The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
A Victory for Life and Liberty
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Supreme Court undid one of its worst mistakes last week when it overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. The Constitution reserves to the states the authority to write and enforce laws regarding murder. Since the question of whether or not to legalize abortion revolves around whether abortion is murder, it is not a federal issue. Roe was thus an illegitimate usurpation of state authority.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last week will not stop the federal government from using the tax dollars of those who believe abortion is murder to fund abortion and family planning both in the United States and abroad. Those opposed to abortion, and in favor of constitutional government, must continue their efforts to end all federal funding of abortion.

Some state governments, such as in Texas and Mississippi, have adopted laws against abortion that are “triggered” after Roe is overturned. Now, additional pro-life state legislators and activists are no doubt planning to push other states with pro-life majorities to pass legislation outlawing abortion.

States where the majority favor legal abortion are no doubt planning to pass pro-abortion legislation. Some of these states will pass laws providing enhanced financial support for lower-income women to receive abortions. Pro-abortion activists are also planning to provide help to women from states where abortion is outlawed to travel to a state where they can legally “terminate” their pregnancies.

Pro-lifers should not respond to pro-abortion state laws by trying to pass an unconstitutional law making abortion a federal crime. Instead, they should work to change attitudes and build a culture of life. One way to do this is by supporting crisis pregnancy centers. These centers help pregnant women in difficult situations see that there are alternatives to abortion. Sadly, the crisis pregnancy centers are among the “woke” mob’s targets for cancellation. If the left were truly “pro-choice” they would not try to shut down privately run pro-life pregnancy centers.

Many libertarians believe that outlawing abortions violates a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. However, the nonaggression principle, which is the philosophic foundation of libertarianism, prohibits committing acts of aggression. Murder is certainly an act of aggression. Therefore, even though all humans have a right to bodily anatomy, this does not justify abortion.

No one ever asked an expectant mother, “how’s the fetus?” Instead, people ask about the baby. This implicitly acknowledges the unborn child’s humanity and thus the child’s right to live. The denial of this right has warped our constitutional system. More importantly it has contributed to the devaluing of human life that is the root of much of America’s moral crisis. A society that devalues life will not respect liberty. Therefore, all who value liberty must protect the right to life. This does not just include ending abortion. It also includes rejecting the militaristic foreign policy that kills innocents in the name of “freedom and democracy.”

Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar, progressives should reject the violence government commits against its own citizens via taxation, income redistribution, and the fiat money system that robs average Americans to benefit politicians and elites. Rejecting the use of force, including government force, will lead to a society that values and protects our lives, liberty, and property.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion, Roe vs. Wade, Supreme Court 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Veracity says:

    What rubbish! Of course they ask about the “baby”. What do you think they suppose is being grown there, a puppy, a kitten, maybe a parrot? Americans aren’t quite that dumb yet. You can call it preborn, you can call it unborn but the biological fact is that it is part and parcel of the genetrix, her flesh, her blood. Can anyone dispute that biological fact! As long as the placenta and umbilical are intact that mass of flesh is her. To deny her control of it is to deny her 4th Amendment rights. The underlying premise, the basis of the Amendment is that Americans are secure in their persons. The Amendment specifies the conditions under which that security may be broached. To deny a woman the right to control what is undeniably her body is an abrogation of her basic rights. SHAME on the Supreme Court majority, shame on Ron Paul, shame on Paul Craig Roberts and shame on any others who would deny biology and a woman’s rights!

  2. Phibbs says:

    Sadly, evangelicals/Satanists support U.S. militarism. Born-Again “Christians” support murder in one area and oppose it in another.

  3. Ruble says:
    @Veracity

    The ritual of human sacrifice ended long ago because it was seen as cruel, demonic and immoral. The fact that today some demonically inspired loons among want to resurrect the ritual by claiming it as the right a woman changes nothing and is ludicrous.

    Oh, by the way, the biological fact is that the male of a species is the true originator of the unborn.

    • Replies: @Veracity
  4. anon[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Will you disagree with murder as solution if the person torments you evryday and even continues to torment yeras after the intimate realtionship is over ? Will you side with the law that allows one side of the bargain – pregnacy and birth to be protecetd at all cost and enforced with full force of state but the otherside of the bargain -that state needs to take care of the pregnacy, birth ,and post birth helath needs – are not state’s job but may be can be taken care by voluntary charities .

    That what an incest and rape entail and that type of experince foretell .

    Perosnhood is used because of lack of better word and becuase of the need of the hour for the sake of giving maximum legitimacy to these anti abortionsist . But 1 week or 4 weeks fetus is not a person.

    Will you withdraw tubes from barin damaged 20 yeras no old who cant move,breathe,speak, and communicate if he can hear see and understand your grief sadness fear and depth of your involvemnt in his care and who stops breathing the moemnt you remove the tubes ?

    • Replies: @anon
  5. anon[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Correction.
    -if he cant hear see and understand your grief sadness fear and depth of your involvemnt in his care and who stops breathing the moemnt you remove the tubes ?

  6. Durruti says:

    Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar, progressives should reject the violence government commits against its own citizens via taxation, income redistribution, and the fiat money system that robs average Americans to benefit politicians and elites. Rejecting the use of force, including government force, will lead to a society that values and protects our lives, liberty, and property.

    The Best we have:

    With Consistent reasoning in defense of Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness, Statesman Ron Paul‘s concluding paragraph sums up the Values we must defend.

    Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar

    The Principle, the Honor, the Integrity, the Consistency, the Courage, are our personal Foundation.

    Suggestion:

    Endorse Senator Rand Paul as our Candidate for the Presidency. If his/our campaign is in any way blocked by the Oligarchs who control our Government, (including its electoral machinery), then we pledge to take the Struggle from There…….

    I would suggest Cynthia McKinney as his/our VP.

    If anyone has a better idea – to jump start our effort to Restore Our Republic, what better place to begin the discussion, than here- on Ron Paul‘s column?

    Dr. Peter J. Antonsen – nom de guerre, Durruti

  7. Jokem says:
    @Phibbs

    Right, they support ending a life of a serious criminal and protecting that of an innocent one.

    • Replies: @Mac_
  8. Veracity says:
    @Ruble

    Then let that male take over from the time of conception. See how that works out!

  9. Rogue says:
    @Veracity

    In a word: RUBBISH.

    That is, your utter rubbish. When you were in your mother’s womb at 6 months old, you were yourself and not your mother’s flesh.

    • Replies: @Veracity
  10. Rogue says:
    @Phibbs

    I’d say it’s probably more about conservatives supporting so-called “conservative” administrations when they go to war.

    Plus the media utterly bamboozle the ordinary citizen with disinfio and propaganda.

    Ridiculous broad brush generalization on your part to say all evangelicals support foreign wars.

  11. Hitmarck says:

    Why not question the women’s liberty to sex if she can’t burden the results of her liberty?
    In my country it is about 100.000 murders euphemistic called abortions vs 2000 murders per year.

  12. Veracity says:
    @Rogue

    Wrong again. I was the flesh my mother’s body created and nurtured. I was her until we were physically separated. Where did you learn your biology-Liberty University?

    • Replies: @Rogue
    , @Rogue
  13. Mac_ says:
    @Jokem

    This comment, ‘they support ending a life of a serious criminal’, makes no sense on the comment responded, which correctly stated the duplicitous position of sitting for wars the same time claiming to be against abortion. The mass of innocent people fraudulently murdered in your ‘wars’ were not and are not ‘criminals’.

    Those who sat and continue to sit for false wars are the criminals the same as those dropping bombs. Your continued occupying hundreds of other countries is oppression and tyranny. Soon enough the ignorant here will be treated to the same as ‘reward’ for ignorant selfishness, including ignoring fraudulent ‘bailouts’ and other travesty. Just dessert, long overdue.

    The only problem with it is those of us who tried to oppose as others sat. Important to separate ourselves and direct energy at the fault where it belongs, and make effort among ourselves. Those who ignore are a problem to the rest of us. Same as those who drop bombs on innocent people.

    .

    • Replies: @Jokem
  14. Jokem says:
    @Mac_

    I think the subject is far more complex than what is stated here. Presume international politics is, by it’s nature, amoral. Accept that, and the term ‘murder’ no longer allies.
    I don’t see the USA making war on civilized countries. When was the last time the USA invaded Norway, or Iceland, or Greece?
    I do think the way the USA has made peace is flawed. The countries invaded were defeated, but then the way in which the country was occupied was bungled.

    • Replies: @Mac_
  15. Mac_ says:
    @Jokem

    The argument self defeats, if assume intl politics is amoral that doesn’t then change murder to something else it substantiates the fact. No one from any other territory did anything to anyone here. Supposed first ‘world war’ and every other con has been and is fraudulent invasion. The con of those scribbling papers to claim to be government then claim to have ‘military’ supposedly to protect from invasion was a con, they let the borders open and other ways, the same time occupy countries somewhere else. It is fraud dominating scheme by psychos who aren’t our buds. Pretending to go along doesn’t make psychos our buds or get you their weapons, it put a noose on our neck. Natural law, you cannot have anything you don’t fight for. People here sat and continue to sit for oppression, so that’s what people get, i.e. ‘red flag laws’ scribbled by predators.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  16. sharon says:

    The respond tab didn’t show so will respond here on comment 13., in how people react or not I’ve tended to see as some separation by age or exposure, the younger people are or exposure can affect perspective. The last twenty years or so, beside the nine eleven questions people had more direct exposure to questionable actions, which more younger people reacted to, those at occupy tended to be younger or would say average thirty or so.

    The same could be said the last two years with chattering about reset etc, I think has influence on some of the younger people, such that they’re more sharp or honest with themselves about problems, since more of their future is affected. The factor of exposure was equalized, so the difference may be one of youth and questioning, and exposure.

  17. @Veracity

    Bah! Where there’s a heartbeat, there’s a human. Abortion is murder and should be allowed in very few and specific cases.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  18. Jokem says:
    @Mac_

    I don’t understand your argument.
    I am not sure how you define murder. In wartime there is lots of killing, and whether it is murder depends upon the circumstance.
    I am not sure how you define a fraudulent invasion. I would say an argument could be made for WWI being one.
    The rest of your argument is confusing to me.

  19. Jokem says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    No. Dogs have heartbeats, so do cats, fish, birds, etc.
    I suspect you mean where there is a heartbeat, there is life. Human life is defined by the DNA.

    • Replies: @turtle
  20. Rich says:
    @Veracity

    You may have been able to make that argument in 1973, although even then most knew it was wrong,, but advances in the study of genetics since then have proven you wrong. A fetus has the DNA of a separate human being from the moment of conception, it is a genetically separate person. According to science. You are of course permitted to argue that the woman’s career, night life or “feelings” should determine whether the child should live, but that’s a different argument. A two month old child is attached to its mother for its nutrition, a three year old could not survive without adult care. Dependency on another doesn’t make a person any less of an individual human being.

    • Agree: Rogue, Achmed E. Newman
    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
  21. Jokem says:
    @Rich

    I agree with you Rich. People would be horrified at a mother killing her baby because it was inconvenient. It is in fact a crime to kill another human being, yet not 1 second before it is born?

  22. Rogue says:
    @Veracity

    I was the flesh my mother’s body created and nurtured

    When you were in your mother’s womb, you were the end result of your mother and father having sexual intercourse, and you being conceived. So not just your mother.

    I have said elsewhere on the Unz Review that whilst I’m generally opposed to abortion, I’m not an absolutist about it.

    I do not accept a human embryo of a couple of days as being a human being – although it is a potential human being. But after several months pregnancy a human being – an ACTUAL PERSON – is in the mother’s womb

    Which is why I stated that when you were 6 months old, you were YOU. A little separate person from your mother. You had your very own blood type, fingerprints, DNA etc etc. You were reliant on your mother whilst in the womb? Of course – and also reliant on your mother for several YEARS after being born.

    I accept abortion on grounds of rape, incest, risk of life to the mother etc, but absolutely not on the basis of bizarre – and downright evil – notions of supposed “birth control”.

    BTW, to refer to the young, of any species, carried in it’s mother’s womb as a parasite, as you did, shows how bombarded you are with batshit crazy feminist “logic.”

    Tapeworms are parasites, hydra are parasites, maggots etc.

    But the baby in the womb is not AT ALL a parasite!

    Lastly, did you seriously think that the framers of the 4th amendment (you know, late 18th century) had in mind anything whatsoever about abortion? That it was secretly hidden in there so that nearly 200 years later some Supreme Court justices could notice the hidden intention of the original framers?

    • Replies: @turtle
  23. @Veracity

    You wrote:

    SHAME on the Supreme Court majority, shame on Ron Paul, shame on Paul Craig Roberts and shame on any others who would deny biology and a woman’s rights!

    The Supreme Court decision does no such thing and has no affect on a woman’s rights.

    The U.S constitution states clearly that:
    ‘Those matters that are not expressly delegated to the Federal government are to be the jurisdiction of the states’.

    The U.S Supreme Court acted UNCONSTITUTIONALLY in usurping states rights by issuing an edict on abortion that applied to all the states.

    What the Supreme Court did the other day was acknowledge that it had NO RIGHT to pass that ruling in the first place.

    Bottom Line: The Supreme Court did NOT rule that abortion was either legal or illegal.
    It simply relinquished the right to decide to the INDIVIDUAL STATES.

    Some states may decide to disallow Carte Blanche abortion on demand for termination during the second or third trimesters as is allowed at the moment.
    These states may only allow abortions during the first trimester.

    In any case, if there were any state that banned it outright, it would still not be illegal to cross state borders and do the termination in a nearby jurisdiction that had more flexible rules.

    So Veracity, no need to get your knickers in a knot. It’s all a tempest in a teapot.

    • Agree: Rogue, Durruti
    • Replies: @Rogue
  24. Rogue says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    You are, of course, completely right.

    Why then the eruption of anger at this decision?

    Cos ideology. You must and will accept our worldview!!

    Nope. Never.

  25. Jokem says:
    @Veracity

    Of course they ask about the “baby”. What do you think they suppose is being grown there, a puppy, a kitten, maybe a parrot?

    So you admit it is a human child?

    You can call it preborn, you can call it unborn but the biological fact is that it is part and parcel of the genetrix, her flesh, her blood. Can anyone dispute that biological fact!

    Yes. Half the DNA is someone else’s.

    As long as the placenta and umbilical are intact that mass of flesh is her.

    By that reasoning someone receiving blood transfusion directly from someone else is part and parcel of the person donating the blood and can terminate the life of the one receiving the transfusion.

  26. Rogue says:
    @Veracity

    My apologies for one thing.

    I accused you of using the “parasite” term.

    Turns out I was wrong about that. Confused what you said with some other stuff I’d read elsewhere.

    Genuinely, my apologies.

    But I do stand by what I’ve said in a broader context.

  27. Jokem says:

    Off topic, but I would like to hear what you have to say on this Dr Paul

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-says-several-gun-153527772.html

  28. turtle says:
    @Jokem

    When I was in High School, long ago, we dissected living frogs, which had beating hearts.
    We stopped the frogs’ hearts, as part of the biology class.
    Are frogs humans?
    Do frogs have “souls?”
    How about dogs?
    What is a “soul?”
    Are there such things as “soul detectors?”

    Did we, as High School sophomores, commit murder?
    Inquiring minds want to know….

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  29. turtle says:
    @Rogue

    I accept abortion on grounds of rape, incest, risk of life to the mother

    Because children conceived by rape or incest are not actual himan beings, right?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  30. Cris M. says:

    – On jokem’s post, recognize was asking R. Paul though will comment anyway, in my opinion more distraction, so people assume some ‘courts’ care about our ‘rights’ when the con of courts is to falsely claim what rights we have or not, and over time dictate them downward as has gone on and continues. If people read them, the constitution amendments are convoluted, which makes question, though that said, to extent people subscribe to them, every ‘gun law’ is violation of the second amendment. When they bring out their drones the false show will become obvious, and choice gone. Bottom line, distraction.

    The supreme con’s supposed chatter is psyop, to deflect from other cons going on such ‘red flag laws’. Further proof of large incursions dictating away ‘rights’ -they refused to hear Hedge’s ndaa lawsuit, also on property, Kelo case, and there are far more examples. Suggest should ignore distraction ‘court’ shows and prioritize, enforce natural rights by using them, share info, focus where we live.

  31. turtle says:

    Dear Dr. Paul:

    It really is a shame your wife was not raped and impregnated by a 70 IQ syphilitic Negro with AIDS.

    That would have presented such a wonderful opportunity for you to “live your faith” by raising the diseased bastard as your own, and showing the world how much you really “care.”

    As if that would ever have happened.

    Time for you to STFU, you sanctimonious, self righteous lying hypocrite.

    At least in certain circumstances, Aktion T4 may have been the best alternative, at least in my opinion.

    • Troll: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
  32. Jokem says:
    @turtle

    No, ending the life of a lower animal is not murder. Glad we cleared that up.

  33. Jokem says:
    @turtle

    I cannot speak for Rogue, but my answer is when the mother did not choose to have a child, then she should be allowed to correct that mistake someone else made.

