The Vicar of Bray Steps in It

Charles Johnson, the Vicar of Bray (he's supported Clinton and Bush and Obama and might someday make excuses for the Jindal administration), demonstrates his lack of comprehension of libertarianism:

Paul’s position that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act is a principled stance. And that principle can be succinctly stated: property rights take precedence over human rights.

Property rights are human rights.

If property rights aren't human rights, whose rights are they? I don't think they're animal rights or vegetable rights…

In any case, property comes from human labor which comes from human bodies. Why do you think Ayn Rand called redistributionists “cannibals”?

But wait, there's more:

And this is far from Rand Paul’s only extreme view. He’s also an anti-abortion fanatic, a supporter of the absolutist Human Life Amendment which will deny women abortions under all circumstances. How does he square this with libertarianism?

I've dealt with this before. Under present law, pregnant women have the legal power of life and death over their fetuses. That makes them very local governments. It is consistent for someone to want to restrict governments and to restrict abortion.

In case you're wondering how I can reconcile this with fetuses apparently violating the expansive view of property rights above, I also agree with the Lockean proviso, which holds that the expansive view of property rights does not necessarily apply to natural monopolies.