I think I need to be in Ron Paul rehab. I keep saying to myself, “No more posts about Ron Paul,” but then I see some article or headline that knocks me off the wagon. This time it was the good doctor’s statement of faith on abortion:
I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Whatever your attitude about abortion, it simply isn’t possible to reconcile this position with Libertarianism. Dr. Paul’s legislation would empower the various states to pass whatever law they like with regard to abortion, and he knows perfectly well that at least half of them would outlaw the practice.
The basic libertarian position on abortion can be summed up as follows: “Abortion is bad, but government meddling in the decision is worse.” So, how can a professed Libertarian sponsor legislation that would, in effect, authorize precisely this kind of government meddling?
If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, I’m an astronaut.
Comments 10
You’re right. He’s not a libertarian, he’s a Constitutionalist, and readily admits this everywhere.
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 9:50 am ¶He wants fifty separate states to be empowered to make their laws regarding abortion separately. That is very much a libertarian position. Making laws centrally, top down, from the federal gov’t; not libertarian.
I’m personally pro-choice on abortion. I would lobby my state of Virginia to keep abortion legal. And I don’t believe for a second that more than half of the states would make it illegal. I count eleven that almost certainly would, twenty-three that would not. The rest, I’m honestly not sure. But with a twelve state advantage, right out of the gate, I like th odds
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 10:05 am ¶Making laws centrally, top down, from the federal gov’t; not libertarian.
Making intrusive laws at the state level is also anti-libertarian.
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 10:12 am ¶You should get in contact with NASA then.
“Abortion is bad, but government meddling in the decision is worse.” Right, and Dr Paul wants to remove the current Federal government meddling.
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 12:34 pm ¶So, Barney, is state meddling OK? Odd position for an alleged Libertarian.
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶The uppercase Libertarians will ride this country down the tubes with establishment Presidents before conceding that Ron Paul’s immigration stance is correct in the context of our welfare state. It’s weird that they harp on that more than the existence of the welfare state. That’s why their LP affiliation is dangerous and counterproductive. Try being a lowercase libertarian.
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 2:05 pm ¶This uppercase Libertarian doesn’t see what all the fuss is about.
Ron Paul wants to use government power to ban abortion.
Ron Paul wants to use government power to close the borders and end free trade of labor.
Ron Paul wants to use government power to define “marriage” and put the government, rather than private citizens, in the role of defining and regulating private relationships.
Ron Paul likes big government when its big government set to his purposes.
So this big L Libertarian understands why Paul is a Republican, and not a Libertarian. What he doesn’t understand is this persistent effort by right-conservatives (like Jesubub) to steal the “libertarian” branding when they aren’t libertarians.
You guys are right-conservatives. Embrace it and live it, and stop trying to dub yourselves as something you’re not.
Posted 21 Oct 2007 at 9:50 pm ¶“So, Barney, is state meddling OK? Odd position for an alleged Libertarian.”
Well, Catron, I wouldn’t say its really that odd for someone running for President, and not governor of whatever state you happen to live in. You don’t want to choose at the state level? You want the mandate handed down from-on-federal-high? I apologize, I know you didn’t say that or even imply it, but what exactly are you arguing?
“Making intrusive laws at the state level is also anti-libertarian.”
You are right, but once again, this doesn’t really have to do with the President.
Posted 23 Oct 2007 at 5:46 pm ¶I don’t know why everybody insists on labeling Paul a Libertarian just because he ran that way once(!) …he ran as a Republican 10 times. He’s really more of a Constitutionalist than a Republican or Libertarian.
Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶If Libertarianism is:
Posted 05 May 2008 at 10:22 pm ¶A. Wanting government to protect against invasions.
B. Wanting government to protect our rights as humans.
and
C. Wanting government to stay the eff out of our lives.
Then Ron Paul’s position fits quite nicely with Libertarianism. Perhaps a more conservative approach to it, but still. Unless you think the rights of the unborn are non-existent, then we must also protect their right to life.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[…] What an aptly named blog. […]
Post a Comment