Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578537720921466776.html?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines
7 comments
> One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.
The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."
The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf
In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."
The obligation to whistle blow is usually an explicit part of "honor codes," such as "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."
The US military uses this honor code in various contexts, see for example US Navy's Bootcamp http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/recruits.asp and Officer Candidate Guide, US Army National Guard http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/ocs/forms/ocs_guide.pdf
In practice however, I believe authority usually interprets these honor codes as "snitch on your compatriots when they compromise authority", not "snitch on authority when they compromise your compatriots."
We tell people that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing a crime but when someone stands up and brings attention to the fact that the government itself is violating the law, they are a traitor. It's sickening.
> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.
What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out.
I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet) which might require novel solutions.
What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out.
I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet) which might require novel solutions.
People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret authority to compel intermediaries or stewards of the information to turn it over en masse.
If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information, which means that it is a search.
If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information, which means that it is a search.
Precisely. Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. I did not broadcast this information, the NSA obtained it by using state powers to secure a secret, unrestricted (in the most literal sense) warrant.
> Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot.
That's what we suppose, anyway.
Of course, we don't know whether or not rayiner has acquaintances who work for your carrier who have access to it, or perhaps law enforcement who have access to a portal that the carrier voluntarily provides.
And we don't know if the carrier has freely entered into any private agreements to sell call data to others... which they might be free to do even in the face of aggressive bans on law enforcement or national security organizations ever even breathing at carriers.
That's what we suppose, anyway.
Of course, we don't know whether or not rayiner has acquaintances who work for your carrier who have access to it, or perhaps law enforcement who have access to a portal that the carrier voluntarily provides.
And we don't know if the carrier has freely entered into any private agreements to sell call data to others... which they might be free to do even in the face of aggressive bans on law enforcement or national security organizations ever even breathing at carriers.
The 4th amendment protects your personal information, not just information that isn't public. That's a big difference. I might not be able to obtain your call metadata, but hundreds of people at Verizon have access to it. Indeed, its not even you data. They generated it.
Do you ever think the framers contemplated you being able to invoke the 4th to protect other people's letters about you?
Do you ever think the framers contemplated you being able to invoke the 4th to protect other people's letters about you?
Excellent point.
A thought experiment: the Founding Fathers specified that individuals' "papers" must be safe from casual government search. They did not say that by handing a sealed letter to a postman, I'm implicitly making it public. If someone had invented a machine to see through envelopes and read letters, they would not have approved of its warrant-less use.
Why should email or phone calls be different? Technically, the communication leaves my control. Technically, there are ways to snoop on it. But the law concerns itself not with what is possible, but what is permissible. A machine that could see through envelopes wouldn't make letters a "broadcast" medium; only the intention of the sender to make something public could do that.
Snooping on phone calls and emails without a warrant specifying which people's communications should be investigated and why is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation.
A thought experiment: the Founding Fathers specified that individuals' "papers" must be safe from casual government search. They did not say that by handing a sealed letter to a postman, I'm implicitly making it public. If someone had invented a machine to see through envelopes and read letters, they would not have approved of its warrant-less use.
Why should email or phone calls be different? Technically, the communication leaves my control. Technically, there are ways to snoop on it. But the law concerns itself not with what is possible, but what is permissible. A machine that could see through envelopes wouldn't make letters a "broadcast" medium; only the intention of the sender to make something public could do that.
Snooping on phone calls and emails without a warrant specifying which people's communications should be investigated and why is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation.
Something not being private doesn't mean its has to be public. It just means it has to be disclosed beyond your sphere of personal privacy.
Actually, the 4th doesn't protect sealed letters you hand to just anyone, only USPS carriers. And not what's written on the outside (metadata). Also, in this hypothetical you didn't write the "paper" in question. A CDR isn't your data. Its verizon's data about you.
So take away the special status of the USPS, and add in the fact that its verizon's tracking data for you, and its more like the government hitting up your local steamboat company for a list of all the shipments you sent through them. And I think that would not have required a warrant in 1810.
