Yes, it's disingenuous to say that a libertarian opposing the central state overriding sodomy laws is approving of those laws. Similarly, it's disingenuous to say that a libertarian who opposes wars to conduct regime change approves of those regimes.
Wouldn't you agree? On 11/1/07, Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas L. Knapp wrote: > > BH to BM) The fact remains that you cannot produce a single quote from > Paul saying that he "believes that government -- not individuals -- should > be the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of > consenting adults." (BH > > RP) "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to > privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, > states' rights -- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. > Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for > itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local > standards." (RP > > TK) Paul does not object to this -- to the contrary, he proclaims it. From > that, it cannot be construed in any other way than that he believes that > yes, the government (at the state, rather than federal, level) should be the > final arbiter of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting > adults. (TK > > As I told Miller: > > You continue to conflate two distinct things: 1) Paul's belief that as a > matter of jurisprudential fact under our system of government, states have > the power to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults, and 2) Paul's > alleged belief that states should use that power to regulate the sex lives > of consenting adults. What Paul believes is that as a matter of > jurisprudential fact under our system of government, states have the power > to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults. Statements of facts about > the world are positive and not normative, and so can't be characterized as > libertarian or not libertarian. You cannot quote Paul saying that under an > ideal system of government, states should have the power to regulate the > sex lives of consenting adults. There's nothing unlibertarian about > judging that a strictly federalist interpretation of the > existing Constitution is the position most likely to maximize liberty in > America. > Yeah, centralizing authority in the federal government has never led to > loss of liberties in America. What a silly thing for a libertarian to worry > about. > > His construction above clearly indicates a presumption that sodomy laws > are ridiculous. If you've spent more than ten minutes listening to Ron > Paul, you'd realize how ridiculous it is to suggest he would say that states > should use the power to regulate private consensual conduct that they have > under our current federal system of government. > > You've quoted precisely nothing to show that Paul believes that states > should use the power to regulate private consensual conduct that they have > under our current federal system of government. > > TK) At the level where even Ron Paul believes that the federal government > has a role -- policy within the armed forces, e.g. "don't ask don't tell" > -- Paul tried to dodge the question in debate with bromides about disorderly > conduct and individual vs. group rights, but in fact affirmed his support of > that policy, a policy of direct discrimination, by the federal government, > solely on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation. (TK > > That's not accurate. I quote Ron Paul: > > RP) So when it comes to the military, I talked about disruptive sexual > behavior. And quite frankly, there's probably a lot more heterosexual > disruptive behavior in the military than gay disruptive behavior. So I > would say everybody should be treated equally, and they shouldn't be > discriminated because of that alone. Which means, even though Don't Ask > Don't Tell doesn't sound so bad, I think the way it's enforced is bad. [...] > I met one just the other day in my office who was a translator, and he was > kicked out, for no real good reason at all. I would want to change that; I > don't support that interpretation. (RP > > I too was disappointed that Paul didn't raise his hand when Wolf Blitzer > asked if any of the candidates "believe gays and lesbians should be allowed > to serve openly in the military". However, I find only a little to disagree > with in his answer <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4UAhbMRpQU>: > > RP) I think the current policy is a decent policy. The problem that we > have in dealing with this subject is that we see people as groups, that they > derive their rights from belonging in a group. We don't get our rights > because we're gays or women or minorities, we get our rights from our > Creator as individuals. Each individual should be treated the same way. So > if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it > should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is > disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, > it's the concept and understanding of individual rights. (RP > > Here is what Paul said straight to the faces of the audience at > the "values voters" forum: > > RP) A free country is designed for individuals to deal with the subject of > virtue and excellence. Once we defer to the government to get involved in > worrying about our own virtue and our excellence and perfect fair economies, > it is done at the sacrifice of liberty. If we do that, and sacrifice that > liberty, and the job of virtue and excellence is taken over by the > government, you can only do that through tyranny. (RP > > RP) All rights are individual. We don't get our rights because we belong > to a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities, it leads us astray. > So it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the > right to their life if they do no harm, you don't try to do a whole lot > about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, > through family values, through church values, but you can't do it through > legislation, because force doesn't work. (RP > > Also in that debate, Paul was the only candidate who dared answer No to > the question: "Would your administration prosecute all illegal adult > pornography, including so-called white collar pornographers?" Thus Paul > won't even tell a conservative Christian audience that he will prosecute > "illegal pornography"! > > It remains absurd to claim that Paul "believes that government -- not > individuals -- should be the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual > activities of consenting adults". > -- "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." — Benjamin Tucker
