and the drug war (not to mention against the Iraq war from the start), I felt a Eureka! moment because I never thought such a politician existed.
Regarding prosecuting women for abortions. Thoughtful comments. I would never support prosecuting the woman. This makes me inconsistent, hypocritical, etc., but so what?
I feel like the pro-choicers stressing "what about prosecuting the women?" is a canard. No serious pro lifers support that. Kind of like when pro choicers stress the rape/incest/life of the mother topic, which [I think?]represents a small percentage of the total abortions.
I guess the tough part of being pro life is, yeah, the state will compel the woman to carry the fetus to term. And that's harsh because pregnancy and childbirth are very difficult, and raising the kid is hard (so is giving it up for adoption too). But isn't the tough part about being pro-choice a lot worse? -- that you are allowing the destruction of a human life? An honest pro choicer admits that an abortion does take a human being's life in a way that is violent and painful (no anesthesia in abortions, correct?) This "fetus isn't a person" line is so lame it's not worthy of a response. Well, if it ISN'T a person, then what is it?
Glenn Reynolds sucks and Ron Paul rules.
<blockquote>
From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. <i>From anitwar.com</i>
</blockquote>
Korea? Kosovo?
<blockquote>
There are good reasons why the U.S. Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced "charity" is not charity at all, but theft. <i>From antiwar.com</i>
</blockquote>
I missed the Charity Clause in the Constitution.
And Ron Paul on immigration, from lewrockwell.com:
<blockquote>
Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires <b>cultural connections </b>and an allegiance to the United States.
</blockquote>
So the Amish and Hutterites aren't citizens. What about ethnic Mexicans from the Rio Grand valley? Or the Hindus and Sikhs I treat regularly in my practice?
Google "Ron Paul Gold Standard for this one:
<blockquote>
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.
</blockquote>
No, I won't call him "kook" or "crazy." His speech before the house speaks for itself.
This one also comes from lewrockwell.com, and can be found by Googling "Ron Paul Civil Rights:
blockquote><i><
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic <b>Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No.</b> Here is his statement. ~ Ed. </i>
....[T[he Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. <b>The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. </b></blockquote>
Yeah. So let's bring back child labor. Down with regulation of railroad, airplane and mine safety. If you don't have the time to investigate your airline's safety record you deserve to go down with the pilot.
Many, many people refer to their unborn children as "babies". You've probably heard someone ask a pregnant woman "when is the baby due?" but never "when is the fetus due?"
Anti-abortion folks will usually refer to the unborn as babies in the context of the abortion debate. Pro-abortion rights folks will often use fetuses. The difference is simply reflective of their different positions. Neither is wrong in terms of use of the English language.
This quote from George Washington, penned during the 18th century, became less relevant due to various changes that occurred in the world during the ensuing two centuries.
Just as "divine right of kings" lost its luster as a watchword during the two centuries leading up to Washington's Farewell Address.
And, BTW, your quote is generally taken as the defining statement of isolationism, and was when isolationism was popular both as a word and as a policy.
But why not? If abortion is really, truly the moral equivalent of premeditated murder, why on earth wouldn't you prosecute the woman that chooses to do it?
We're talking about premeditated murder of a human being, right?
Or are we?
As for Korea, what exactly was and remains our business there? Ok, we stopped South Korea's take over by the North. All well and good, but why should I care about the South Koreans? I'd much rather simply trade with them for goods rather than worrying about subsidizing their military with 30,000 of our troops to this day and tens of thousands of casualties during active hostilities.
Also, you left out several key sentences in your criticism of him regarding the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights act. He adds in the speech for example
he also mentions:
The full thing here, for some odd reason when you cherry picked that excerpt it almost seemed like you were trying to make him into a racist...
Isolation implies self-sufficiency, etc., by cutting a nation off from the rest of the world - militarily, diplomatically, and economically. Washington's quote suggests none of these three. Peace and friendship seem to indicate diplomatic ties, and commerce obviously indicates economic ties. It would be a severe mistake to read "entangling alliances with none" as an attack on military ties in all cases. Washington is clearly talking about something (alliances) that implies a level of permanence and lack of complete control over decision making. Obviously, Washington has no problem with temporary alliances based on national interests, because of France's support during the Revolutionary War. However, the colonial-French partnership during the war was not an entangling alliance, nor would either nation have desired such an outcome. The U.S. clearly did not want to be dragged into French continental or colonial wars, and vice versa. It was a temporary alliance rooted in each nation's narrow self interest at the time. The 19th and early 20th centuries were full of temporary and ever-changing alliances based on this principle.
In no way should Washington's quote be read as supportive of isolation. Nor should it be seen as isolationism to withdraw from a Cold War-era security agreement like NATO. I fail to see what direct U.S. interest is threatened if, say, Belgium was invaded by Argentina (didn't claim it was realistic). Under NATO, we must consider that an attack on the US, and come to Belgium's aid. Of course, without NATO, we could still do so if its in our interests (see WW2, obviously the most justified war since the Revolution). With NATO, that choice it taken away, in theory.
The relevance of a quote does not necessarily change due to its level of adherence.
Thanks, Kendall. Totally slipped my mind that it was Jefferson. As an amateur Jefferson scholar, I am ashamed of myself. Please forgive me though, I am a 1L so my mind is cluttered at the moment.
Jefferson, not Washington.
But he does shill for GWB better then many....
You're being unnecessarily hard on yourself. A woman who wants an abortion is not a menace to society at large, only to the fetus she is carrying. It's not a foregone conclusion that she's a target for criminal prosecution, if anything it's a stretch.
As I recall from a history I read a few years ago, abortion was a crime in many if not most places, and the woman could be prosecuted, but rarely was. But that's a bygone era when the term "bastard" was a term with legal significance. A lot of towns considered an abortion doctor a useful asset to have, because in the days before artificial birth control "accidents" were rather common. The practice of putting the woman on the first train out of town started to wane after women got the right to vote and started to assert themselves in political and social matters. The inflexible anti-abortion movement we have today didn't really exist until after World War II.
One could argue that by asking when the baby is due, the questioner tacitly acknowledges that the baby has not arrived yet. But yes, a woman who intends to bear the child will refer specifically to what she is carrying as her baby. A woman who has just learned that her boyfriend knocked her up before leaving town may or may not refer to what she is carrying as a baby. I think "babies" is a loaded and inapposite term when used to refer collectively to all human life that has been conceived but not yet born.
I know, we're all entitled to our opinions, and we may use loaded terms as an argumentative tactic. We do so at the risk that someone else will point out what we have done.
That is a common myth propagated by the pro-abortion folks. It goes like this: abortion was liberally accepted and practiced until in the 19th century, when the evil, male-dominated medical profession wanted to steal the business of the female-dominated midwifery profession, which was performing abortion services (not true). So they lobbied for laws against abortion. But the laws were directed only against the midwives (i.e., the physicians) because those were the economic target.