Actually, the 4th doesn't protect sealed letters you hand to just anyone, only USPS carriers. And not what's written on the outside (metadata). Also, in this hypothetical you didn't write the "paper" in question. A CDR isn't your data. Its verizon's data about you.
So take away the special status of the USPS, and add in the fact that its verizon's tracking data for you, and its more like the government hitting up your local steamboat company for a list of all the shipments you sent through them. And I think that would not have required a warrant in 1810.
I think you have a good point when it comes to metadata. But I'm not at all convinced that's all they're monitoring.
Snowden is quoted as saying:
>> “I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail,” he added.
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-...
The IRS reportedly thinks it has the authority to read the contents of emails, not just metadata:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-sec...
The NSA reportedly has fiber cable taps at AT&T:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619
Snowden is quoted as saying:
>> “I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail,” he added.
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-...
The IRS reportedly thinks it has the authority to read the contents of emails, not just metadata:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-sec...
The NSA reportedly has fiber cable taps at AT&T:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619
You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information. They're just someone who has your information (I.e. Your level of trust of them has no basis in any actual obligations they have with respect to your information--see facebooks ever shifting privacy policies for proof that they have no particular obligations).
Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers. It just isn't. The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it.
Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers. It just isn't. The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it.
"You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information."
They are -- you can question whether they are a good steward or not, but that is irrelevant as far as I can tell. The government didn't give them the option of keeping their users' information private.
"Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers."
You assert that, but I don't see why. Clearly they were trying to find something in all of that data -- if trying to find something is not a search, what is?
"The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it."
It doesn't matter whether they have a legal obligation to protect it or not. They weren't given an option to protect it. If I write you a letter about a new political party platform, you have no legal obligation to keep that a secret. But do you think it's reasonable for the government to come in and demand all of the letters you've ever received, and then browse through them to see if someone might be starting a radical political movement?
They are -- you can question whether they are a good steward or not, but that is irrelevant as far as I can tell. The government didn't give them the option of keeping their users' information private.
"Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers."
You assert that, but I don't see why. Clearly they were trying to find something in all of that data -- if trying to find something is not a search, what is?
"The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it."
It doesn't matter whether they have a legal obligation to protect it or not. They weren't given an option to protect it. If I write you a letter about a new political party platform, you have no legal obligation to keep that a secret. But do you think it's reasonable for the government to come in and demand all of the letters you've ever received, and then browse through them to see if someone might be starting a radical political movement?
What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around).
At some point a difference of degree becomes one of kind. At some point, "monitoring" becomes searching.
At some point a difference of degree becomes one of kind. At some point, "monitoring" becomes searching.
I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government.
The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work.
You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or whatever, it's simply that it doesn't work.
You can get away with "novel solutions" that won't work long-term for a while, but not indefinitely. Setting up this permanent monitoring infrastructure amounts to a cataclysm for our grandchildren. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think as long as Americans maintain a "zero tolerance" posture towards terrorism, this kind of security will always be justifiable, because the goal is zero events, versus accepting that some percentage "will happen."
Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
> I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government.
With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have. Not necessarily because the government will ignore any laws and collect that data anyway, but because people desensitized to privacy issues by a computer at Google scanning their e-mail just aren't going to care about a computer at the NSA doing the same.
With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have. Not necessarily because the government will ignore any laws and collect that data anyway, but because people desensitized to privacy issues by a computer at Google scanning their e-mail just aren't going to care about a computer at the NSA doing the same.
Google doesn't have anywhere near the power the government does, and people realize this well enough to not make a false equivalence between the two.
That's largely irrelevant to my point. The average person doesn't think google is going to use their information against them, which is why they allow google to engage in such invasive tracking (also, they don't realize how much google tracks). At the same time, the average person doesn't share HN's reflexive distrust of the government. Desensitized to privacy issues by google, etc's, tracking, it doesn't cause them any consternation that the government has access to that information too. They don't perceive either entity as a threat.
