To the People

a few thoughts...

1) Roe vs Wade is bad Constitutional law. Most scholars think that. It's been one of the wrecking balls of Federalism, and Federalism should be something that libertarians embrace. "got to the right result for the wrong reasons"? Well the professor thinks that we got to the right result, but half of the country doesn't think so. But we can all agree that it was for the wrong reasons. The Constitution should matter, and our founding principle of federalism should matter. I think it is a very libertarian stance to back the repeal of Roe vs wade and to turn the abortion issue back to the states to be solved politically.

2) Personally, I'm caught in the middle of the immigration debate. Ideally we should have open borders and free trade of labor among countries. Ideally we wouldn't live in a welfare state though. Paul (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) takes the Friedman stance and says, get rid of the welfare state and we can have our open borders. I'm sympathetic to that approach. However, that position is not same as the cultural argument against Mexican immigration, or other nonsense like that.

3)Trade agreements--Another example of Paul's resistance to operating in the real world, but I think he takes a principled stand against trade agreements, not free trade. Big difference.

3) Cosmopolitanism--This I love. He's not hip enough. More to say here, but not now.
4)

But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism. Paul's campaign is, in that sense, running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism
Get real. His campaign is far from rooted in social conservatism. You want to see a campaign rooted in social conservatism look at Huckabee and his boom. Paul didn't raise his hand when they asked who didn't believe in evolution.

Horwitz is wrong most likely anyways. The bible thumping, the family oriented politics, those things get the voters out. I'm not one who thinks the republican party, or the conservative movement has been damned electorally by social conservatives. They certainly have had a hand in the demise, but they are the ones who have traditionally supplied the votes. These elections should be interesting to see if that trend passes, but I'd guess it doesn't. Those "values" voters will go somewhere, and they are a considerable chunk. It's helpful to remind ourselves that most voters are not like us at all....
Rob | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 9:24 am | #

on abortion, this "we got the the right decision for the wrong reasons" argument is very pervasive among everone nowadays. No one seems to care what the law (i.e. constitution says) we can do, so long as the un-constitutional decision agrees with them. So his position that it is none of the federal governments business is correct, no matter the outcome. As president, it's simply not part of his job description.

As for him personally objecting to it....while I might not 100% agree with him, I respect his opinion. No one can make the argument that he's just some old, rich, white guy sitting in washington that has no idea what he's talking about. On the contrary, if an OBGYN (someone who's job it is to protect life and help it into the world) didn't have at least some misgivings regarding abortion, I'd be worried about his character.
greg | 12.04.07 - 12:12 pm | #

I don't care that the guy's culturally conservative or that anybody is. I just don't want them imposing it on me. In that regard, RP seems very "live and let live" to me. That normally wouldn't matter, but I honestly believe that Paul is capable of separating his personal beliefs from what he thinks is best for the country.
mike | 12.04.07 - 2:26 pm | #

Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ? 


 

Commenting by HaloScan