Posted on 08/01/2013 8:04:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, I guess that means that Ron Paul isn’t a ‘real’ libertarian either? Huh. Who knew?
It’s fascinating to watch this. First of all, lesson number one, for Rand Paul, who is, by the way, not a libertarian. If you believe you ought to be able to tell women what to do with their reproductive rights you are not a libertarian. Lesson number one for Rand Paul, do not take on a guy from Jersey. Obviously this guy does not watch HBO, and, you know, you’re not going to win a fight like this with Chris Christie. That’s not the way it’s going to go.
First of all, no, I don’t know that we would classify Rand Paul as a full-blown, isolationist libertarian looking for a major retrenchment away from the world, and you could reasonably mention that point when the issue at hand is the recent foreign-policy tiff with Chris Christie in the neoconservative corner and Paul representing the recent libertarian-leaning shift. But, why on earth bring up abortion as a libertarian disqualifier in a conversation in which we’re discussing the two sides of the GOP’s national-security spectrum? A, how does it apply? And B, since when can libertarians not be pro-life? I’m pretty sure if Howard Dean thought about it for a moment, he could rationally conceive of why there’s still plenty of debate on abortion among the libertarian set — “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” no?
Well, Howard, maybe he’s protecting the liberty of the child in the womb so his/her life isn’t snuffed out.
The yet to be born are not entitled to liberty?
RE: The yet to be born are not entitled to liberty?
To the Dems, they don’t.
I thought Paul was a Republican.
The libertarian position on abortion:
“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
So, love him or hate him, Howard Dean is right on this then...
This from a likely former abortionist.
Someone should advise the Doctor to take his time, and not skip over essential steps in the reasoning process.
William Flax
That is the current and permanent, platform statement on abortion of the their party.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
That's the Libertarian Party's position and it reflects the division among libertarians on the issue.
There are libertarians that argue protection of the unborn is an expression of the government's obligation to protect the innocent against force or fraud. Other libertarians argue that there isn't yet a person to protect.
The difference between the two groups has nothing to do with the philosophy of libertarianism, but instead with questions about the beginning of personhood.
Like a fair number of Freepers (sadly), Dr. Dumbass doesn’t know the difference between the Libertarian Party, and libertarian philosophy.
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” RWR
Yes, but he doesn’t know why he’s right, or much of anything else. Ron Paul left the Libertarian Party in no small part over abortion. I think we can assume it plays a big role for his son as well.
There’s a large body of pro-life libertarians. I’m one.
Please note the small “l.” The large “L” Libertarians are as corrupted as the R’s and D’s.
He only like liberaltarians which want the government to fund killing the unborn and support turning schools into lgbt indoctrination camps.
No there isn't, they exist but they aren't large enough to change the fundamentals of libertarianism.
Rand Paul must be doing a lot right if Dean feels the need to say or primal scream something quotable.
Atta boy, Rand!
Rand Paul never called himself a libertarian. He always said that he was a constitutional conservative.
Really?
A quote about economic commonality from a 1975 interview from the conservative candidate speaking to a small libertarian magazine, purely for a libertarian audience, and minutes before he switches to telling the libertarians how much he disagrees with them on social issues and national defense?
And Howard Dean is not really a physician because he is pro-death
This whole killing babies for the convenience of the parents and who knows what political gain will end one day
When, no one knows.
Nut it is simply against natural law, which cannot be changed
These guys, these liberal leaders, they are going to come out so badly in the history books
They’ve killed 55million just in the reported surgical incidences of abortion and they are not done
A lot of people went along with hitler and it was acceptable at the time
The allies made them clean up after they were found out
That’s where these guys are going to end up
That they don’t see that, especially with this guy being a doctor, puts them in a category of foolishness
He has no credibility with sensible people
Yes, there is. I’m also one. So was Ronald Reagan. They are generally Republicans, though some opt for a 3rd party that doesn’t sell out the unborn. Libertarian Party and libertarian philosophy are not exactly the same thing. If anything, the GOP is the natural home of libertarianism, and Libertarian Party is a splinter group for pro-abortion types that are still leery of Big Government. One more time for emphasis:
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” RWR
There is no division between libertarians and their party.
The party platform libertarians formed is a perfect reflection of the libertarian ideals, the problem is that many activists don't like it written down, because they like to be able to alter libertarianism for whichever audience they are speaking to.
Pro choicers say that abortion stems from a woman’s “right to privacy”, but they have no problem with the NSA recording every phone call and e-mail and tracking us via our cell phones.
Reagan was no libertarian, see post 21, Reagan is no mystery to many of his here, and a single throwaway line to a libertarian audience during a campaign does not rewrite history and facts, nor the rest of that isolated, lonely interview itself.
