Someone should ask Rand Paul (R-BF Nowhere) about whether the US should have faught the Civil War

[Taverner]

His dad has been known to say we shouldn't have faught it, since by freeing the slaves we were violating property rights (really Ron? People as property?)

I'm sure he has no disagreements

[redqueen]

1. Someone should ask him about abortion.

See how consistently libertarian he really is, since that's apparently a good thing. :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. He's a "Libertarian" unless you have a uterus.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.

It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions.

In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

[MicaelS]

12. The Non-Aggression Principle

He is actually internally consistent with some Libertarian thought, specifically, the Anarcho-capitalist school of Libertarianism.

It holds that "aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense.

Libertarians typically believe that the non-aggression principle includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, vandalism, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation, the military draft, and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Libertariansd like Paul believe abortion is the ultimate violation of the non-aggression principle. I don't agree with their interpretation at all, I think it is crackpot interpretation. BUT, they do believe it is an concept that is INTERNALLY consistent to their belief system.

[still_one]

2. His dad DID say we should not have fought it. States rights were more important to him than

enslavement of people

and indefensible position, unless you are a racist

[charlesg]

3. and whether your voting right should be based on net worth

corporate or personal

[stray cat]

4. Independent of slavery - I suspect he would see it as the right of people to choose their gov

there is a reason some call the civil war the war of northern aggression.

[Winterblues]

6. Which people? White people ONLY as Slaves had no vote and neither did women.

:shrug:

[harun]

9. At the start of the war the North has slaves and women couldn't vote

there either.

[Winterblues]

10. That is not true at all

The North had outlawed slavery years before the war started. In fact the main escalation was whether new states out west would be allowed slavery or not. Kansas being one of the Major sparks..You are correct about women not being allowed to vote anywhere in the USA at that time which brings us back to my original question. Which people would decide what "rights" states would have...

[harun]

13. Might have been illegal but it was going on still big time. Watched a documentary

on it the other day. Even interviewed a girl who was a descendant of one of the biggest slave traders around. There family lived in CT. Said they had special deals with the local politicians so as not to affect them.

Big reason the North was so vocal about the outlaw was to pull in support from the Europeans. Europeans were disgusted with the practice of slavery and didn't mind helping take the U.S.'s economic engine down a notch. So Europeans (don't remember which countries), helped out the North in the war.

Anyway, I use to think it was purely about slavery as well until I moved to the East Coast and started learning a bit more of the details. Some Southerners are taught that it wasn't about slavery at all, which is pure feel good BS. But to say it was the whole reason for the war that was not accurate either.

So I think your question is who decides what rights people in each state has? That of course would be the wealthy land owners. Which has been the problem from the beginning. We are a Republic of representatives. Usually the rich elite are the representatives. So they tend towards picking the rights that continue to make them more rich.

[Taverner]

7. Yes, and those people are wrong

I consider it the war of Southern Treason.

Fuck that terrorist Robert E Lee

[JVS]

11. Fuck Robert E Lee! That no good treasonous piece of shit!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. "some"

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

14. Kicking for the parenthetical reference alone.

:rofl: