I'm confused about the American Republican party

[kandrathe]

So he is wrong here but hypocrytical?

His history are some of my issues with Ron Paul. Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and other libertarian leaders aligned themselves with some wrong headed idologies, but then it was not unusual at the time (e.g. Robert Byrd). He does have some good thoughts. But he has alot of baggage I don't think he can distance himself from. And, he is often too blunt, when the leading foot should be compassion, and explanation of a different course. For example, when discussing abortion in cases of rape, or when expressing a sensitivity to sexaul harrassment. I think the majority of people would be in favor of preventing pregnancies at the time of the reported rape, rather than delay and then require an abortion many weeks later. I think I've expressed my thoughts against abortion before, but I believe simply that the State has the responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens, including the unborn. It is most incumbent on the State to intervene in matters where the powerful harm the powerless. I'm not sure what special exemptions to give to parents when they harm their own children.

I don't agree that the solution to sexual harrassment is to leave your job.

In the case of harrassment there is a three part relationship, and all three parties need to have responsibilities. The harrassed person must escalate their complaint through an agreed upon policy. The accused harrasser must be informed of the complaint and follow the policy. The employer already has the largest burden for creating policies, following the policies, investigating incidents, and preventing future hostile work environments. If the employer does not have a policy, or enforce it, then they are complicit in allowing the harrassment environment.

The libertarian reaction would be;

1) there exists court precedence in dealing with these types of problems in work environments. There is no need to increase regulatory burden for all employers for the wrong actions of a minority.

2) it still results in court action where the harrasser is punished at most with losing their job. The employer, with the deepest pockets, is punished the most, and too often the accuser is awarded vast settlements based on flimsy evidence. Beyond the legal costs, and loss of time, the employer also loses employees, and the expense of hiring and training them. This should be incentive enough to push employers to have clear harrassment policies and to follow them.

3) you don't have the civil right of being employed. You do have the civil right to not be harmed for being in a minority. There is some level of harm (costs) in being forced to choose between staying in a hostile environment, and changing to a new employer. More likely in the hundreds of dollars per incident.

Sexual harrassment is a bigger problem when there is no fair ombudsmen to protect the harrassed persons interests. For example, at the University of Minnesota, a woman I know was pursuing a degree in a world class program. You should know that this organization is as "progressive" as progressive gets, first being in Minnesota, and second being a university. The most prominent and leading scientist in the field was her harrasser, to the point where he made it clear that unless she had sex with him, she'd never graduate. She left the program, and it changed the focus of her life and career. I was furious and wanted justice for her. Her response was that if she did take him on, and tear him down, then she'd always be black balled as the woman who tore him down. She wanted a career in science more than she wanted justice from this one bad guy. All too often, people are forced to choose like this, where the harrassers get away with their crimes due to their power and influence. My friend ended up a leading scientist in a slightly different field, but still fulfilled her dream. It makes me mad all over again thinking about it. I still want to punch him in the nose, if he's still alive.

Overall, there are some idealists who take the idea of individual liberty and responsibility all the way. I'm more pragmatic. I think we can find a middle ground where we can agree on the things we'd like our government to do, and the level of taxation we'd suffer to accomplish those things.