The Economic Libertarian

This is a response to a post in another blog. Whilemypostshouldstandaloneasworthreading,foroptimaleffectplease read that post in addition to this one.

Ron Paul thinks that abortion is a state issue to be decided by states.

It is supremely unlikely that even the most deep-south state would ban all abortions. There would remain a ‘self-defense clause’ as is standard to abortion bans worldwide, which allows for abortions in circumstances of rape or physical threat to the mother.

It’s one thing to rub a candidate with his own opinions. It’s another thing to rub a candidate with dung opinions that aren’t his.

Ergo, criticizing Ron Paul for being pro-life is correct in form. (Whether it is correct in material is primarily a matter of whether abortion is ethical or not.) However, criticizing him for opposing a woman’s right to abortion under circumstances of rape is incorrect.

Please smear accurately. Accurate smearscontribute to debate and are to be lauded. Inaccurate ones contribute only insofar as they may be corrected.

Report This Post

In a recent post, I criticized people who fear Islam for being irrationally worried. Today I will explain how it is impossible to implement sharia law in the United States of America. IrealizethatI’vealreadyasserteditisanimpossibility.I addressed this in a past post however I have realized there is a further piece of evidence available. Therefore the topic merits readdressing.

As evidence for this contention, I shall point to the presidency of Ron Paul. I have seen (even within this blog) the accusation that Ron Paul’s presidency would open the USA to the implementation of sharia law. In fact, the Ron Paul presidency proves my assertion that sharia law would be impossible within the USA.

Our nation has a long tradition of freedom. We were born in a revolution against tyranny. We glorify leaders in our past who stood up for and advanced freedom. We react strongly to even mild indications of wrongdoing by our leadership. It is because of these unchallengable facts that I have asserted in the past that sharia law is impossible. Ron Paul’s insurgent campaign is a far stronger datapoint though. For it proves not only that we would never have accepted sharia law in the past, it proves that we will not accept it in the present.

Consider: If we will throw our time and effort en masse to Ron Paul and his message of freedom, what sort of reception would sharia law recieve? It would recieve a chilly reception indeed. The reaction from the public would be terrible to behold – and possibly bloody. In response to any action smelling too much like sharia law, it would not be inconceivable to have riots and lynch mobs reacting.

Islamic fundamentalists are not a valid threat. They have no way to touch the hearts and minds of the people in our country. They lack the funds and manpower to touch the bodies of the people in our country. We do not need to react with genocide. We can contain Islamic terrorism quite effectively with conventional police actions and well-defended borders.
The only source of sharia law that could ever work in our country is the power of our elites in politics, business, and the media. In other words, the very groups which the Ron Paul platform opposes most strongly are the only chance that fascism would have in our nation.

It’s being said that the Ron Paul candidacy isn’t just insurgent, it’s revolutionary. To those who worry about sharia law – you need not fear. The same ‘revolutionary’ sentiment that’s driving Ron Paul into prominence and our media elite into confusion will react with hostility to any effort to implement Islamic law. Nor will it be ‘merely’ the same group reacting to both. The reaction against sharia law would be even broader still.

Perhaps if Ron Paul’s campaign was failing, the argument that sharia law has a chance would be more sincere. It isn’t failing though. It’s succeeding in an extraordinary way. If it stopped at this point and went no farther, there’d already be enough evidence to conclude that the power of Islam to enact laws in our government is zero.

Report This Post

http://www.pledgebank.com/Pauls-100mill

Don’t think Ron Paul has a chance? Think his advocates are making a mistake in supporting him? Wasting time and money?
Check out this pledge. If you like the man’s ideas at all, sign up for it. You won’t be obliged to do anything if it fails, and if it succeeds, he’ll have a very good chance indeed.

Have you already donated $100 or more to Ron Paul’s campaign? Sign the pledge as well, but mark yourself as “I’ve done this pledge”.

Report This Post

http://americanendeavor.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-calls-for-end-on-war-on-drugs.html
I just read a rather interesting post at the above link. It’s about Ron Paul’s policies regarding the war on drugs. I knew he was against the war on drugs, of course. It’s pleasantly surprising to me however that he’s bringing racism into the debate by pointing out that the drug war incarcarates certain ethnic groups disproportionately.
If nothing else, it points out the ignorance of attempting to smear Ron Paul as racist. I won’t say it’s an insane smear to make. It’s a very well-meaning one. Racism is ridiculous, and any politician who can be shown to make serious judgements on the basis of ethnicities shouldn’t be in office. (A quick aside, ethnicities and cultures are different things.) Yet stances like this show that it’s obviously not a sustainable accusation.
I think that the article quoted within the blog post I’ve linked to needs to be more widely read.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/280907_ron_paul_drug_war.html
The above link is another source, and the one actually quoted by the article linked at the top of this post. I encourage everyone to read it, and perhaps even respond with it whenever ‘racism’ accusations arise against Ron Paul.

Report This Post