Rand Paul: Libertarian Republicanism

[Aquila]

This is politics... and we live in a Republic wherein representatives are democratically elected to represent the people. In the 1940's and 1950's God, mom-'n'-pop shops, Sunday church, and Apple Pie were a prominent part of America's value system. However, with immigration and various social changes the values of our nation have become more and more diverse. So, it would be political suicide not to be tolerant of these diverse value systems. If Republicans don't become more tolerant on various issues... they will always struggle to beat the Democrats and their Big Tent politics.

As far as a libertarian minded Republican is concerned... if your values, private associations, or private choices & behaviors don't endanger another's right to life, liberty, or property... the government shouldn't get involved. A libertarian minded Republican would keep the far right out of your bedroom... and the far left out of your wallet.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Both Bill and Hill are true centrists.

BHO isn't, but I am not sure HE ever presented himself as a centrist either-- especially when it came time for his reelction.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe Bill and Hill are left of center... but not entirely hardcore leftists. BHO appears to be a part of the extreme left.

Hillary is further left than Bill is. Bill was a master at faking to be a centrist -- to the point where he would even take moderate Republican initiatives and make them his own. Especially before elections.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The libertarian notion of human rights and constitutional liberty doesn't move the party left, thereby allowing it to become what the Democrats are as it relates to moral issues. Liberty isn't a democratic value. It's a Constitutional value. While a libertarian might be as tolerant as a liberal regarding a given issue... a liberal would advocate for the issue, pass federal laws forcing the issue, and then even federally fund the issue. The libertarian would keep the issue as local as possible, refuse passing federal laws forcing the issue, and would definitely not fund the issue.

That may be all well and good. It looks good on paper, however, you still have issues to contend with, and I do agree it is a state's rights issues.

Yet, these are important issues that Republicans and Libertarians differ on, Republicans opposing and Libertarians being in favor. None of these things are helpful to our Republic, engendering healthy nor strong communities.

I am sure you can see where the division comes into play between the two factions.

Abortion
Open Immigration
Prostitution
Gay Marriage
Restrictions on Gambling
Drug Legalization

The only thing I agree with the Libertarians on is opposing Minimum Wage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That may be all well and good. It looks good on paper, however, you still have issues to contend with, and I do agree it is a state's rights issues.

Yet, these are important issues that Republicans and Libertarians differ on, Republicans opposing and Libertarians being in favor. None of these things are helpful to our Republic, engendering healthy nor strong communities.

I am sure you can see where the division comes into play between the two factions.

Abortion
Open Immigration
Prostitution
Gay Marriage
Restrictions on Gambling
Drug Legalization

The only thing I agree with the Libertarians on is opposing Minimum Wage.

Abortion

Libertarian minded people are divided on abortion. The libertarian ethic is that something shouldn't be prohibited unless it endangers the life, liberty, or property of another. So, in my mind, some common sense limitations on abortion protects the life of the unborn. Other libertarian minded people believe in personal sovereignty over one's own body and the fruit of their body. Therefore, they believe that abortion should remain legal. However, unlike the Democrats, a libertarian wouldn't provide any government funding for abortion. Even in a pro-choice, libertarian society, the choice to abort and the cost to abort would be entirely on the individual. There is a group of libertarians who advocate restrictions on abortion. They are known as Libertarians for Life. Here is their libertarian ethic:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Open Immigration

A libertarian position on immigration can be found here:
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

Prostitution

I do believe that prostitution is morally wrong and we can talk about the morality of the sin all day. However, this is politics. A libertarian minded person asks, is it really the GOVERNMENT's job to police any private arrangement between two consenting individuals? Has prostitution really been a big issue in states wherein it is legal? Is policing prostitution worth the tax dollars used to fight it? Is policing it worth taking law enforcement away from more serious crimes? Are laws prohibiting abortion working or do they tend to make prostitution a more dangerous and lucrative industry for the criminal enterprise? Some libertarians will oppose prostitution in that in endangers the liberty of women.

Gay Marriage

The issue for the libertarian minded individual isn't Traditional Marriage vs. Gay Marriage. For the libertarian the issue is GOVERNMENT's monopoly on marriage. The libertarian believes in human liberty. Should GOVERNMENT police who we have sex with, marry, or our private associations & behaviors if they do not endanger another's life, liberty, or property? Should the GOVERNMENT have authority to police our bedrooms, churches, and romances? Throughout human history marriage has been a private contract between families and/or individuals. In fact, this was the nature of the Ketubah (marriage contract) of the Bible. Marriage was a private contract established by families and presented to the local community. Even the Catholic church recognized marriages established privately between free individuals for nearly 200 years. However, as the church and royalty became cozy... the church required a bishop to witness the union and these marriages were deemed illegal and a license was required. This was to ensure that different races and social classes couldn't marry. Governments continued to require some level of licensing after the Reformation, but the Quakers challenged this. Quakers believed that marriage was an entirely private agreement between a Christian man and woman. Quakers don't have licensed clergy either. So no one could officiate the unions. So Quakers began blessing self-uniting marriages. Outsiders criticized them as fornicators and "brute beasts". However, the Quakers stood their ground in England and won the right to marry their own members privately, with the marriages being legally recognized. In the Colonies these Quaker marriages were considered legal under common law. However, as some states began to abolish common law marriage, the Quakers found themselves at odds with the government's licensing process once more. Eventually some states began recognizing Quaker marriages. Today, most states don't. Quakers in those states have a choice. They can marry in their meetings and go before a Justice of the Peace to legalize it... or they can keep the marriage entirely private. It's their decision. In fact, in the Colonies and early America... there were no marriage licenses. George Washington didn't have a marriage license. Neither did Abraham Lincoln. All they had were Bibles signed as husband and wife with a minister and family signed as witness. That was it. Marriage licenses began to be issued by various states in the early 1900's to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. Mixed couples were denied licenses. Eventually, this was challenged and struck down. However, now licensing remains and all couples are encouraged to get them to marry.

Libertarians would treat marriage as a private contract between private individuals once more. Individuals could chose to establish a private marriage contract through a given PMC (Private Marriage Company). Each of these marriage companies would provide marriage contracts in harmony with the values and beliefs of their members. No more would couples be forced into a socialized contract of "civil marriage" regulated by the state that is "one size fits all". This way everyone's beliefs and values are honored. Breaches of contract and divorces would be handled in accordance to their given contracts through private mediation.

Government's monopoly on marriage has nearly destroyed it. For example, marriage used to be a way to have a secure commitment. Divorce required grounds. The offending party was rarely rewarded spousal support, custody, or property. However, as time has passed we now have "no fault" divorce law. Meaning no grounds are necessary to file for divorce. In cases like these the government contract is broken and all assets are liquidated. Spousal support can even be required to support someone who committed adultery and decided to file for divorce! Today, there is no real justice or security in marriage. If people knew how marriage law was in our parents and grandparents day and compared it to today... they'd see why so many really don't want to enter into the institution of "civil marriage".

Due to all this chaos, nearly a third to half of couples in the US live together for periods of time without getting into a civil marriage (STATE MARRIAGE). They don't want the state to endanger their wellbeing or to manage the terms of their relationships. In a way... today... not being in a civil marriage is more secure than being in a civil marriage. Government having a monopoly on marriage has essentially made marriage a high stakes gamble more and more Americans are leery to take.

A private contract will be specific enough to hold one's feet to the fire should they violate the contract. Terms regarding support and assets can be specified much like a prenuptial agreement. Returning marriage to a private contract will bring more security to the unions that people enter into. They will know exactly what is expected of them within the marriage and exactly what will happen should they violate the contract.

With that... government is out of the picture unless there is a reason to contest a contract.

So, with government removed from the sphere of our private relationships... all marriages are private.

Here's a link to an article on some of these principles:
http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=588

Restrictions on Gambling

Again, why should the GOVERNMENT control what an individual wishes to do with THEIR money as recreation?

