Brian Miller wrote:
BM) [Ron Paul is] a typical Republican candidate (BM
The "typical Republican candidate" doesn't reject the GOP party line on
gambling, suicide, substance use, obscenity, commercial sexual services,
federal funding of faith-based initiatives, federal funding of abstinence
education, federal funding for promotion of marriage, federal legislative
and judicial interference with states' abortion rules, and federal
constitutional amendments against gay marriage. Paul does.
The "typical Republican candidate" is not a 90/100 libertarian. Paul is.
The "typical Republican candidate" does not get endorsed by a candidate for
the LP nomination. Paul got.
The "typical Republican candidate" was not a one-time LP Presidential
nominee. Paul was.
BM) he'll enhance the freedom of some people at the expense of others. (BM
I can say that of any candidate with whom I do not agree 100%. In point of
fact, Paul is going to win neither the White House nor the GOP nomination,
and so what he's actually going to enhance is just the prominence of what he
calls his "constitutional, very libertarian message" of peace and limited
government. To put a finer point on it, the unanticipated relative success
of Paul's campaign is going to do far more damage to the mindshare for one
of my pet issues (libervention) than it's going to do for yours (gay
rights). I'm a Paul supporter, because I put the interests of the
libertarian movement ahead of my own pet issues.
(I also find Paul's gold buggery to be somewhat embarrassing. It's amusing
how all these radical believers in free financial markets seem not to have
any faith in the ability of markets to hedge away risks like inflation.
Indeed, if gold bugs are right, then they should profit handsomely from
their special insight, while equity and real estate investors like me lose
our shirts. I'm not holding my breath.)
BM) Just like I don't support Dennis Kucinich, despite the fact he'll make
me more free at the expense of others (BM
Really? Is he going to not uncap your FICA contribution base, and free you
from Social Security, and exempt you from socialized health care, and cancel
socialized campaign finance for the elections you vote in, and exclude the
firms you work for, invest in, or patronize from his regime of "priorities
[to] guide corporate conduct in cooperation with vigilant, fair-minded,
government regulation"? I didn't know he was cutting you such a sweetheart
deal. Where do I sign up?
BM) I don't support Ron Paul for the same reason. I'd hoped that my fellow
Libertarians would give me the same consideration, but it appears that a
significant contingent won't extend me the same courtesy. A pity. (BM
Yes, it's really pitiful, how your fellow Libertarians are merely
documenting your deliberate falsehoods (like claiming Paul says "he's not a
libertarian"), while you are issuing veiled (and impotent) threats about how
you hope there will be "a thorough accounting of the deluded -- who will
have a lot of explaining to do". You're a real martyr for free speech in
the LPCA.
BM) Libertarians are learning which LPers are willing to sell out gay folks
and women for political power, and which are willing to defend the rights of
all people (even when the ephemeral promise of political power is dangled in
front of their noses). (BM
LOL. There's no "political power" up for grabs here. If anything, we LP
leaders who support Paul are running the risk of weakening the LP in the
short term, and thus reducing our own "power" (such as it is). It's much
more accurate to say that some people are to a certain extent selling out
the broader libertarian movement in order not to leak any sand from the
little LP sandbox on which they want to keep their grip. And since unlike
you I don't deal in coy elliptical allegations, I'll say I'm talking
primarily about George Phillies (my current favorite LP contender) and Tom
Knapp (my favorite LP radical).
BM) It's particularly galling to see the whole concept of "strategic voting"
being bandied about, as that's the same argument that "libertarians" of all
stripes expect me to confront when lobbying LGBT people to vote Libertarian.
I'm supposed to tell them that they should forego political power in order
to vote their principles -- then a bunch of the people who demand this from
the LGBT community bail to support an anti-gay Republican. (BM
I'm a libertarian first, and a liberventionist second. I'm a libertarian
first, and a pro-choicer second. I'm a libertarian first, and an
anti-gold-bug second. I'm a libertarian first, and an LP member second. If
you put your gay and LP identity ahead of your libertarian-ness, just say
so.
BM) And if you're one of the people who have specific complaints about how
"I'm not accurate," make them public or send them to me, rather than e-mail
the moderator demanding that my posts be censored. (BM
I've never made such a demand.
