Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Polemics

Should government get out of the marriage business?

4 Comments

Dina sent me three articles by Jennifer Roback Morse, post on The Public Discourse. The articles answer the charge from social liberals and libertarians that we should “get the government out of marriage”.

Here’s the first article which talks about how government will still be involved in marriage, even if we get rid of the traditional definition of marriage, because of the need for dispute resolution in private marriage contracts. She uses no-fault divorce as an example showing how it was sold as a way to get government out of the divorce business. But by making divorce easier by making it require no reason, it increased the number of disputes and the need for more government to resolve these disputes.

Here’s the second article which talks about how the government will have to expand to resolve conflicts over decisions about who counts as a parent and who gets parental rights. With traditional marriage, identifying who the parents are is easy. But with private marriage contracts where the parties are not the biological parents, there is a need for the state to step in and assign parental rights.

Here’s the third article which talks about how marriage is necessary in order to defend the needs and rights of the child at a time when they cannot enter into contracts and be parties to legal disputes.

The third article was my favorite, so here is an excerpt from it:

The fact of childhood dependence raises a whole series of questions. How do we get from a position of helpless dependence and complete self-centeredness, to a position of independence and respect for others? Are our views of the child somehow related to the foundations of a free society? And, to ask a question that may sound like heresy to libertarian ears: Do the needs of children place legitimate demands and limitations on the behavior of adults?

I came to the conclusion that a free society needs adults who can control themselves, and who have consciences. A free society needs people who can use their freedom, without bothering other people too much. We need to respect the rights of others, keep our promises, and restrain ourselves from taking advantage of others.

We learn to do these things inside the family, by being in a relationship with our parents. We can see this by looking at attachment- disordered children and failure-to-thrive children from orphanages and foster care. These children have their material needs met, for food, clothing, and medical care. But they are not held, or loved, or looked at. They simply do not develop properly, without mothers and fathers taking personal care of them. Some of them never develop consciences. But a child without a conscience becomes a real problem: this is exactly the type of child who does whatever he can get away with. A free society can’t handle very many people like that, and still function.

In other words I asked, “Do the needs of society place constraints on how we treat children?” But even this analysis still views the child from society’s perspective. It is about time we look at it from the child’s point of view, and ask a different kind of question. What is owed to the child?

Children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents. They are entitled to know who they are and where they came from. Therefore children have a legitimate interest in the stability of their parents’ union, since that is ordinarily how kids have relationships with both parents. If Mom and Dad are quarreling, or if they live on opposite sides of the country, the child’s connection with one or both of them is seriously impaired.

But children cannot defend their rights themselves. Nor is it adequate to intervene after the fact, after harm already has been done. Children’s relational and identity rights must be protected proactively.

Marriage is society’s institutional structure for protecting these legitimate rights and interests of children.

I recommend taking a look at all three articles and becoming familiar with the arguments in case you have to explain why marriage matters and why we should not change it. I think it is important to read these articles and to be clear that to be a libertarian doctrine does not protect the right of a child to have a relationship with both his or her parents.  Nor does libertarianism promote the idea that parents ought to stick together for their children.

The purpose of marriage is to make adults make careful commitments, and restrain their desires and feelings, so that children will have a stable environment with their biological parents. We do make exceptions, but we should not celebrate exceptions and we should not subsidize exceptions. It’s not fair to children to have to grow up without a mother or father just so that they adults can make poor, emotional decisions and have fun.

News

Rick Santorum wins Alabama and Mississippi, big spending Romney places third

1 Comment

From the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum won the Alabama and Mississippi primaries Tuesday, pulling off another pair of surprise victories and boosting his claim to be the conservative alternative to Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who built his campaign around the Southern strategy, appeared headed to a second-place finish in both states while Mr. Romney was trailing slightly in third.

The result marked a surprisingly strong showing for Mr. Santorum, as polls had suggested a tight race between Messrs. Romney and Gingrich for the lead in both states. Mr. Santorum had even begun to suggest that he was fighting for a strong showing rather than a win.

In jubilant remarks to supporters in Louisiana, another Southern state whose primary is coming up, Mr. Santorum took a shot at Mr. Romney. “People have said ‘You’re being outspent’ and people are talking about the math and that this race is inevitable,” Mr. Santorum said. “For someone who thinks this race is inevitable, he spent a whole lot of money against me.”

The results were an undeniable boost for Mr. Santorum in his bid to position himself as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney. Since the beginning of the GOP nomination battle last year, Mr. Romney has benefited from a division among his more conservative rivals.

“I don’t think there was a single poll that had me anywhere close to a win in Mississippi,” Mr. Santorum told supporters. He added, “This campaign is about ordinary folks…going out there and exceeding expectations, defying the odds, because we believe in something bigger than ourselves.”

The Romney campaign had devoted last-minute resources to put its candidate over the top. Mr. Romney made a hastily scheduled visit to Mobile, Ala., on Monday, and an outside group supporting his candidacy spent nearly $2.3 million in Alabama and Mississippi.

Is Santorum too socially conservative?

Let’s see:

The New York Times focused on the “treacherous political ground” occupied by President Obama as the election draws closer, while proving wrong pro-Obama assumptions made in recent stories by Times reporters Susan Saulny and Jackie Calmes, in Tuesday’s front-page poll analysis “Obama’s Rating Falls as Poll Reflects Volatility,” by Jim Rutenberg and Marjorie Connelly.

[…]The responses to poll questions #73 and #74, asking whether employers and religious groups should be forced to cover birth control for their employees, showed that most respondents favor employers be allowed to opt out of covering birth control for moral reasons (51% were in favor of the opt out, while 40% favored making coverage mandatory. The gap grew when the question was narrowed down to “religiously affiliated employers” like hospitals (57% were in favor of the opt out, 36% in favor of the mandate).

[…]As Kaus puts it:

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”

The Times has pushed hard on the idea that the debate over birth control and abortion is hurting the party among women. Yet the actual poll data contradicted anti-Republican anecdotes forwarded by Times reporter Susan Saulny on Sunday suggesting “centrist women” were abandoning the GOP and fleeing to Obama.

CBS News broke the poll results from Republican primary voters down by male and female and found that, despite the liberal media insinuation that the issues of birth control and abortion were scaring away women voters, Republican women were actually breaking toward socially conservative candidate Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney by a strong 41%-27% margin. (Men went for Romney over Santorum 32%-27%.) 

Maybe voters should stop worrying about electability and just vote for the best candidate. With an economy like this, my keyboard could run against Obama and win. The man has failed at everything he has tried in the last 3.5 years.

More about Rick Santorum

News

If Ron Paul were President, 16 to 28 states would keep abortion legal

7 Comments
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

From the Weekly Standard. (H/T Triablogue)

Excerpt:

“[Ron Paul] has an outstanding chance of winning in Iowa,” according to Bob Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 state campaign chairman. “There’s a lot about Ron Paul that people like,” Vander Plaats says, pointing to Paul’s “almost prophetic” vision of our economic problems and his commitment to do away with “politics as usual.”

But Paul could face trouble with values voters in Iowa, where 60 percent of GOP caucusgoers are evangelical Christians. Vander Plaats says his socially conservative umbrella organization, the Family Leader, has ruled out endorsing Paul because “sometimes [Paul’s] libertarian views trump his moral compass.”

“On abortion, [Paul] believes that’s a states’ rights issue, we believe that’s a morality issue,” says Vander Plaats. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, “We don’t believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa.” (Paul voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, but expressed deep reservations about voting for a federal law on abortion.)

“We’re very concerned” about Paul’s position that the government shouldn’t recognize civil marriage, Vander Plaats continues. The group also balks at some of Paul’s foreign policy views. ”Even though we may agree with him that we’re not called to be the policeman of the world, we do believe we’re called to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel,” says Vander Plaats. “And we do believe [a nuclear-armed] Iran is a definite threat not only to Israel, but to our freedom as well.”

[…]Vander Plaats says he doesn’t think very many Iowa voters are aware that Paul thinks it should be up to states to decide whether or not to protect human life. But now that Paul leading in the Iowa polls, his positions may come under greater scrutiny.

Here’s a 2006 USA Today article listing the states that would make abortion legal under Ron Paul’s plan.

Excerpt:

•Twenty-two state legislatures are likely to impose significant new restrictions on abortion. They include nearly every state in the South and a swath of big states across the industrial Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Michigan. These states have enacted most of the abortion restrictions now allowed.

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

•Twelve states fall into a middle ground between those two categories. About half are in the Midwest, the rest scattered from Arizona to Rhode Island.

[…]The 22 states likely to enact new restrictions include 50% of the U.S. population and accounted for 37% of the abortions performed in 2000, the latest year for which complete data were available.

The 16 states likely to protect access to abortion include 35% of the U.S. population and accounted for 48% of the abortions performed.

So Ron Paul, far from being pro-life, would allow abortion on demand in 16 to 28 states, many of them the most populous states in the union – like California and New York. I understand that he calls allowing abortion in 16 to 28 states “pro-life”, but voters have to think and decide – is that really pro-life? Is it really pro-life when the number of abortions per year will drop from 1.1 million to 550,000? Is that pro-life? (Assuming that the people in the pro-life states don’t just cross the border to get an abortion elsewhere – which is false, of course). Paul’s position is that he is personally pro-life, but he thinks that other people should be allowed to decide if an unborn baby can be killed or not, at the state level. Isn’t that pro-choice though?

Similarly, Paul would allow states to redefine marriage to be anything they want it to be, since he thinks that the definition of marriage is an issue that states should decide. That’s his view. Is that pro-marriage? Does that position take seriously the need for children to be raised by a mother and a father?