This was the argument proffered (and bought) in Roe. It was advanced by Cyril Means, Jr. and James Mohr in their books, both of which were relied upon by Jane Roe (via Sarah Weddington). Nevermind that Mohr was funded by NARAL (or was it Means? I can't remember). It has become orthodoxy by this point, but it is patently false. Abortion has always been a crime in U.S. common law. Mothers were also prosecuted for it, but I don't think universally so. True, it wasn't until the 19th century that there were statutes against abortion, but the common law proscribed it before that (which the pro-aborts conveniently ignore).
Anyway, Professor Joseph Dellapenna (who is not pro-life) detailed all of this in this 1600-page tome Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (2006). Please excuse any errors I may have made. This is all off the top of my head. If necessary, I can support this with accurate citations, but that would take a while.
That change being the political consensus that an American Empire would be a splendid idea.
It was a common law crime only after "quickeninq", or so says Wikipedia (not the best source in the world, I know).
I'm sure that's correct, PLR. I doubt there were many prosecutions for abortion. But that's also because there weren't nearly as many abortions before it became legal (and certainly not in small towns; it was far more prevalent in big cities in which traveling businessmen would seek the "comfort" of prostitutes). While reliable statistics are scarce, the reliable statistics we do have (even from Planned Parenthood's Guttenmacher Institute) show the rate of abortion skyrocketing after Roe.
And while it may have been practice to avoid exposing abortions in small towns, the same could not be said for large cities. I believe that when the New York Times was originally one (flailing) paper among many in NYC, it managed to distinguish itself by doing exposés of illegal abortion providers (ironic, huh?). Again, off the top of my head. I'll refrain from tracking down the source unless this is disputed.
But anyway, I appreciate your candor. This has been a civil abortion debate.
As a libertarian and fiscal conservative, I support his positions on those issues. The real question I think is how so many libertarians can support an immigration policy which is filling the country with welfare cases. People are policy.
Hauer you doing?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
See for example:
Wikipedia:
From u-s-history.com:
To me this seems like a better explanation of Ron Paul's foreign policy goals than isolationism. I would also point out that there is some middle ground between "isolationism" and deciding that you can invade and occupy a country without declaring war and it's ok.
Yup, but first there's the elimination round, where everyone competes at trying to be the MOST libertarian. Only after a few hours, when the field is winnowed down to 3-4 candidates, can one declare himself Pope and excommunicate all others.
The guy who asked that question was a horror movie waiting to happen. So creepy.
This has always been the exception to the rule of US foreign policy, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Check out the history of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, DR, Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Pananma (nee northern Colombia), etc.
But Paul is not just about isolationism. For example, he is also about abolition of central banking and the reimposition of a gold standard, so that our enemies and commodity manipulators can more easily attack our currency.
No, they don't. Most sensible people just don't want to waste their time. So, crude but accurate insults are the least time consuming way to engage the Paulbots, many of which are spamming this post.
His views are in the main not supported by either the Constitution or American history. Few political figures, not Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln or Jackson, would agree with more than a fraction of his views.
He is an extremist who attracks extremist supporters.
Paul's positions deserve only mocking, not serious consideration. Frankly, the same can be said of most of his supporters.
I think one will find that regardless of what most pro-lifers claim in regards to abortion, their approach is most consistent with manslaughter. If the woman said "Yeah, I'm killing this @#$%# nuisance baby, so @#$%#$ what?", they would be quite happy to see her indicted for first-degree murder. Most women, however, are under the impression -- fostered vigorously by the industry and its proponents -- that what they are dealing with is not a recognizable human life, and as such is ignorant in regards to the consequences of her actions. Which is a much different position than that of the practitioner, who is watching the fetus flinch and twist on the ultrasound during each procedure s/he performs, and taking a limb inventory afterward to make sure no tissue (which will quickly fester and infect) was left in the womb.
They were not blanket semi-random bombings, and yes they did help the civilian population.
Not only did it not particularly stop the slaughter and ethnic cleansing but it resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians.
Stuff and nonsense. Only a few hundred civilians were killed.
But he does shill for GWB better then many....
Glenn Reynolds sucks
It must frustrate you both no end that in spite of his obnoxious failings, of which you are so accutely aware, he nonetheless maintains a nice job, a hot car, a smart and pretty wife, a high website readership, a mainstream publications presence, and enduring celebrity. I mean, how can the whole world -- up to and including Volvo advertising execs -- be completely blind to what is so obvious to you? And why does he have all this stuff, mostly due to Internet presence, while you don't? Life must be really unfair, eh?
Fortunately, what the Internet taketh away, the Internet giveth. If you'll just supply me with a reliable email address, I'll pass it around and see to it that you have access to all of the lottery winnings and personal enhancements you'll ever need to overcome these obstacles. Any takers?
Yes, and furthermore the Korean War clearly benefitted the people of South Korea.
The Marshall Plan (RP believes that foreign aid is contrary to the Involuntary Charity Clause of the Constitution as well as to the Pragmatically Unsound Clause) clearly benefitted not only its recipients, but the United States, by preventing Soviet hegemony over much of Western Europe. Not all foreign assistance projects have been as successful, but this is a question of prudent selection and careful management of projects, not of foreign assistance as a concept.
And I should care about the people of South Korea because... see, I'm not as "kind" as you I suppose, not as "compassionate." I don't believe the role of the United States is to fight and die for other countries that are unwilling or unable to defend themselves from attack when our direct interests are not threatened. I fail to see how defending the South was in our interests, and I fail to see how it is still in our interest to maintain a presence of 30,000 troops in the region.
Also, I noticed you pulled the nice bait and switch, you still haven't established how Ron Paul is "about isolationism" at all. Ron Paul is a Non-interventionist, not an Isolationist, and your petty childish smears only show that you don't have any real basis to attack him so you seek to marginalize him with cheap and easy lies.
A decent point. And in parallel, there is a middle ground between "this guy means to kill you and really needs killin'" and "the world would be better off were this guy not in power." There are a lot of world leaders that fit the latter category, and few who fit the first (and even fewer if you play the brinksmanship cards just right, which requires that you make them believe that you subscribe to the latter approach, even tho you do not. Know when to hold them, know when to fold 'em).
Absolutely. But even if you concede that the world would be better off with someone like Saddam or Qaddafi (oops we gave Libya most favored nation trading status, didn't we?) or a Castro or a Chavez that does not mean the United States has the authority or is justified and going in and removing someone. After all, if one country is going around and deciding who should stay in power and who should not, what's going to stop other countries from doing the same? Do you really want Putin's Russia to decide that the Afghan government is going to be too unfriendly to their interests? Or, what if China decides the world would be better off if Taiwan was going to be best as a smoking blackened crater off their coast?
It sounds GREAT when you talk about it being "better" if someone is not in power, except that the United States would not be the only power deciding who should and should not be in power.
I'm reminded of the 1859 AMA report quoted (but ignored, of course) in Roe's assault on history:
The fact is that abortion-- as it was understood to take a human life-- has always been illegal. People simply didn't understand that the child was alive before it could move, and so abortion prior to quickening was a lesser offense, left to the Church. It was understood to be destroying seed, an offense more like masturbation than murder.
