I'm curious about why an old geezer like Ron Paul has such a fan base among some of the younger voters. It reminds me of the position that Timothy Leary occupied in the Sixties’ youth culture. Young people naturally value their independence. And they like it when a titular grown-up like Leary (Harvard prof.) gives them permission to do their own thing. An authority-figure who tells them it's okay to question authority.
I wonder if Ron Paul's seniority and libertarianism isn't the contemporary counterpart. Yes, he's a social conservative, but what does that really amount to if gov't has no right to legislate morality? Isn't this ultimately just another appeal to personal autonomy? "Don't tread on me!"
What if it is?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul does NOT think that the government cannot legislate morality, what he does think is that the FEDERAL government should not do this. In other words, he feels these decisions should be left up to the individual states.
ReplyDeleteJosh Walker said:
ReplyDeleteRon Paul does NOT think that the government cannot legislate morality, what he does think is that the FEDERAL government should not do this. In other words, he feels these decisions should be left up to the individual states.
*********************
But that's not what the Libertarian Platform says on various social issues.
How can you legislate morality if you have 50 different versions of morality? That isn’t legislating morality. Rather, it’s legislating moral relativism.
ReplyDeleteIf, say, abortion is wrong, then it’s wrong in all 50 states. It isn’t wrong in one state, but ceases to be wrong as soon as you cross the border. This isn’t like, say, setting the minimum age to buy beer or drive a car.
Steve,
ReplyDelete(a) While libertarians may like Ron Paul, Ron Paul is not a libertarian partisan: he's a Republican partisan. I'm not sure whether they appreciate his nuances. Or possibly I naively think he's nuanced.
(b) Presumably Ron Paul should be in favor of legislating morality for the federal districts of Columbia, Panama, etc.
(c) One of his supporters should be able to identify whether (b) is the case, or whether RP actually simply does not want government to legislate morality at all, with Constitutionalism being a fig leaf.
-Turretinfan
"If, say, abortion is wrong, then it’s wrong in all 50 states. It isn’t wrong in one state, but ceases to be wrong as soon as you cross the border."
ReplyDelete(1) First thing to recognize that any traditional criminal law is "legislation of morality."
(2) The Constitution does not explicitly state that Congress has the power to legislate criminal law.
(3) Historically, each state has its own criminal law, even on issues that are clearly moral issues, like "prostitution" or "sodomy."
(4) RP's counter is that the Constitution does not give the Feds authority to criminalize murder "nationally."
(5) But Congress is empowered to act like a state government with respect to the federal districts.
(6) So if RP is consistent, one would expect him to be proposing legislation to criminalize murder of unborn infants in the federal districts (given that he proposes other obviously futile legislation).
-Turretinfan
"(1) First thing to recognize that any traditional criminal law is 'legislation of morality.'"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily, it could just be with respect to individual rights.
It seems that the consequence of HR 776 in the 109th Congress would make abortion illegal in federal districts had it passed.
ReplyDeleteoh the above (HR 776) was introduced by Mr. Paul.
ReplyDeleteTURRETINFAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“The Constitution does not explicitly state that Congress has the power to legislate criminal law.”
In which case, the Constitution is silent on that issue. That’s quite different from the Constitution explicitly or even implicitly stating that Congress doesn’t have the power to legislate criminal law.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is such a prohibition in the Constitution. If certain states refuse to enforce the moral law, and Federal lawmakers were prepared to take up the slack, wouldn’t that be a reason, from a Christian standpoint, to amend the Constitution—so that gov’t (at whatever level) will discharge its God-given duty to enforce the moral law? Isn’t it the duty of the State to exact retribution against wrongdoers (e.g. Rom 13)? Shouldn’t the political process be adapted to facilitate the standing moral obligation, rather than vice versa? Which comes first—principle or process?
I’d add that some crimes are inherently borderless in a way that other’s aren’t. A murder occurs at a particular time and place. But the production and distribution of child pornography (to take one example) is not a discrete crime.
Steve wrote: "In which case, the Constitution is silent on that issue. That’s quite different from the Constitution explicitly or even implicitly stating that Congress doesn’t have the power to legislate criminal law."
ReplyDeleteI answer: I'm sure RP would answer that the reservation clause of the Constitution creates a sort of "regulative principle of Congress." Whatever is not explicitly granted, is forbidden (well, technically, reserved to the states and people).
So silence (if RP is correct) would end the matter.
Steve: [but if the Const. does prohibit Congressional involvement] "wouldn’t that be a reason, from a Christian standpoint, to amend the Constitution—so that gov’t (at whatever level) will discharge its God-given duty to enforce the moral law?"
I answer: Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
Steve: "I’d add that some crimes are inherently borderless in a way that other’s aren’t. A murder occurs at a particular time and place. But the production and distribution of child pornography (to take one example) is not a discrete crime."
I answer: I don't think that's going to be a successful argument. It's the same argument that got the FBI in prosecuting the mafia (for murder) back in the day.
-Turretinfan
Re: abortion, I think it can be argued that the 14th Amendment requires the Federal Government to protect the lives of unborn children (as persons):
ReplyDelete"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm not sure what Ron Paul might think of that. I am under the impression that he believes the states should determine their own abortion laws.
http://atheism.about.com/
ReplyDeletelibrary/FAQs/ath/blath_index.htm