Five myths about Libertarianism

[NYcarbineer]

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

It's an idiotic question because there is no reasonable way to provide an answer based on factual data.


How would one determine this without asking the question of every person in America? How does one determine the number of people in the sample that lied in their answer? how does one determine the number of people in the sample that didn't understand the question but gave an answer anyways? What about the people that refuse to answer the question?

To be fair though let's examine the question that you replied to:

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

The premise here is that "progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom"

This is clearly an assertion that isn't supported by any documentation of facts, It's probably safe to assume that some progressives believe this (because we can find documentation of self-identified progressives claiming it) but as a generalization it hasn't been demonstrated to be factual.

I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

This is again an assumption, probably one that's fairly easy to demonstrate as false since the bar is rather low given it doesn't require anything beyond "someone who calls themselves a libertarian" , a more significant (and reasonable) challenge would have been "I bet you can't find anyone that can use libertarian principle to formulate a well reasoned argument, capable of holding up under scrutiny, agreeing with that".

IMHO responding to set of unsupported assertions with a question that any reasonable person can see could only result in another unsupported assertion is illogical, unless of course your purpose was to point out the flaws in the original unsupported assertions using analogy, in which case one would ask why not just point them out directly?

My point was to remind everyone how libertarians there are.

 

[Gadawg73]

Good friend will be dead in a year if we are lucky as they said 6 months 3 months ago.
Watched the baseball game at his condo tonight.
He smokes twisty and has to obtain it illegally.
And that is fucked up beyond all reason.
Because of right wing kooks that force their shit on other people without using their brain to determine if someone is suffering or not.
That is what being a Libertarian is, allowing him to do that legally.

This is the perfect example of why I call you out every single time we get into a conversation, you are a partisan hack. Democrats are in charge right now, and Obama is about as far from the right wing as it is possible to get, but he actually ramped up the war on drugs when it comes to people using medical marijuana over what Bush was doing. Yet, for some reason that makes no sense, unless I assume you are a lying sack of shit, you blame the other side for what is happening.

The war on drugs was started by a REPUBLICAN, reinforced by a republican, re-reinforced by a REPUBLICAN who was the last Republican President:
From the Bush platform 2004:
1. "Jail time is an effective deterrent to drug use"
2. "Continued assistance with funds to drug test in all the schools"
3. "Clinton surrendered in the drug war"
4. "Under Clinton the entire nation suffered with their surrender with the war on drugs"
5. "In a Republican administration the DOJ will require all federal prosecutors to aggressively pursue drug dealers"

So let us look at the Democratic Party Platform:
1. Enacted the fair sentencing act
2. Let the countries that produce the drugs make their own rules and fight who they believe needs to be fought on their own turf
3. Stop drugs from those countries coming here
4. Dry up demand with youth, drug testing in prison, clean and get out and expand drug treatment.

Now I don't like the current administration's total approach either but the war on drugs was started by Republicans and enforced by Republicans and facts are facts.
Obama did not ramp it up, Bush did and all Obama does on many issues such as the war is ditto what Bush did.

 

[Contumacious]

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

How many of those people are there?

Libertarians want businesses regulated by the invisible hand of the market place. People vote democratically with their money.

.

So there's no need, for example, for certain medicines to be regulated, for example, by requiring prescriptions?

Nope.

The illegal drug trade is a global black market, dedicated to cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of drugs, which are subject to drug prohibition laws. Most jurisdictions prohibit trade, except under license, of many types of drugs by drug prohibition laws.

A UN report said "the global drug trade generated an estimated US$321.6 billion in 2003."[1] With a world GDP of US$36 trillion in the same year, the illegal drug trade may be estimated as nearly 1% of total global trade. Consumption of illegal drugs is widespread globally.

There's no need for doctors to be in any way licensed?

The license requirements is an AMA scam to help their members income.


Medical Control, Medical Corruption


The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist.

No need for safety regulations on automobile manufacturing?

That's what competition is for - if an automaker sells an unsafe vehicle , let them go belly up. But the fascists/socialists regime keeps bailing them out.

.

 

[thanatos144]

I would have to disagree with that conclusion, IMHO the problem isn't that such minds view government as the "arbiter of morality" the problem is that such minds think that the government is bound by a completely different morality than individuals are. That's why for example individuals can believe murder is immoral for individuals yet defend murder by the state, it's not dictated morality it's dual morality supported by cognitive dissonance. The legalization question in the mode of reason such people rely on simply becomes a proposition where government is the arbiter of what is permitted, not what is moral.

It could be argued that state is dictating morality from the standpoint that such people have been programmed by statist propaganda (from a very early age) to believe the dual morality complex is rational.

