Melissa63l wrote:By no means do I agree with him on every issue. As an objectivist, I tend to be harder on islamofascism, (and almost as leery of christianity,) and 100% pro-choice. I also tend to favor an open immigration policy, coupled with a total lack of welfare/statist programs. So why am I going to vote for a peace-loving, deeply christian, pro-life, anti-immigration president?
I am also tired of my cousins and classmates being shot and killed by the people they are trying to help. They don't want us there. We don't want to be there. So why are we being sold this unwinnable war? Does this have an orwellian smell to anyone else? I mean, does anyone remember the supposed reason we went to war in the first place? Oh yeah, Osama bin Laden. Caught him yet? Are we even still looking? Or are we too busy "liberating"?
the Ronpaul probably agrees with you: we should get out of Iraq. However, this is a far from unique viewpoint among the current crop of candidates.
The middle eastern tribes have been squabbling between themselves for thousands of years, using religion as an excuse to hold grudges for generations, treat their populations badly, and kill anyone who doesn't agree. Is it a good situation? No. Would I want to live there? Hell no. But invading merely makes them focus their irrationality on *us* instead of each other. Who are we to meddle in their business? If America is the policeman of the world... this is a domestic dispute. The ugliest, most brutal sort of disturbance, and the most likely to turn ugly for the cop.
Why not just make the US a savehaven for the sane ones who want out? Muslims who have toned down their religion (much like christians) make fine neighbors, classmates, and friends. So long as they are willing to accept the full package of American freedoms (such as the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and not treating their women like second-class citizens) they have just as much right to be here as anyone.
On a small scale, are you fine with the cops ignoring a domestic dispute? Will women's shelters be useful at all if a violent husband isn't kept in check by law enforcement?
Who are we to meddle in their business? If "they" are the Middle East, we are the allies of a nation they hate (Israel) and the victims of terrorist attacks engendered by people in the area as a result (whether direct or indirect) of the enmity in the region.
I'm not defending the war on Iraq, but the idea that the US should just leave the Middle East alone is ludicrous. If there's a riot going on down the block, do you close the blinds and turn the TV up or do you call the cops in case looters decide to come burn your house down?
Yes, he believes that life begins at conception. He correctly points out that, if a drunk driver kills a pregnant mother, he is charged with two murders. If he, as an ob/gyn, does something to harm a fetus, he is legally liable. If an abusive husband beats up his pregnant wife and causes a miscarraige, he can be prosecuted. But doctors can abort a fetus even in the third trimester? The only difference between a murder and an abortion is whether or not the fetus is *wanted*. Even I think there is something wrong with that.
You're a reasonable person, so I hope you won't get upset at this analogy:
If my dog is sick, I have the right to take him to a vet and have them put him down. In fact, if my dog is dangerous (infected with rabies, let's say), I and others have the right to kill him so that he doesn't hurt anybody.
If my dog is sick, and some stranger walks by and decides to kick my dog to death, that's a crime.
See the difference between murder and euthanasia?
So a doctor can abort a fetus I created inside myself if I ask him to, but if my abusive husband shoves a coathanger in me and kills it, that's wrong.
We can play the "public perception" game all day--when a fetus dies, do you have a funeral?--but it doesn't show anything but public perception, which, because of both heated sides, is exceedingly muddled. Whether a fetus is a person (capable of being murdered) depends in some cases on what state you're in. The specific laws involved are the result of the individual give and take between pro-lifers and pro-choicers; and if THAT works as an argument, the strongest argument against it is simply Roe v. Wade. Abortion is legal now, QED it's fine, right? No? Then don't try to argue that a fetus is a person just because some laws say so, especially when some laws don't.
Furthermore, history has shown that you can't stop abortions (just like you can't stop drugs, alcohol, or anything else a lot of people want). You can drive them underground by prosecuting doctors (pro-lifers have shown themselves to be disinclined to prosecute the women involved), with the result that women will get abortions which will be more expensive and more dangerous (you'll especially get women trying to give themselves abortions and dying because of it).
Not to mention that this will discriminate against the poor, because the rich can afford safe abortions whether they're legal or not.
Whether or not you think it is wrong, the results of outlawing it are all negative, so why do it?
Also, I believe that it is unconscionable to force people (through taxes) who are pro-life to fund (as they see it) the killing of innocent babies. Tax-funded abortions are an injustice to those whose moral convictions label it murder.
Unfortunately, there's no way to run a government with specific taxes. You think unpopular but necessary stuff is underfunded now, try it with people directly telling the government what to do with their money.
