Political Animal
Blog
The details of the accounts vary a bit, but it appears Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) ran into a little trouble at a Nashville airport this morning. He went through security, and after a scan, TSA asked to do a full body pat-down. The senator refused, so he was denied access to the gate. (thanks to H.M. for the tip)
The story, such as it is, seems to have been resolved fairly quickly — Paul got booked on a different flight and departed without incident.
But here’s the part I found interesting:
Paul, a Republican, was traveling to Washington, when he was detained. He noted earlier on his Twitter that he was planning to speak at the March for Life.
“Today I’ll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it,” tweeted Rand Paul at 9:49 A.M.
Hmm. So, Rand Paul, always cautious about his privacy rights, balked at airport security measures. He was en route to a March for Life rally, where he’ll speak to activists who don’t believe there is a right to privacy.
Libertarians sure are an odd bunch.
Facebook
Twitter
Equal Opportunity Cynic on January 23, 2012 2:26 PM:
I am a pro-life civil libertarian, so i don't recognize the "right to privacy" as extending to the treatment of the unborn, so your comparison is kind of silly. If the TSA had prevented Paul from taking another human life, or from taking what might be another human life, then no libertarian would complain.
Obviously Benen disagrees on that view of human life and the need to err on the side of protecting it. As always with the abortion debate, that is the key issue.
Equal Opportunity Cynic on January 23, 2012 2:30 PM:
And no, i'm not trying to spend a lot of time on the abortion debate here, because i know that pro-abortion individuals aren't going to change their minds. The point is that this "ironic incident" involving an "odd bunch" only exists as such if you adopt the author's assumptions. Since neither Paul nor i accept those assumptions, it's silly to go around pointing out this ostensible irony.
Paul has all kinds of inconsistencies in his brand of fake-libertarianism, but that's not one of them.
Gummo on January 23, 2012 2:37 PM:
It's very simple, really, Steve, and not at all inconsistent:
Libertarians believe that property rights trump everything else.
Anti-abortionists believe that women are property.
Therefore, Libertarians who line up with the anti-abortionists are only protecting property rights, i.e., rights of men to own and dictate to women.
After all, you don't ask your garage's permission when you want to tear it down, do you?
Rochester on January 23, 2012 2:42 PM:
While the Equal Opportunity Cynic posted a coherent and seemingly logical argument in defense of his/her opinions on abortion, it all falls apart as soon as you ask the right-2-lifer whether or not to charge a woman who seeks an abortion with murder, take her to court, and send her to prison.
I don't think so.
Hence the fail.
Gandalf on January 23, 2012 2:43 PM:
Equalwhatever I do find it very interesting when someone labels themselves like your" i'm a pro-life civil libertarian". It kinda sounds almost like saying your either a mechanical engineer or a blithering asshole.
ahoy polloi on January 23, 2012 2:44 PM:
what kind of supposed medical doctor volunteers for not one but TWO blasts of radiation from a machine labeled "Rapiscan"? i have to fly for work a lot, and if they don't have metal detectors but rather the scanners, i ask for a pat down every time. most TSA agents go pretty easy on you; nothing you haven't experienced if you've ever gone to a concert.
but it doesn't say much for the senator's intellect, does it?
Julie on January 23, 2012 2:53 PM:
The very idea of a "pro-life" libertarian is laughable.
What sort of logic says that you can compel me to act as biological host?
And Gummo, calling them "anti-abortion" is insufficient, as many of us firmly on the pro-choice side don't like abortion. We just recognize the need for its legality and accessibility.
Kevin Michael O'Connor on January 23, 2012 2:54 PM:
and...he smells of rancid pudding...
DAY on January 23, 2012 2:54 PM:
Methinks obstetrician Dr. Paul may have been a bit too forcible with the forceps, when he delivered Rand.
POed Lib on January 23, 2012 2:55 PM:
Equal Lying Forced birther: There is no such thing as a "pro-life liberatarian". You forced-birth fascists are for the intrusion of the Full Power of the State into the most intimate details of a woman's life, including disposal of unwanted tissue. That is not "libertarianism". That is fascism. So enough with the lying shit, eh?
Danny on January 23, 2012 2:55 PM:
@Equal Opportunity Cynic
So you agree there's a right to privacy then?
Zorro on January 23, 2012 2:58 PM:
What POed Lib said, plus this: the best definition I've ever heard for libertarianism is "pro-choice on everything." Therefore, the best description for a pro-life libertarian is "hypocrite."
Kind of like the so-called pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty, and pro-war, and pro-death squad... as George Carlin said, when they say "pro-life," they mean "pro-their right to decide who lives and dies."
-Z
dj spellchecka on January 23, 2012 3:00 PM:
"I am a pro-life civil libertarian, so i don't recognize the "right to privacy" as extending to the decisions of a pregnant woman."
fixed it for you
Upper West on January 23, 2012 3:05 PM:
I hate to defend Rand Paul, but he has been outspoken on (non-abortion) privacy issues and opposed re-authorization of the Patriot Act, to the extent that Harry Reid charged that because of Paul's opposition:
"When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we will be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot against our country undetected."
Trollop on January 23, 2012 3:08 PM:
gawd's law can suck it and until the lordy-gourdy is kind enough to show up and enforce it then we have the laws of the United States:
If you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
If you can't physically carry a child then you should have no say in the matter (this would at least be a perfect addendum*).
And lastly, Rand Paul is legally, a paid lobbyist for hypocrisy.
Gummo on January 23, 2012 3:27 PM:
Julie, you're absolutely right.
I should have used "anti-choice."
Or just "anti-women."
SecularAnimist on January 23, 2012 3:29 PM:
Rand Paul is a bought-and-paid-for corporate stooge who plays a "libertarian" on TV when he wants to bamboozle one group of gullible dupes, and plays a "pro-lifer" on TV when he wants to bamboozle a different group of gullible dupes.
And on occasion, he plays both a "libertarian" AND a "pro-lifer" on TV, when he wants to bamboozle Equal Opportunity Cynic.
schtick on January 23, 2012 3:55 PM:
When it comes to abortion the old tealiban mantra fits like a glove, pardon the pun, Do as I say, not as I do.
The mistress/girlfriend of the tealiban will "have a problem" taken care of with a D&C and the "po folk" will go to some hack with a dirty coathanger just like the old days. Nevermind they may never have children again or that they may die. After all, they asked for it because they weren't born rich or had a rich sugar daddy.
crapcha....Monetary eutesa....money money
POed Lib on January 23, 2012 4:01 PM:
Refused a full-body patdown? Sorry, if I, a civilian non-Senator, refused a full-body patdown, I would be in jail. Why does Senator Rand Paul get to refuse a lawful order of the TSA?
Mnemosyne on January 23, 2012 4:40 PM:
What sort of logic says that you can compel me to act as biological host?
The logic that says women are inferior to men and therefore can be forced into servitude against their will.
There's really no other logic to a supposed "libertarian pro-life" stance. Either you think all people have certain inalienable rights -- which would lead one to believe that women should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies -- or you think that men should have more rights than women, which doesn't make you much of a libertarian since you've decided that only certain people should be allowed to be free.
Just Dropping By on January 23, 2012 4:51 PM:
I'm adamantly pro-choice, but the only way this incident is "ironic" if you pretend that there's no constitutional distinction between the nature of the "right to privacy" as it relates to the right to make decisions concerning medical procedures and nature of the the "right to privacy" as it relates to being free from unreasonable searches and seizures per the Fourth Amendment. Abortion should be legal, but it's not directly supported by the plain text of the constitution, but rather by judicial gloss on that plain language. Random searches of passengers boarding airplanes are pretty clearly a violation of the plain text of the Fourth Amendment and are lawful only because of judicially-created exceptions to the protection of the amendment.
Highguy on January 23, 2012 5:17 PM:
Let me help you out, Equal Opportunity Cynic. I am not pro-Abortion; I am pro-Choice.
You can CHOOSE to have an abortion if YOU need one: medically, psychologically, financially. As long as the abortion is done PROPERLY.
I hope this can help you in the future when discussing MY side of the argument.
Peace.
boatboy_srq on January 23, 2012 5:22 PM:
Shorter Rand Paul: "Woman, my policies - and my daddy - can touch your junk, but the TSA can't touch mine."
Captcha: "dadedo Tolman," - see? I was right.
emjayay on January 23, 2012 5:24 PM:
POed: No, you would not be in jail for refusing a pat down. That makes no sense - unless of course you started a fight over it or something. You would just, like Rand, not be on the plane.
Josef K on January 23, 2012 6:47 PM:
Here's an idea the next time some idiot in either chamber (and either party) starts agitating for another expansion of the TSA:
Before any vote on the matter, every member of Congress has to walk through the body scanner, then gets strip-searched, and the whole thing being recorded and viewed by their fellows.
Ought to shut the libertarians up for awhile, if nothing else.P
exlibra on January 23, 2012 6:48 PM:
[...] i know that pro-abortion individuals [...] -- Equal Opportunity Cynic, @2:30PM
I have *yet* to meet a single "pro-abortion" person of either sex, and I'm 62 already. So I call BS on your claim.
"conform onezine". Typical "libertarian" attitude; one has to conform, but not the other.
Thomas J. Lucente Jr. on January 23, 2012 8:54 PM:
This has to be the most inane ridiculous blog post I have read in a long time. Clearly the author knows nothing about abortion, libertarianism or Rand Paul.
The Oracle on January 23, 2012 10:34 PM:
Rand Paul was probably carrying a calf or ankle gun strapped to his leg, thus setting off the metal detector. A full-body pat down would have disclosed this gun, so he declined. The police marched Rand Paul off, he ditched the gun somewhere, only returning to be screened again once his concealed weapon was discarded (or handed to an associate who left the airport). So of course there wasn't any metal IN his leg, it was ON his leg. Geez, we've seen other concealed-carry Republicans try to board airplanes, some caught, some arrested, so it wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul was packing concealed heat.