Drug Legalization

The war on drugs has been a disaster. Many drugs should remain illegal or regulated. However, most are thinking marijuana when this subject comes up. Why should cops have to risk their lives over a weed that makes people giggle and eat Doritos all night??? What makes the drug scene so dangerous with relation to marijuana is that it is illegal and pushers are willing to kill to protect their business. In most libertarian minds, it should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. Harder drugs should be evaluated on their own merits. However, we have waged a war on drugs for decades with untold numbers DEAD. And nothing is changing. We have to realize that we have to address drug addiction as a public health issue... not a criminal issue.

Notice... all these things are issues deeply related to private morality as it relates to what we do with our own bodies or property. Should the GOVERNMENT be our DADDY to make us behave the way only one segment of our society believes we should act? Or should men and women be free???

Right wing Republicans want to police our bedrooms and everything we do that might violate their grandma's values. Democrats want to allow us to live as we choose... but subsidize everything with tax payer dollars! A libertarian ethic sets men and women free to enjoy personal liberty... but doesn't subsidize everything under the sun.

[Aquila]

Government should protect life, liberty, and property. If what one does doesn't endanger anyone else's life, liberty, or property... the government should get their nose out of it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Government should protect life, liberty, and property. If what one does doesn't endanger anyone else's life, liberty, or property... the government should get their nose out of it.

Abject moral issues, whether Constitutional or not, that tear apart our social fabric as a nation will always be at issue between the parties. What is done in the bedroom will bleed out into the community. It does end up hurting other people.

The old adage, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, isn't really true.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Abject moral issues, whether Constitutional or not, that tear apart our social fabric as a nation will always be at issue between the parties. What is done in the bedroom will bleed out into the community. It does end up hurting other people.

The old adage, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, isn't really true.

I'm not saying that private behaviors don't bleed out into the community, I'm saying that GOVERNMENT isn't the one responsible for addressing these private behaviors. A STATIST believes GOVERNMENT is the answer. Private entities such as churches, charities, businesses, and social groups should address these things. The answer isn't GOVERNMENT. Imagine, a Catholic GOVERNMENT would never allow divorcees to remarry... or eat and sell beef on Fridays. Lol

Liberty is sacred, even if men use their liberty to sin.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The libertarian notion of human rights and constitutional liberty doesn't move the party left, thereby allowing it to become what the Democrats are as it relates to moral issues. Liberty isn't a democratic value. It's a Constitutional value. While a libertarian might be as tolerant as a liberal regarding a given issue... a liberal would advocate for the issue, pass federal laws forcing the issue, and then even federally fund the issue. The libertarian would keep the issue as local as possible, refuse passing federal laws forcing the issue, and would definitely not fund the issue.

Well articulated

[Aquila]

There is a thirst to control. And many believe it's their right to use government to control others... yet they whine, protest, and complain when others use government to control them! The only answer is liberty. A respect for human liberty. Respect the liberty that allows a man or woman to marry who they choose. Respect the liberty of a bakery to provide services to whomever they choose. We don't tear the social fabric this way... we actually enhance it. Now, instead of a law... communities decide through practice what they will tolerate in their social fabric on their own.

Government imposition on human liberty is typically the problem... not the answer.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is a thirst to control. And many believe it's their right to use government to control others... yet they whine, protest, and complain when others use government to control them! The only answer is liberty. A respect for human liberty. Respect the liberty that allows a man or woman to marry who they choose. Respect the liberty of a bakery to provide services to whomever they choose. We don't tear the social fabric this way... we actually enhance it. Now, instead of a law... communities decide through practice what they will tolerate in their social fabric on their own.

Government imposition on human liberty is typically the problem... not the answer.

Libertarianism only works in a utopian world.

You talk about freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. What about the use of drugs? Roughly, 1 in 28 children in America have a parent incarcerated because of drugs. In a Libertarian world, is that person really free?

You've probably read John Adam's quote - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." The churches and other similar institutions are here to shape those lives. And, although, it's not the government's role to instill virtue or to be in the business of saving souls, it does have a role of sustaining the basic moral framework of society or it would collapse.