Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kentucky Senate race development

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I discovered this in the news this morning from Rueters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2009+BW20091104

BOWLING GREEN, Ky.--(Business Wire)--

Bowling Green ophthalmologist and long-time taxpayer activist Rand Paul is

leading the field for the Republican nomination for United States Senate,

according to the latest poll results. The survey, conducted by ABC affiliate

WHAS out of Louisville, shows Dr. Paul beating former frontrunner and beltway

insider pick Trey Grayson 35-32 percent.

The son of Ron Paul is out in front early in the Republican primary and leading all Republican and Democratic candidates in recent polling. Can this be considered a postitive development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I discovered this in the news this morning from Rueters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2009+BW20091104

The son of Ron Paul is out in front early in the Republican primary and leading all Republican and Democratic candidates in recent polling. Can this be considered a postitive development?

I think so. Rand Paul has some of the more desirable positions of his father but is not pro-life, I believe. And seriously, what non-crap candidates have we seen from the Repugs in awhile? If someone like Rand Paul can win as a Republican the party may not be completely worthless after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so. Rand Paul has some of the more desirable positions of his father but is not pro-life, I believe. And seriously, what non-crap candidates have we seen from the Repugs in awhile? If someone like Rand Paul can win as a Republican the party may not be completely worthless after all.

Eh. Sorry, but he's definitely pro-life.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

I believe life begins at conception. I recognize the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will always vote to protect life.

He's just as confused as his father with respect to the abortion issue. Luckily for us, though, he has a much better foreign policy position than his dad:

Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.

Our supreme law, the Constitution, enumerates certain powers for the federal government. Primary among them is national defense.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, “The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.”

However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy.

But, any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country’s government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.

Congress has had plenty of time to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of Congress, Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would have demanded and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fails the moron test. Continuing with his anti-choice position... "I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

That's legislation proposed & written by his father:

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/034987.html

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act of 2007: H.R. 2597

2007-2008 (110th Congress) > H.R. 2597

A BILL To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Does a "pro-life" stance override anything else a candidate stands for? Seems that in most other respects he's quite sound.

A 'pro-life' position on abortion generally means that a politician allows his political policies to be driven by his religious faith, i.e. that he thinks his faith justifies using force against others. Even if they don't see the conflict between that and the advocacy of individual rights, the conflict still exists and will have consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any other kind of politician to choose from?

The reason why we don't have a single good candidate is because everyone seems to agree that political compromise is the only solution. If even a small minority of the people rejected that, there would be some good candidates. They wouldn't win, so it wouldn't matter much, but still: citing the absence of uncompromising candidates as reason to compromise is not very logical.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why we don't have a single good candidate is because everyone seems to agree that political compromise is the only solution. If even a small minority of the people rejected that, there would be some good candidates.

Well, NO, actually.... unless of course that "small minority" happens to be refusing to compromise on something that it is *rational* to refuse to compromise on.

We have a far left and a far right that refuse to compromise on, respectively, (leftists) more statism such as government healthcare, and (rightists) abortion already, and they are making matters worse. Much worse. A politician who is willing to compromise can surely be finagled into compromising in a bad way, but he can also be willing to compromise in a good way when he sees it's in his best interest. Better one of those than a hardcore non-compromiser like US Senator Bennett (D-CO) who is willing to lose his re-election if only he can ram health care down our throat.

Be careful not to make the same mistake as the Libertarians, that brag they are the "Party of Principle" as if that *alone* is a good thing. I hated that slogan even when I was a Libertarian. Party of WHAT principle? The Communist Party is ALSO a "Party of Principle".

They wouldn't win, so it wouldn't matter much, but still: citing the absence of uncompromising candidates as reason to compromise is not very logical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, NO, actually.... unless of course that "small minority" happens to be refusing to compromise on something that it is *rational* to refuse to compromise on.

We have a far left and a far right that refuse to compromise on, respectively, (leftists) more statism such as government healthcare, and (rightists) abortion already, and they are making matters worse. Much worse. A politician who is willing to compromise can surely be finagled into compromising in a bad way, but he can also be willing to compromise in a good way when he sees it's in his best interest. Better one of those than a hardcore non-compromiser like US Senator Bennett (D-CO) who is willing to lose his re-election if only he can ram health care down our throat.

Be careful not to make the same mistake as the Libertarians, that brag they are the "Party of Principle" as if that *alone* is a good thing. I hated that slogan even when I was a Libertarian. Party of WHAT principle? The Communist Party is ALSO a "Party of Principle".

The fact that there are people who are wrong and refusing to learn and change their minds is not an argument in favor of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean 'learn and change, when you're wrong', it means giving up an idea you know is correct in favor of an idea you know is incorrect, for the sake of joining someone's cause or having them join yours. How exactly is that ever *rational*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there are people who are wrong and refusing to learn and change their minds is not an argument in favor of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean 'learn and change, when you're wrong', it means giving up an idea you know is correct in favor of an idea you know is incorrect, for the sake of joining someone's cause or having them join yours. How exactly is that ever *rational*?

The fact of the matter is you claimed that if only a small minority of people *didn't* think compromise was a good thing, we'd have better candidates. Fact is, a small minority already refuses to compromise, on *both* ends of the alleged spectrum--meeting your stated condition... and we are much the worse for it.

