Walter Block: Cheered at Paul Festival, booed at official Ron Paul rally

[MelissaWV]

2) If a fetus can be removed and live, it must be given a chance at life.

Who pays?

* * *

I don't really think this was the place, either. This was not a forum to discuss every idea anyone ever had. This was essentially Ron Paul's retirement party. I don't think discussing the removal of fetuses from wombs and giving them a chance to live (on our dime, most likely) or die (a slow death... how humane) was really the way to go.

And yes, King_Nothing, Ron Paul has been a part of the GOP for quite some time. RNC delegates were there. People registered with the GOP. They may not be the cliche Republicans, but they were also not the couple of thousand people who showed up to a LP event earlier. Booing is generally classless to me, but so is that kind of lecture.

 

[Revolution9]

Ever been to a children's hospital? You'll likely find some kids there hooked up to machines to be kept alive from the day they were born. (all kinds of weird genetic diseases and such out there) The sort of evictionism mentioned in this thread isn't exactly rationalism IMO.

It's rationalized. Totally bogus but none the less rationalized. Walter Block is an asswipe for using that venue for this Borg BS. Flipping your legs in the air can lead to accidents. Accidents cause people. Don't want to cause people don't flip your legs in the air where an accident is likely to occur. Then the crash victim become the issue of the original "accident". Not very fair for a "system" trying to sound fair in it's killing floor approach.

Rev9

 

[cjm]

I meant the rights that libertarians generally agree upon for individuals. natural rights, property rights.

the definition of an individual is the question we are addressing.

Libertarians don't generally agree. That's the problem. Some use first heartbeat, some use brain activity, some use arbitrary dates (first trimester, second trimester), some use conception, etc.

The "definition of an individual" question is what I was answering. Some people define human life to begin at the first heartbeat, prior to that it's just a growing thing that is not human and just part of a woman's body. Some people use brain activity to mark the beginning of human life where it has rights, etc. Everyone agrees on the right to life, they disagree on when human life actually begins and when those rights need to be protected. We all agree that it's somewhere between conception and snipping the umbilical cord, but there are many different markers that people use.

 

[king_nothing_]

And yes, King_Nothing, Ron Paul has been a part of the GOP for quite some time. RNC delegates were there. People registered with the GOP. They may not be the cliche Republicans, but they were also not the couple of thousand people who showed up to a LP event earlier. Booing is generally classless to me, but so is that kind of lecture.

I'm sorry, but to call a Ron Paul rally a Republican function is the dumbest thing I've heard so far today. It was a Ron Paul function. It was a liberty movement function. Its purpose was to celebrate a man and to celebrate a philosophy (not Republican Partyism). The fact that he is a Republican does not make it a Republican function.

I'm not even addressing whether or not Block's speech was appropriate. I'm just responding to a statement which I find so profoundly absurd that I can't help but respond to it.

 

[cjm]

Who pays?

If a child has a natural birth and no one wants to adopt it, who pays?

 

[jmdrake]

Who pays?

The same people who pay for post natal adoptions.

I don't really think this was the place, either. This was not a forum to discuss every idea anyone ever had. This was essentially Ron Paul's retirement party. I don't think discussing the removal of fetuses from wombs and giving them a chance to live (on our dime, most likely) or die (a slow death... how humane) was really the way to go.

And yes, King_Nothing, Ron Paul has been a part of the GOP for quite some time. RNC delegates were there. People registered with the GOP. They may not be the cliche Republicans, but they were also not the couple of thousand people who showed up to a LP event earlier. Booing is generally classless to me, but so is that kind of lecture.

Then the campaign shouldn't have used donation money for it. Seriously, that money should go towards advancing the cause of liberty and advancing the cause of liberty requires at some point coming to answers for some of the thorny questions that trip the movement up, and abortion is one of them. Right now the two biggest objections to Gary Johnson are his "humanitarian interventionism" and his position on abortion. There is a reason why major parties have such long drawn out discussions about "platforms". Also the fact that RNC delegates were there is irrelevant to whether or not abortion can be discussed. After all it's discussed at the RNC. And there was differences of opinion at the RNC. In fact the Tennessee delegation made the front page of the local newspapers because they couldn't agree on abortion. The idea that a pro liberty gathering can't discuss things that members of the RNC disagree on because people from the RNC were in attendance is unconscionable.