    It is an agonizing decision to be sure.

  34. Jokem says:
    @turtle

    Dr Paul has shown himself to be a decent man. Look up the history of his life.
    Once that is done you should see what a cruel and unseemly comment you have made.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  35. @turtle

    Did we, as High School sophomores, commit murder?

    No, because the definition of murder includes only human beings. There are laws against animal cruelty too. I don’t know about your frogs in high school, as we dissected dead frogs that had been kept in formaldehyde. Are you sure you’re remembering correctly?

  36. @Phibbs

    You have a pretty good point, there, Phibbs.

    However, besides what Rogue replied with, I don’t think that it’s the case that Evangelicals all support US warmongering anymore. You are right that it has been. People are getting wise to it, understanding slowly that none of it is about defending America or Americans*, nobody is “spreading no damned democracy”, and the country is beyond broke.

    I’ll give you that anything said about “protecting Israel” gets support from most of them. That can be used as an excuse all around the Mediterranean, I guess.

    I don’t run into many Satanists, so I can’t argue with that part. Most of them are in the Establishment, government, the Lyin’ Press, etc, so I have no reason to deal with them.

    .

    * See “It’s long over, for the unknown soldier.” on the Peak Stupidity blog.

  37. “Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar, progressives should reject the violence government commits against its own citizens via taxation”

    Mr Paul – you should have been President of the United States. And yes the pro abortion crowd are very deceitful when they claim a fetus is not life. Those same people want a killer to be charged with double murder for a woman who was pregnant that is killed.

  38. @Veracity

    I bet if a hunter pulled a fetus out of a deer or fishermen caught a whale and did the same thing – you would call them cruel murderers…. But for a human you want to claim that it is a “right” to kill a baby because it’s still on the umbilical cord.

  39. Anonymous[970] • Disclaimer says:

    The raper or incestist is the one responsible for the murder.

  40. Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar, progressives should reject the violence government commits against its own citizens via taxation, income redistribution, and the fiat money system that robs average Americans to benefit politicians and elites. Rejecting the use of force, including government force, will lead to a society that values and protects our lives, liberty, and property.

    Comments like these are why sensible persons reject Libertarianism. Under the present system, the State has a legal monopoly on the use of violence. A well-run State would indeed protect our lives. liberty and property.

    Dr Paul would have us believe that, if we renounced force, and the State renounced force, this would somehow lead to the desireable state of affairs already mentioned. This is not realistic, it’s utopian. The consequences are obvious. Those who did not renounce force would feel free to rob, maim and kill those who did. The State would collapse and society break down into warring groups.

    Anarchists like to claim: No States, No Borders, No Wars. Actually, it’s No States, No Borders, Continual Wars. Dr Paul is allegedly a Christian, but he seems to have no understanding of Christian teaching. It is precisely this sort of heaven on earth utopianism that the Church rejected. We are all weak, fallible human beings, after all.

    The vast majority of States are not well-run. Indeed, some endanger or actively destroy the lives, liberty and property of their citizens. In these circumstances, it is reasonable for citizens to resist, by force, if necessary. America is very much going in that direction. The time of active resistance is not far off. It may not save you, but sitting on your hands, as advocated by Dr Paul, certainly won’t.

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  41. Jokem says:
    @Verymuchalive

    I have long advocated a constitutional amendment forbidding invasion of another country without a Declaration of War by Congress. For the Marine Corp and Navy, Congressional authorization short of a Declaration of War would be permitted.

    With a Declaration of War, Congress would be allowed to go into debt, but also the President would be allowed to shift money around in the Budget to support the war effort. Without a Declaration of War, Congress would have to live within its means, no borrowing.

  42. @Jokem

    Excellent idea. Anything that reduces the American Government’s propensity to wage undeclared war is a good thing.

    For the Marine Corp and Navy, Congressional authorization short of a Declaration of War would be permitted.

    Interesting that you mention Marine warfare. Essentially, it’s a thing of the past. Amphibious assaults are only effective against undefended or very lightly defended positions. Otherwise there are heavy losses for no military benefit. Militaries may still have units called Marines, but they are not utilised as per originally intended. Despite what the morons claim, there will be no Russian amphibious assault on Odessa.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  43. @Verymuchalive

    You’re confusing Anarchy with Libertarianism. Of course, they are not at all the same. The Founders of this country would come under the latter ideology but not in any way under the former.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  44. @Jokem

    Who needs a Constitutional Amendment when it’s already in there? Article 1 (on the powers. of Congress), Section 8 says (para. 11):

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    That implies that without such declaration, there shall be no such invasions (“Captures”), right?

    Here you go.

    Yes, it WAS a good idea. If nobody forces government to follow the document, it is no longer actually Law of the Land.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  45. Jokem says:
    @Verymuchalive

    First, the Marines are not restricted to Amphibious operations, I suggest it is what they are best at, but they can do other things. Also, the Marine Corps and Navy have their special forces, which are good for dealing with situations where an invasion is not the right solution.

    The idea of allowing the Navy and Marines to deal with situations short of a Declaration of War is for events like what happened in Grenada. Whether you agree with what we did with Grenada or not, sometimes operations like that are necessary.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  46. Jokem says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Not specific enough.
    What you specify here does not constrain Congress to live within its means.
    It also permits Congress to micromanage the War effort.

  47. @Jokem

    The Marine Corps are a special force. You shouldn’t need to create a special force within a special force. My main point was that amphibious warfare is essntially obsolete. If you were forming a military from scratch in the 21st Century, you wouldn’t include a Marine Corps.

    Having said that, most militaries still retain marines. They can be used for whatever purpose as appropriate, though rarely for their original purpose.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  48. @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m not confusing Anarchism and Libertarianism ( although some Libertarians do, preferring to call themselves Anarcho-libertarians or Anarcho-capitalists instead ). I was pointing out that Anarchists and the vast majority of Libertarians are in favour of open borders. As an American, you are surely aware of what highly porous, if not completely open, borders are doing to the social, economic and political fabric of America ?

    The American Founding Fathers were certainly in favour of limited government, but calling them Libertarians is an unjustified anachronism. Anyway, how Libertarian is it to own slaves ?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  49. @Verymuchalive

    OK, I’ll give you that you weren’t confusing the Libertarians and Anarchists. Your comparing the views of Anarchists to those of Ron Paul is what had me assuming that. However, you ARE confusing those Reason magazine open-borders idiots with ALL the rest of Libertarians.

    I am talking about government, and that makes the Founders the biggest Libertarians with that kind of power ever in world history. Get out with the “slaveholding” business. Who are you, Al Sharpton?

    I don’t get the feeling from his columns that Ron Paul advocates “sitting on one’s hands”. He can’t exactly write the opposite in print, but also, he does usually have a paragraph at the end this is too optimistic, IMO. The 50-75 million newcomers and their offspring of the last half century are not exactly going to be your new Liberty Report viewers. (In some of the recent columns on the Great Replacement Policy, Ron Paul does come off as understanding this though.)

  50. It seems to me that Reason Magazine type of Libertarian is very much preponderant amongst Libertarians. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Libertarianism is political philosophy, some would say ideology, originating in the mid- to late-20th Century. Applying it to 18th Century American politicians is an unwarranted anachronism ( ie chronological inconsistency ).
    I have no truck with race hustlers, Sharpton or otherwise. Re slaveholding: it was merely to show how applying later standards or beliefs to people of a previous period who did not believe or even know of them is unjustified. In the 18th Century, slavery was almost universally accepted as part of the natural order of things. Only a small number of people, nearly all of British, Russian and Danish background disagreed. The rest is history. The views of these people eventually prevailed. By your standards, they were the greatest emancipators in history.

    I am utterly opposed to non-white immigration into European countries and countries settled by people of European origin. I believe you are likewise, correct me if I’m wrong. I oppose advocates of open borders, whatever their other political views. As you say, they’re not going to be Liberty Report viewers.
    Libertarianism is very much a White niche interest ((( Yes, the Jews are White))). In the long term, the more 3rd World immigration, less and less Libertarianism. Most Libertarians don’t seem to get this.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  51. Jokem says:
    @Verymuchalive

    Marine Recon are special forces. So are Army Rangers and Navy Seals. The Marines have more rigorous training, but are not considered Special Forces.

    When the USA was founded, the marines were roughly considered to be the Presidents answer to the Praetorian Guard. They were the Presidents own military force. Used for incidents not requiring full scale war.

  52. DB5 says:

    A well regulated Closet, being necessary to the organization of a Wardrobe, the right of the people to keep and use Hangers, shall not be infringed.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS