What does Rand Paul mean when he speaks of "dignity?" - Is it a buzzword for "social justice?"

December 20, 2014

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Does Rand Paul classify himself as a "free-thinker?" I was looking around to see how he might be associated with that atheist/agnostic group and the word "dignity" came up in the first piece below [that uses the term free-thinker]. So I search "Rand Paul" and "dignity" and found that he uses that word in his speeches. So just wondering what anyone knows about his religious leanings other than his traditional association with the Episcopal church. And does he use "dignity" as a euphemism for "social justice" - "getting along" - as a liberal-libertarian stand in [REPLACEMENT] for religion [Islam, Judaism, Christianity]?

Rand Paul’s Return To Foreign-Policy Realism "Neoliberals and neoconservatives have misunderstood human dignity and overreached accordingly. Time for some conservative realism."

Rand Paul Channels Malala to Bash Obama "....Paul will argue that such military force does little to combat the issues at the heart of instability. “The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments,” Paul will tell the crowd on Thursday. Dignity is a word that will arise throughout the speech that he will say is intended to delineate “the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.”

“The truth is, you can’t solve a dignity problem with military force.”.....

‘We Can’t Have Perpetual War': The Realism of Rand Paul "........Things get even more confusing when, in his very next breath, Senator Paul’s nod to the essentialists – who argue Islam is inherently hostile to American interests – is rudely contradicted:

The world does not have an Islam problem. The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments. Many of these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid.

So which is it – do we have an Islam problem or don’t we? Some confusion is inevitable when speeches are assembled by committees, rather than written by individuals, but in this case the Senator is in danger of exacerbating his growing reputation – perhaps unfairly acquired – as a champion flip-flopper. Nuance is fine, but it doesn’t win hearts and minds – or elections.

However, there is one aspect of Paul’s "dignity problem" thesis that, as far as I know, has been totally overlooked and yet seems clear as day.

Mocked by both neocons and our babbling sectarians for supposedly trying to appease the GOP’s Israel Firsters, Sen. Paul himself may or may not have been aware of just how much his description of the Middle East’s "dignity problem" conjures the Israeli occupation of Palestine – but whoever wrote those words surely did. Yes, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab kleptocracies have been recipients of US aid – but so has Israel, which does indeed treat its Palestinian subjects like chattel. The lack of specificity as to which countries are suffering from a dignity problem lends itself to my preferred interpretation – and I’m just waiting for Jenn Rubin to pick up on this, if she hasn’t already."......

Rand Paul's Contradictory Foreign Policy"............Initially skeptical of whether ISIS was even a threat, Paul quickly became a supporter of airstrikes. Yet while he had a position on that one issue, Paul no longer had a policy. Hence his effort last Thursday to elaborate a new framework for thinking about the Middle East. Paul says he now advocates a “conservative realism of strength and action,” yet that is inconsistent with Paul’s declaration that the fundamental problem in the Middle East is the humiliation of its people by oppressive governments. Not surprisingly, few clear recommendations follow from this incoherent set of premises.

If the real problem in the Middle East is a lack of dignity, then how should the United States protect itself when threatened by groups like ISIS? As a physician might say, first do no harm. Sen. Paul warned on Thursday that Americans “can’t be blind to the fact that drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may create more jihadists than we eliminate.” He also insisted “you can’t solve a dignity problem with military force.” ................

Rand Paul: The World Does Not Have an Islam Problem, It Has a Dignity Problem ..............."Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto spoke to Bouazizi’s brother and asked if he left a legacy. Bouazizi’s brother responded: “Of course, he believed the poor had the right to buy and sell.” Tonight I have outlined the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.".......

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Free thought "Freethought — or free thought — is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers"......

Quotes about Free Thinking - “As nature has uncovered from under this hard shell the seed for which she most tenderly cares - the propensity and vocation to free thinking - this gradually works back upon the character of the people, who thereby gradually become capable of managing freedom; finally, it affects the principles of government, which finds it to its advantage to treat men, who are now more than machines, in accordance with their dignity.”.....