In this context I was referring to thantos believing that the government not jailing you for doing drugs was somehow equivalent to ‘legislating’ drug abuse as MORAL. In that context, your statements do not make any sense. I can agree with your supposition in general but in context of the quoted statements, there is no dual morality shown. Rather, there is the admission that anything the state does not make illegal is somehow moral ergo the state is defining morality.

I understand completely where you are coming from, what I was trying to get at (ineffective communication on my part) was the idea that the person that contends that government legalizing something is "legislating morality" doesn't understand morality correctly in the first place. They can't because the basis of their view of morality is a lie, after all how can one be said to understand morality if one believes that the same morals don't apply to everyone?

Sorry I didn't mean to derail your discussion or anything....

what a arrogant piece of work you are.

 

[NightFox]

So it's libertarian to want a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, if you happen to be a 'libertarian' who believes life (with personhood rights) begins at conception.

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.


IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.

Or, I guess you could also be a libertarian who supports a massive federal presence in the regulation of trade/business if you happen to believe that heavy regulation is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

Should I go on?

Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

1. A constitutional amendment is needed to establish personhood rights for fetuses, since none exist in the constitution. A 'libertarian' who thinks fetuses are people presumably wants sufficient changes made in current law, including constitutional law, in order to protect fetuses as people.

The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.

2. It was you who said a libertarian can hold any view they want and still call it libertarian if they can justify it with the 'non-aggression' principle,

Yeah and? How else do you propose to test the logical consistency of ones conclusions of public policy questions?

therefore according to you it's libertarian to want the current defense budget we have, or an even bigger one, if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

More NONSENSE, what I actually said is that a person would need to formulate an argument based on the non-aggression principle that would stand up to scrutiny, that's how libertarians test their conclusions, as opposed to say, testing your conclusions based on popular opinion. It's not based on "belief" it's based on REASON derived from principle.

Also, according to you it's libertarian to want heavy regulation of business if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

Again the conflation of "belief" with reason...

 

[NightFox]

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

It's an idiotic question because there is no reasonable way to provide an answer based on factual data.


How would one determine this without asking the question of every person in America? How does one determine the number of people in the sample that lied in their answer? how does one determine the number of people in the sample that didn't understand the question but gave an answer anyways? What about the people that refuse to answer the question?

To be fair though let's examine the question that you replied to:


The premise here is that "progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom"

This is clearly an assertion that isn't supported by any documentation of facts, It's probably safe to assume that some progressives believe this (because we can find documentation of self-identified progressives claiming it) but as a generalization it hasn't been demonstrated to be factual.

I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

This is again an assumption, probably one that's fairly easy to demonstrate as false since the bar is rather low given it doesn't require anything beyond "someone who calls themselves a libertarian" , a more significant (and reasonable) challenge would have been "I bet you can't find anyone that can use libertarian principle to formulate a well reasoned argument, capable of holding up under scrutiny, agreeing with that".

IMHO responding to set of unsupported assertions with a question that any reasonable person can see could only result in another unsupported assertion is illogical, unless of course your purpose was to point out the flaws in the original unsupported assertions using analogy, in which case one would ask why not just point them out directly?

My point was to remind everyone how libertarians there are.

You have no idea of how many (I assume you meant how many?) libertarians there are, so how can you "remind everyone" of it.

 

[thanatos144]

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.


IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.


Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

1. A constitutional amendment is needed to establish personhood rights for fetuses, since none exist in the constitution. A 'libertarian' who thinks fetuses are people presumably wants sufficient changes made in current law, including constitutional law, in order to protect fetuses as people.

The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


Yeah and? How else do you propose to test the logical consistency of ones conclusions of public policy questions?

therefore according to you it's libertarian to want the current defense budget we have, or an even bigger one, if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

More NONSENSE, what I actually said is that a person would need to formulate an argument based on the non-aggression principle that would stand up to scrutiny, that's how libertarians test their conclusions, as opposed to say, testing your conclusions based on popular opinion. It's not based on "belief" it's based on REASON derived from principle.

Also, according to you it's libertarian to want heavy regulation of business if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

Again the conflation of "belief" with reason...

I am sure you no more than even God Himself about morals don't you? you have way too high opinion of yourself

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's an idiotic question because there is no reasonable way to provide an answer based on factual data.


How would one determine this without asking the question of every person in America? How does one determine the number of people in the sample that lied in their answer? how does one determine the number of people in the sample that didn't understand the question but gave an answer anyways? What about the people that refuse to answer the question?

To be fair though let's examine the question that you replied to:


The premise here is that "progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom"

This is clearly an assertion that isn't supported by any documentation of facts, It's probably safe to assume that some progressives believe this (because we can find documentation of self-identified progressives claiming it) but as a generalization it hasn't been demonstrated to be factual.


This is again an assumption, probably one that's fairly easy to demonstrate as false since the bar is rather low given it doesn't require anything beyond "someone who calls themselves a libertarian" , a more significant (and reasonable) challenge would have been "I bet you can't find anyone that can use libertarian principle to formulate a well reasoned argument, capable of holding up under scrutiny, agreeing with that".

IMHO responding to set of unsupported assertions with a question that any reasonable person can see could only result in another unsupported assertion is illogical, unless of course your purpose was to point out the flaws in the original unsupported assertions using analogy, in which case one would ask why not just point them out directly?

My point was to remind everyone how libertarians there are.

You have no idea of how many (I assume you meant how many?) libertarians there are, so how can you "remind everyone" of it.

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

at least as far as politics is concerned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.


IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.


Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

1. A constitutional amendment is needed to establish personhood rights for fetuses, since none exist in the constitution. A 'libertarian' who thinks fetuses are people presumably wants sufficient changes made in current law, including constitutional law, in order to protect fetuses as people.

The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


Yeah and? How else do you propose to test the logical consistency of ones conclusions of public policy questions?

therefore according to you it's libertarian to want the current defense budget we have, or an even bigger one, if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

More NONSENSE, what I actually said is that a person would need to formulate an argument based on the non-aggression principle that would stand up to scrutiny, that's how libertarians test their conclusions, as opposed to say, testing your conclusions based on popular opinion. It's not based on "belief" it's based on REASON derived from principle.

Also, according to you it's libertarian to want heavy regulation of business if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

Again the conflation of "belief" with reason...

So now you're trying to argue that one cannot have a belief based on reason?

So if I believe the Earth is about 5 billion years old, plus or mine, I have no claim to having utilized reason to come to that conclusion?

lol, you're sinking deeper and deeper.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.


IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.


Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

1. A constitutional amendment is needed to establish personhood rights for fetuses, since none exist in the constitution. A 'libertarian' who thinks fetuses are people presumably wants sufficient changes made in current law, including constitutional law, in order to protect fetuses as people.

The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


Yeah and? How else do you propose to test the logical consistency of ones conclusions of public policy questions?

therefore according to you it's libertarian to want the current defense budget we have, or an even bigger one, if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

More NONSENSE, what I actually said is that a person would need to formulate an argument based on the non-aggression principle that would stand up to scrutiny, that's how libertarians test their conclusions, as opposed to say, testing your conclusions based on popular opinion. It's not based on "belief" it's based on REASON derived from principle.

Also, according to you it's libertarian to want heavy regulation of business if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

Again the conflation of "belief" with reason...

What 'reason' is exercised by a person who has concluded that a 2 celled fertilized human zygote can be considered a person just as you or me as we exist today and therefore should be protected by all the laws that protect you and I?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


:

Then the Constitution need not exist?

 

[NightFox]

My point was to remind everyone how libertarians there are.

You have no idea of how many (I assume you meant how many?) libertarians there are, so how can you "remind everyone" of it.

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

How do you account for people that didn't vote? how do you account for libertarians that for whatever reason don't vote for an LP candidate? how do you account for voters that vote for a libertarian candidate that are not themselves libertarians?, once again your logic is flawed.

at least as far as politics is concerned.

You can't even answer the question as far a politics is concerned let alone answer as far as philosophy is concerned.

 

[kaz]

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

at least as far as politics is concerned.

Actually all you know by counting Libertarian votes is how many Libertarians voted for them, there are a lot more libertarians.

The Libertarian Party is at best a mediocre representation of libertarianism. In fact of all the libertarians on the board, you see very little support for the party.

Seriously, with the tens of thousands of posts you've done on this board, you didn't know that? You're not observant at all. I guess all you keep hearing is "not liberal, not liberal," and the rest is just drowned out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

at least as far as politics is concerned.

Actually all you know by counting Libertarian votes is how many Libertarians voted for them, there are a lot more libertarians.

The Libertarian Party is at best a mediocre representation of libertarianism. In fact of all the libertarians on the board, you see very little support for the party.

Seriously, with the tens of thousands of posts you've done on this board, you didn't know that? You're not observant at all. I guess all you keep hearing is "not liberal, not liberal," and the rest is just drowned out.

You confirm what I said. Libertarianism is an idle fantasy.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians telling me what libertarianism isn't.

So libertarianism in reality just amounts to two wings of the two major parties? The libertarian Democrats and the libertarian Republicans?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have no idea of how many (I assume you meant how many?) libertarians there are, so how can you "remind everyone" of it.

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

How do you account for people that didn't vote? how do you account for libertarians that for whatever reason don't vote for an LP candidate? how do you account for voters that vote for a libertarian candidate that are not themselves libertarians?, once again your logic is flawed.

at least as far as politics is concerned.

You can't even answer the question as far a politics is concerned let alone answer as far as philosophy is concerned.

So most libertarians don't support the Libertarian Party, so the last poster told me.

What do they do on election day? Stay home and render themselves irrelevant, or do they vote either Republican or Democrat,

like almost everyone else does?

 

[kaz]

We have an excellent idea how many libertarians there are by how many votes Libertarian candidates get,

at least as far as politics is concerned.

Actually all you know by counting Libertarian votes is how many Libertarians voted for them, there are a lot more libertarians.

The Libertarian Party is at best a mediocre representation of libertarianism. In fact of all the libertarians on the board, you see very little support for the party.

Seriously, with the tens of thousands of posts you've done on this board, you didn't know that? You're not observant at all. I guess all you keep hearing is "not liberal, not liberal," and the rest is just drowned out.

You confirm what I said. Libertarianism is an idle fantasy.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians telling me what libertarianism isn't.

So libertarianism in reality just amounts to two wings of the two major parties? The libertarian Democrats and the libertarian Republicans?

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drunk off your ass? What are you talking about?

BTW, there are no libertarian Democrats. You cannot simultaneously want to maximize and minimize government.

Well, maybe you can, but you're on how many tequilas now?

 

[NightFox]

[The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


:

Then the Constitution need not exist?

Are you asserting that? because I certainly didn't, I pointed out what should be self-evident (that the constitution is a piece of paper). Using your example; You don't need an amendment to the Constitution to make one human being killing another human being illegal and immoral (absent self defense of course) and if you can demonstrate through empirical evidence that a fetus meets the criteria of a human being to the satisfaction of the preponderance of society then killing a fetus becomes de facto both illegal and immoral.

Our morality isn't derived from the Constitution, if it were then generally accepted morality couldn't have existed prior to the Constitution and the historical evidence demonstrates that this is not the case. The purpose of the Constitution was to create a nation under the rule of law instead of the rule of man, not to codify the eternal morality of the citizenry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually all you know by counting Libertarian votes is how many Libertarians voted for them, there are a lot more libertarians.

The Libertarian Party is at best a mediocre representation of libertarianism. In fact of all the libertarians on the board, you see very little support for the party.

Seriously, with the tens of thousands of posts you've done on this board, you didn't know that? You're not observant at all. I guess all you keep hearing is "not liberal, not liberal," and the rest is just drowned out.

You confirm what I said. Libertarianism is an idle fantasy.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians telling me what libertarianism isn't.

So libertarianism in reality just amounts to two wings of the two major parties? The libertarian Democrats and the libertarian Republicans?

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drunk off your ass? What are you talking about?

BTW, there are no libertarian Democrats. You cannot simultaneously want to maximize and minimize government.

Well, maybe you can, but you're on how many tequilas now?

You just told me most libertarians don't support the Libertarian Party.

That means on election day they are either voting Democrat, or Republican, or some other crackpot party,

or they aren't voting.

If they vote Democrat they're in the libertarian wing of the Democratic Party. If they vote Republican they're in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

 

[Immanuel]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

That's the propaganda, isn't it? If you don't go for it, you're "less educated". When the truth is that it just doesn't work. While nearly everyone has libertarian leanings and doesn't like to be told what to do, the truly educated realize, if the more radical elements of libertarianism came to fruition, it would be a disaster on the scale of Marxism.

The same can most definitely be said about both liberalism and conservatism, so your point is?

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, if one can demonstrate that a fetus is a person (an individual human being) using empirical evidence then it's rights are established by virtue of it's humanity. The constitution is not the arbiter of what is moral, in fact at it's conception it was patently immoral given that by implication it declared that African-Americans were not human and thus were not afforded the rights granted to them by virtue of their humanity, it was (and remains) both a morally and logically inconsistent document.


:

Then the Constitution need not exist?

Are you asserting that? because I certainly didn't, I pointed out what should be self-evident (that the constitution is a piece of paper). Using your example; You don't need an amendment to the Constitution to make one human being killing another human being illegal and immoral (absent self defense of course) and if you can demonstrate through empirical evidence that a fetus meets the criteria of a human being to the satisfaction of the preponderance of society then killing a fetus becomes de facto both illegal and immoral.

Our morality isn't derived from the Constitution, if it were then generally accepted morality couldn't have existed prior to the Constitution and the historical evidence demonstrates that this is not the case. The purpose of the Constitution was to create a nation under the rule of law instead of the rule of man, not to codify the eternal morality of the citizenry.

Passing a law banning all abortion is unconstitutional, so yes you do need an amendment to the Constitution, or at the very least an overturning of Roe, to make that 'killing' illegal.

The Constitution is the law of the land, not JUST a piece of paper.