General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul Signs Personhood USA Pledge, Proving Once Again That He Is NOT A Libertarian Or A Liberal
True libertarians believe in leaving people be. The main tenet of libertarianism is personal liberty, which includes right to privacy. Libertarians fight fiercely for keeping the government out of the personal lives of the American citizenry. Ron Paul has claimed time and time again that he is a libertarian, but with a stroke of his pen last Thursday, Paul proved once and for all that he is NOT a libertarian.
Personhood USA has been putting a ton of pressure on the Republican Presidential candidates. Many of the candidates have signed the personhood pledge, which states that every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. In other words, each candidate who has signed the pledge, is promising to ban abortion, thus violating the personal liberty of women everywhere. Last Thursday, Ron Paul signed that pledge.
Ron Paul looks desperate to win the nomination. So desperate, that he is joining the extreme evangelical conservatives, to try and win their support in Iowa and the rest of the country. In doing so, Paul is selling his libertarian soul to the extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians who want to strangle American freedom with an iron fist. He now opposes abortion for any reason and is completely against gay marriage. This goes against libertarian philosophy. Paul has tried to paint himself as the new Barry Goldwater, but Ron Paul is no Goldwater. A true libertarian, Goldwater defended a womans right to choose, and supported gay rights.
If Ron Paul were a true libertarian, he would completely support these words spoken by the father of American libertarianism.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/26/ron-paul-signs-personhood-usa-pledge-proving-once-again-that-he-is-not-a-libertarian-or-a-liberal/
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it just needs to be a VERY SMALL UZI.
(Sorry, that was beging and it is nuts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Paul will have to be a dictator to accomplish all he says he will do. I find it difficult to believe backers don't see the whole picture. He will have to work with Congress and I doubt he has enough friends to get anything of his agenda through Congress. If he started to close the fed and other agencies he would be rolled out on a log. He is poison and would ruin this country. Hwvwould not be elected.
freshstart
(265 posts)this move fits right in. He has surrounded himself with those who are "Christian Reconstructionalists," like Howard Phillips and Gary North. He's had a relationship with Howard Phillips who created the Conservative Caucus since the 1970s. Phillips and those associated with him created the Moral Majority, etc.
Mother Jones explains that Phillips takes credit as the architect of the religious right.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/11/howard-phillips-world?page=1
Others seem to use the term Dominionist Theocracy. I just started researching this, so I don't know much about it.
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)He is correct on his pledge dump the Fed...decriminalize MJ and end the wars.
However.. he will gut Social Seurity, gut Medicare and medicade... gut SCHIPS and food stamps.
Our Society is too fragile right now to absorb this shock.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Imagine taking such HUGE steps backwards.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Zombie rights now!
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)just isn't a reasonable option
I expect him to go all out this time around because it is his last shot
donheld
(21,311 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,732 posts)Holy crap... How does that happen?
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)especially since he was formerly registered as one.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)In the Republican stance, the fetus is selectively viewed as an individual, with its own rights, but the woman isn't, she is viewed a being the property, an object. She is required to sacrifice her life to another individual against her will, even if it requires her death.
Yet the same people will say if somebody gets sick, and depends on society for help, that he shouldn't be helped, even though he is in the exact same situation as the fetus...Just with a demonstrably working brain and nervous system.
Motherhood should be by consent. If they can find a way to transplant fetuses, more power to them. But ultimately a woman has the right to control her own body.
Ter
(4,281 posts)However, there is no libertarian position on abortion. The entire party remains greatly divided. Some say it's a woman's right to choose, while many others say individual liberty applies to the unborn. Virtually all, however, oppose Roe vs. Wade.
Paul was also a gynecologist. As a doctor, he witnessed a late-term abortion by another doctor, where the baby moved after being aborted, horrifying him. For that, I can give him a pass, as that's enough to convert many of us.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)just because he supposedly got icked out doesn't give him the right to restrict the individual choice for other Americans...
(just using the classic Paulite argument against him)
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)"Icked out" is not a legitimate reason to restrict the rights of women.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Because they desperately want that "protest vote" against Obama that they think will bring about the great Leftist revolution.
If the rest of his policy matched his policy on War and Drugs, that would work, but sadly, he wants to empower that same Corporate fiends that really did make the war machine start rolling in the first place.
MakingSense
(32 posts)In all fairness, the pledge calls for a constitutional amendment on the issue. That is entirely in line with libertarian ideology. They are ok with a some government involvement so long as it is limited to those issues that the people specificly added to the Constitution. Remember, libertarians are not anarchists they have much more in common with strict constructionists. As such signing that pledge is well within the scope of what Ron Paul has claimed to sell himself although it does give some clarity that is important to the discusion. Previously his position appeared to be that this should be a state issue even though he personally was against abortion. Now it appears that his position appears to be that the current legal structure dictates this should be a state issue but that he would prefer to make it a federal issue if the defined process for doing so could be successfully completed.
While we may not agree with his position, I don't think it is fair or particularly accurate to claim any form of inconstancy. If we want to attack Ron Paul, it is best to do so on his lack of willingness to use the government to correctly engineer society toward a desireable result as defined by progressive ideals.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It ruins a good hysteria...
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)
From his 2000 speech 'A Republic if You Can Keep It' which he has on his website:
'Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.
This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 20th Century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a deep concern for life, and with the casual disposing of living human fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against fellow human beings.
It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new mother in this circumstance is acting consistently knowing that if an abortion is done just before a delivery it's legally justified and the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax-supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not resolved in favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen. We can expect senseless violence to continue as a sense of self-worth is undermined.
Children know that mothers and sisters when distraught have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Distraught teenagers in copying this behavior are now more prone to use violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This tendency is made worse because they see, in this age of abortion, their own lives as having less value, thus destroying their self-esteem.'
The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life-not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st Century.
A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with government sanctioning and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe vs. Wade justified abortion using a privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible. If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed, and the elderly-a direction in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia-that's "mercy" killing for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill.
Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law. And indeed it should and does-at the state level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional; essentially all violent acts should be dealt with by the states. And because we have allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more good state laws are overridden than good federal laws written. Roe vs. Wade federalized state abortion laws and ushered in the age of abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will do great harm by explicitly excluding abortionists, thus codifying for the first time the Roe vs. Wade concept and giving even greater legal protection to the abortionist.
The responsibility of the Congress is twofold. First, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong right-to-life beliefs to pay for abortions. Second, Roe vs. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation-a constitutional option. If we as a nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a "right" cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens."
LeftinOH
(5,353 posts)'Libertarians' are just silly Republican "second-life" characters.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)in terms being any kind of "libertarian".
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)not Ron Paul, so that should tell you something right off the bat. He has learned to talk a good game but knows when to be opportunistic as necessary.
I actually watched most of the Libertarian Party nominating convention on CSPAN just for the heck of it and for the entertainment value of them attacking the GOP.