[fieldmarshaldj]

In Rand’s case, the acorn didn’t fall far from the tree. I don’t trust him or support many of his kookball views.

[cripplecreek]

He’s OK on fiscal issues for the most part but can pander and lie with the best of them on everything else.

[9YearLurker]

Rand is a youngish crackpot, but I think dignity is a poor word for what he means—or at least for what I hope he means. Dignity suggests more face-saving than substantive rights and freedoms, and it appears to be a tortured avoidance of referring to rights and freedoms—suggesting that somehow they are parochial ideas not necessary for those under Islam’s disgusting grip.

[9YearLurker]

Rand is a youngish crackpot, but I think dignity is a poor word for what he means—or at least for what I hope he means. Dignity suggests more face-saving than substantive rights and freedoms, and it appears to be a tortured avoidance of referring to rights and freedoms—suggesting that somehow they are parochial ideas not necessary for those under Islam’s disgusting grip.

[fieldmarshaldj]

But the rest always overshadows what little he may be right on (especially on foreign policy, which seems closer to Dennis Kucinich than Reagan). Same goes with that other Paulbot, Amash (I’d have rather seen him dumped than Bentivolio, one of very few actual “citizen legislators” the Founding Fathers spoke of). In the end, we need more Cruzites than Paulbots in elective office.

[Terry L Smith]

Mohammedanism, aka the kinder more discrete name ‘islam’, was a problem in the Phillipines in the ‘50’s, via the Huk rebellion. It, along with the Chinese communists, Laotian communists, Cambodian communists, andd Burmese communists, were a problem in Thailand, in the early 1970’s. Obviously, it raised it’s ugly head during the Munich Olympics in 1972, and was voiced by a punk named Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization, and the connected airplane hijacking, Meditterranean cruise ship terrorism, etc.

In that definition, Rand Paul’s dignity theory begs the question:
“Who’s hand is in his pocket?”

[Excellence]

What is the source and who is the author of this piece?

[cripplecreek]

I agree with all you say.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I’m asking the question.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

FWIW

Libertarians Are Not the Tea Party - Though politicians and analysts often conflate the two, libertarians have different views on many issues than Tea Partiers—and they're not as big a faction of the GOP.

"Observers of the right often classify the Tea Party as an essentially libertarian strain of conservatism. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, for example, recently described Tea Partiers to me as part of the GOP's anti-establishment "libertarian wing"; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who calls himself a libertarian Republican, has written two books claiming the Tea Party mantle.

A new report, however, finds the link between libertarians and the Tea Party is weak at best. In fact, according to an in-depth survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released Tuesday, most libertarians don’t identify as Tea Party adherents, and less than half consider themselves Republicans. Among Republicans, meanwhile, those who are libertarians tend to have views and priorities distinct from many of their fellow GOPers.............

Within the GOP, according to the survey, libertarians make up a substantial but hardly overwhelming faction: 12 percent. Tea Partiers, meanwhile, made up 20 percent of the Republican base, while conservative Christians made up 33 percent and white evangelical Protestants were 37 percent. (These results build on a PRRI study from 2010, which found that the then-nascent Tea Party movement drew primarily from the ranks of social and Christian conservatives, not libertarians.)."...............

[PGalt]

“Neoliberals and neoconservatives have misunderstood human dignity…”

“the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.”

“human dignity”

Anti-concept

“The world has a dignity problem,…”

“world”?

The collective? Assigning “dignity” to the collective “world” and setting yourself up as the arbiter of how to fix the straw man, eh Rand? Newspeak, bullcrap, twisted totalitarianism. Invent-a-phrase fraud. “Hope and change” was already taken.

from…

http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/2406/is-the-term-social-justice-an-anti-concept

Is the term “social Justice” and anti-concept?

