Paul, in this election cycle and the last, has won a passionate following among libertarian-leaning Republicans who approve of Paul's anti-interventionist foreign policy views and his fervent opposition to the Federal Reserve.
In the last CBS News poll he came in fifth place with 7 percent. Part of Paul's limited appeal to the conservative base may the appearance of his singular focus on issues like monetary policy. However, like nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates , Paul's views on social issues are often in line with the GOP base.
He stands apart from other Republicans for advocating the decriminalization of marijuana , but he has signed the Susan B. Anthony "pro-life" pledge, promising to take actions as president like promoting a law banning abortions at the point at which a fetus is capable of feeling pain. He's also promised to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, though he does not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Stephanie Condon. Instead, he complained that taxpayers should be at liberty not to pay for abortions. Like a good libertarian, Paul is very clear in the book that torture of any sort is reprehensible and sadistic. Yet oddly, he does not consider that torture might be a proper word to describe what is done to a woman forced to undergo an extremely painful and potentially life-threatening physical experience against her will.
Yet on the matter of mandates to endure pregnancy, labor, and childbirth, perhaps having your body ripped open or sliced, and permanently altered, evidently Paul considers this less constraining to personal freedom than affixing a thin piece of cloth to your nose.
So far, on the Texas abortion ban now dominating the headlines, the two libertarian giants have said…pretty much nothing. Perhaps the intellectual stars of the movement can offer more consistency. How about Ed Crane, former head of the Cato Institute and currently pundit-at-large on matters of freedom? Nevertheless, he is said to be among the most well-reasoned of libertarians — the man you turn to when you want to hear something sensible. Currently, Crane is talking about all kinds of things, like term limits , and tweeting about the need to defend civil liberties.
So what does he say about the frontal assault on the liberty of 7 million women in Texas, and likely millions more in other states that try to copy the Texas law? As far as I can tell, nothing. He recently retweeted a great line about how libertarians love the liberty of others.
TV and Reason. Reason is the Bible of the libertarian movement and these two talk about every subject under the sun. Undoubtedly, they can tell us how libertarians are going to confront the authoritarian terror of the Texas Taliban. But maybe now that the topic is white-hot in the news and the freedom of millions of women is at stake, these two august journalists will weigh in. I checked out their Twitter feeds for the last few days. Gillespie is tweeting about the cobb salad at his favorite New York restaurant.
Welch is focused on Afghanistan and defending free speech against cancel culture. Over at Reason mag, there is one lone writer who published a quibble with the law scroll down below articles on homeschooling and the freedom to vape.
His main point is to warn conservatives that a similar strategy could be used to take away their guns. Tell that to low-income women in Texas, many of them women of color and immigrants, who are watching their futures destroyed and their internal organs commandeered, unable to afford the now-average mile journey to an abortion clinic and the high costs and waiting periods imposed by anti-choice activists.
While not as outspoken about his political leanings as some of his tech-bro libertarian colleagues, entrepreneur Elon Musk has been noted for taking libertarian stances. Musk has been quite exercised on the topic of freedom recently. Outraged that California Covid shutdowns were costing him revenue and sure that the virus would be gone in April !
That makes sense. Surely, he would agree that forcing a woman to give birth against her will is sawing off large branches of her decision tree. Possibly, she will no longer have a tree at all, because she will be dead. This is a bit confusing. He was way into politics a minute ago on the whole Covid thing.
He might, for example, point out that coercing women into having unwanted children is a crystal-clear example of the state imposing its will upon the people, and making a lot of them miserably unhappy. A person who has been raped by her father, brother, or uncle, for example, would be unlikely to experience maximum happiness in being ordered to birth his baby.
Musk is reputed to be very smart. He must have some insight. But that tweet is evidently all he has to say. His feed is now extolling the virtues of space travel. What about that most famous of libertarian contrarians, the tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel?
Wade would get overturned, ever. Given the rocket-sized hole blasted into this theory by recent events, it sure would be interesting to hear what is Thiel is currently thinking about.
Bitcoin as a financial weapon of the Chinese , of course. In desperation, I scrolled down the Newsmax list to find an influential libertarian woman who would hopefully show some spine in defending the cause.
0コメント