It matters *greatly* what it is that they won't compromise on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is you claimed that if only a small minority of people *didn't* think compromise was a good thing, we'd have better candidates. Fact is, a small minority already refuses to compromise, on *both* ends of the alleged spectrum--meeting your stated condition... and we are much the worse for it.

It matters *greatly* what it is that they won't compromise on.

Your argument (that groups A and B are refusing to compromise, and A and B are bad, therefor refusal to compromise is bad) is logically invalid. Mine, where I explain why rational compromise is a contradiction in terms (because if person A rationally concludes X, he cannot rationally abandon that conclusion in favor of something B proposed) is yet to be challenged. My money is on it staying that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sir, YOUR argument was in fact that a minority of people unwilling to compromise would solve the problem. Go back and read what YOU wrote.

And furthermore I did NOT assert that all lack of compromise was bad, only that lack of compromise was not necessarily good, as you appear to be assuming.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why we don't have a single good candidate is because everyone seems to agree that political compromise is the only solution. If even a small minority of the people rejected that, there would be some good candidates. They wouldn't win, so it wouldn't matter much, but still: citing the absence of uncompromising candidates as reason to compromise is not very logical.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by compromise. Do you refuse to vote unless the canidate meets your exact specifications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by compromise. Do you refuse to vote unless the canidate meets your exact specifications?

My voting record wouldn't help clear up the meaning of the term compromise. This might:

"Compromise doesn't mean 'learn and change, when you're wrong', it means giving up an idea you know is correct in favor of an idea you know is incorrect, for the sake of joining someone's cause or having them join yours. " (me, a couple of hours ago)

If you want a reason why I wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, my reason is exactly the same as Kyle Haight's in Post #9, and David's a few posts earlier.

No sir, YOUR argument was in fact that a minority of people unwilling to compromise would solve the problem. Go back and read what YOU wrote.

Yes, I know I said that, and I stand by it. (that an uncompromising capitalist minority would facilitate some uncompromising Capitalist candidates, not that it'd help solve all our problems).

But my argument for why compromise is irrational was the other thing, the thing you still haven't addressed even though I said it twice already.

And furthermore I did NOT assert that all lack of compromise was bad, only that lack of compromise was not necessarily good, as you appear to be assuming.

I know, and you're wrong about that, and your argument in favor of that position is flawed. No compromise is rational, or good. All compromise is irrational, and bad, for the reason I mentioned twice now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by compromise.

I'll take this as an opportunity to mention, again, and recommend, Dr. Peikoff's talk, "Why Should One Act on Principle," available (free) on one's "Registered User" page at the Ayn Rand Institute.

From the site, on the speech:

"Dr. Peikoff demonstrates that principles are the only tool that can make the questions of human life answerable. He dissects the pragmatists’ charge that principles are “simplistic,” clarifying why principles are indispensable to a conceptual consciousness and why moral principles are absolutes. This talk was delivered at the Ford Hall Forum in 1988."

Dr. Peikoff's chews the issue of compromise and the ill consequences that flow from a compromise of principles, namely, that a compromise of a principle is a complete rejection of that principle.

The talk is about an hour. Below it is a half-hour Q&A which followed the talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, not voting for a candidate like Paul is not an absolute for Objectivists. There is a context where I could imagine voting and maybe even campaigning for Paul, namely if he were running against a candidate who was likely to win and was comparable to Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong, i.e. if the alternative is TEOTWAKI. That is plainly not the case here. What we have is an unprincipled candidate in a pool of unprincipled candidates. It seems to me a greater danger is posed by a candidate who is (unjustifiably) associated with "acting on principle" and give the appearance of supporting valid political principles.

The simple fact that he believe that scientific fact is determined by legislative fiat puts him in the category of actively-dangerous people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fails the moron test. Continuing with his anti-choice position... "I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

The follow on legislation would set pi = 3 and declare that the Sun revolves around the Earth is a scientific statement.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The abortion quote does seem to be implying that Mr. Paul is trying to support anti-abortion arguments from a non-religious standpoint - as if that's some conceit towards enlightenment. And that does fail the moron test.

But just as you would choose a man of wavering principles over Hitler, so you might choose a man who wavers on some principles for the sake of those principles he does not waver on.

Seriously, until the government is in the business of only guarding objective rights - even then to some extent - people will disagree on what precisely the government should do and how. Having a principle and losing because nobody supports it is stupid.

Instead, I'd like to find someone who 1) says what their principles are 2) includes what they think they can get away with in terms of governance - ie some things just won't be accepted by the constitutional process and the american people 3) and focus relentlessly on areas where they can make a difference. As long as a candidate is consistent with this from the beginning, and maintains the same set of rules, they are perfectly acceptable.

Right now, I want to see candidates who are willing to fight for two things: cutting spending and taxes as much as possible (inclusive is rejection of further healthcare etc. nonsense), and driving for school choice. Those two policies alone would make a tremendous difference, to the point of making other issues more or less irrelevant until the next election cycle. There is enough consensus that we should sort of fight terrorists, and that abortion will remain legal, etc. that I'm just not as worried about those issues. But there is not a consensus at all, that we need fiscal responsibility in the federal and state governments now or else. I'm not willing to sit alone in my basement with 8000 packs of ramen noodles and a shotgun while everyone upstairs figures out what's next after they f%%&ed up the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...