3 Responses

  1. Guest says:

    Dr. Paul’s views are not fully representative of those of many libertarians or completely in accord with the platform of the Libertarian Party; Paul is a libertarian Republican, a politician who gets elected and re-elected in a very conservative Texas district. He’s no purest!

    If you look into it, I think you’ll find libertarianism and humanism are harmonious. There is great emphasis on individual freedom and concomitant responsibility, and on minimum interference by government in how we live our lives. Rarely do libertarians agree on everything, but mostly they do respect each other’s right to hold differing views, which is quite refreshing given the typical conservative or liberal mindset.

  2. RichardSRussell says:

    Underlying all problems caused by religion is the idea that faith is a valid method of arriving at conclusions. In fact, faith is the worst of all possible decision-making techniques. Nobody ever calls on faith if some better method of decision-making (such as logic, reason, confidence, or trust) is available. It is the tool of last resort for the desperately insecure, when they can’t arrive at their desired conclusion any other way.

  3. Fibonacci1618 says:

    The whole religious thing’s why I dropped my affiliations with the Tea Party back in early 2010. Hierarchical authoritarian wingnuts are almost as bad as egalitarian authoritarian moonbats. Give me true libertarians any day.

    Other than the triumphalist tone (forgivable in a politician), you, like many layman humanists, greatly oversimplify the abortion issue. Paul lays out a pretty compelling case for the coherence (if not the truth) of his views, even without reference to ensoulment and other religious superstitions. If the fetus has an inalienable right to life, which implies a corollary right to be nurtured until ready for biological independence, then it’s difficult to justify allowing a woman who knowingly and consensually entered into a nurturing relation with the fetus (via unprotected consensual sexual intercourse) to violate that right on whim. By that reasoning, it’s directly analogous to a breach of contract (with unusually momentous and personal consequences).

    Of course, a (male-on-female) rape would invalidate that whole conceit,
    at least for first and second trimester abortions (the violinist thought
    experiment breaks down for the third trimester), and life of the mother
    would break down all other objections.

    Even if you’re not a deontologist, it’s possible to justify abortion restrictions on the obvious consequentialist grounds that the consistent enforcement of freely entered contracts (and, to generalize, the cultivation of an ethic of personal responsibility) is far more fundamental to the functioning of a flourishing society than the extension of relatively minor reproductive rights.

    Not that I agree with the reasoning, though… I tend to take a more nuanced perspective on the definition of human life, one which allows me to reconcile my pro-feminist worldview with my other moral views, Still, I think the position is worthy of genuine engagement. You won’t get many sympathetic Paulites while strawmanning their hero.