The situation in which I send in my taxes along with a note saying, "Please spend this on art, not war or abortion," is ludicrous. This is a representative democracy, and in fact part of the "democracy" part is that the majority of people get to tell the minority of people what to do. It's a wholesale contract, and you're not allowed to opt in or out in certain places. As you mentioned up above, an immigrant from the Middle East has to accept freedom of speech, women's rights, and separation of church and state. He doesn't get to decide to ignore one of those and accept the others. Neither do you. His and your input into the process is the vote, and that's it.
(Haha, PS. Those of you who think that the Ronpaul is a racist, a patently ridiculous smear that barely survives mild research, ought to look and see the demographics of abortion. A more suspicious, more cynical mind would start to wonder if pro-choice was just a euphemism for self-inflicted eugenics.)
"Eugenics" is a dirty word, yes, but what's wrong with it if it is self-inflicted? I thought libertarians believed you had the right to do whatever you want.
Do you really, honestly believe that the side in the abortion debate defining itself by the idea that "A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body" spends their time sitting around, drinking port, and cackling over the thought of all the dead minority babies?
That's at least as hypocritical as the pro-lifers who feel fine going to war, or, for that matter, firebombing clinics.
(It should also be pointed out that, since the majority of congress is democrat, there would be no way for Dr. Paul to push through any sort of radical pro-life agenda... so rest easy, okay?)
Again, why do you want to elect him IF HE IS POWERLESS?
I don't understand why this justification keeps coming up in pro-Paul arguments. You can't have it both ways. Either his radical new ideas will be great for our country, or we shouldn't worry because his radical new ideas won't go anywhere or change anything.
This is the crux of the matter, when it comes to libertarians (or those that think like them):
You can do what you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
If you think that we should send prophylactics to Africa, you are free to raise funds and organize like-minded people. The government should not use taxpayer money (some of whom are morally opposed to birth-control, remember,) to do so.
Everybody is morally opposed to something. Everything is immoral in somebody's opinion. What's absolutely necessary for our government to do with its taxes? National security. Pacifists find that immoral. Should we not use taxpayer money for that?
Mandating prayer in schools? I find that immoral.
Outlawing prayer in schools? A lot of Christians find that immoral.
You can't win like that. The way we resolve these conflicts is through democracy, not through gutting the government whenever somebody objects. Even a government which does nothing but protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, somebody's going to object to something.
The best way to deal with the "Oh no, my tax money is funding something I hate!" is to say, "Wait a second. My tax money is funding the government. The government takes all the tax money and funds something I hate as well as something I like. It's impossible to determine what my physical money paid for and it probably wasn't much. I'll just pretend all my money went to the kitten-petting fund and not the baby-killing fund, because who knows? Maybe it did."
You can *ask* for support, instead of demanding it. You might be surprised how many people are compassionate and would be willing to help. And bypassing government bureaucracy, pork-padding, and inefficiency helps everyone. Again, who did a better job after Katrina hit? The Red Cross, National Guard (locally based and organized), private charities and individuals? Or FEMA? You cannot say, after seeing the heart-warming outpouring of support after 9/11 or Katrina, that people don't care or won't help voluntarily.
I've heard this argument before, and it's bullshit.
Thought experiment time!
the Ronpaul is elected and decides that this is quite true. He determines how much tax money is spent on charitable things per person and mails everybody a check back.
If you're correct, and people are equally supportive, then they will spend their money on the same exact charitable causes, and nothing will have changed. So why bother? (This holds true for people who are more supportive--people who already spend more than they pay in taxes--as well.)
However, if you're wrong, and people are less supportive than the government mandates, and just one person spends half of their tax rebate on booze or something, the world is worse off.
There are, therefore, only two outcomes in practical reality: the amount of charitable aid stays the same, or the amount of charitable aid goes down.
Therefore, it's irrelevant if people pay for charity through taxes or through their own pocket, if you're correct, so why change? If you're wrong, it's important that people pay for charity through taxes. Better to err on the safe side, don't you think?
Just *try* starting your own government...
Just try changing your government, perhaps.
And if you, as an individual, want to work hard all day, go home and smoke weed, and completely ignore the rest of the world... well... that is your right too.
No, it isn't, unless the rest of the world ignores you. You drive to work on roads. If your house is on fire, somebody will come and put it out for you. If you're beat up, the cops will help you. Directly and indirectly, unless you literally put yourself in a box and never come out, the outside world sustains you in a million different ways, from helping you to helping the people around you to protecting your freedoms. You cannot stop being a beneficiary of the system without physically leaving the system (and, newsflash, there are systems everywhere--no nation is without government), so we can't let you stop doing your part for the system, either.
Libertarianism isn't the opposite of democrat-ism. It is the opposite of *statism*, which both parties seem to be rushing towards.
And like all opposites, it takes things to an unhealthy extreme.