BM) I've long defended my case (BM
Hah. I've repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence to substantiate
your pathetic smears that
*
Ron Paul is "a homophobic bigot";
*
Ron Paul "declares he isn't a libertarian";
*
Ron Paul is "a statist on health care";
*
Ron Paul "voted for continued government spending on education";
*
Ron Paul "committed himself to pursuing increased government funding
of abstinence education in the future";
*
Ron Paul "supports some of the most odious versions of [border
control] legislation";
*
Ron Paul wants to "reduce the freedom of Americans to conduct
business in Canada and Mexico";
* Ron Paul "believes that a centrally controlled federal government
immigration policy that would have banned the migration of [my neighbor
Intel CEO Andy Grove] is 'good for America'";
*
Ron Paul "believes any enforcement of the Bill of Rights in favor of
individual liberty (and not state control) is a 'violation of states'
rights'"; [emphasis added]
*
Ron Paul "opposes free trade";
*
Ron Paul "believes that government -- not individuals -- should be
the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting
adults."
The only ones of these you've even tried to substantiate are the last two.
The penultimate one requires you to ignore Paul's vigorous opposition to all
restrictions on the import or export of any product. The last one requires
you to ignore Paul's stated justification for his anti-federal position and
his stated opposition to such government regulation.
You can run from your smears, but you can't hide, and you certainly can't
pretend you've "defended" them.
BM) I also refuse to allow forums that I participate within to become echo
chambers for a POV that might be popular, but which also is immoral. (BM
And I refuse to let your demonstrable lies about Ron Paul go uncorrected.
BM) Does Ron Paul support Marriage Equality for gay and lesbian Americans?
The answer is no. (BM
Inaccurate. Paul says I "believe that marriage is a church function, it is
not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married." It
is indeed true that Paul (in his words) "oppose[s] federal efforts to
redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one
woman". However, he says that the reason he does so is to "ensure federal
courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a
state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state.
[...] Federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of
social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free
society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage
any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that
people should live their lives largely free of federal interference."
Given that the federal government has so many rules referencing marriage,
Paul is indeed wrong to claim that the feds aren't already in the business
of defining marriage, and that liberalizing this definition would increase
the risk of nanny-state social engineering. But that doesn't mean Paul
opposes the principle of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
BM) Does Ron Paul support the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell bill? The
answer is no. (BM
You mean <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> 10 U.S.C. ยง
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> 654
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> , which you incorrectly
claimed (despite your vaunted gay expertise) is "very clear -- there's no
room for interpretation" in how it says you're discharged if you are "caught
in any gay event or venue"? It in fact says nothing about gay events or
venues, and is only triggered if you 1) attempt/perform a "homosexual act",
2) say you're gay, or 3) (attempt to) marry the same sex. Even then, it
requires an exception in the first two cases if the person "does not have a
propensity or intent to engage in" homosexual bodily contact for sexual
gratification (and four other easier criteria).
Paul stated "the way it's enforced is bad", cited an example of a translator
discharged under DADT "for no good reason", says "I would want to change
that", and said "when it comes to the military, I talked about disruptive
sexual behavior", which he said applies equally to disruptive heterosexual
sexual behavior. I wouldn't be too shocked if the Christian Paul had
unequal standards about what straight and gay sexual behavior is
"disruptive", but that's not yet in evidence. If you have such evidence,
feel free to provide it.
BM) Does Ron Paul support the Uniting American Families Act? The answer is
no -- he has repeatedly turned down opportunities to cosponsor it. (BM
You mean H.R. 2221, which continues the discrimination against polyamorous
triples? Does this mean you're willing to "throw them under the bus" if it
benefits you personally?
Paul apparently thinks this is a step toward federalizing the definition of
marriage, and I too disagree with his judgment that the federal government
should not be trusted to do for gay rights what it's done for substance use
and campaign speech and warrantless monitoring and gun rights and "hate
crimes" and reproductive technology and digital copying technology. But
it's untenable -- and malicious -- to say that this disgreement about how to
protect liberty from the federal government makes him a "homophobic bigot".