Congratulations Obama, Feinstein. You've got me throwing in with Rand Paul. Though I could trust you with our civil liberties and privacy, but now I have to get behind the Ayn Rand loving libertarian on this. So be it; policy over party.
I am glad to hear people start to admit that policy is more important then party. I believe that is a key step in us moving forward as we need to agree on shared principles that are universal and have a means to insure our elected officials follow through on them.
I sometimes imagine what the US political system would look if all elected positions were "nonpartisan". What if voters had to listen to what politicians were actually saying without the blinders of "Red Team" or "Blue Team"?
I imagine it being quite wonderful. Imagine further if a bill could only contain 1 law in it and it had a built in shelf life of only 10-15 years and had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%.
This is an element of a couple Sci-Fi books I can think. Laws expire every N years (N=10 in the example that comes to mind first, that of the planet Sapphire in a novel series called Worlds Apart). This keeps the governing bodies busy enough renewing basic laws against theft/rape/murder/not paying taxes that no time is left for other things.
> ...had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%
While I'm sure some small government fans would say this is a good thing, the answer is that very little would get done. Symbolic gestures and the like would pass, but very little of real substance. It's commonly the case that most everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but often they disagree on what exactly needs to happen. You can see what happens in the senate when 60+ votes are needed to pass anything.
While I'm sure some small government fans would say this is a good thing, the answer is that very little would get done. Symbolic gestures and the like would pass, but very little of real substance. It's commonly the case that most everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but often they disagree on what exactly needs to happen. You can see what happens in the senate when 60+ votes are needed to pass anything.
and if the government did less, we would feel empowered and obligated to do more ourselves, especially those things that don't necessarily need the barrel of a gun to get done. And if the government did less, then there would be little incentive for profiteers to try to capture government to profit at the end of a gun. I don't see what's so bad about this?
I should have been clearer in that my underlying premise is that the government should be doing less.
Yet I am surprised that it was that element of my statement that people ran with. For me having a built in shelf life of a law is not nearly as important as having clearer legislation and the cessation of co-mingling unrelated laws into one bill.
Yet I am surprised that it was that element of my statement that people ran with. For me having a built in shelf life of a law is not nearly as important as having clearer legislation and the cessation of co-mingling unrelated laws into one bill.
Hey, ya never know, once you take the plunge, you might find that you like it here on the dark-side. :-)
Libertarians are mostly pretty nice once you get to know them. Some of us are downright friendly at times.
Libertarians are mostly pretty nice once you get to know them. Some of us are downright friendly at times.
I have no problems with Libertarian individuals (or Republican or Democrats). I have serious issues with a national party that, when I watched their 2004 convention, a man in a Thomas Jefferson costume gave a speech about pot and guns. I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't. It was CSPAN.
Unless I myself run for office, I don't think I'll ever find a political party that closely aligns with my beliefs and also takes them seriously.
Unless I myself run for office, I don't think I'll ever find a political party that closely aligns with my beliefs and also takes them seriously.
I am not joking when I say you could always start you own. Outline what it is you really believe and verify how your policies, derived from your core beliefs, improve society.
All parties start with one voice, regardless the exercise will bring clarity to the beliefs and values you hold most dear.
All parties start with one voice, regardless the exercise will bring clarity to the beliefs and values you hold most dear.
The Libertarian Party is largely a joke, I agree. Speaking as a small-l libertarian, mind you.
For any party other than Democrats and Republicans to get a foothold in the US, we'd have to reform our voting system.
Suppose you want to vote for the Libertarian candidate but you'd prefer the Republican candidate to the Democratic one. By voting for the Libertarian, you "take" a vote from the Republican and make the Democrat's success more likely. (Or reverse the scenario: voting for a Green Party candidate hurts the Democratic candidate and gets you a Republican.)
Thus the system discourages you from expressing your true preference.
This is a major flaw in the most basic idea of democracy. All citizens, and especially all parties outside the Big Two, should work toward a better voting system.
