User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 46

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Well, I agree that media haven't been fair, but Rand Paul isn't completely consistent, either. For example, he's for keeping (currently illegal) drugs illegal, and against abortions being legal (wants a constitution ban). That's definitely the government intruding into the private sphere in a non-pure-libertarian way... so why do libertarian principles apply in the right of businesses to discriminate and not in other cases? Are the rights of businesses greater than the rights of individuals in his view? Is there something particularly defensible about choosing not to serve based on race? What's the rationale?

    I'm not a libertarian, but I can respect consistency. I don't understand how he's being consistent.
    I know more of Ron's views then Rand's. In regards abortions, the debate still has not settled whether or not a fetus has rights, but I think he makes a distinction between a certain point of gestation. But I was under the impression he was not for a federal ban, rather letting the states decide.

    Life Death and Health seem to be of a very different issue then freedom of choice to be a arsewhipe.

    Well, I like how Ron Paul explains it.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G00Sq3xaE1g"]Ron Paul [/YOUTUBE]

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Maybe I'm looking for consistency where none exists... I still think of the Ron Paul as claiming to be a libertarian, but I like your description better. (Bad me!) Still, I would like for Rand Paul to explain how his stances are consistent.

    That's not to say the stereotypical Republican and Democratic party positions are entirely consistent, either.
    I think they would classify themselves more like a classical Republican, but with Libertarian values. I don't think you should be looking for purist views in everything, since I don't think they have claimed to have them.

  3. #13
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    According to his wikipedia page, "[Rand Paul...] is opposed to abortion without exception, and he supports a constitutional amendment to completely ban abortion."

    That seems pretty unequivocal.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    According to his wikipedia page, "[Rand Paul...] is opposed to abortion without exception, and he supports a constitutional amendment to completely ban abortion."

    That seems pretty unequivocal.
    Looked at his site, and can confirm it. Basicly he believes the child has rights from the get go. So who's right here do you violate with allowing or not allowing abortion, both the mother and the child. But considering death for the child is the more pressing concearn....
    It's either one or the other.

  5. #15
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tantive View Post
    Looked at his site, and can confirm it. Basicly he believes the child has rights from the get go. So who's right here do you violate with allowing or not allowing abortion, both the mother and the child. But considering death for the child is the more pressing concearn....
    It's either one or the other.
    Well, I don't want to get into the whole abortion debate, but I believe part of the problem with the debate in the U.S. is it gets over simplified and reduced to black and white. Either the fetus is nothing (no more a person than a tumor or any other mass of tissue) or the fetus is complete person (with at least as much, if not more, right to live than the mother). I think there can be value in a more nuanced view.

    Plus, I think both sides would agree that abortions should be rare and a means of last resort. Surely we could do better at preventing the need for many abortions in the first place.

    Of course, the whole topic is awfully academic for me (since I'm gay, not planning to have kids and having a kid by accident would take an act of God), so my opinion really doesn't count. I'm happy to leave that debate to people more invested in the matter.

  6. #16
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Julian Sanchez wrote a great article about this situation in Newsweek.

    Why Rand Paul Is Right and Wrong - Newsweek.com
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #17
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Is there something particularly defensible about choosing not to serve based on race?

    What's the rationale?
    1.) Rand was not defending someone hypothetically refusing to serve customers based on race, he was only defending the right of private citizens and groups to do so in order to a.) uphold freedom of association and b.) limit the powers of the Federal government. Your word choice (unintentionally, I suspect, given your commendable tendency to give the benefit of a doubt to people who disagree with you) gives a false impression concerning what he said.

    2.) In addition to the above, the freedom of association is simply more important than the right to ingest drugs which have a demonstrated record of inflicting negative externalities on third parties (the abortion issue is in a class all to itself, and doesn't really belong in this debate, IMO). I disagree with Rand as far as illegal "soft" drugs are concerned (I'm ambivalent about the hard drugs, being unsure whether the negative effects of legalization or prohibition are worse), but its not difficult to see a rationale behind his positions.

    Personally, I'm against certain portions of the Civil Rights act myself, because they rely on an interpretation of the Commerce clause so expansive that it renders the 10th amendment null and void without even going through the necessary Amendment process. I would support the essentials of the Civil Rights Act as a Constitutional amendment, with its infringements on freedom of associations acknowledged as a "necessary evil" in light of the unique history of institutional discrimination in the United States. That way, the benefits of the Civil Rights Act remain in place, the 10th amendment remains in place, and freedom of association is not implicitly disregarded as an important right in general.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kendoiwan View Post
    They say Biden is a gaffe machine. This guy is version 2.0.
    I disagree. My impression is that Rand is being slammed by a leftist/statist media because 1) libertarian positions are unpopular with the said media, 2) Rand, as an ISTP, is not always great at delineating exactly what his positions are, as his (dom) judging function is Ti, which when expressed even by an honest user--and I believe Rand is one--can make him appear somewhat fickle.

    The guy is bright, a fast learner, and the demographics of Kentucky really make it unlikely that his criticisms of Federal regulation of private property will derail him (Kentucky is 1) a Southern state, and 2) Less than 10% black, and they weren't going to vote for him anyway).

  9. #19
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry View Post
    the demographics of Kentucky really make it unlikely that his criticisms of Federal regulation of private property will derail him
    That depends on whether the Democrats are able to falsely label him as a racist, rather than a naive idealist.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Well, I agree that media haven't been fair, but Rand Paul isn't completely consistent, either. For example, he's for keeping (currently illegal) drugs illegal, and against abortions being legal (wants a constitution ban). That's definitely the government intruding into the private sphere in a non-pure-libertarian way... so why do libertarian principles apply in the right of businesses to discriminate and not in other cases? Are the rights of businesses greater than the rights of individuals in his view? Is there something particularly defensible about choosing not to serve based on race? What's the rationale?

    I'm not a libertarian, but I can respect consistency. I don't understand how he's being consistent.
    I think you need to understand Rand's use of Ti (and generally his POV) before you label him as inconsistent.

    As I understand it:

    1) Rand is campaigning for a FEDERAL office. Under the US Constitution as written, Rand believes abortion is not the province of the Federal Gov't, nor does the US Constitution preclude state or local regulation/restrictions/prohibition of abortion.

    2) Rand does believe life begins at conception and therefore would support an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing abortion.

    3) Re: drugs, again, Rand does not believe this is a Federal issue, but again, the US Constitution does not preclude state/local action. However, as with the Civil Rights Act, Rand not believe any attempt by him to repeal most Federal drug prohibitions would do anything constructive in the political arena in 2010, and therefore he would not support such or seek to repeal such laws. This does not preclude Rand voting against new drug prohibitions, or increases in drug prohibition penalties...

Similar Threads

  1. How Much Of A Sociopath Are You?
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 11-29-2017, 02:14 AM
  2. "How much sugar in a can of cola?"
    By Rasofy in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 12:35 PM
  3. How much of you is your psychology?
    By Xander in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 06:11 PM
  4. How much of strength/skill is mental??
    By mysavior in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO