Every time I write about Republican candidate Ron Paul, someone comes along and pastes some article into the comments on my blog. Generally, these are breathless spams gushing about how Ron Paul is going to save America. But the truth is that Paul has some pretty wacky ideas, to say the least. He's a very special, very unique kind of libertarian who seems to believe that the only thing that government should do is make abortion illegal.And he's not even very consistent on that point. NARAL Pro-Choice America shows that his voting record on reproductive rights varies wildly from "good, but could improve" (75% in 2005) to "Jerry Falwell would be jealous" (0% in 2003). Currently, he scores 65%. NARAL calls his record "anti-choice." According to Paul, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty... A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs..."
The individual liberty of the woman isn't an issue, I guess...
[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
3 comments:
No pre-packaged post here, just a correction for you. Ron Paul does not believe that the federal government has any business meddling in the issue of abortion. He has repeatedly stated his opposition to Roe v. Wade, and his belief that the states should be left to do with abortion what they will.
So, he is not a "special libertarian" with the only goal being to outlaw abortion. He is a consistent supporter of the Constitution, and its creation of a limited federal government (a government of enumerated powers), with all other power resting with the states and the people (see the 9th and 10th Amendments).
Libertarians are fundamentally pacifistic. Some libertarians think that abortion is an act of violence directed at a developing fetus. Others think that abortion is a consensual act between the mother and her physician and that prohibiting it would involve unconsciable acts of violence (like most prohibitions).
The difference between these two opinions is the degree to which the fetus is considered to be morally relevant. Regardless, since both utilize libertarian/pacifistic logic for their conclusions, neither one violates fundamental assumptions in libertarianism.
As for Ron Paul's record on the abortion issue, it might be weakened by his avowed self-conflict between being pro-life and federalist. He is mildly inconsistent on which is a higher priority.
I have my own beliefs on abortion, but I won't inflict them on you right now.
As it happens I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion (I'm pro-choice). There are other issues where I disagree with his stance as well. But I'm still supporting him as the best candidate I can find, because on many issues that I care deeply about (war, torture, habeas corpus, drug legalization, gun rights) his positions are rock solid. I could certainly understand, though, that someone whose first and most important issue was a pro-choice stance would find Paul unsuitable. Wendy McElroy, for example, is a libertarian who doesn't have much nice to say about him.
Post a Comment