One proposed system: http://rangevoting.org/
Suppose you want to vote for the Libertarian candidate but you'd prefer the Republican candidate to the Democratic one. By voting for the Libertarian, you "take" a vote from the Republican and make the Democrat's success more likely. (Or reverse the scenario: voting for a Green Party candidate hurts the Democratic candidate and gets you a Republican.)
Thus the system discourages you from expressing your true preference.
This is a major flaw in the most basic idea of democracy. All citizens, and especially all parties outside the Big Two, should work toward a better voting system.
One proposed system: http://rangevoting.org/
Out of curiosity, what about the political records or statements of Obama and Feinstein made you trust them with civil liberties and privacy?
Obama made plenty of statements that suggested he cares about civil liberties and privacy. Several of these quotes have been passed around:
>"For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
This goes to show you why you should believe what politicians vote and do, and ignore most of what they say. Obama isn't unique in this regard.
>"For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
This goes to show you why you should believe what politicians vote and do, and ignore most of what they say. Obama isn't unique in this regard.
7 months later: He votes to retroactively grant immunity for warrantless wiretaps (among other provisions).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168
Progressive California did a great job with its two PIPA-cosponsoring Senators. I don't know how the software industry gets rolled so badly in state politics.
'cause we're too busy putting money and effort into making new things, while Hollywood (in the same state, notice, and thus sharing the same senators) is putting money and effort into attempting to stretch their dying business models through force of arms when need be.
Ayn Rand hated libertarians. She didn't care much for all the "liberty" stuff. She mostly cared about low taxes and such, just like current Republicans who only care about low taxes and aiding their corporate friends, and only pay lip service to other liberties, but never follow through.
Ayn Rand hated the libertarians of her time because they were not capitalists and denied the need for a government to protect individual rights. In modern language, the libertarians of her time were anarchists.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertari...
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertari...
Your comment is breathtaking in its misrepresentation of what Ayn Rand actually cared about.
would it be better if he were a libertarian that hated Ayn Rand? (there are quite a few)
The general trend of Rand-bashing is annoying--not because there aren't many, many valid criticisms, but because those criticisms are seldom if ever used.
It's only fair considering Ayn Rand hated libertarians.
Yeah, it's a bit amusing isn't it, that everybody these days equates "Ayn Rand" and "Libertarians" as though her philosophy and libertarianism were one and the same... Certainly many libertarians find Rand inspirational (I do, for one) but as you say, she was no fan of libertarians at all.
As a progressive, I have conflicts with some of Rand Paul (and his father Ron) policies and positions. However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits.
Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics.
That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and even prosaically. I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power.
As we know the metadata can be used to see if a person had an abortion, may have sought mental health (calling suicide hotlines, etc.) may have feared STDs (calling aids hotline) may have had cosmetic surgery or slew of other things.
Any of these information, can for example, be misused against a political contender running against the current administration. Comparisons to IRS' supposed targeting of certain political entity would have been tangible and palpable example of the unchecked power of NSA and would have been farm more visceral than the heady, "Big Brother" argument.
Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics.
That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and even prosaically. I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power.
As we know the metadata can be used to see if a person had an abortion, may have sought mental health (calling suicide hotlines, etc.) may have feared STDs (calling aids hotline) may have had cosmetic surgery or slew of other things.
Any of these information, can for example, be misused against a political contender running against the current administration. Comparisons to IRS' supposed targeting of certain political entity would have been tangible and palpable example of the unchecked power of NSA and would have been farm more visceral than the heady, "Big Brother" argument.
Actually I liked this: "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked."
The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically speaking, it was violations of personal freedoms and the "home is a man's castle" principles that rankled the colonists the most.
The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically speaking, it was violations of personal freedoms and the "home is a man's castle" principles that rankled the colonists the most.
this is one of the reason why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us less safe. We barge into peoples houses and search through their stuff all the time. People seem to forget how important Respect is to people, people will fight revolutions for it. We did, the arab spring is doing it, a persons personal space and thoughts and communications are their most sacred human rights.
