Ron Paul has a beautiful way of illustrating the fundamental absurdity underneath libertarian political philosophy. He makes outlandish claims about the foundations of American liberty. Those claims are easily exposed by just a quick look at the Constitution. However, Ron Paul supporters don’t seem to care about that. It seems that Ron Paul is counting on the support of Americans who won’t bother to read the Constitution, or to otherwise check the statements of political leaders.
I’ve already written about how Ron Paul plays loose with the facts when he claims that “Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society” (see here) and that “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.” (see here). It’s when these two claims are considered together that the full scale of Ron Paul’s absurdity becomes clear.
If, as Ron Paul claims, property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society, and if there is a right of zygotes, embryos and fetuses to live that is at the heart of American liberty, how do these two ideas work together?
How is an embryo’s right to life based on property rights? Ron Paul said that all rights are based on property rights, after all, so there must be a connection.
Furthermore, Ron Paul has sponsored bill H.R. 1094, which defines the beginning of life, and the right to life, as at the moment of conception. So, does the fertilized egg cell itself, under Ron Paul’s curious philosophy, have a legal right to live because of property rights?
What property rights does the fertilized egg cell have that give it the legal right to be protected from the Morning After Pill, RU486, or similar treatments?
The only argument that makes anything close to sense is the fertilized egg cell, and the blastula after it, and the fetus that it develops into, owns the uterus of its mother.
Even if you accept this bizarre idea, you start to get into trouble. If embryos own their mothers’ bodies from the moment of conception forward, then expectant mothers have the legal status of slaves. They become human beings who do not own themselves, but are owned by other human beings.
This concept is blatantly unconstitutional. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Does Ron Paul want to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment, or make an exception to it so that “unborn children” are made the owners of their mothers?
The right to life as he is basing it is based on the right to self-ownership which, in turn, derives from property rights itself. The embryo does not own the mother, it owns itself. The status of the mother as so-called “slaves” is simply the slavery imposed by one person being legally banned from killing another except in self-defense. If there is someone who, by their very existence, is sapping my time, energy, and resources, my life would be made easier if I could kill them too.
I don’t agree with the argument myself but your attempt to say it fails a property rights litmus fails simple logic. You could attack it on much more solid grounds if you argued that the zygote, blastocyte, or embryo has no rights because it has no consciousness. Requiring consciousness to grant rights makes sense. Something that isn’t conscious can’t own itself. It also implies no protection for morning after pills. It implies no protection at all until quite a few weeks into the pregnancy.
Ron Paul’s position is one I’m comfortable with even though I disagree with it. He wants to take the abortion debate to the states. On the state level, the amount of influence any given person wields is increased, and it is more likely that I would be able to advance my particular point of view or find a state that agreed with it.
Mothers and Fathers both become servants or slaves of a sort to a child when it is born, therefore your argument is pure bull-hockey. Parents are legally obligated to care for children, feed them, clothe them, etc… Failure to do so would result in negligence charges at the very least. So, in that light, is the law that exists to punish people for negligence unconstitutional as well?
Obviously it is not or it would have been struck down. Many states have safe harbor laws that will allow parents of children who cannot care for them to drop them off at safe spots like hospitals, police depts., etc… However, the parents are obligated to perform that action. The fact of the matter is that when you become a parent, you become obligated, both morally and legally.
In reality, the only difference between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer is the timing of the obligation. Does it exist before birth or after? That’s the argument at its core. Seeing that Dr. Paul has delivered 1000′s of babies I would be inclinded to heed his conviction that life begins at conception. The other demarcation lines are simply to grey for comfort. Should it be based on brain activity, heart beat, size? Certainly it would take a pretty callous pro-choicer to argue that an 8 month gestated fetus isn’t alive. If it were born it would live on its own with ease. Mothers can start to detect patterns of intelligence in movements and responses to stimuli at much earlier gestational stages.
Actually, this is a valid criticism.
I’ve posted critical comments about some of your other anti-Paul arguments but for this one you’re on target.
Paul is so anti-abortion personally that he just doesn’t see the contradiction between his two statements.
Ordinarily, Paul borrows almost all of his arguments pretty much straight from the pages of Rand, but he just couldn’t bring himself to do it in the case of abortion. If you use property rights as the prism for examining rights in general, you should rapidly conclude that the woman owns her uterus and can decide if the fetus can occupy that property [Rand's conclusion]. Paul just can’t bring himself to do that.
