Skip to main content

View Diary: Ron Paul: No Liberal. (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Liberal v liberal (11+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul is a clown. Libertarianism is a mask for selfism or fascism.

    That said, "liberal" means "for freedom." You and I and the reader know that "civil liberties" is a subset of political concerns. Free speech, free assembly, free petition... these are matters of first amendment liberties. For some of us, they're paramount. The "libertarians" share an interest in these things with "liberals." Both "liberals" and "libertarians" put a heavy emphasis on individual rights.

    However, "liberal" also means that we believe that greater freedom and liberty can be achieved by the nation itself, where the damn libertarians think that the only way is to have no government at all.

    Ron Paul is a vile, repugnant creature, and his followers are intolerable to me. However, a concept as basic as "freedom" is always subject to redefinition.

    Every reductio ad absurdum will seem like a good idea to some fool or another.

    by The Geogre on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:21:39 PM PST

    •  Where I think the two split, is that liberals see (18+ / 0-)

      that if basic human needs are not fulfilled, there is no true freedom.  The 'freedom to starve', the 'freedom to die without healthcare' are not freedoms in the sense that liberals believe in freedom.

      •  No one is free if any is in chains (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Onomastic

        Yes, and they would say the same, but by it mean "compelled to do anything... like care about others."

        We're stuck, in our terminology, with words we got from Emerson, so our ideas have kept moving, but our words have stayed the same. That's why, for example, it's the liberal position now to have tariffs to protect the American worker and discourage sweatshops, but that was once the big business conservative position, whereas "conservative" is supposed to mean "those who look to the present or past as the ideal state or seek to recreate a past in living memory."

        Needless to say, none of the GOP candidates for president are conservatives . . . except perhaps Santorum, if he were in Ireland or Poland.

        You main post is timely, though: just because Paul differs from the maniacs he's standing near doesn't make him one of us or even tangentially near us. "Less diseased" is not healthy.

        Every reductio ad absurdum will seem like a good idea to some fool or another.

        by The Geogre on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:37:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The difference (12+ / 0-)

        Libertarians beileve in the freedom to starve to death rather than transgress some abstract ideological line.  

        It's weak.  

        Liberals believe that freedoms need to be accessible to people, and that we, as a group, can create a situation in which all people truly do have the ability to take advantage of their freedom.  

        It's powerful.  

        Son to me: "Geez Dad, I'm not a pervert!" Me to son: "Son, you're a 14 year old boy, of course you're a pervert."

        by otto on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:55:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They don't think "national freedom" is a thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie

      I'm sure we can at least agree that a nation is not the same as the human beings in that nation. The latter have rights; the former does not.  It might be the case that giving up some individual rights and freedoms to the nation-state may result in greater prosperity.  OK.  Maybe.  But that choice must be up to the individual.

      •  Not if you want civilization (2+ / 0-)

        There is a private right to disagree with society demands, but the price is to lose the social privilege and shield. So, if you want each person agreeing or disagreeing with the US Constitution piece by piece and each bit of case law, item by item, then that person is, to the same degree, abrogating the rights of citizenship. That, at least, is the very same "natural law" argument that the libertarians claim. Don't want the laws? Don't get the plumbing.

        Every reductio ad absurdum will seem like a good idea to some fool or another.

        by The Geogre on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 04:33:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site