• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Libertarian" Rand Paul Sez: Listen to wrong speech, go to jail!

Unabogie

Philosopher
Unabogie
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
9,692
Location
Portland, OR
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.
Click to expand...

What the hell? The most charitable reading of this is that he's talking about non-citizens, although it doesn't seem clear to me that he's restricting his proposed policy to them. But isn't this the same guy who says non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional? You should be allowed to be as offensive as you want and let Galt decide which ideas win? And yet he also thinks that if you ATTEND the speech of someone promoting violent overthrow of the government (like Sharon Angle or Glenn Beck?) then you should be THROWN IN PRISON?

Ok, seriously, wut?
 
Ooh, that's gonna cost him in militia and "survivalist" circles. Too bad that's like half his base of support.
 
Cleon said:
Ooh, that's gonna cost him in militia and "survivalist" circles. Too bad that's like half his base of support.
Click to expand...

I am sure that segment of the population will be happy with his speech - he's obviously talking about "them", not "us" :)
 
Most Paul supporters I know are the very people I consider most likely to attempt to overthrow the government.

Ergo, lock up anyone who's been to a Ron/Rand Paul gathering. Simple enough.
 
How does Paul saying this jive with a libertarian ideology? I can't fit the "convict attendees of radical speeches" peg into the "government intrusion into life under any circumstances is a bad thing" hole.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
How does Paul saying this jive with a libertarian ideology? I can't fit the "convict attendees of radical speeches" peg into the "government intrusion into life under any circumstances is a bad thing" hole.
Click to expand...

He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."
 
Great. Now I have to buy one of those t-shirts that says "Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" just so that I can write across the bottom, "Hey, Rand, Come at me bro'."
.......

I think it is part of his long-term strategy.
1) Rand bribes someone at the Republican National Convention to mention the violent overthrow of the government in a speech
2) He sends his brownshirts in to arrest all the delegates for listening to an illegal speech.
3) He fills the empty hall with his delegates.
4) He becomes the Republican nomination for president.
 
Unabogie said:
He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."
Click to expand...

Or more precisely, "Freedom (and government spending) for us but not for you."
 
Unabogie said:
He's also for outlawing abortions. I think a better description of the Tea Party philosophy seems to be:

"Freedom for us but not for you."
Click to expand...

No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.
 
Muldur said:
No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.
Click to expand...

If you're going to broaden libertarian philosophy to the point where you grant the state the right to restrict freedom for the sake of preventing activities that may, in some form, indirectly cause harm to others, then you've opened the floodgates for pretty much everything that libertarians hate. Might as well promote universal healthcare while you're at it.
 
Rand Paul is looking like more of a joke every time he opens his mouth.

But wait, didn't he say that he would no longer make media appearances ever since Rachel Maddow called him out for his views that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea?

(I personally do believe in freedom of association, but Rand Paul is a hypocrite about property rights yet again because he somehow also wants to ban abortion, denying women rights to their own bodies. Also, he associates with some pretty racist people, including one man who works on his campaign who posted "Hang a (n-word) Day" on his Myspace or something.)
 
Muldur said:
In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.
Click to expand...


At what stage? Does the state get this protection right immediately after the moment of conception?
 
Darat said:
I am sure that segment of the population will be happy with his speech - he's obviously talking about "them", not "us" :)
Click to expand...

Naturally. Our speech promoting the violent overthrow of our government is patriotic. Their speech promoting the violent overthrow of our government is terrorism.
 
Muldur said:
No, in both cases it is consistent with the Libertarian principle of the right to self-defend/defend others. In the case of "radical" speech, it is the right of a nation to use force (legal OR physical) to protect itself against those who by their actions and words make themselves a threat to the safety of the nation. In the case of abortion, it is the duty of the state to protect the inherent right to life of the pre-born baby.
Click to expand...

How...Statist of you. *pushes glasses up nose*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom