MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Monday, December 29, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 20.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Dave on Ron Paul

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:20 pm

Wags, I should have just said "right to life" instead of "freedom of choice". I concede that a fetus cannot actively choose anything, but we grant a fetus human rights based on the high probability that they will one day be able to choose. That said, I'm aware that there are alternative perspectives on this fundamental issue. None of these perspectives have much practical bearing on presidential politics.

Otherwise, your examples are not carefully constructed analogies. The "right" to serve in Congress (or drive a car) is on a different metaphysical level than the "right" not to be murdered. If you disagree with that statement, that's fine, but it's not a discussion that I want to have on this thread, nor anywhere on TDPF, really.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:42 pm

Image
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:47 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I'm aware that there are alternative perspectives on this fundamental issue. None of these perspectives have much practical bearing on presidential politics.

Seems to me there's a lot of practical bearing on presidential politics when one of the prospective candidates outlines policies which assume that everyone, everywhere, is entitled to the same fundamental rights, a position which is certainly not the one taken by The Constitution or the government in general.
ArturoBandini wrote:Otherwise, your examples are not carefully constructed analogies.
They were never intended to be. I was trying to understand the thought process of someone who believes individual rights -- any rights -- should be granted to unborn children.
ArturoBandini wrote: The "right" to serve in Congress (or drive a car) is on a different metaphysical level than the "right" not to be murdered.
Dogs also have the "right" not to be murdered, don't they? Why? It can't be the same argument Paul makes about fetuses unless his position does not hinge on them being human beings (which it certainly seems to.)

You don't wanna talk about it, that's fine. But don't pretend that Paul's positions are irrelevant to his candidacy, 'cuz that's just goofy.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:05 pm

Wags, you are losing me here. I don't understand how or why we switched to comparing the rights of dogs versus fetuses. I have no idea what that has to do with comparing the right not to be murdered versus eligibility to serve in Congress. Maybe we're just talking past one another. My contention is that eligibility to serve in Congress is not a fundamental right because Congress is a political body, not an inseparable part of the human condition. Thus, such a "right" is not subject to the universality that must accompany fundamental rights.

Regarding the "practical significance" issue, I should have said that various perspectives on the metaphysical underpinnings of the abortion debate, in the grand scheme of things, have little practical significance on the actual execution of the Office of the President. On presidential politics (i.e. campaign politics) all sorts of silly issues have practical significance on the outcome of a campaign.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:09 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:I think the point is to stop Democratic voting, not specifically voting by racial minorities (because they are racial minorities).

That's not what the Justice Department said when they invoked the Voter Rights Act.
Some additional info would be nice - got any links? There's a difference between a law that has disparate racial impacts and one that is motivated by the desire to cause or deepen disparate racial impacts (e.g. racism).
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:13 pm

It's the rights of living, breathing human beings that are of concern. Our federal Constitution with the Bill of Rights is our protection. History shows that when individual states assumed the role of protecting those rights, many failed miserably.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:24 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:My contention is...

Herein lies the problem.

I never asked what your contention was.
I am trying to figure out what Ron Paul's contentions are.
You mistakenly thought I was responding to your position, but I was responding to Ron Paul's position, as stated by you.

You're the one who has veered this discussion into one about abortion rights. All I said was if Ron Paul believes fetuses should be granted full rights, then he must also think already-born children should be granted the same rights. You've since amended your statement about Paul's position, which clarifies things a little for me. But I still want to know where Paul draws the line on "individual rights". Your opinion on the subject, if you'll forgive me, is of much less interest to me. Unless you're running for President, of course.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:31 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:My contention is...

Herein lies the problem.
I'm not talking about Ron Paul's positions necessarily, just pointing out that your analogies are poor. I didn't steer the conversation toward abortion, although I took that bait when things were pointed that way (by rrnate). I don't have exclusive access to what Ron Paul thinks, I'm just trying to interpret what I observe Ron Paul saying and doing and stitch it into something coherent.

Do you actually care what Ron Paul's opinion is on these issues? If so, I'm pleasantly surprised. My impression is that most forons see the Paul candidacy as nothing more than a ideological punching bag.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:41 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:I think the point is to stop Democratic voting, not specifically voting by racial minorities (because they are racial minorities).

That's not what the Justice Department said when they invoked the Voter Rights Act.
Some additional info would be nice - got any links? There's a difference between a law that has disparate racial impacts and one that is motivated by the desire to cause or deepen disparate racial impacts (e.g. racism).

The Voting Rights Act doesn't make that fine distinction. Jim Crow was justified by the former Confederate states based on such subtlety.

Here are your links:
Justice Department bars Texas voter ID law
DOJ Blocks South Carolina Voter ID Law
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:51 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:...your analogies are poor.

They are certainly poor analogies now that you've moved the goal post from "right to choose" to "right to life".

So which rights does Ron Paul hold as fundamental and which rights are acceptable for government to curtail?
Because unless you don't consider the right to participate in government as fundamental, people under a certain age are most definitely having their rights curtailed. I don't have a problem with that, but I would assume Ron Paul does. So where does he draw the line and why?

Personally, I believe participation in government is a fundamental right, but only for adults. I strongly disagree with restrictions on voting (I've never found convincing the arguments which keep felons from voting, for example) but I also strongly disagree with the notion that children and adults should be treated equally. What distinction Paul makes, if any -- and where he draws the line if he does make one -- is what I'm trying to get at here.

ArturoBandini wrote:Do you actually care what Ron Paul's opinion is on these issues?
Damn right I do. I have enough in common with Libertarian views to wish they could play more of a role in politics. But I think Fundamentalists of any stripe are pretty nutty, and I see much of the same mindset in some Libertarian positions, so I'm trying to piece together where those who make it to the national stage actually stand. Because "Everybody, everywhere should have exactly the same rights" seems to me as much a Fundamentalist view as "The Bible is always correct" and I'd like to find out how far (if at all) Paul deviates from this extreme.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:19 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Personally, I believe participation in government is a fundamental right, but only for adults.
You keep using that word, "fundamental", but I'm not sure you know what it means. 8) We'll be going in circles on this, so I'm OK with tolerating disagreement on this point. I'm not purposefully advocating child voting or car-driving, but I don't know where to draw the line on human rights with conditions based on age either, if a line is to be drawn at all.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:I strongly disagree with restrictions on voting (I've never found convincing the arguments which keep felons from voting, for example) but I also strongly disagree with the notion that children and adults should be treated equally. What distinction Paul makes, if any -- and where he draws the line if he does make one -- is what I'm trying to get at here.
I don't really know what Paul thinks about this issue, but I have no evidence to suggest that Paul wants to push legislation that allows for children to vote, run for Congress, or drive cars.

Felons should absolutely be allowed to vote. The practical definition of a felony is a product of the political system, which is not a perfect arbiter of morality or justice. My position on this matter is not derived from a belief that voting is a fundamental right, but rather that democracies will work best in practice when everyone, including those marked as criminal, gets to participate.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:56 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:Felons should absolutely be allowed to vote. The practical definition of a felony is a product of the political system, which is not a perfect arbiter of morality or justice.

Actually, it's based on the Fourteenth Amendment (Section Two).

The Constitution gives states control over elections (as long as they don't violate other constitutional protections). I thought you believed in state's rights.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:00 pm

My statement applies without reference to any specific country, state, political jurisdiction, or legislative history thereof.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:13 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Personally, I believe participation in government is a fundamental right, but only for adults.
You keep using that word, "fundamental", but I'm not sure you know what it means. 8)
To be clear, I mean that voting is a fundamental right of being a citizen of the United States, not that Nature has endowed us with such.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Dave on Ron Paul

Postby doppel » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:13 pm

Just bringing it back around to Dave on Paul. Citizen Dave makes a better "journalist" than a mayor. And he's a shit journalist. If you're voting in the Republican primary, Ron Paul is the pick of the litter. Symbolic votes matter in primaries.
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Previous

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar