Michigan Senate Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill

[hulugu]

Ron Paul is certainly a member of the Libertarian Party and considers himself a Libertarian, however, this doesn't speak for the body politic. In fact, in this recent election the Libertarian Party put up Gary Johnson as their candidate over Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican candidate.

Johnson was fairly clear about gay rights, saying for instance: "Government exists to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights – not to pick and choose among those Americans who should have those rights. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is government-sanctioned discrimination."

However, many people who present themselves as Libertarians have argued that states should be allowed to discriminate and that homosexuals should move to better pastures.

This tells us that the Libertarian philosophy is in flux among its members between the old guard and the young turks who voted for Johnson. And, moreover, this could become stronger over time.

Ultimately, this schism must be addressed, but Libertarians can maintain differing views, just as Republicans and Democrats do.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Ron Paul is certainly a member of the Libertarian Party and considers himself a Libertarian, however, this doesn't speak for the body politic. In fact, in this recent election the Libertarian Party put up Gary Johnson as their candidate over Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican candidate.

Johnson was fairly clear about gay rights, saying for instance: "Government exists to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights – not to pick and choose among those Americans who should have those rights. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is government-sanctioned discrimination."

However, many people who present themselves as Libertarians have argued that states should be allowed to discriminate and that homosexuals should move to better pastures.

This tells us that the Libertarian philosophy is in flux among its members between the old guard and the young turks who voted for Johnson. And, moreover, this could become stronger over time.

Ultimately, this schism must be addressed, but Libertarians can maintain differing views, just as Republicans and Democrats do.

Which was precisely my point earlier.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

The quit being disingenuous in the first place. Mr Paul considers himself a Libertarian. I am not to the one to argue with, he is.

Hey, I'll have an adult conversation when you start acknowledging reality.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...libertarianism

And, looks like a lot of people consider Paul to be a Libertarian:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Improper use of the word disingenuous.

Holding some libertarian views doesn't make you a libertarian. He's a republican. He is a statist.

It doesn't matter at all, anyway because even if Ron Paul was a libertarian, he isn't some magical standard bearer of libertarianism whom we look to.

If you want to willfully be ignorant and focus a discussion on libertarianism, which doesn't give a damn who you marry by definition, on Ron Paul saying "leave it to the states" instead of acknowledging the actual general point of view of a political philosophy than that's your problem and you can continue to rail against those who support equal rights.

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

Which was precisely my point earlier.

But the point was an incorrect one, because you can't be a libertarian and not support equal rights.

Even if a libertarian presented the. "Love it or leave it fallacy", that stance is a non libertarian one because by definition it supports unprovoked aggression toward others and a denial of equal rights.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

Improper use of the word disingenuous.

Holding some libertarian views doesn't make you a libertarian. He's a republican. He is a statist.

It doesn't matter at all, anyway because even if Ron Paul was a libertarian, he isn't some magical standard bearer of libertarianism whom we look to.

If you want to willfully be ignorant and focus a discussion on libertarianism, which doesn't give a damn who you marry by definition, on Ron Paul saying "leave it to the states" instead of acknowledging the actual general point of view of a political philosophy than that's your problem and you can continue to rail against those who support equal rights.

----------

One more time, see the post above.

Originally Posted by eric/

But the point was an incorrect one, because you can't be a libertarian and not support equal rights.

Even if a libertarian presented the. "Love it or leave it fallacy", that stance is a non libertarian one because by definition it supports unprovoked aggression toward others and a denial of equal rights.

Lots of people- Democrat, Republican AND Libertarian do not support equal rights. You don't get to decide what people are and are not.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Mr Paul considers himself a Libertarian. I am not to the one to argue with, he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...libertarianism

And, looks like a lot of people consider Paul to be a Libertarian:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Originally Posted by hulugu

Ron Paul is certainly a member of the Libertarian Party and considers himself a Libertarian, however, this doesn't speak for the body politic. In fact, in this recent election the Libertarian Party put up Gary Johnson as their candidate over Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican candidate.

Johnson was fairly clear about gay rights, saying for instance: "Government exists to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights – not to pick and choose among those Americans who should have those rights. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is government-sanctioned discrimination."

However, many people who present themselves as Libertarians have argued that states should be allowed to discriminate and that homosexuals should move to better pastures.

This tells us that the Libertarian philosophy is in flux among its members between the old guard and the young turks who voted for Johnson. And, moreover, this could become stronger over time.

Ultimately, this schism must be addressed, but Libertarians can maintain differing views, just as Republicans and Democrats do.

Since I'm not a Libertarian, you might well wonder why I care. But, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian in the sense that many younger people understand it. I don't think there is any question that Gary Johnson is a "real" Libertarian who doesn't think that it is OK for the individual states to violate people's rights.

I fail to understand why some young Libertarians idolize Ron Paul. They might as well idolize Jefferson Davis. Gary Johnson is pretty consistent for a politician and pretty pragmatic for a Libertarian. And, he actually espouses Libertarian ideas with respect to personal freedom. I disagree with him on many issues, but, at least I think I know where he is coming from.

[AhmedFaisal]

It's also discrimination against women, disabled people etc. etc. because it also allows them to deny any procedure for religious reasons.

So it covers birth control, abortions etc. etc.

It also would be a problem for the general population because any procedure could be denied.

So for example blood transfusions, cancer ops, skin grafts whatever a doctor could find some kind of reason to object to.

I highly doubt this would pass the constitutionality test especially because it also doesn't include a provision that they have to refer to a physician that does provide the procedure.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Lots of people- Democrat, Republican AND Libertarian do not support equal rights.

Well an actual libertarian that doesn't support equal rights doesn't exist, because it's contradictory to the philosophy.

Originally Posted by leekohler

You don't get to decide what people are and are not.

I haven't decided anything.

But keep on hating people who want to help you.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Since I'm not a Libertarian, you might well wonder why I care. But, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian in the sense that many younger people understand it. I don't think there is any question that Gary Johnson is a "real" Libertarian who doesn't think that it is OK for the individual states to violate people's rights.

I fail to understand why some young Libertarians idolize Ron Paul. They might as well idolize Jefferson Davis. Gary Johnson is pretty consistent for a politician and pretty pragmatic for a Libertarian. And, he actually espouses Libertarian ideas with respect to personal freedom. I disagree with him on many issues, but, at least I think I know where he is coming from.

I agree. I'm not a Libertarian either and I think Ron Paul's gotten too much credit for being a Libertarian when he's actually a Republican with a grudge for the Fed and an occasionally self-serving read on the Constitution.

Originally Posted by eric/

Well an actual libertarian that doesn't support equal rights doesn't exist, because it's contradictory to the philosophy...

There's a tendency to make a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. Ultimately, the Libertarian party will rise or hang by standard-bearers, so the party must be willing to put forth more men (and women) like Gary Johnson and push away people like Ron Paul. The Green Party has the same problem, though it's philosophical underpinnings are still in flux.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by hulugu

There's a tendency to make a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. Ultimately, the Libertarian party will rise or hang by standard-bearers, so the party must be willing to put forth more men (and women) like Gary Johnson and push away people like Ron Paul. The Green Party has the same problem, though it's philosophical underpinnings are still in flux.

Libertarian party =/= libertarianism.

In fact, I believe that the libertarian party is more along the lines of old school small government republicanism than libertarianism.

But it's not a NTS because it's directly contradictory to the philosophy.