Deal-Breaker – Why Ron Paul Can’t Run as a Libertarian

April 27, 2012

As it’s become clear that he cannot win the Republican nomination, and no matter what his supporters may speculate, Ron Paul cannot run as a Libertarian.  There is a deal-breaker – a long-standing position on a key social issue – that will bar Dr. Paul from even considering a Libertarian Party nomination.

I realized this after I took a look at the Libertarian Party (with no reference to Dr. Paul).

I was recently asked, because of my strong stance on civil liberties and a limited, constitutional government, to join the Libertarian Party.  So I decided to take a look at the Libertarian Party and its positions on issues that matter to me.  Like many conservatives, I have problems with the party’s positions on drug and prostitution – I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights to legalize drugs or prostitution (drugs weren’t a problem in the 1780s, but prostitution isn’t called the “oldest profession” for nothing).  But I might be persuaded that these two issues are sidelines, and not really important.  However, I cannot ignore an issue that is a “deal killer” for me, for my wife, and for millions of others.

The Libertarian Party is philosophically pro-choice – and this violates there otherwise rational view about individual rights, because it plays word-games and refuses to recognize that even if you call it a viable fetus, that doesn’t change the fact that it is also an unborn child – and a child is a person.

In 2008, the party’s platform said: “Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.  Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”  In 2000, the platform said the same thing, but a bit more long-winded.  So this is a platform position that the Libertarian Party has sustained over time.

This position violates one of the basic tenets of liberty (and, logic would suggest, of the Libertarian Party – but apparently logic and consistent principle doesn’t apply here).  Specifically, your freedom to throw a punch stops at someone else’s nose.  Specifically – you can do whatever you want, as long as you don’t hurt someone else, or deny them the right to also do whatever they want (without hurting anyone else).  While different people may argue in good faith that a fetus is alive at conception, while some maintain that it is alive at viability, and some others say it isn’t alive until birth – but no-one can deny that a fetus is an unborn child, and that a child is a person.

Women who advocate for the right to control what happens in their bodies (and the Libertarians who support this position) miss the key, undeniable point that an abortion denies another person – or person-in-training – their own right to life.  Abortion is the ultimate “punch in the nose” to an unborn child, no matter what you call as yet unborn child.

This is a compelling, decisive reason why I cannot be a member of the Libertarian Party.

This is Why Ron Paul Can’t Run as a Libertarian

I am not a fan of Dr. Ron Paul’s, and have said so in another blog post here at Nevada Conservative, but I salute his strong pro-life position – as a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and as a doctor who has witnessed (and was horrified by) a late-term abortion – he  knows that “fetus” is just a technical term for an unborn child – and no matter what kind of sophistry you might use to play game with this concept – calling an unborn child something else doesn’t change that fact that this is indeed a child waiting to be born.

So, while I didn’t support him in the Nevada Caucus and am glad that he won’t be the Republican nominee, I praise him for this principled stance.  And because of this principled stance, and because a pro-abortion stance has been a major part of the Libertarian Party’s platform for more than a decade, there  is no way Dr. Paul could accept a Libertarian Party nomination without selling out one of his most deeply-held personal beliefs.  And, like him or hate him, I can’t see Dr. Paul abandoning his principles for 30 pieces of silver.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative



Powered by Facebook Comments

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.

Join newsletter
Please help Nevada Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!



Privacy Policy

Like Box

October 2017
« May