 

[cjm]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

 

[phill4paul]

There are approximately 150,000 adoption per year in America. There is over 1 million abortions. 1 million - 150k still leaves 850,000 children that must be raised by the state.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

This is the ASS HAT that had to talk about abortion at a F-ing "We are the Future" rally about Ron Paul. I was there, his delivery sucked, his tone sucked, his topic sucked. Who in their right mind brings up probably the most dividing topic at a pep/feel good rally?

Ron is pro-life as are many Republicans not only did he deserve to be booed by 50% he deserved to be booed by more. His 5-10% is way off or atleast was from my vantage point. Everyone around me was shaking their heads in disgust.

His topic could very well have been a great topic to discuss in a small room setting with 100% libertarian support. I however, found it very inappropriate to give with a candidate that is prolife esspecially when it is kind of a going away type party.

Now he has the adacity to come on the internet and bitch. F him.

Maybe it is time some people's brains were jostled out of their "pep rally/feel good" stupor into thinking, for once.

What exactly was this crowd being "pepped" for, anyway?

Why should anyone feel good right now?

 

[newbitech]

surprised he is making a big deal about this. He knew he was opening up a can of worms even among like minded people. It wasn't like he was drowned out by any booing and in fact I am pretty sure it was one kind that he kind of expected to boo and he immediately picked him out and addressed him directly. He was ready to make a larger point about intellectualism and oh by the way, i have this idea about an extremely controversial subject.

All that being said, I appreciate the way he has reasoned out his position and sharing it with people and taking a chance that it might not go over well. The thought process applied to every single issue should yield great results. I wouldn't focus so much on the divisive issue he brought up, but the fact that he was comfortable enough to challenge both sides and provide a compromise.

By the way, the biggest thing that got booed was when he talked about compromise. But, his larger point was well received. Principled compromise. Now i wish he'd stop complaining like his feelings got hurt or that the event wasn't a chance for him to come out in the first 30 seconds and purposefully and arrogantly promote his book. He had a profitable time there, and if all he suffered were a few boos, well boo hoo walter block.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm sorry, but to call a Ron Paul rally a Republican function is the dumbest thing I've heard so far today. It was a Ron Paul function. It was a liberty movement function. Its purpose was to celebrate a man and to celebrate a philosophy (not Republican Partyism). The fact that he is a Republican does not make it a Republican function.

I'm not even addressing whether or not Block's speech was appropriate. I'm just responding to a statement which I find so profoundly absurd that I can't help but respond to it.

It's almost as dumb as calling it a Libertarian function, isn't it

I see what I did there...

 

[MelissaWV]

The same people who pay for post natal adoptions.

... The idea that a pro liberty gathering can't discuss things that members of the RNC disagree on because people from the RNC were in attendance is unconscionable.

You mean the idea that it's inappropriate to bring up a "thorny" issue like abortion at Ron's retirement party strikes you as wrong? The biggest objection in this thread is that it stifles discussion. No, you're free to have discussions. Heck maybe Ron even wanted this talked about. I still find it really awkward conversation at this particular event.

As for your eye-rolling, I don't think you've thought it through. The average "post-natal adoption" is not of a premature birth with multiple health issues, who has been kept alive for months and monitored almost constantly by expensive machines. Most people looking to adopt a baby will pay for medical bills associated with the pregnancy and birth. They will not be providing the mother with toilet paper, cable, internet, a cell phone, etc.. Instead of simply providing a little bit of financial support, you are assuming someone will want to pay for those regular medical bills... AND the months of pediatric ICU care that most of these children will need, even assuming a marked improvement in the process... AND that they will foot all of this extra bill for a child that is much more likely to suffer health problems.

Somehow it doesn't strike me as all that realistic.

 

[king_nothing_]

It's almost as dumb as calling it a Libertarian function, isn't it

I see what I did there...

