"Libertarian" Rand Paul Sez: Listen to wrong speech, go to jail!

[Unabogie]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...nalize-speech/

Quote:

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

What the hell? The most charitable reading of this is that he's talking about non-citizens, although it doesn't seem clear to me that he's restricting his proposed policy to them. But isn't this the same guy who says non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional? You should be allowed to be as offensive as you want and let Galt decide which ideas win? And yet he also thinks that if you ATTEND the speech of someone promoting violent overthrow of the government (like Sharon Angle or Glenn Beck?) then you should be THROWN IN PRISON?

Ok, seriously, wut?

[Cleon]

Ooh, that's gonna cost him in militia and "survivalist" circles. Too bad that's like half his base of support.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

[jnelso99]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

(like Sharon Angle or Glenn Beck?)

I was going to guess Ted Nugent.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Ooh, that's gonna cost him in militia and "survivalist" circles. Too bad that's like half his base of support.

I am sure that segment of the population will be happy with his speech - he's obviously talking about "them", not "us"

[PGH]

Most Paul supporters I know are the very people I consider most likely to attempt to overthrow the government.

Ergo, lock up anyone who's been to a Ron/Rand Paul gathering. Simple enough.

[leftysergeant]

Rand want to throw his daddy in jail for hanging out with Don Black.

[A Laughing Baby]

How does Paul saying this jive with a libertarian ideology? I can't fit the "convict attendees of radical speeches" peg into the "government intrusion into life under any circumstances is a bad thing" hole.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by A Laughing Baby

How does Paul saying this jive with a libertarian ideology? I can't fit the "convict attendees of radical speeches" peg into the "government intrusion into life under any circumstances is a bad thing" hole.

He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."

[Ladewig]

Great. Now I have to buy one of those t-shirts that says "Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" just so that I can write across the bottom, "Hey, Rand, Come at me bro'."
.......

I think it is part of his long-term strategy.
1) Rand bribes someone at the Republican National Convention to mention the violent overthrow of the government in a speech
2) He sends his brownshirts in to arrest all the delegates for listening to an illegal speech.
3) He fills the empty hall with his delegates.
4) He becomes the Republican nomination for president.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."

Or more precisely, "Freedom (and government spending) for us but not for you."

[atecom]

Will he at least allow people to pass 'Go'?

[mortimer]

Rand Paul said something idiotic? Say it ain't so!

[Puppycow]

There are libertarians and there are "libertarians". Pauls père and fils are clearly the latter.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."

No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.

If you're going to broaden libertarian philosophy to the point where you grant the state the right to restrict freedom for the sake of preventing activities that may, in some form, indirectly cause harm to others, then you've opened the floodgates for pretty much everything that libertarians hate. Might as well promote universal healthcare while you're at it.

[AnnoyingPony]

Rand Paul is looking like more of a joke every time he opens his mouth.

But wait, didn't he say that he would no longer make media appearances ever since Rachel Maddow called him out for his views that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea?

(I personally do believe in freedom of association, but Rand Paul is a hypocrite about property rights yet again because he somehow also wants to ban abortion, denying women rights to their own bodies. Also, he associates with some pretty racist people, including one man who works on his campaign who posted "Hang a (n-word) Day" on his Myspace or something.)

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Muldur

In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.

At what stage? Does the state get this protection right immediately after the moment of conception?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

I am sure that segment of the population will be happy with his speech - he's obviously talking about "them", not "us"

Naturally. Our speech promoting the violent overthrow of our government is patriotic. Their speech promoting the violent overthrow of our government is terrorism.

[A Laughing Baby]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.

How...Statist of you. *pushes glasses up nose*

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

If you're going to broaden libertarian philosophy to the point where you grant the state the right to restrict freedom for the sake of preventing activities that may, in some form, indirectly cause harm to others, then you've opened the floodgates for pretty much everything that libertarians hate. Might as well promote universal healthcare while you're at it.

Thanks. You've saved me some typing.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Or more precisely, "Freedom (and government spending) for us but not for you."

Libertarian freedom is like hemophilia - it's messy, forces one to be overcautious, and only the best people get it.

[Brown]

Have you ever noticed that when someone starts out by denying his or her own racism or sexism or religious prejudices, that the person promptly follows the denial with what seems to be a stunningly bigoted or otherwise foolish remark?

[A Laughing Baby]

Originally Posted by Brown

Have you ever noticed that when someone starts out by denying his or her own racism or sexism or religious prejudices, that the person promptly follows the denial with what seems to be a stunningly bigoted or otherwise foolish remark?