But once the true nature of the offense came to be understood, pre-quickening abortion was promptly outlawed, and not on any religious grounds. Then, somehow, after eugenics was otherwise thoroughly rejected, the Supreme Court declares that it's a fundamental right? It boggles the mind.
Well, sure, because this is the best of all possible worlds. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.
Thank you, Dr. Pangloss.
It seems clear why your label is not "HistoryProfPoliSciProf2B"...
Use your labels as you idiosyncratically see fit. It is clear Paul is not opposed to foreign trade but merely opposed to exposing American interests to hostility by housing troops in 130 countries across the globe (FYI: there aren't that many more countries left to house American military troops in...).
While some think it's odd that some posters would accuse good "limited govt" types like VC bloggers of not meeting some libertarian standard, it's actually merely a matter of recognizing that a libertarian position has always historically amounted to something more than "Low taxes, don't agress, otherwise do your own thing." Historically liberals (subsequently "classical" liberals, subsequently libertarians) originated in the defense of individual rights against State power (see "The Levelers," for example). It was very early on appreciated that one of the main sources of government power was the ability to declare war, and then necessarily raise taxes, implement domestic controls necessary to the war effort, regiment industry, institute drafts, develop large deficits and national debt, pass Sedition Acts, etc. Peace is a fundamental good, and an instrumental good to the development of a market society free of the controlling hand of government. As such, historically, libertarians have always been highly skeptical of calls for war, and rightly so as such calls for war, when evaluated in the light of subsequently released documentary evidence and other historical findings, are often lies told to us by politicians who have their own reasons for desiring war. One would think so soon after going to war against WMDs (and within memory of the Tonkin Gulf) people would develop some level of skepticism to the latest government claims that Iran, or North Korea, or whoever is the demon de jour is "just within moments" of developing the power to "kill us all".
Let me share a story that I think crystallizes the connection that seems so obvious to some of us: In 1980, I was in Arizona working for the Ed Clark for President campaign (Libertarian Party ticket). I was part of a debate at ASU in Tempe, AZ, of various political candidates. I recall particularly the undergraduate (I, myself, was then 25) who represented Ronald Reagan. He went on and on about how Reagan called for small government and desired to role back the size and power of the federal government and CUT YOUR TAXES. So, during the debate, I engaged him. I asked if Reagan supported the military's current expanded position throughout the world, with troops in over 100 countries. I asked if Reagan supported the then-current doctrine that the US should be militarily capable of simultaneously fighting "2.5 world wars" (2 major military conflicts and 1 more regional conflict)? Yes, to both, he answered. In fact, Reagan, he went on, wanted to expand the military. So I asked him point blank: "You are saying you believe in a much smaller government with low taxes that can nonetheless successfully fight 2.5 "world wars" simultaneously?" "Yes," he replied, not seeing the contradiction so evident to others. Those who see his claim as inherently preposterous are libertarians. The others may be fine people and excellent VC bloggers, but the appellation "libertarian" carries a historical connotation they do not match.
Another aspect of libertarianism, not yet heavily commented on, is the lack of belief in US (or "favorite state") exceptionalism. Of course, we in the US harbor only good motives, so why should 130 other countries complain we harbor our troops there? It is to keep them safe. Purely altruistic on our part. But how many Americans would find it tolerable to have a permanent garrison of foreign troops in our country (and I don't mean necessarily Russian or Chinese troops; I mean even French or German troops)? The question answers itself. It is common, I think, for first generation Americans to harbor a special (and understandable) love for this country, but it is wrong to think that exempts them from having to be a "fair umpire" when it comes to foreign adventurism of the American state they would not tolerate if engaged in by other states. (And don't even get me started on the exceptionalism played by so many VC bloggers/posters on the little David state of Israel.)
Here's a libertarian view of "isolationism" that is well expressed, very practically oriented, and I think speaks directly to our problems today, despite the fact it is almost 200 years old. (But, then, I am not the sort to think that guiding principles of individual liberty are mere creatures of the times):
"For God's sake, do not drag me into another war! I am worn down and worn out with crusading and defending Europe and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself. I am sorry for the Spaniards – I am sorry for the Greeks – I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed – I do not like the present state of the Delta – Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people? Am I to be champion of the Decalogue and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy? We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be that we shall cut each other's throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! no eloquence; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic! I beseech you, secure Lord Grey's sword and pistols, as the housekeeper did Don Quixote's armour. If there is another war, life will not be worth having."--Sydney Smith, Anglican minister to Lady Grey, wife of Lord Grey, over the growing English sentiment to intervene in Spain, 1823. (Sadly, Baghdad is still oppressed, and it is we who have lost common sense and arithmetic...)
Had the same mentality that is possessed by modern day Republicans been possessed by our forbearers, we'd still be a colony of England. You apologize for the Leviathan now; you would have done so then.
We are subject to endless reports about production numbers, GDP, CPI-U, etc. We are in a war that will last decades. Sound like a book you read in high school? Of course not: Ron Paul's a kook.
Honestly I almost consider the level of hatred a positive sign for the Paul campaign. Nobody really HATES a candidate they don't think has a chance to win. I haven't seen anyone liberal, conservative, libertarian, or socialist hating Duncan Hunter for example, most people wouldn't even give him a thought because he truly doesn't have a chance.
Whether someone likes or hates Ron Paul he's become relevant enough to receive pages and pages of vitriol, misrepresentations and insulting remarks on his person (don't people usually frown on the kind of attacks that Glenn Reynolds made when they're directed against Bush from that "Bushism of the Day" bit from Slate?) from people who feel the NEED to speak out against him. Because they know he has a chance to win.
Ron Paul is about ideas. He is the anti-populist populist. Bless him. Every time you see him you know he is not doing it because he covets the "ring." He does it because the horrible task of trying to take that ring to Mordor has fallen upon his shoulders.
Thank you for your kind comments. And I'm sure that Lord of the Ring reference has convinced everyone that we Ron Paul supporters are not just some weird kooks... :-)
The Republican Party fails to see that Ron Paul is their only hope of winning the next election. I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary and if he doesn't get the nomination, then I'll vote for the Democratic candidate mostly because I disagree with the rest of the Republicans.
Ron Paul is right about the war, the Fed, taxes, big government and a lot of other issues. On the war, the US doesn't need to run around sticking our nose in everyone else's business. We have enough firepower to take out the planet. People bitch about coming home from Iraq, but we haven't even brought home our troops from WW2 or the Korean War yet. We need to bring our troops home and stop playing world policeman. This is not isolationism - its called protecting your own. The billions we are wasting could be spent on our crumbling infrastructure, schools or better yet - we could lower taxes and reduce the size of government - good old Republican principles.
Guiliani - I hate this guy.
Romney - no way would I vote for a Mormon.
McCain - he's really a Democrat.
Huckabee - too religious for me.
Thompson - as dumb as Bush.
Tancredo - right about immigration, but don't know much else.
I couldn't give a shit about abortion, health care or these other trivial issues. I want lower taxes, better economy, better standard of living for the US and no more world policeman. I'm all for nuking the shit out of anyone who attacks us, but we don't need to be nation building. People are tired of this and most Republicans just don't seem to get it.