Point me to the post where someone called it a Libertarian function.

 

[jmdrake]

You mean the idea that it's inappropriate to bring up a "thorny" issue like abortion at Ron's retirement party strikes you as wrong? The biggest objection in this thread is that it stifles discussion. No, you're free to have discussions. Heck maybe Ron even wanted this talked about. I still find it really awkward conversation at this particular event.

The idea of using campaign donations to throw a big "retirement party" strikes me as wrong. That wasn't what the funds were for. The funds were for advancing liberty. And part of advancing liberty is working through thorny issues.

As for your eye-rolling, I don't think you've thought it through. The average "post-natal adoption" is not of a premature birth with multiple health issues, who has been kept alive for months and monitored almost constantly by expensive machines. Most people looking to adopt a baby will pay for medical bills associated with the pregnancy and birth. They will not be providing the mother with toilet paper, cable, internet, a cell phone, etc.. Instead of simply providing a little bit of financial support, you are assuming someone will want to pay for those regular medical bills... AND the months of pediatric ICU care that most of these children will need, even assuming a marked improvement in the process... AND that they will foot all of this extra bill for a child that is much more likely to suffer health problems.

Admittedly I haven't thought it all the way through, but I feel, from reading what you wrote, that I've certainly thought it through further than you have. For one thing the womb transfer procedure I linked to earlier in the thread that could work for early pregnancy would probably be cheaper than the average adoption. For another, why are you even talking about silly things like toilet paper and internet? That doesn't even fit into the equation. As technology improves neonatal care will be cheaper. If the free market is allowed to work it might cause the caused to go down sooner rather than later. Not even talking about something because you think that people who already spend a lot of money and travel to the other side of the world to adopt might not spend a little more is to me unrealistic.

Somehow it doesn't strike me as all that realistic.

It's a lot more realistic than interstellar space travel. That doesn't prevent serious research and discussion into interstellar space travel. The idea has merit. It's worth discussing. And bringing people together to talk through thorny issues to me seems like a better use of my donation dollar than just having a "Grand Old retirement Party" where we pretend we all agree on everything and squelch dissent worse than the RNC.

 

[Lucille]

A fan of Block on reason said the guy was trolling before the internet was even invented. Something like that. LOL...

 

[MelissaWV]

The idea of using campaign donations to throw a big "retirement party" strikes me as wrong. That wasn't what the funds were for. The funds were for advancing liberty. And part of advancing liberty is working through thorny issues.



Admittedly I haven't thought it all the way through, but I feel, from reading what you wrote, that I've certainly thought it through further than you have. For one thing the womb transfer procedure I linked to earlier in the thread that could work for early pregnancy would probably be cheaper than the average adoption. For another, why are you even talking about silly things like toilet paper and internet? That doesn't even fit into the equation. As technology improves neonatal care will be cheaper. If the free market is allowed to work it might cause the caused to go down sooner rather than later. Not even talking about something because you think that people who already spend a lot of money and travel to the other side of the world to adopt might not spend a little more is to me unrealistic.



It's a lot more realistic than interstellar space travel. That doesn't prevent serious research and discussion into interstellar space travel. The idea has merit. It's worth discussing. And bringing people together to talk through thorny issues to me seems like a better use of my donation dollar than just having a "Grand Old retirement Party" where we pretend we all agree on everything and squelch dissent worse than the RNC.

I asked who would pay, and you rolled your eyes and said the same folks that pay for adoptions now. That is not CURRENTLY FEASIBLE, and not even close to being so. There will not be a "taker" for each and every child who is unwanted by the mother. If you really think that natural childbirth and a mother giving her child up is somehow monetarily equivalent to providing everything a baby needs to survive outside of the womb for months, in addition to the care for the mother, it really does not add up. It shows that your original answer was not really well thought out.

We don't have to agree on everything at all, but I sometimes forget that I am on RPFs. If I suggested that discussing the finer points of poop boxes, semen being good for women, "evicted" babies, or copulating with farm animals... might not be pleasant dinner conversation, I would be called some kind of nazi.

And bringing people together to talk through thorny issues

Then it would not have been a bunch of speakers and no questions from the audience, no?

Point me to the post where someone called it a Libertarian function.

Sorry. It appears it was just a function of libertarians from the libertarian movement for the libertarian Ron Paul, with mentions of the libertarians like Gary Johnson. He never capitalizes. I read the entire thing and I don't think that's much more than an oversight, but you are quite excited by the lowercase "L" so I'll just leave it all at that. He couldn't actually possibly mean Libertarians. No sir.

Not even talking about something because you think that people who already spend a lot of money and travel to the other side of the world to adopt might not spend a little more is to me unrealistic.

They don't usually travel to the other side of the world to adopt a baby who spends the first months of its life in an incubator, with the prospective parents wondering every day whether it's going to live or die or ever speak or hear or breathe deeply or walk properly or live past its single-digit years.

 

[jmdrake]

I asked who would pay, and you rolled your eyes and said the same folks that pay for adoptions now. That is not CURRENTLY FEASIBLE, and not even close to being so. There will not be a "taker" for each and every child who is unwanted by the mother. If you really think that natural childbirth and a mother giving her child up is somehow monetarily equivalent to providing everything a baby needs to survive outside of the womb for months, in addition to the care for the mother, it really does not add up. It shows that your original answer was not really well thought out.

And so the answer is just kill them all? I think your rebuttal isn't all thought out. It's the old "let the perfect be the enemy the good" problem.

Also you continue to just flatly ignore the point I raised that sometimes, under current technology, the approach I pointed out is actually cheaper. If you want to add to the discussion, add to it. But that doesn't seem to be your intention. That's fine. But I don't think it's fair to hide behind a cloak of "I thought this through and you didn't" when you ignore counter points to your argument.

We don't have to agree on everything at all, but I sometimes forget that I am on RPFs. If I suggested that discussing the finer points of poop boxes, semen being good for women, "evicted" babies, or copulating with farm animals... might not be pleasant dinner conversation, I would be called some kind of nazi.

I said early on that Walker Block didn't use the best phrase so I don't know why you insist on applying wording that I said I disagreed with to me. Let me know when you're done burning the straw man.

Then it would not have been a bunch of speakers and no questions from the audience, no?

Let's see. At the RNC they have speakers and they also have times to hash out platform planks. I don't know why you think the liberty movement is less capable of dealing with different ideas than the RNC.

Edit: And I see when you quoted me here you left out the most important point I was making.

The idea of using campaign donations to throw a big "retirement party" strikes me as wrong. That wasn't what the funds were for. The funds were for advancing liberty. And part of advancing liberty is working through thorny issues.

Again, the donations that were given were given in the hopes of moving the ball of liberty forward. I think honoring Ron Paul is great. I think laying the groundwork for going forward in the future is better. You may disagree and that's fine. We can agree to disagree. But I have a good reason for my position (not saying that you don't). This "bruhaha" helped me move a step closer to agreement to people I have had strong disagreement with in the liberty movement. For me, achieving that bit of ground is more important than not offending the sensibilities of RNC types who weren't far enough along the liberty path to understand what Mr. Block was saying. Granted I think he could have certainly said it better and achieved the same thing without offending anyone.

 

[awake]

Wrong talk for the audience combined with an idea people are not ready for.

 

[WarAnonymous]

People were mad that he kept talking about abortion for OVER his alotted 15 minutes. I don't think anyone went to the Rally to hear about abortion. Our country is facing bigger problems right now and were sitting around talking about abortions for 25 minutes.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why would Ron Paul be opposed to prenatal adoption? Assuming that it's technologically feasible with minimal harm to mother and fetus, I don't see why it's any worse than the current "wait until the baby is born and then put it up for adoption" option and it's certainly better than the "kill the intruder and remove it" option. I think the terminology sounds offensive, but the idea sounds pretty good to me.

Edit: And admittedly this is the first time I finally got the idea. It's kind of like how I finally understood that the "gay marriage" problem could be solved by disentangling the government from marriage.

Repped your first post in the thread, can't rep this one.