I imagine his medical experience is the determining factor here. I’m sure he found delivering babies to be very emotionally rewarding, and that’s coloring his judgment. I think it’s a generational thing too – people of his generation grew up in an environment where abortion was considered a crime, and they sometimes have trouble letting go.
But although I think he’s being illogical here and not following his own argument to its natural conclusion, I try to cut him some slack. He’s the closest thing in my political lifetime to a “true” libertarian to make any waves in a major party race. If I insist on waiting for a “better” libertarian, I’ll probably wait a long time.
So we can either kill the baby off when in the uterus and have the woman just expel the placenta, or we wait till the woman goes through much pain and then drop the kid off somewhere if you don’t want it?
I’d wonder why my parents didn’t want me. Wouldn’t you? It’d probably cause a child a lot of grief if they were continually reflecting on this.
Response to #3: – Your property rights can not cause another to die. That’s the argument. When does the fetus become alive. Once that point is crossed the mother’s right cannot interfere with the fetuses right to live (unless perhaps her life is threatened – i.e. an abortion to save the life of a mother).
Response to #4: – So, your argument is that, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion would be better than a safe-harbor drop-off b/c the child might wonder why its biologica parents did’t want it? I’m not sure I’ll even waste the text to counter…
Why so much attention to this issue? I am pro-choice, but I also support Dr. Paul. (I happen to feel that a) the fetus is human and b) abortion can be considered an act of self defense. Since I do not know what goes on in the mind of a pregnant woman, I cannot judge her.) I do agree with his position that abortion is not a Federal issue and should be dealt with at the State level. The Constitution simply does not authorize the Federal government to have an enforcable opinion in the matter.
Having said that, his other comments about property rights being the foundation of a free society remain valid. And property rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Or did you miss the part that says “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law”?
Property rights, based on the right of self ownership, are the most basic rights upon which all others are based.
There is so much at stake in this election – the war, the income tax, the Federal Reserve’s destruction of our currency, etc. Why focus on one, non-Federal issue?
There is so much to love about Ron Paul. He can be forgiven for his one flaw, a position which many people, even libertarians, have serious and legitimate disagreements about.
You frustrate me to no end. Seriously. Your logic is consistently flawed and you make outrageous claims without evidence. Then you claim to be intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with you! You, sir, are intellectually bankrupt in this regard.
Inalienable Rights
Obviously, you need a quick lesson in the “philosophy of freedom.” John Locke, the original philosopher of liberty, stated that men had certain inalienable rights. Among these rights were life, liberty and property. He claimed that it is to purpose of government to protect these rights. (If those sound familiar, that’s because you’ve read the Declaration of Independence at some point in your life). These inalienable rights are the rights of all people. These are the basic rights that anyone believing in the philosophy of freedom would believe in. So, when you point out the “inconsistencies” in Dr. Paul’s argument, you are proving your ignorance of these very basic ideas at the core of liberalism (as in, Jeffersonian liberalism).
Right to Life
The right to life is a basic right for seemingly obvious reasons. How can you live without being alive? However, this right also implies the freedom from enslavement or bonds. It is a basic right that all people should be able to live without reasonable fear of death; it is a basic right that all people should be able to live without being bound by the shackles of slavery.
Right to Liberty
This inalienable right is not as transparent as the right to live. The right of liberty instills sovereignty into a person. In today’s society, it is not easily understood. It is best understood when looking at a state of nature. However, from the Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke:
THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it.
Thus, man can only have his sovereignty given up willingly which, in effect, creates governments. We willingly give up our personal sovereignty to our local, state and federal government. This is the basic right from which all political rights stem from. Freedom to assemble, for example, could not truly exist without the basic right of liberty.
Right to Property
This is the “umbrella” right. From this, as Dr. Paul says, all other rights are derived. Without the ability to own your own property, the dictation of such property is no longer yours and, in effect, you lose your liberty. For example, if I were to own every single printing press in the world and no one else could have one, nothing else COULD be printed the I didn’t want to print. As such, you may have the “right” to print, but you do not have the means. Thus, the right becomes meaningless. However, with protections to allow everyone the right to own a printing press, anything could be printed. Thus, the right to own a printing press is essential to the right to print.
These three essential rights are, in fact, reliant on each other. If you lose the right to property, your right to live and be free is limited or removed. If you lose the right to live, your right to be free or own property is removed or limited. If you lose the right to be free, your right to live or own property is removed or limited. As such, each one of these rights are “core” rights that are at the “heart” of liberty.
You’re getting very frustrated, it’s clear. This is a pretty emotional issue for you, isn’t it?
But you also need to be clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. John Locke’s writings, and the Declaration of Independence, are pieces of writing, but they do not have any legal force or standing.
Why are the libertarians basing their arguments on the Pope’s declaration that life begins with fertilization? Are libertarians Catholic? Do they think the pope is infallible? If not, how did the libertarians determine whether the pope’s position is true? What about the people whose religion differs from the pope?
Derek has inadvertantly supplied the missing link in the zygote/slavery puzzle. John Locke stated that men had certain inalienable rights. But women are not men. Therefore women are not included in the “all people” that Locke is referring to. Only people can be slaves, so women can’t be slaves of the fetus either.
Women are not men, not slaves, not people, not human. Women are….appliances!
These are points hard to argue because the basis of any explanation begins with the nature of the man making them. If a persons arguments derive from a nature of death then it matters not what document they read or explore. They will find a right to kill in it. They will couch their liberty in the right to destroy others. Just as a person of life will fight to find a way to get a person off of death row. So, basically this is a battle of conscience. If your conscience is seared or corrupt you will have no qualms about forfeiting the rights of another. To say that a fetus has no right to life when it is very much alive and multiplying is an egregious arugument indeed.
Skin cells are very much alive and multiplying. Do they have a right to life? Oh, the horrors of exfoliant!
Yeah, I know, I’m wrong because I have a “nature of death,” which you know because I’m taking a position that disagrees with yours, which in your conveniently circular system means that you don’t have to consider it. Very tidy.
CFR monkeys
can’t win without help
no brains, talent, or ethics
Yeah, I do have qualms to having a baby born when it may endanger the quality of life of its parents, to the point of there being no more life for the mother.
If there are two teenagers that have sex, and they don’t know how to use condoms (courtesy of the religious sex-ed) and wind up with the female pregnant, what then? Add more life into the world? Another mouth to feed?
Is it worth it to bring another life into the world just to have it raised in substandard conditions? Add another statistic to the records.
P.S.
So anonymous *cough*COWARD*cough* why not come up with a name? Surely it will be more creative than the arguments you make. Why not counter? Text is free…
Wake up. For the first time in decades there is a candidate running for President that speaks his beliefs and lives by them. There isn’t a single other candidate running that isn’t a professional politician that just gives the party line and follows the orders of the special interest groups that fund him or her.
You can get lost in Ideology which is exactly what the political machine wants you to do or you can use common sense to realize the country is in trouble and needs an honest and committed president to help.
Does anyone agree with every issue when they support a candidate, not usually. But for god’s sake, can’t you tell when someone is lying and just giving you lip service.
Dr. Paul is genuine and very educated. And above all he really wants to do what’s right for America unlike the other candidates who want to do what’s right for their special interest groups looking to continue to prosper on the backs of everyone else.
It’s time to wake up, grip arugiing over issues that have no definitive answers and give a man support that is trying to be honest for America’s sake.
Does jclifford writes on any of the other candidates or is Ron Paul just his pet peeve? I know for some liberty can be such a hassle.
Seriously? That’s the only argument you have? The political philosophy of John Locke, the Founders and the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding?
I agree with you. The Constitution is the legal document. What point of yours does that prove? There is not one legal argument in your post! Yet you debase my sources because they aren’t law? Just because you invoke the Constitution does not mean you are bolstered by it.
You also asked me if this is an “emotional” issue for me. Yes, it is. Clearly, I am passionate about the Constitution and my country and it infuriates me when the logic of the Constitution is skewed by ignorant “know-it-alls.” Usually I can keep my cool and realize that such “tortured logic” is mostly discounted. However, this website consistently abuses the “logic” to post ludicrous claims. I was attempting to educate you in basic political philosophy that you cannot seem to grasp.
I’m a Ron Paul supporter and your anti-Paul slant, bias and libel doesn’t much bother me. However, when you say “Ron Paul is an idiot. Because I say so. Oh, and the Constitution is my proof!!!” I get frustrated because you have, obviously, completely ignored the words of the Constitution and are only using the document as backing by using the rhetorical methods pathos and ethos. Again, you are intellectually backrupt on nearly all of your points and yet you seem to think of yourself as an intelligent god granting wisdom to the world where the people are ignorant. You would do well to listen and do some studying on the Constitution and basic political philosophy. I suggest you start by reading a summary of John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and move on to things such as the Federalist papers, the Magna Carta and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Yale’s Avalon project would be a good place for you to spend your summer reading instead of posting mindless rants on issues that you can’t seem to understand.
Paul is completely correct. Property rights are the basis for the philosophy of Locke and Jefferson which is present in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. While the Lockean concepts are not mentioned directly in the later document, they do form a basis for the concept of a “right” known at that time, and have (or at least had) a significant impact on American jurisprudence. Basically, Locke’s concepts are the basis for the legal definition of property (prior to libralism, the king owned everything).
It starts with the concept of “self-ownership”, implying that every person owns themselves. Then, that person is also said to own the fruits of his or her labour (i.e. property created from labour). Having ownership over these things, he or she can do what she wishes with them (i.e. freedom).
The argument of is over whether or not an unborn fetus is “alive”, not classical libral philosophy. I disagree with Paul on this issue, as I think a lot of people do, but thats small-potatoes considering he knows its something the states should rule on.
“If you use property rights as the prism for examining rights in general, you should rapidly conclude that the woman owns her uterus and can decide if the fetus can occupy that property ”
I believe that your conclusion is correct (that the uterus is the property of the woman), but I do not see this as at all contradictory to Dr. Paul’s position given his belief that life begins at conception. The mother’s rights to control over her property (the uterus) end where those rights infringe upon the rights of the child (which is a live person based on the assumption that must be accepted for purposes of this discussion) to also live. This is particularly true where in the normal course of human relations, the conception is the product of decisions made by the woman.
I see no logical difference between this position and a view that a mother leaving an infant to die in the cold after birth would be a murder.
Nice wiggle, G. As you admit but try to wiggle around, these concepts of Locke’s are not in the Constitution.
And Derek, you need to learn to be more careful. I didn’t write the article. I feel differently about Ron Paul than jclifford, who doesn’t ever call Paul an “idiot.” I called you on your slippage. There’s a difference between a historical connection between John Locke and the Constitution, which of course exists, and the contention that because John Locke said something, it is true under the American legal system. You and G are stretching, and it’s really awkward to watch.
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
— Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform
How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who tells the truth “We The People” are taking our country back and restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika back to America not the Homeland.
Listen To Ron Paul Speeches: http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
– Goethe
Gee, where have I read this before? Oh, I know: on the countless other blogs you visit to cut and paste the exact same drivel on.
Lemming-like, mindless, roboticized cult spammers like you make me less likely to support a libertarian. It’s people like you that bring out the authoritarian impulse in Republicans and spoil it for the rest of us. Me, I’ll just mock you, you stupid twit.
Is Ron Paul the new Ayn Rand? Spooky.
I didn’t draw a line between Locke and the Constitution and our government, in general, because I thought it would be implied.
Also, sorry for assuming that you wrote the article. Your name starts with J and I made an assumption.
Life does not begin at conception, as the RonPaulites keep chanting. It begins in the sperm. Haven’t you heard the biblical injunction against spilling your seed on the ground? That’s why. Sperm is alive.
The father’s right to control his property (the penis) ends where those rights infringe upon the rights of the child to be impregnated in a woman and be born. This is particularly true where in the normal course of human relations, the conception or the masturbation is the product of decisions made by the man.
I see no logical difference between masturbating and leaving an infant to die in the cold after birth would be a murder.
If people are so iffy about abortions, why not just let the people who don’t like them not have them?
“Life does not begin at conception, as the RonPaulites keep chanting”
@anonymous
That may be your position, but that does not change the analysis that must be undertaken and which reveals this article a hack piece. To simplify this concept for you, the article, read this from the article:
“I’ve already written about how Ron Paul plays loose with the facts when he claims that “Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society†(see here) and that “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.†(see here). It’s when these two claims are considered together that the full scale of Ron Paul’s absurdity becomes clear.”
Then read my comment again. The writer assumes, and really must, that Paul is correct about the point at which property rights attach: conception. Otherwise an attack on the consistency of his opinions is meaningless and the writer could just have said: “Nuh uh. There are no property rights for a child until it is delivered … not 10 seconds before delivery and not at conception.” The really simple way to ask you to address the issue is this: explain the difference between disposing of a newborn and a fetus? The difference is really limited to temporal and geographic concerns as far as I can tell. Both are fully dependent on others and will die withour an intrusion on the property rights of others; typically the mother.
Your masturbation bit was absurd enough to be amusing, however.