For background on “social jistice,” refer to the Wikipedia article on that topic. The article begins:

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] The term and modern concept of “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][3][4][5] The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, Social Gospel from Episcopalians and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.
For information on “anti-concepts,” refer to that topic in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. The essence of an anti-concept is a “package-deal” of concepts that confuse and confound one’s thinking by mixing conflicting concepts together into a single “package” that may be difficult to separate into component parts.

If “social justice” is an “anti-concept,” one must ask what conflicting elements it attempts to unite into a single disarming “package.” From the Wikipedia excerpt above, one can identify “equality and solidarity” mixed together with “human rights” and “the dignity of every human being.” That certainly would appear to fit the meaning of an “anti-concept.” Objectivism observes that one cannot uphold and protect individual rights and human dignity by trying to make everyone “equal” and in social “solidarity.” Objectivism also focuses on individual rights, which isn’t necessarily the same as human rights, particularly if or when the latter is interpreted to mean abridging the individual rights of some in order to grant other kinds of “rights” to others.

Note also that the expression “social justice” itself attempts to elevate the concept of justice to the “social” or “societal” level. Justice, as a virtue in Objectivism, focuses on individuals — how individuals are evaluated by other individuals. Social justice tends to suggest some sort of “justice” by an entire society (in “solidarity”) toward individuals within the society, i.e., between a society and its members, on the deeper premise that individuals are allegedly always part of a society and beholden to it, with the well being of the “society” as the fundamental “value,” and the individual “members” as merely the pawns of the society.

The Lexicon topic mentions “polarization” as an example of an anti-concept. An editor’s comment at the end of the Lexicon topic also states:
Some other terms that Ayn Rand identified as anti-concepts are “consumerism,” “duty,” “ethnicity,” “extremism,” “isolationism,” “McCarthyism,” “meritocracy,” and “simplistic.”
“Social justice,” being a little older in its roots (and a compound expression in the first place), seems somewhat easier to separate.

/link explanation

OUTSTANDING observation/research, Cincinatus’ Wife. Fascinating thread.

music to accompany this post…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI

[PGalt]

The problems:

Deceit, debt (enslavement), death. Conmen, crooks, criminals, socialists, scumbags, deceivers, democrats, republicans, governments, collectivists, statists, totalitarians, etc., etc. are involved in all three. Witness history. Witness current events.

Dignity? Something else for them to steal…expropriate.

Can I have some dignity Mr. Scam Artist?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The collective? Assigning “dignity” to the collective “world” and setting yourself up as the arbiter of how to fix the straw man, eh Rand? Newspeak, bullcrap, twisted totalitarianism. Invent-a-phrase fraud. “Hope and change” was already taken.

Exactly - I see there is some confusion and "head scratching" about his use of the word "dignity" and how "dignity" fits into real world situations. [Which made me think that perhaps he is substituting it to dilute religion and draw in - as he is quite strategically doing - secular voters, free thinkers, etc.] It is true we are all extremely sensitive now, more than ever, on how words and phrases are more than just expressions and words in a speech and that we need to understand just what they portend.

[SaraJohnson]

He’s a western doctor, so human dignity probably to him, relates to his role in caring for patients. That would be treating patients with dignity. It would involve talking with patients to make sure they understand their disease and the proposed treatment, rather than treating them as a vet treats cattle. It would involve alleviating pain and suffering or embarrassment and shame. Maybe it could be looked at as a doctor (authority figure) having a decent bedside manner with a vulnerable individual. Soothing their pain and fear and working with the goal of healing them. It’s professional medical ethics - or used to be before humanism.

But he’s also a libertarian. And libertarians have no governing values nor ethics except to be free to do whatever they want to do. To be free means the same as defined in the book of Satan - do as thy wilt - without consideration of the ethical nature and consequences of certain actions and policies enacted by the government. They promote homosexuals changing the meaning of marriage via government and school brainwashing, which they look at as “freedom”, but it comes without consideration that a healthy society is built on traditional marriage and family and the consequences of demolishing that natural state of affairs. The governing principal of libertarianism is the government shalt not judge good from evil. That right to judge good from evil only belongs to the individual.

Libertarians do not acknowledge natural law and are careless in analyzing the consequences of the government violating natural law. They are careless in analyzing the consequences of an unethical government policy. If ethics stands in the way of their most important value of “economic freedom” - materialism - (like boycotting business with Cuba because the Castro dictator mistreats his subjects and threatened to nuke us) that ethic is seen as none of our government’s business. Free trade is more important and assumed to be the balm that heals all evil.

Our government practices violations of human dignity when they molest and frighten children at the airport in the name of getting Islamic terrorists. Our criminal justice system has lost all sense of dignity in dealing with the public since it has named everyone as potential terrorists and redefined crime into terrorism. Libertarians are against this.

When Rand speaks of Muslims being angry because they are treated with no dignity, he’s probably referring to the government abuses of Sharia law. But since he’s a libertarian and advised by libertarians, God only knows what he’s talking about. Which is why libertarians are detrimental to leadership the same as liberals. They have no governing principals of ethics and no ability to measure it’s consequences on the society. A weak and broken society can not achieve economic freedom.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“......A weak and broken society can not achieve economic freedom.”

Indeed! We’ve seen how quickly (and decisively) things have disintegrated around the world once Obama began his task to level the world playing field by cutting America (and our allies) off at the knees.

[SunkenCiv]

• Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: 'You Go to a Republican Event and It's All White People'
• (Rand) Paul: GOP Needs to 'Look Like the Rest of America' to Win Again (again)
• Rand Paul slams Cliven Bundy's racist rant
• Rand Paul: Bundy's racist remarks are 'offensive'
• Rand Paul: I'm Open to Voting for Immigration Bill
• Paul: Still hope for immigration reform this year

[FreeReign]

“Dignity” problem? Why not use the word “liberty”.

[PGalt]

Comments/links...BUMP! BUMP! BUMP! BUMP!

Thanks again for your work, Cincinatus’ Wife. OUTSTANDING!

Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration. - Rand, Ayn (not Paul)

Words and deeds BUMP!

[Dqban22]

OBAMA GAVE AN UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT TO TORTURE IN CUBA

Rand Paul supports Obama's policy towards Cuba.

The embargo was not a failure. U.S. is Cuba’s bigger trader of food and medicine. Thanks to the embargo everything Cuba buys from US is being paid on advance, those over l40 countries worldwide who sold Cuba merchandise on credit were never paid for their goods.

It seems that Obama, and those who oppose the embargo, want to add 11 million Cubans in the Island to U.S. welfare rolls. Castro will bankrupt U.S. as he bankrupted the Soviet Union.

For those who try to equate the Cuban Stalinist regime with other communist or ex-communists regimes, neither Soviet Union, China or Vietnam tried to obliterate New York and Washington by a nuclear attack, and the hatred of the Castros for U.S. have not diminished a bit over half a century .

The Cuban regime tried to obliterate New York and Washington with a nuclear attack during the October Missile Crisis of 1962. “In November 1962, the Castro brothers’ and Che Guevara’s agents had targeted Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdales, and Manhattan’s Grand Central Station with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The Holocaust was set for detonation the following week, on the day after Thanksgiving.” (Humberto Fontova)

Since taking power, Castro has been a strong ally of Islamic terrorism. Cuba continues to serve as a base for coordination and mutual support among transnational terrorist organizations. At Tehran University he stated to the thunderous applause of students and faculty, "The imperialist king will finally fall,” (AFP, May 10, 2001). Immediately afterward the Iranian Press Service proudly proclaimed that "Iran and Cuba reached the conclusion that together they can tear down the United States.” (IPS, May 10, 2001)…. AND 4 MONTHS LATER…

REMEMBER 9/11/2001