If you are pinning your hopes on Guiliani or Romney then I can already tell you the next president will be a Democrat. I just hope they don't turn out as pathetic as Jimmy Carter.
Ron Paul is the only hope to revive the Republican party.
True, it may have been his highest title, but it still seems creepy.
Personally I detest people who refer to Giuliani as "America's Mayor" as they do in the media and if they're a politician. First of all, the pandering is distasteful, but it's also simply inaccurate. THAT is a cult of personality, a title bestowed on someone that never earned it and went around being honored because his city was attacked, leaving him without a command center to run disaster relief because he located it in the WTC despite the terrorists interest in the site as demonstrated by the '93 bombing.
What is an unprovoked preemptive war?
Libertarians ought to believe in American exceptionalism, because America surely contains the largest number of libertarians per capita, and America is one of the handful of countries in which libertarian principles have any political traction whatsoever. The number of libertarians elsewhere in the world, and their practical effect on policy, is truly negligible.
I quoted Paul as saying that our intervention in S. Korea was harmful to Koreans. He made this point after his point about unconstitutional charity, saying that these interventions were unhelpful to certain specific people. I said nothing about whether it was helpful to Americans. You are misconstruing me here.
What you cal non-interventionism is what most people call isolationism. But the label isn't important. It's what the guy believes. Until Eisenhower or Kennedy, "isolationist" was a term of honor among many conservatives.
Your strident language and focus on labels remind me of the sort of tripe one can read in lewrockwell.com, like Paul Gottfried arguing that neoconservatives aren't really conservative. It also reminds me of the way Stalinists and Trotskyists used to go after each other.
Good!
Certainly there are consequences to foreign intervention, which may be good or bad for the assertive party, depending on circumstances. Russia benefitted itself, for example, by taking over Siberia and Central Asia, just as the United States benefitted by taking over Native American lands and the conquest from Mexico. Napoleon did not. the morality of all this is another question but you and Ron Paul seem to confute the two.
In any event, until now I was just pointing out Paul's wierdness, like saying that we made things worse in Korea, and you have to have cultural connection to be a real American, and we should go back to the gold stadard and abolish central banking. I do believe that some military interventions are worthwhile, but it should be done with care, and after all reasonable options to obtain important goals have failed.
This is more of the lewrockwell.com kind of rhetoric.
Well, he's about YOUR ideas. And in my city, Giuliani defeated the orcs long before 9/11/01.
2. Reynolds cannot believe anyone could like that gnome-like man.
3. Therefore, libertarianism is infinitely popular.
LOGIC, thy name is Reynolds, who's giving the human central nervous system a bad name.
Kendall: Nobody really HATES a candidate they don't think has a chance to win. Kendall, I think you misunderstand the strong human tendency toward -- um, I can't think of any word better than -- fascism.
There's always at least one, and they share one trait: people can sense that they're not puppets of the major parties. John Anderson. Ross Perot. Pat Robertson. Pat Buchanan. Howard Dean. All of these guys were not afraid to speak their minds. They were not afraid of showing that they have a mind that exists independent of what the pollsters feed them. There was only one other possible "outsider" candidate this year (Kucinich doesn't count; he's weirder than any of the rest, but his policies are pure old-fashioned 1970s Kennedy liberalism): Tom Tancredo. And Tancredo is stuck in single-issue mode.
The CNN wrap-up of the last debate was spot-on. Anderson Cooper noted that he could not recall President Bush's name being uttered even once, yet (curiously) every single candidate except for Paul was in lock-step with Bush's policies. So you take an extraordinarily unpopular president (not even particularly popular within his own party) and you campaign on ... what? On the unspoken assumption that while I am a disciple of Bush I will be a more competent manager than Bush? "This election is about competency, not ideology." That campaign slogan sure worked wonders for a previous Massachusetts governor in 1988.
Paul wouldn't be popular (at least he'd have a zero rating among Republicans) if any of the others had the guts to take a position contra-Bush on an issue other than immigration.
The evasiveness of Bill Clinton without any of the charm. (Huckabee is the Republican Bill Clinton, able to b.s. you at will, and you know he's b.s.'ing you, but you can't help but stand back in quiet admiration of how good he is at it).
I agree. I think both the Paulites and the Pauliphobes have come out of the woodwork. I imagine they're trolling blogs and ready to leap whenever something about Ron pops up.
I agree. 24 hours with nothing else new is an eternity in the blogosphere. Orin, Eugene, Jonathan, Sasha, David (though he is usually not allowing comments), are you listening?
I can only respond:
1. I don't vote for President (or party nomination for that office) in order to vote for the winning candidate. I don't see it as a popularity contest. I try to vote for the best man, and if he doesn't win, he doesn't win. I *do* know that if I vote for a candidate I find less than the best and *HE* wins, I feel guilty for 4-8 years. I assume most Bush voters know what I mean...
2. More importantly, things don't happen in a vacuum, especially in such an opportunistic atmosphere as Washington DC. Assume, per arguendo, that Paul actually wins. Now that probably means that at least SOME Congressmen have, since his party nomination, begun to support him. Clearly it means, to Congressmen always so desperate for re-election, that he has struck a chord with the American people and maybe (just as they found a few years ago, when people willing to talk about Social Security reform didn't automatically lose--that Soc. Sec. was no longer the "third rail" of politics), just MAYBE, people who argued that policing the world was NOT absolutely necessary for American safety had a head's up in winning elections--that "America will fight anywhere and everywhere because we're not safe if we don't" is no longer the third rail in politics--can WIN.
Politics is fluid. There is no question that if a man who campaigned on much smaller government, eliminating the IRS, and staying out of foreign wars actually won the election, many politicians not previously known for holding these positions would emerge.
Further, Paul would likely have the support of many in the military, not that eager to police the world (and get shot at). Sure, there are financially rewarding links between the military and the arms industry, and Paul would have his work cut out for him in using the bully pulpit (or highlighting more erudite and better speakers) to explain things, and rd is correct if he means merely that Paul won't pass his entire agenda, but win the Presidency and be able to accomplish NOTHING? That's not realistic, and not a reason to avoid a Paul vote you would otherwise cast.
I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life which should be outlawed, but I don't think that women should be prosecuted (doctors - yes, but women - no). Is this position illogical? I don't think so, because I think there are other considerations that mitigate prosecuting women for having an abortion: primarily, the fact that abortions are traumatic choices that women feel compelled to make because of their difficult personal circumstances.
An example is attempted suicide, which in the past in some societies was prohibited or even prosecuted. I still think suicide should be prohibited by law, because it is a practice that should be discouraged in society. Should it be prosecuted? Definitely not. People choosing suicide (who are often choosing suicide because they feel compelled under their difficult personal circumstances) need love and support, not punishment. So it is with women choosing an abortion.
Libertarians ought to believe in American exceptionalism, because America surely contains the largest number of libertarians per capita, and America is one of the handful of countries in which libertarian principles have any political traction whatsoever. The number of libertarians elsewhere in the world, and their practical effect on policy, is truly negligible.
---
First, your statement is simply ignorant, and surely incorrect. As New Zealand has a popular libertarian oriented political party, as much of Europe and South America enact some form of Social Security privatization and flat tax reforms, the idea that libertarian policy is "truly negligible" outside of the US is wrong.
Second, it seems you misunderstood my basic point. Obviously, for any ideology, there will be a country where it most flourishes. Say, for libertarianism, it is the US. And say for communist thought it was Soviet Russia. So as Soviet Russia tried to expand abroad, and we spoke out against it here, we did not take seriously the sincere claims of Russian communists that what they were doing was not imperialism, and would not have the historically expected results of imperialism, because they were doing it simply to help bring about an in-any-case inevitable move to communism, which is helpful to the domestic population (of Hungary, Afghanistan, etc.). Similarly, other countries don't take the US seriously when it says that garrisoning its troops around the world, policing all oceans with American military ships, invading countries with or without consultation of other governments on a regular basis (Wikipedia it...it's a long list) is all done not to impose American hegemony on the world but to "help". My comment about American exceptionalism simply meant that in this regard, libertarians share that view, and suspect ulterior motives of American politicians just as they suspect ulterior motives of foreign politicians...that they suspect foreign interventions of American politicians are as much motivated by rent-seeking and power considerations as we non-controversially think about domestic interventions of American politicians. The fact, true or false, that libertarianism is more popular here than elsewhere has nothing to do with this insight.
This is my conclusion as well. Abortion opponents' use of the "premeditated murder" rhetoric is extremely irresponsible. The vast majority of abortion opponents don't REALLY believe that -- but I suppose the rhetoric nevertheless convinces a few people, who then go out and bomb clinics or shoot doctors. Lovely.
I particularly like the use of later-exploding sucker bombs, designed to take out paramedics responding to the scene of a clinic bombing. Sanctity of life indeed.
The basic point you are missing is that the United States is the only country that was founded on libertarian principles, and the strength of libertarianism here is the slowly decaying legacy of our founding philosophy. That is what is exceptional about America, and if libertarians think their philosophy can thrive better inn New Zealand or Estonia if it does not thrive here, they are seriously deluded. Libertarians are also deluded if they think the world will be more friendly to their ideals if the US does not maintain world order, which requires policing the oceans and intervening around the world and doing all the other things that order-preserving hegemons do.
And what better way to respond to a traumatic choice made compulsively than by foreclosing all choices?
If you make abortions illegal, most assuredly all licensed physicians who want to stay that way will no longer perform them. It is not your logic that I question.
Libertarians argue vigorously against "the ends justify the means" and evaluating government policy based on "good intentions." Libertarians always point to the law of unintended consequences for the reason why those Liberals are wrong in the welfare state.
Yet, here are some libertarians arguing just that. They are for using a great evil, the government, to spread the goodness of liberty, and that somehow good intentions in a foreign policy will translate to good results.
If libertarians want to promote liberty, we should do it the same way we'd help the poor - through charity. We'd band together, form a small organizations, and do it ourselves without using the corrupting power of the government.
The vitriol is doubled, because without a decent frontrunner, the conservatives are really afraid that Paul as an independent would do to their eventual candidate what Nader did to Gore.
Draw your own conclusions about self-esteem issues, etc.
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I do think that the choice for abortion should be foreclosed, that all abortions should be illegal. My point is that this doesn't mean that women obtaining an illegal abortion should be prosecuted.
Probably my creative writing gene has a faulty relay.
You will not prosecute a woman because you are supposedly sympathetic to her plight. Yet you will take away her obstetrician and subordinate her to the interests of soemthing that, in the early stages, has zero cognitive awareness and cannot be perceived by the rest of us, cops and district attorneys included.
Yes, you are right. I am sympathetic to women who feel as if their best option is abortion, just as I'm sympathetic to those who attempt suicide because they feel as if suicide is the best option. But my sympathy doesn't change the fact that I believe killing one's self or one's unborn human entity is the wrong choice and should never be permitted. These people need support and love and shouldn't be prosecuted, but they shouldn't be permitted in carrying through with their decisions.
The reason why I believe killing an innocent unborn human entity should never be permitted is another question outside the scope of this comment thread.
I'm intrigued by this. If a person murders another, it sounds like you would recognize as a defense the fact that it was traumatic for him but that he felt compelled to kill because of his difficult personal circumstances. I presume these are often the facts of the tragic but occasional cases where a father kill his children and spouse. Under your theory, he would not be prosecuted.
The Libertarians arguing for aggressive foreign policy just baffle me. When they see the government as the threat to their liberty, how can they even consider using the government to bring liberty to other people.
There is a difference between an "aggressive foreign policy that uses the government to bring liberty to other people" and a foreign policy that seeks to promote a stable international order in which economic and political liberty can prevail. Libertarians should be all for the latter to the degree that they care about the promotion of their ideals worldwide, and to the degree that an anarchic or hostile world order results in changes here at home that are unfavorable to libertarianism.
1. Someone who left the Democratic Party to support Ron Paul because the Democrats weren’t pro-gay enough. (I have some very bad news for her.)
2. Someone locally who insists that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, and therefore he is not required to pay property taxes, and anyone that buys land with FRNs is engaged in fraud.
3. Someone who insists that 9/11 Truthers are more acceptable than people who are pro-choice on abortion. (And I’m part of that majority that thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that making abortion difficult, although perhaps not impossible, would be a good thing.)
4. And people wearing John Birch Society T-shirts!
Ron Paul might well be a libertarian. But a lot of the crowd that I run into backing him seem like much of the hangers on that I would often run into when I was a Libertarian Party activist in the 1980s–-people that had no clear ideology at all–-but liked to be part of movements that couldn’t win, but would make them feel important and special.
A friend who lives in the Bay Area tells me that Ron Paul bumper stickers are all over San Francisco–a place that is about as antilibertarian as any American city can be.
You have me very confused. What history books are you reading? The only part of American history that really qualifies as libertarian is the relatively limited authority the federal government had under the original Constitution (not the living, breathing, constantly mutating creature it has evolved into).
The situation you describe where the husband honestly thinks that he was compelled to kill his wife sounds like one where the husband would not be found guilty of 1st degree murder at trial, but rather manslaughter or even not guilty by reason of insanity.
Making laws and determining what should be punished and what shouldn't be are prudential judgments with a lot of balancing. There are all kinds of particular circumstances that can be imagined that don't fit general laws. Laws are by nature general and imperfect, sometimes being overbroad and sometimes being not broad enough (which is why at sentencing, the judge has some area of discretion to determine the sentence of a convicted defendant, based on the particular circumstances of the case, level of culpability, etc.). Regardless, it is still important and necessary to make general rules or policies. So, I think that as a general policy, it's a good idea not to prosecute women for trying to have an abortion, while as a general policy, it's a good idea to prosecute husbands for murdering their wives, even if there are particular cases that occur that don't seem to support the reasoning for why something is prosecuted or why something is not prosecuted.
http://paulcash.slact.net/
Hillary and Obama are too hawkish still and come across as calculating and insincere.
Paul appears to be sincere and passionate, believes we should not be using force to impose our will on other nations and wants to focus on reparing America's crumbling infrastructure like schools, road, bridges and, hopefully, healthcare.
He is also the only Republican candidate who is not nakedly fear mongering and/or flip flopping.
It's refreshing to hear a candidate answer a question without seeming like he's reading from a script or insulting our intelligence.
Would I vote for him? Not over Obama or Edwards.
Maybe over Hillary (due to her obnoxious foreign policy and love of Israel), but he will never get the nomination.
I think Huckabee may be the one to watch. Of all the Repugnicons on stage, he seemed by far the most polished and comfortable.
Very, very weak argument.
Maybe it would be manslaughter, but of course the husband would CERTAINLY be prosecuted and jailed for manslaughter. So why do you argue against prosecuting the woman who gets an abortion under duress? (Hint: because you don't really think it's even as bad as manslaughter.)
And I see no way the husband who merely faces traumatic circumstances and duress would qualify for the insanity defense. Look at it from the other direction: are you saying that a woman obtaining an abortion would need to be objectively insane before she would be immune from prosecution? No, you're not.
Face it: opponents of abortion call it "murder" all the time, but the vast majority of them just don't mean it. In fact, most of them aren't even prepared to treat it like manslaughter (which happens to be a very serious crime). They understand that whatever the moral transgression of abortion is is, it simply isn't equivalent to murder or manslaughter, and they act accordingly.
Hence your view that the woman shouldn't be prosecuted.
Incidentally, I'm not aware of any society, ever, that has punished abortion as seriously as murder, but I'm ready to be educated.
The people who actually act like they believe abortion is premeditated murder are the whack jobs who blow up abortion clinics and shoot doctors. We think they are lunatics and extremists precisely because we know, to a moral certainty, that they are not making the right moral calculation. Normal people are in agreement that persons who perform abortions don't deserve to be shot or blown up. If the targeted people really, truly engaged in premeditated murder of babies every day presumably they would deserve to be blown up.
I think that abortions are a difficult situation. I think the great majority of women who have abortions do so unwillingly (no one enjoys or looks forward to having an abortion), that they do so because they believe (mistakenly, in my opinion) that abortion is their only option. These women don't seem as morally culpable to me than the majority of husbands-who-willingly-kill-their-wives that we have in our society. So, I don't think that society as a general policy, should prosecute women for abortions. (But that doesn't mean abortion shouldn't be prohibited.)
I guess you might not believe me, but I really do think that a pre-born human entity is a innocent human being who should not be killed, that this entity is a human being with as much human dignity as a newborn baby, or a 20-year-old in a coma, or you-yourself-when-you're-sleeping, or an awake healthy active senior citizen.... and therefore, abortion should be prohibited. I hold this position because I don't see any principled way of distinguishing between all the human entities I've just listed. If you can describe to me a way of distinguishing between these and showing how the pre-born human entity does not have as much humanity as the rest of these entities, I'd be interested in hearing that.
Well, I certainly respect your views on this difficult subject. I can't tell you when life begins and it doesn't. But you're right -- I don't believe you, or at least I don't believe that you think abortion is the moral equivalent of murder or manslaughter.
Here's the reason you think it's unwise to punish a woman who obtains an abortion:
Let's assume you're right about this -- and I think you are, in the vast majority of cases. This level of moral culpability is clearly not as great as premeditated murder. But my point is that this level of moral culpability, whatever you might call it, is very, very clearly sufficient to get you prosecuted, and often severely punished, for causing another human's death under any circumstances other than abortion.
The closest analogy might be the long-battered wife who kills her husband under circumstances that don't amount to self-defense. She is under duress. She thinks it is her only option. She does it "unwillingly" in the sense you are using that word above. She has been ruthlessly mentally and emotionally abused by the very person she's killing. She's very unlikely to kill anyone else, ever.
And... she gets prosecuted. True, sometimes a jury will let her go -- a jury "pardon" rather than nullification, perhaps -- but she still gets prosecuted. And I don't know anyone who would have the rule be otherwise.
Would you have the rule be otherwise?
The reason she gets prosecuted is that killing another human being is a big deal, even if it amounts "only" to manslaughter, and even if the killing takes place under the most "understandable" circumstances. We'll only let her walk away without prosecution -- maybe -- if she can demonstrate self defense -- i.e., that her own life was at risk, and thus the importance of protecting human life appears on both sides of the equation.
Generally, abortion is legal in this country. Not only do we not prosecute women who do it, it isn't even a crime. The people who kill abortion providers and blow up their clinics are very widely considered whack job extremists. And this in a society where, under most circumstances, you can lawfully use deadly force to protect another person from death or grievous injury.
There's only one way to explain all this: the vast majority of us, I think you included, don't view abortion as the moral equivalent of murder or manslaughter. We may not have a good reason for making that moral calculation, but we quite clearly have made it.
Just a thought, I almost never try to talk about this, but you seem the rare person interested in a discussion.
People like to organize stuff into discrete sets. Animals versus plants. Day versus night. Alive versus not alive. I love her versus I don't love her. But some of those shade from one into the other at the margins. As in, "one day I woke up and realized I no longer loved my wife; when did it happen?" I'm using this as an example. So, people want to know when does this developing thing become "a human being"? I don't think there is one single moment when cells become a human.
Clearly, fertilization and birth are two instances that are reasonably well demarcated, so people are attracted to their use as mileposts. But, and to tease you for your intro, "I guess you might not believe me, but I really do think that" a young chimpanzee is vastly, vastly more like a real human being than a 16-celled human "blastocyte" is, notwithstanding that the latter could, under the right circumstances, develop into one.
It's all pretty amazing. I'm pretty sure lots of people think about the same as me on this. Anyway, I don't wish to argue, just trying to explain.
Just as a libertarian walking down the street who looks through a window into a home and sees a man beating his wife might decide not to intervene on the grounds that he doesn't feel like it -- but he would never decide not to intervene on the grounds that the man, as head of his household, has the right to assault his wife.
....Lets pretend Dr. Paul gets ( ..and then the miracle happens...) nominated AND elected. He's the only libertarian in Congress. He has no party apparatus. He's voted 'no' in almost every vote he's cast. He has a legislative record of 20 years and NO accomplishments.
...So if the country wakes up on January 21st 2009 and see's his tiny shadow, how long before he's impeached and convicted by a Congress that has no affiliation with him whatsoever ? Pliny, the Elder, and Jay D have it exactly right. It's crazy. Americans have gone crazy before, but it doesn't last. So dream on, you odd assortment of lost causers and Truthers, Nazi's and sophomores. If you do get Dr. Paul elected...........Then the miracle happens !
Well seeing as how you have to commit a "high crime or misdemeanor" to get impeached and Ron Paul has one of the best records for integrity, honesty, and taking the Constitution seriously I don't see how your scenario would play out if he got elected.
For example, he is also about abolition of central banking and the reimposition of a gold standard, so that our enemies and commodity manipulators can more easily attack our currency.
This scenario is intriguing. How exactly would this be accomplished? Would they manufacture counterfeit gold?
I would suggest that Ron Paul clearly is at the very least closer to that definition (if not quite so obviously with the motive ascribed according to wikipedia) than definitions of isolationism. As a human being and a non-dictionary Ron Paul wouldn't have to fit the precise definition of a non-interventionist given to BE a non-interventionist, just as Giuliani can be a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control Republican.
The amount of money owed by the US government and by individuals and corporations is far greater than the amount of gold in the world. I am given to believe (I can't look for a reference in the limited time I have tonight) that a country can buy a lot of this debt and then call the debt and demand payment in gold dollars. The government and American banks would be unable to meet their obligations.
I'm not an economist, but I am under the impression that no nation now is on the gold standard, in part because there simply isn't enough gold any more in relation to the amount of commerce to make this feasible.
Central banking was an issue from Hamilton/Jefferson through some time in the 20th century. I don't think there is a nation in the world anymore-- certainly not an industrial nation-- that does not have one. It is a necessary tool for the defense of a nation's currencey. Interest rates can be changed instantly, but fiscal policy cannot.
If there are any bankers or economists listening, I would love to hear their input.
Oh please, Clayton. You mean the same San Francisco that is the gay porn capital of the United States, where pot is easily available, where strip clubs flourish, the same San Francisco with liberal alcohol laws and where you can easily hire a prostitute from hundreds of advertisements?
Ron Paul is a strong libertarian, with a few arguable deviations.
A Christian group came to town for a rally some months back, and not only did that "live and let live" crowd show up to protest, but the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution attacking them, claiming that they shouldn't be there.
The idiotic voters just passed a ban on handguns. (Not the first time that S.F. government has done that, by the way, for the all the good it does.)
S.F. was among the first places in California to ban smoking in public places.
Don't confuse, "We like gay porn, prostitution, drugs, leather festivals, and STDs" with "We want everyone to be free." The former is an expression of enthusiasm for certain behaviors; the latter is an expression of enthusiasm for limited government. S.F. is not a limited government mentality; it's more like, "Party on, someone else will get stuck with the bills."
Waldensian, I think that another reason why I'm reluctant to prosecute women for attempting an abortion is because I realize that we live in a society where abortion is legal. The norms governing our society support abortion, so I know that prosecuting women seeking abortion would be a policy so contrary to the current norms, that it would create abhorrence for the rule of law; it would lead to more bad than good. Obviously simply prohibiting abortion without prosecuting women is not as drastic a shift in the norms of society.
I know the majority of society doesn't view abortion as the moral equivalent as murder. I think the reason for this is that people haven't really thought about what is being killed in abortion (clearly something is being killed, but I suppose people think that it is either a non-human bunch of tissue, or a human "thing" with less human rights than a newborn baby). Whether this lack of thinking about abortion is mostly due to ignorance or wilfull blindness, I don't know. I'll reiterate that I think that abortion is equivalent to murder: that abortion is the killing of a human entity that has just as much humanity as a newborn baby or a 90-year old senior. I may be in the minority, but I believe that my position is a principled one. It's interesting to see you admit that the majority that sees a difference between abortion and murder "may not have a good reason for making that moral calculation." I agree with you on that point.
bittern,
That's a fair position to hold on your part. I understand it, though I disagree, obviously. For my part, I recognize that a thing that can have changes or develop, but that these modifications don't change the underlying thing; that they don't change the type of thing that the thing is. So, a newborn baby can change and develop into a toddler, and into a teenager, and into an adult, and into a senior. All of these changes are different, and the thing underlying these changes even acts differently and has different abilities at these different stages. But the type of thing that the thing is, doesn't change: at the stages, there remains one same underlying human entity. Contrary to your position, I just don't think that stages of development is sufficient to explain why something deserves respect as a human being and something at another stage doesn't.
You are confusing two (at least) separate issues.
1. Abortion is legal in the United States, but not because "the vast majority of us... don't view abortion as the moral equivalent of murder or manslaughter." If that were the case, abortion would be legal because the people or their representatives made it legal. California, Hawaii, and three other states did this before Roe v. Wade (1973). It became legal in the remaining 45 states because of judicial order. Now, if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that at least ten states would continue to allow nearly unlimited abortion. But the remainder would certainly either completely prohibit it, or regulate it in a manner that reduced the number of abortions. Even today, a number of states, such as Idaho, have abortion statutes that conform to the minimum requirements of Roe v. Wade--and nothing more. See Idaho Code sec. 18-608. This tells me that this "vast majority" that you imagine just doesn't exist.
2. The willingness of many states to pass laws banning intact D&X abortions is a pretty good indication of general revulsion at killing an eight month fetus. It is only the dictators in black robes that prevent this from being the law of the land.
3. The people that blow up abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors are considered whack jobs, even by nearly all pro-life people, because they are running around killing people instead of obeying the rule of law. (The use of explosives is also generally considered dangerous because of the risk of injury to innocent bystanders.) That rule of law thing--even it is law being made up by judges to suit their whims--still has enormous influence on much of the population of this country. Liberals should be glad of it. If you want to see what happens when respect for rule of law disappears, look at the South at the height of lynching.
I think that those who are trying to ban abortion have made two terrible mistakes. First, they have not recognized the importance of building a consensus against abortion. Realistically, as long as 10% of the population ADAMANTLY refuses to obey a law, you won't be able to enforce it. In the last 20 years, much of the population that used to see abortion as no big deal now sees it as, at best, a barbarous practice that needs to be discouraged.
Secondly, they have not recognized that Roe v. Wade made less difference than both sides like to think. If you look at abortion rates in states where it was unlawful before Roe v. Wade, you see some pretty good indications that abortion laws were being ignored by doctors. In Oregon, for example, there were 199 legal abortions (those performed for medical necessity) recorded for every 1000 live births. Does anyone really believe that these were medically necessary? Of course not. Oregon doctors were simply ignoring the law, and no one was prepared to prosecute.
The amount of money owed by the US government and by individuals and corporations is far greater than the amount of gold in the world. I am given to believe (I can't look for a reference in the limited time I have tonight) that a country can buy a lot of this debt and then call the debt and demand payment in gold dollars. The government and American banks would be unable to meet their obligations.
No, you can do it with any amount of gold as long as you have the same amount of gold on hand as the amount of currency you issue.
I'm not an economist, but I am under the impression that no nation now is on the gold standard, in part because there simply isn't enough gold any more in relation to the amount of commerce to make this feasible.
No, the abandonment of the gold standard was not due to gold supply - as stated above any amount will due. It was because a gold standard imposes economic discipline that free-spending governments would like to avoid. Inflation is a hidden tax, and governments like to be able to use this hidden tax rather than pass every tax increase through the legislature.
Central banking was an issue from Hamilton/Jefferson through some time in the 20th century. I don't think there is a nation in the world anymore-- certainly not an industrial nation-- that does not have one. It is a necessary tool for the defense of a nation's currencey. Interest rates can be changed instantly, but fiscal policy cannot.
Actually they're all playing with fire. Fiat currencies have often failed because central banks can't resist inflating and inflating and inflating. (Which is really taxing/taxing/taxing.) The distortion of central bank meddling by creating excess money and credit is also responsible for exaggerating economic boom and bust cycles.
And I disagree with your contention that it's a safety mechanism. Enemies can counterfeit the paper part just like fiat currency, but to manipulate the backing they would have to buy, sell, or produce gold.
Here's a cite:
...In response to the view that there is not enough gold to support growing trade, Mises argued that any given amount of gold can fulfill all that money is required to do: provide the services of a medium of exchange. Additional quantities of gold cannot improve on the economic function of money.
The material later in the article under the heading "Economic Business Cycles and Their Causes" explains how the creation of fiat money and credit cause or exacerbate boom-bust cycles.
Just as a libertarian walking down the street who looks through a window into a home and sees a man beating his wife might decide not to intervene on the grounds that he doesn't feel like it -- but he would never decide not to intervene on the grounds that the man, as head of his household, has the right to assault his wife."
----
David, I don't think this is exactly correct. Libertarians see individuals as different from institutions, especially institutions set up collectively for express purposes and allegedly governed by express rules with strictly defined and limited powers. Individuals can do anything that does not violate the rights of other individuals. Institutions can justly do only what their charters, articles of incorporation, Constitutions, etc. state they can do, qua institutions. A major rationale for this is that one doesn't want third parties to assume, on viewing the actions of an individual, to wrongly deduce they must have the blessings of or represent the policies of the institution for which he works or is associated.
To take your example, if you, an individual, watch someone beating his wife, you can intervene on your own in defense of her liberty. If, however, you're there as an employee of, say, the cable company, it is wrong to say the cable company has the right to intervene between Mr. and Mrs. Smith. That is not the goal, mission statement, purpose, etc. of the cable company. If you intervene while acting as their employee, they might be within their rights to fire you. They might not want their customer base to assume that every time they call their cable company their personal actions behind closed doors are being assessed for the constabulary.
So it is more than mere prudence that says the US government should not intervene abroad in the domestic affairs of other countries, attempt to dictate their policies, etc. It is also a claim by libertarians that doing so goes beyond the mandate of the institution that the US government is. If an individual wants to fight against the current regime in Iran, they can go to Iran and engage in political effort, or even use force if they think it appropriate and are willing to take the consequences. But for the US government to do so, constitutionally, at the very least at act of war should be declared by congress, or possibly even the Constitution should be amended to clarify that nothing in the document should be interpreted as restricting the President from using the military throughout the world for his personal agendas.
So it's not that libertarians would use the concept of state sovereignty because they think states have rights. They use the concept of state sovereignty because they think that--given that all states aggress and violate rights to one degree or another--without such a concept one has a clear set up to a war of all against all. The citizenry of all states, including the US, have their liberty at risk if they are under constant threat of invasion from any other state that can make a non-risible claim the invaded state is guilty of violating some rights.
Right. And there isn't enough gold in the solar system to back the amount of currency necessary to operate our economy with sufficient liquidity.
A quote from von Mises (died 1973) does not answer the
empirical question of whether a currency backed by cold can provide enough money to support the volume of transaction, or even the volume of private debt, that are necessary to sustain an economy as large as the world economy today,and in which the ratio of liquidity required to gold available is greater than it was when the gold standard was in effect.
This is an empirical question, not one that can be answered by application of reason. I appreciate that followers of the Austrian School are averse to numbers, but these sometimes are necessary. If your resopnse is that it is a premise that we shouldn't have more money than can be backed by precious metals, and that this should be the factor that limits the size of the economy, you would be asserting a premise to which I could not sign on.
On the other hand, if you could cite a recent quantitative model, published in a reputable outlet, that convincingly suggested that a gold-backed dollar could support prosperity, financial stability, and economic growth in 2007, then I would admit that have limited understanding of economic models and cheerfully admit that my belief about gold-backed currency might be wrong.
This comes from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_gold_reserves)and is supported by external references:
A year ago M1 was $1.4 trillion and M2 was $6.8 trillion.
newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html
The US holds $164 billion worth of gold, per the Wikipedia article cited. I don't know whether it would really be posssible to attack our currency through manipulation of gold, but I suspect so based on these numbers.Furthermore, with M2 being almost 37 times gold holdings, it is not clear how we could move toward a gold standear without destroying credit. What would happen to 97% of our money?
My point is that San Francisco is libertarian leaning on a lot of issues and is anti-war. Of course, there is also support for a lot of big government as well.
I don't see that the Bible Belt is more libertarian, on balance, just becuse people there mouth neocon talking points on limited government. Huckabee, for example, is a big government populist.
People seem to take it. I een bought gold with it last week.
Now, what do you think would happen if the Paul administration (God forbid there be one) refused to back it all of a sudden?
Who said the Bible Belt is more libertarian? It isn't. Remember that much of the Bible Belt was actually traditional Democratic Party populism until the Democrats went whoring off after the abortion and homosexual voting segments.
"Ron Paul might well be a libertarian. But a lot of the crowd that I run into backing him seem like much of the hangers on that I would often run into when I was a Libertarian Party activist in the 1980s–-people that had no clear ideology at all–-but liked to be part of movements that couldn’t win, but would make them feel important and special."
I agree that many Paul supporters may be people with extreme views and no clear ideology (Larouchies come to mind), but there are good reasons why people who have clear, consistent but yet extreme ideologies of all kinds would support a libertarian candidates. Compared to the government advocated by any of the current presidential candidates, a libertarian society is closer to the preferences of monarchists, feudalists, theocrats, white supremacists, anarchists, and (paradoxically) perhaps even fascists. This is because whenever our current government departs from libertarian principles, it almost always does so in a liberal/socialist direction (e.g., economic redistribution of wealth, anti-discrimination laws, secular public schools, etc.). Monarchists, theocrats, white supremacists, fascists, feudalists, and other groups know that no government in the U.S. would ever actively endorse their policy preferences, so the most rational thing for them to do is to endorse a libertarian government. As such, the fact that Ron Paul gets a lot of disreputable supporters should not reflect poorly on him.
Your example makes even less sense, since Huckabee isn't a neoconservative.
1. People that used to be liberals, before they grew up, and realized human relations are a bit more complex of a place than flower power.
2. People that aren't especially libertarian on economics or socially conservative who have figured out that the world is filled with some pretty nasty sorts who we have to defeat, militarily, ideologically, or probably both.
3. And there's the meaning that some on the left have for it: "JOOOOOS!"
I don't think of myself as a neocon, and I'm not even sure that there is a real meaning there. But to the extent that it involves a mixture of realism about foreign policy (they don't hate us because of Israel, at least primarily) and some idealism about promoting a classical liberal view of human rights and democracy, this is a good thing.
"Non-Interventionalism: Free trade with other nations. No unprovoked preemptive wars."
What is an unprovoked preemptive war?
I can think of one. Can't you?