Video: Rep. Ron Paul Only Supports Abortion in Case of "Honest Rape"

THE TRUTH ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM:

Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. So what is this belief-set, and why is it so popular in certain subcultures? The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism.

From proponents, you might be told:

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.

Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.

However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.

To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic.

Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident?

This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion).

But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.

Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as:

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.

Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it.

Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms.

What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms.

They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions.

If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".

In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up".

It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me):

Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.

All libertarian thought flows logically from this.

For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."

So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions.

This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.

Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.

My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism".

The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another?

If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ... On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic".

Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept.

When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense".

Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda.

They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct.

"initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology".

It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force".

The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology.

It was just phrased in their preaching way.

While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business.

The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business".

That's what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.

The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals.

The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals.

The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business".

That's a wild definition of freedom.

If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this.

It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".

This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms.

This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed. Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions.

But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right.

It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".

I find Ron Paul's perspective on this issue to be hypocritical. He claims to be a libertarian. The libertarian position on abortion should be individual choice. Each individual should make their own moral decision without government interference. This doesn't mean anyone actually supports abortion. It just means that each individual should make her own decision. This is the essence of the libertarian philosophy, and I find Paul's answers to be completely out of line with his libertarian roots.

My wife and I are the pro-life poster family - big family, married couple, been together forever, etc. However, I respect the rights of everyone to make their own decisions.

In the end, it doesn't matter as he fades into irrelevancy this election cycle. However, those people who support him because he is a libertarian should ask how consistent he is across the board.