Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Alright, two things..

(1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point...

(2) "His religious agenda" he's made it clear he doesn't have a agenda, he's not going to push any religious agenda because he seems (at least) to support the constitution. This means that,

(2a) Rand seems to support the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court all being separate. Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc.

(2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded.

It's actually pretty awesome if you ask me, we can work together to defend our country, but live the way we want.

That is the American dream.

> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc.

The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that.

The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.

It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.

I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others.

On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him."

Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.

Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.

Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche...

My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."

I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.

"I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967...

"Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche...

According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.

In other words he told positions which conveniently would be enforced by not interfering with the status quo. Why is state government the only acceptable level of government interference in citizens private lives?

That way government more closely follows the will of the people when people have geographically non-uniform distribution of what they want in government. For example, if 60% of Maryland wants children to be banned from playing outside while 40% of Pennsylvania does, it more closely matches the will of the people if Maryland bans it and Pennsylvania doesn't, instead of having the feds ban it or ban states from banning it. Not that "will of the people" democratic mysticism is a good justification for anything.

Ah, so tyranny of the majority all round then?

I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state.

Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair.

Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).

> Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious

Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").

you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)

>government has no business in marriage

I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.

> Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished?

Yes. (I am married)

> How do you propose to handle Estate planning?

Contract law. Before you get married, sign a contract that outlines everything.

> Health and other insurance benefits?

Nothing to do with government or at least, should have nothing to do with government. The insurance companies can structure it however they want.

> Managing the custody of children of divorce?

Contract law. See above. Marriage at its heart is a business arrangement. You share resources and work for a common purpose. It's almost like you're starting a company with a partner.

Would you start a business without signing a contract that didn't outline not only how the arrangement would function, but what would happen if it were to come to an end? Of course you wouldn't.

> How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage?

It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.

In other words, if need be, one party can take another to court over the breach of a contract.

The issue today is that the government defines that contract. It specifies who the contract can be between (a man and a woman), specifies what happens when that contract ends, what benefits accrue, it essentially controls everything about that contract ... why not let the people choose what form they want their marriage to take? Why force everyone into the same universal contract that in the end doesn't really fit anyone properly because it's so unbelievably general?

> Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage

Unfortunately.

> the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.

Resource sharing is by far the greatest benefit and it has nothing to do with the government. Yes, tax benefits and such stem directly from the government ... but that's about it.

> Would you start a business without signing a contract that didn't outline not only how the arrangement would function, but what would happen if it were to come to an end?

Lots of people do without a lot of specific detail on that, because they take advantage of government-created standard business forms that, in addition to providing special advantages not available through contract alone, also provide well-tested default handling of common situations, including dissolution.

Much like marriage.

> It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.

But, if you want to compare marriage to a business arrangement, you should also be aware that government doesn't just manage business arrangements through general contract law, it defines a whole bunch of special standard forms for business entities which people form (various classes of corporations, LPs, LLPs, LLLPs, LLCs, heck, even general partnerships have a separate body of law from general contract law.)

So, the only way marriage is different is that government hasn't provided a whole bunch of different special forms for couples with different priorities and goals.

> um, okay: government has no business in marriage.

That's not argument against same-sex marriage; it's against all government-recognized marriage, even opposite-sex marriage.

It's funny how people come out against "marriage" only when teh gays become interested in it.

I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems.

The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.

"The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems"

I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?

No, just highly educated. I meant that he is less likely to use religion to define his beliefs. He is a critical thinker and a smart guy, so he surely recognizes the contradictions and problems with religion. He can call himself a Christian, like many secular people do, but he is not religious like Santorum or Huckabee. Rand and his father rarely talk about it.

And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.

Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat...

The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.

Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states.

However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well.

(I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)

Ron Paul tried to effectively reverse that, three times, by introducing legislation that prohibited the Supreme Court and any other Federal court from hearing cases involving it and the laws, policies, or regulations of any state.

That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction.

Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/

The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.

Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.

Power vacuums are always filled. Prior to the 14th amendment; the states filled the power vacuum of 'police power & moral standards' which was intentionally denied the Fed. With the 14th amendment; the power to establish 'moral standards' was taken from the states; and filled by the Supreme Caliphate. If the Supreme Caliphate applies the moral standards of Congress to moral issues like abortion and marriage it is 'problematically' over-riding the Establishment Clause. If it applies solely its own 'moral standards'; then the Supreme Caliphate is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Language usually gives lip service to latter path.

"I understand that you disagree with everything my candidate has ever voted on or stated he believes, but he is still a good candidate for your vote because as President he won't do anything."

Please don't use the term "American Dream" from now on. I'm not trying to be mean/sarcastic, but that term is too... it's dead. It's dead of any real meaning, and it makes candidates and their supporters sound like parodies of themselves.

That's the American dream if you were born into the means of achieving the American dream.

Libertarians seem to universally believe that everyone is just born with wealth, or that if you bootstraps hard enough, you are just bound to trip over wealth.

That strawman is just about the same as saying, 'liberals seem to universally believe that nobody could be incompetent and every personal outcome is controlled by everyone else instead of personal decisions.'

Close, but more something like:

"Liberals seem to universally believe that the status you are born into will probably be the status you stay in your entire life."

The important distinction here is that competence isn't a factor and that the above statement is true in every measurable way.

It might be true that some people hold the belief but the belief is not true in "every measurable way". Otherwise you would never have stories of poor people becoming rich.

> (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded.

Ugh. This is the kind of elitist self-righteous perspective that keeps me from wanting to have anything to do with the far right. "Just move to a different state"?! You probably have the means to do so. MOST people do not. Even you are probably unlikely to say, oh, I think this state sucks, I'm going to pick-up and leave tomorrow.

People have families, jobs (and new jobs to get), kids, commitments, ailing parents, etc. Get off your high horse and stop thinking the rest of the world is just like you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com