This is why you should never search for the phrase "I'm not racist, but" on Openbook.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

If you're going to broaden libertarian philosophy to the point where you grant the state the right to restrict freedom for the sake of preventing activities that may, in some form, indirectly cause harm to others, then you've opened the floodgates for pretty much everything that libertarians hate. Might as well promote universal healthcare while you're at it.

I would say (limiting myself to these two issues) that the state preventing nutjobs from running amok with guns killing people unjustly is preventing a very immediate and direct harm.

Same with abortion. Depending on the procedure utilized, the baby will be 1) injected with high concentration saline solution or other lethal substance 2) dismembered and 3) have it's dismembered parts sucked out with a vacuum device.

I would submit that the baby, were it able to speak on it's own behalf, would very much consider THAT a very immediate and direct harm.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

At what stage? Does the state get this protection right immediately after the moment of conception?

Yes, because that is the point at which an identifiable, distinct human life is created. It has its own physical identity, and it's own genetic identity separate from that of any other person. It is unique and self-contained, requiring nothing more than time and nutrients to permit growth and development, the same as any other human being.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by A Laughing Baby

How...Statist of you. *pushes glasses up nose*

Under Libertarianism, the state has the same right as a person to the legitimate use of force to defend its own existence, does it not? Individuals task the state with the responsibility to defend their individual rights after all. If the state is unable to ensure its existence, then how is it to fulfill the function it is intended for?

In the case of abortion, as I have indicated, the state is exercising the pre-born baby's own innate rights to life and liberty by proxy under it's mandate to protect said rights.

[LukeB]

Is there an intrinsic element of Libertarianism that leads it's proponents to twist definitions so they can claim any government interventions they actually want are legitimate? Or has it just suffered for being the label of choice adopted by wannabe political rebels?
Muldur, maybe you can help with this...?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Yes, because that is the point at which an identifiable, distinct human life is created. It has its own physical identity, and it's own genetic identity separate from that of any other person. It is unique and self-contained, requiring nothing more than time and nutrients to permit growth and development, the same as any other human being.

I'm not trying to argue against your position. I just want to ask questions to make sure I understand it. Under the government you are describing, IUDs and the morning-after pill would be illegal, right? Other than Vatican City, are there any countries that currently follow that legal model?

When abortions are outlawed, what will be the legal penalty for a woman who has one? Will that penalty vary depending on how far along the pregnancy is? Does an abortion one week before birth garner the same sentence as an abortion one week after conception?

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I'm not trying to argue against your position. I just want to ask questions to make sure I understand it. Under the government you are describing, IUDs and the morning-after pill would be illegal, right? Other than Vatican City, are there any countries that currently follow that legal model?

When abortions are outlawed, what will be the legal penalty for a woman who has one? Will that penalty vary depending on how far along the pregnancy is? Does an abortion one week before birth garner the same sentence as an abortion one week after conception?

Libertarianism today has been simplified down to waving your arms and frothing about how things ought to be. It is completely unfair of you to expect an actual realism based response from a libertarian.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Yes, because that is the point at which an identifiable, distinct human life is created. It has its own physical identity, and it's own genetic identity separate from that of any other person. It is unique and self-contained, requiring nothing more than time and nutrients to permit growth and development, the same as any other human being.

So I guess that means you are for outlawing RU486 then? I trust you don't extend this protection even further and fall into the "every sperm is sacred" mantra.

[Nosi]

God help the Libertarian who's daughter has a tubal pregnancy!

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by LukeB

Is there an intrinsic element of Libertarianism that leads it's proponents to twist definitions so they can claim any government interventions they actually want are legitimate? Or has it just suffered for being the label of choice adopted by wannabe political rebels?
Muldur, maybe you can help with this...?

Well, firstly I'm not an advocate for Libertariansim en bloc, if that's the impression you've gotten. I agree with some people who are self-described Libertarians on certain issues.

That said, that doesn't mean I cannot study Libertarian thought and attempt to understand it's principles, which in my experience are "honored in the breach" more often than not.

It's a matter of formulation. Libertarians throw down a good-sounding notion like "free markets" or "individual rights". The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details.

What is "free"? Most of the Libertarians I have heard or read from speak of "non-coercion" as a cornerstone of being "free". Ok, what is "non-coercion"? The typical answer is that "force or threat of negative consequence may not be used to compel another". Put more simply, you can't put a gun to someone's head, or a knife to their throat (or threaten to do so) and make them do what you want, except in the case you are defending yourself or your rights.

Sounds good, don't it?

Consider the case of a man on an island with a fruit tree. He has all the fruit he wants, but it's a bother to go pick it and haul it back to his shelter. Along comes a 2nd man, washed up from a shipwreck. He sees the tree, and, being hungry and weak from being shipwrecked wants to go get fruit from it.

Not so fast, says the first man. I was here first. It's my tree. In fact it's my island. You can stay here if you wish IF you agree to pick all the fruit but only take the fruit I decide to give you. You must also do all the work to maintain my shelter, or you may not gather materials to make one of your own. Again, it's MY island, and therefore everything ON the island is also mine.

Now the first man is stronger and healthier than the 2nd, having been on the island for some time, and tells the 2nd man that if he tries to take the materials and the fruit anyways, he will beat him over the head with a branch. The 2nd man, too weak to prevail in trial by arms, agrees to wait on the 1st man hand and foot in exchange for just enough fruit to keep from starving (but never enough to fill his stomache) and the WORST of the logs and fronds to make a shelter for himself, while the first man keeps all the rest.

Most people who call themselves Libertarians would nod approvingly and say that the 2nd man "freely" submitted to the contract on the stated terms. He, after all, had the choice to leave the island and take his chances with the sea, they would claim.

Aside from the initial problem of the first man claiming "ownership" of the island and trees and fruit to begin with (seeing as how he had no part in making said island/etc to begin with), the fundamental wrongness of that scenario is disguised by the Libertarian definition of "force" as being "acts of physical coercion". To which I respond: hunger is a damn powerful motivator, and expecting people to starve in the presence of food to protect some phantom property claim is absurd.

That's a long around example way of saying that most Libertarians are hypocrites by design. They sell their belief on the basis of "who can argue against that" platitudes, but when you examine the details and definitions, then yes, they ARE a "twisted" version (to use your word) meant to only favor themselves.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I'm not trying to argue against your position. I just want to ask questions to make sure I understand it. Under the government you are describing, IUDs and the morning-after pill would be illegal, right?

Yes to both. (and thank you for reminding me of the "morning after pill). ANY deliberate attempt at denying the pre-born baby its right to live is wrong.

Quote:

Other than Vatican City, are there any countries that currently follow that legal model?

I don't know if there ARE, but any country that truly believes in human rights should.

Quote:

When abortions are outlawed, what will be the legal penalty for a woman who has one?

the same as any other murderer. Harsh sounding, but that's the plain fact. Abortion murders an innocent human being.

Quote:

Will that penalty vary depending on how far along the pregnancy is? Does an abortion one week before birth garner the same sentence as an abortion one week after conception?

No. Murder is murder, regardless of the age of the victim. To suggest that the penalty should depend on the age of a pre-born person is as absurd as saying it should be more acceptable to murder a 2 year old than an 80 year old.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

So I guess that means you are for outlawing RU486 then?

Yes.

Quote:

I trust you don't extend this protection even further and fall into the "every sperm is sacred" mantra.

No. A sperm (or egg for that matter) is not a complete human being capable of developing by itself into a fully-grown form with time and nourishment.

Originally Posted by Nosi

God help the Libertarian who's daughter has a tubal pregnancy!

In that case, an abortion can (oddly enough) be justified on the basis of self-defense on Libertarian grounds. The baby is an active thread to the mothers' life, and she has the right to protect herself via abortion. It's a rather blunt and cold way to put it, but that's essentially the case.

On the subject of moral culpability (not strictly Libertarian), the baby is going to die anyways in that case. One even could go so far as to make a case that it would be a mercy to the baby to end it cleanly and spare it the suffering of a lingering death.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Yes to both. (and thank you for reminding me of the "morning after pill). ANY deliberate attempt at denying the pre-born baby its right to live is wrong.



I don't know if there ARE, but any country that truly believes in human rights should.



the same as any other murderer. Harsh sounding, but that's the plain fact. Abortion murders an innocent human being.



No. Murder is murder, regardless of the age of the victim. To suggest that the penalty should depend on the age of a pre-born person is as absurd as saying it should be more acceptable to murder a 2 year old than an 80 year old.

Thank you for your answers.

[gnome]

Is it immoral to not rescue fertilized eggs that fail to implant naturally, if we have the ability?

Or if you'd like a more serious question--if a woman has a medical condition that makes implantation difficult, is it murder for her to engage in intercourse at all?

[Unabogie]

At the risk of further derailing my thread, a fun question for anti-choicers is: if you came upon a burning building and you only had time to save a baby in its crib or a box of frozen embryos, which would you save and why? After all, the box of embryos is far more humans to save in one heroic act.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.

A is A.


An unborn fetus, unconscious, is not a person. Therefore it has no rights. A is A.

[Chaos]

In German law, the ability to have rights begins at birth - so says Article 1 of the Civil Law Code (§1 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).

What do US laws say about that?