Yes, really. That’s an awful lot of dancing you are having to do to disavow it.
“Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy.”
So, Reagan goes on to say “in the sense of a party”. EXACTLY what I was saying.
there are republicans and conservatives..
there are democrats and communists...
there are small l libertarians and ron paul nut jobs..
That interview is not a mystery, either. There is no doubt that Reagan drew on libertarian philosophy for his vision of limited government. Your inability to distinguish the philosophical movement from the Libertarian Party is your problem.
“I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
Reagan doubled down on it. You WANT “libertarian” to mean the same thing as “liberal” or “libertine”, and it just doesn’t. Sorry.
Please note the small “l.” The large “L” Libertarians are as corrupted as the R’s and D’s.”
If you want to see a big-L Libertarian twist him/herself into knots, ask them about border security and immigration policy.
Pointing out that you are clinging to a single quote in an interview by a candidate to a small libertarian audience in 1975, just before he proceeds to disagree with libertarianism, is not “an awful lot of dancing”, instead it is you doing the dancing.
Reagan has an extraordinary detailed and long, political history and you are trying to tell us that he was a libertarian instead of a conservative and somehow we all missed it, and now that all the world needs to rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan is to learn about that early economics quote as he warmed up an audience in 1975.
Perhaps Rand Paul just sees abortion as the ultimate human rights violation, a concept that progressives like Dean simply can’t seem to get their minds around.
You know, what I can never understand is why it is that if you take a libertarian position on something that you are labeled a “libertarian”. Hell, we all hold different views on most things but that should not put a person in a box with a label on it. Maybe just a label that says Human Being-American.
If you want to see libertarians avoid a question, ask them about how this disagrees with libertarianism or where all this hatred of their party versus the libertarians is hidden.
“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”
Dr. Dean - Psycho Baby Killer!
Exactly!
You need to turn off talk radio and meet people.
There are plenty of us out here.
But you’re correct: there’ll never be enough to shoulder past the narcissistic Randians in the movement who think only in terms of ME ME ME.
/Yes, Ayn Rand loooooved abortion.
The pro-aborts simply declare the fetus to be something less than human. Kinda like the way Hitler declared Slavs and Jews to be less than human. And for the exact same reason, to rationalize their murder.
I don't think that happens, someone can be for homosexualizing the military which is a libertarian position, but it is also a leftist position, so unless he explains it as his libertarian position, then people would probably just label him as liberal.
It’s the borders thing. A “real” Libertarian thinks humans will cast away tribalism and embrace the end of the nation-state.
This ignores a fundamental aspect of being human. We’re all bands of apes living in trees, still.
To the extent that conservatism stands for limited government (that used to be a big deal), it does so in no small part due to writers and researchers who are labelled “libertarian”. Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman come to mind.
Reagan not only meant what he said, it makes perfect sense. He does go on to list several points of disagreement with the Libertarian Party, and a lot more differences of degree, and even some agreement. You act like Reagan wasn’t himself that day, or was just playing to his audience, or something. It lines up with everything else he said.
There’s no money in libertarianism for the 1%’ers.
They profit off the many varying degrees of feudalism, present both here in the US and all over the world.
You can lay off the personal attack, as bizarre as it is.
Libertarianism is socially liberal, it is the reason that they aren’t simply conservatives, it is the divide between conservatism and libertarian.
No way do we need this queer agenda pushing, illegal loving, drug enabling moron anywhere near the 2016 nomination!
The law asserts the fiduciary duty as the gravest responsibility. Per wikipedia,
"A fiduciary duty[3] is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary (abbreviation fid) is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents."
Surely, a life must be considered more sacrosanct than a mere financial asset and, thus, deserves an even higher level of responsibility. By acting to create a life, you are becoming a super-fiduciary and must face the full import of that. Dean would reduce this super-fiduciary responsibility to a matter of simple convenience. This is a bolshevik notion of what life means.
I can usually tell when someone doesn’t get out and around.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
Howard Dean is so damned dumb he has no idea of the difference between a Little L or a Big L libertarian.
He would have no idea the difference between a statist and an federalist.
Dean is a ranting raving moron.
As a woman, I’m offended by the concept of extending a certain, alleged human right to women only - that of extending “reproductive choice” past the point where a woman has CHOSEN to engage in the act which is biologically intended to start the process of reproduction.
Women should have the same reproductive rights as men: to engage in reproduction or not to engage in reproduction. Once they choose to engage in the biological process that we call reproduction - i.e. sex — the time for choosing is over. Choice made. If the condom breaks: tough luck, choices have consequences.
That’s the way women want it to be for men — if a woman “oops” gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, the man is on the hook for paying for that child for the next 18 years.
Should be the same for women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.