I have similar conflicts as a Libertarian!
To add another point: for one election I was deeply involved with the party. I found that many Libertarians went overboard in conspiracy theories: vaccines with trackers, 9/11 truthers, anti-GMO nonsense, etc. I have a really hard time calling myself a Libertarian along with these people.
To add another point: for one election I was deeply involved with the party. I found that many Libertarians went overboard in conspiracy theories: vaccines with trackers, 9/11 truthers, anti-GMO nonsense, etc. I have a really hard time calling myself a Libertarian along with these people.
Paleo-liberal, then?
> However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits.[sic]
Here's a video I came across the other day of Ron Paul in 1984: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0
Here's a video I came across the other day of Ron Paul in 1984: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWmKpBeEz0
little observed fact - he's criticizing Ronald Reagan directly.
The son doesn't have the spine of the father. I'm noticing that Rand is very sneaky too, why doesn't he just mount his legal challenge against this programs without asking for signatures or anything? Does he care about the principles his espousing or about making some headlines (for example, he could've really filibustered Brennan's nomination following his standing filibuster with a modern one)? Lately it seems to be the latter. Still, this op-eds do inform the general public but I don't think he has the spine or principle to walk the talk.
"I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to the NSA's potential abuse of power."
Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal:
"The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?"
Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal:
"The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?"
> Actually, he does mention the IRS scandal
I saw that. However, it's made in passing and the core of his argument and the title of his article is about "Big Brother". Which sounds heady and usually associated with the conspiracy types.
I saw that. However, it's made in passing and the core of his argument and the title of his article is about "Big Brother". Which sounds heady and usually associated with the conspiracy types.
My position all through the last Republican primaries was "yes, I realize many of Ron's policies (e.g. gold standard) are down-right dangerous. But those policies could never be passed in any case so we should vote on the things he can change like no new wars, etc.". I don't know that I got downvoted every time but I was always shot down with more "hope and change".
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.
Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living.
It's not really that hard to grasp is it?
Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
It's not really that hard to grasp is it?
Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
"Paul may just have alienated a large chunk of the millennial base he has been trying to reach out to with his latest “fetal personhood” legislation, the Life at Conception Act, which would fully outlaw abortion in the United States."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-b...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-b...
> Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.
It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.
What is truly marginalizing is to infantilize an entire philosophical position without actually putting in some effort to try and understand it.
I do not understand why it is so hard to support someone when you agree with them and fight them when you do not. That person X supports reprehensible policy Y does not mean that you cannot support him/her on Z.
Thanks for helping make the US suck. Do you really think if someone like Rand or Ron were president they would overturn Roe vs. Wade? You irrelevant-one-issue voters have got to get your heads out of your collective asses.
I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's reproductive rights.
Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead focus on their policies.
Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead focus on their policies.
I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.
Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.
>> It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties.
Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life.
Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors.
The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.
Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life.
Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors.
The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.
If you honestly believe life begins at conception and should be protected, you believe the civil rights issue at hand is the right to life of the unborn, which may, in your moral estimation, supersede a woman's reproductive rights.
A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no?
My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.
A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no?
My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.
Exactly!
I'm guessing HN is over-whelmingly younger males, so reproductive rights are not a big issue. Someday some of them will have a daughter and they'll have a chance to rethink the issue.
I have a daughter. That still doesn't make me willing to throw out a candidate for his/her potential to stop or slow a problem we are actually having because they hold a position that could never actually be applied in any case.
Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
I never said I wouldn't vote for him. I said I find his views on reproductive rights unfortunate and inconsistent with his libertarian values. I'd hope his views on this issue would evolve the way Obama evolved on gay marriage. I'm more curious than anything. Do his libertarian values only apply to men? Or is he taking a hard line on abortion to get elected in Kentucky? Time will tell, but in the meantime I applaud his efforts to challenge the administration on drones and privacy.
He's probably being downvoted because his comment is a useless sidetrack of the issue. It doesn't matter what Rand's position on Abortion is as he'll never have the required level of support to change it.
