Why I won't be flocking to the Libertarian Party any time soon

Originally posted by Old77
Besides...these people are arguing about benefits not love. If you love someone it really does not matter how you are together..just that you are together...but if you are talking about wanting the "benefits" of a contractual obligation you have with a significant other.. thats not love..thats deception.

Flawed logic BASED on religious influenced opinion. "If you love someone it really does not matter how you are together." lol Well then that should apply to everyone eh? If you are religious, and require a marriage based on your religious beliefs, then get it at church and leave the state and all those state sanctioned "benefits" out of it.

reply to post by filosophia


If that was the only question, then yes, Ron would probably be a good choice. This, along with several other of his positions, are things with which I agree.

However, Ron's a little too anti-personal freedom for my tastes in other areas, and too pro-big business in his wish to remove gov't regulations on nearly everything.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic


However, Ron's a little too anti-personal freedom for my tastes in other areas

You may not want to clarify this, how is Ron anti-personal freedom? That's like saying Ron Paul is too anti-gold standard for your tastes. I'm confused. If this has to do with the abortion issue, Ron Paul is personally against abortion, but he is not going to force his personal views onto you because it's not authorized by the constitution. So, that just proves he is for personal freedom. Ron Paul has never once said he wants to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Just as he never said he wants to kill uninsured people. That's words being put in his mouth, not something he said or believes in.

reply to post by filosophia


Calling Ron anti-personal freedom may not have been the appropriate phraseology. I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to really clarify this, but I'll give it a shot...

It's not so much the he is anti-personal freedom, I guess, but more that I disagree with him on some roles of the federal government.

Regarding the abortion issue, he's against it, which is fine (so am I, btw). Where we differ is that for me, the damage to society of an unwanted child being brought into the world FAR outweighs the damage of the mother having an abortion.

Some argue that a fetus is a human from the time of conception. As with animals, we don't really know. What we do know is that for a significant length of time, a fetus is a clump of cells with the potential to grow into a human. If that clump of cells is aborted, maybe a concious, sentient entity has been killed, maybe not. We do not know.

What we do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that if an unwanted child is brought into the world, they are likely to be abused from the get-go, and quite possbily eventually raped and killed at age 7 by the fifth Uncle Bob they've had. And a 7 year old child is definitely, beyond any argument, a concious sentient being.

To me, the second scenario is a far greater crime, or sin, or whatever term you wish, than is the abortion of that unwanted fetus at an early stage.

And if a poor person is in this situation, whether through their personal irresponsibility or due to the fact they cannot get viable birth control due to costs, I don't care. I'd rather spend some of my tax money subsidising the abortion than subsidising the result of an unwanted child.

Ron, if I'm understanding his position correclty, disagrees. But yes, the phrase anti-personal freedom was probably inaccurate.

Let's take the other hot item... gay marriage. Ron says let the states decide on a per state basis. But as mentioned in my OP, this is prohibited by the US constitution, which states that all citizens of all states are guaranteed equal protection under secular law. So if a state has a legal contract called 'marriage', it must be applied to all citizens of the age of majority, without regard to their respective plumbing.

To me, this guarantee of rights is every bit as important as the guarantee that all citizens in all states have the same right to vote. That is also guaranteed by the federal constitution, and prevents a state from saying women, blacks, latinos or gays are not allowed to vote in that state.

These two rights, and others, are guaranteed by the federal constitution, and it is the job of the federal gov't to enforce them in all states.

I'm not sure I've clarified, here, I hope so...

Originally posted by filosophia
You may not want to clarify this, how is Ron anti-personal freedom?

I would say that he's not strong enough on personal freedom. He would protect the second amendment at the federal level (a freedom he agrees with), but he wouldn't support the 14th because he doesn't agree with gay marriage. The 14th specifically states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yet Ron Paul would allow states to make laws that abridge the privileges of gay citizens. And he would allow states to violate the Constitution by making abortion illegal in that state.

The federal government is supposed to support the Constitution. ALL of it. For all people.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks, BH... you said it better than I did - RP, just like far too many other citizens in this day and age, is all for protecting the rights that he believes in, and the rights of people that agree with him.

He is demonstrably less interested in protecting the rights of people with whom he disagrees.

And that is the problem.