(straw man)
Getting excited about Rand Paul speaking out about this is exactly like getting excited by candidate Obama talking about how he was going end the wars, close Gitmo, and stop torture.
It is a good point that we should focus on track record, not speech. But:
1) don't we have more track record on Paul regarding this issue than we did on Obama? 2) isn't it possible that having a senator express this opinion publicly could influence other elected officials?
1) don't we have more track record on Paul regarding this issue than we did on Obama? 2) isn't it possible that having a senator express this opinion publicly could influence other elected officials?
I at least, have read/seen much more about Rand Paul and the polices he promotes than I had about Obama as he took office for the first time.
Reading his statements regarding his commitment to the Republican party & its goals as well as the right-wing "Libertarian" principles he habitually talks about and then comparing that to the analysis of the actual text of his proposals; it's obvious that he is simply using these "Libertarian" talking points as blunt weapons against the Democrats.
Many of Rand Paul's proposals don't actually do or change anything at all, instead they are designed only to make the news cycle and then to disappear. Many lack many of the details actual legislation is required to have or because they are designed such that a voting majority is impossible to develop. It's clear that they were never intended to go further than a news cycle... and they don't.
Besides often being couched in language Democrats are unlikely to ever accept, they're also consistent with the proposals from other Hard-Right Republican's who don't associate themselves with the right-libertarian political movement at all. So it's not like he's making non-partisan basic pro-freedom proposals, which the Democrats (being the anti-freedom party) reject. He's only making proposals about issues which can be expressed in the hyper-partisan language and which support the hyper-partisan strategy that is currently dominating D.C. politics. Moreover, he's studiously avoided good-faith, non-partisan, basic policy reform proposals which could get through the legislation process.
Assuming that Rand Paul continues to be successful with this gambit, the obvious influence it will have on other elected officials is that this sort of deceptive and manipulative strategy is politically effective and that they should be doing it too.
Reading his statements regarding his commitment to the Republican party & its goals as well as the right-wing "Libertarian" principles he habitually talks about and then comparing that to the analysis of the actual text of his proposals; it's obvious that he is simply using these "Libertarian" talking points as blunt weapons against the Democrats.
Many of Rand Paul's proposals don't actually do or change anything at all, instead they are designed only to make the news cycle and then to disappear. Many lack many of the details actual legislation is required to have or because they are designed such that a voting majority is impossible to develop. It's clear that they were never intended to go further than a news cycle... and they don't.
Besides often being couched in language Democrats are unlikely to ever accept, they're also consistent with the proposals from other Hard-Right Republican's who don't associate themselves with the right-libertarian political movement at all. So it's not like he's making non-partisan basic pro-freedom proposals, which the Democrats (being the anti-freedom party) reject. He's only making proposals about issues which can be expressed in the hyper-partisan language and which support the hyper-partisan strategy that is currently dominating D.C. politics. Moreover, he's studiously avoided good-faith, non-partisan, basic policy reform proposals which could get through the legislation process.
Assuming that Rand Paul continues to be successful with this gambit, the obvious influence it will have on other elected officials is that this sort of deceptive and manipulative strategy is politically effective and that they should be doing it too.
"... If someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-pau...
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-pau...
To be fair (and I am by no means a Rand Paul fan) this argument it tu quoque. Yes, the quote you have given suggests hypocrisy. The core argument of NSA/CIA overreach is still a sound one, though.
Why is the focus only on the phone records? Getting all the online data seems a lot bigger to me.
What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation."
I think one of the reasons we libertarians have had such a hard time over the years talking about the security state we're building is that Paul is right: this is absurd. People simply do not believe that such a thing is actually happening. Sure, they think, some bad guys are being monitored, and the usual crackpots are complaining, but overall the government is doing a good job. After all, there hasn't been another 9-11, right?
I appreciate Paul's efforts, but we're going to need massive reform in the surveillance policies of the U.S. As a start we need something like another Church Committee.
One thought is this: how about making it a felony not to disclose information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.