Five myths about Libertarianism

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If science conclusively proved that an unborn baby is human and alive how hard do you think it would be to overturn Roe?

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If science conclusively proved that an unborn baby is human and alive how hard do you think it would be to overturn Roe?

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

I said human, not tissue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You don't need to pass a law banning all abortion if you can demonstrate that a fetus is a human being since killing a human being is already against the law, right? It's also against generally accepted morality, right? If you cannot demonstrate that a fetus meets the generally accepted criteria for a human being then preventing the mother from aborting it would violate the mothers right to self-ownership, right?

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

It's just a piece of paper, it has words on it, it's not some magic relic that supplants the need for morality and reason.

The right to an abortion is God given isn't it? It's a woman's inalienable right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If science conclusively proved that an unborn baby is human and alive how hard do you think it would be to overturn Roe?

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

I said human, not tissue.

I said human tissue. If you can prove a fetus is made of something other than human tissue, let's hear it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If science conclusively proved that an unborn baby is human and alive how hard do you think it would be to overturn Roe?

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

I said human, not tissue.

The issue is not whether or not the fetus is human.

The issue is whether or not a human fetus is sufficiently different from a born human person to warrant that the law treat the two differently.

A fetus without its own rights of personhood is a woman's property. The right to one's property,

especially the property of one's own person, is about as basic a human right as one can be.

 

[NightFox]

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.

You don't need to pass a law banning all abortion if you can demonstrate that a fetus is a human being since killing a human being is already against the law, right? It's also against generally accepted morality, right? If you cannot demonstrate that a fetus meets the generally accepted criteria for a human being then preventing the mother from aborting it would violate the mothers right to self-ownership, right?

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

It's just a piece of paper, it has words on it, it's not some magic relic that supplants the need for morality and reason.

The right to an abortion is God given isn't it? It's a woman's inalienable right.

Only as long as it doesn't involve killing another human being.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

I said human, not tissue.

I said human tissue. If you can prove a fetus is made of something other than human tissue, let's hear it.

Are you something more than human tissue? If not, can I flush you down the toilet without repercussion? If yes, how, and when did it happen?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone knows that it's living human tissue.

I said human, not tissue.

The issue is not whether or not the fetus is human...

That is the only issue in abortion. If it wasn't an issue no one would be arguing about it.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

I don't give a fuck who started it, it is wrong. The only people that try to justify a policy by who supports are partisan assholes. Until you get that through your tiny partisan brain you will remain as stupid as you are now.

FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil.

They are not evil, only people are evil.

"FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil"

They are not evil but most drugs are bad for you and addiction is a large problem now especially with seniors eating dope like candy ala the Bush Gramps and Granny Dope Buffet, all you can eat at taxpayer's expense.
Hate to break the news to you there but drug stores now bid the highest of any business entity when a prime corner opens up in a new commercial district.
And they have a drive through window for you to pick up your Viagra.
The Republicans started the war on drugs, Reagan pushed laws that sent a crack dealer with a hand full of crack to prison longer than a bank robber that pistol whipped the teller and Bush II ran on a platform of Democrats are weak on the war on drugs.
Nice to have someone like me school you once again isn't it?
Sticks and stones, I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters against some of the best.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't need to pass a law banning all abortion if you can demonstrate that a fetus is a human being since killing a human being is already against the law, right? It's also against generally accepted morality, right? If you cannot demonstrate that a fetus meets the generally accepted criteria for a human being then preventing the mother from aborting it would violate the mothers right to self-ownership, right?


It's just a piece of paper, it has words on it, it's not some magic relic that supplants the need for morality and reason.

The right to an abortion is God given isn't it? It's a woman's inalienable right.

Only as long as it doesn't involve killing another human being.

The Constitution takes no position on abortion which, according to the Founders, means that is one of countless things that the people were expected to deal with. An important component of the social contract in American, as well as many other, cultures is the principle that adults who bring innocent children into the world are morally and legally obligated to see that those children have the basic necessities. Before abortion became socially acceptable in our our culture, the woman who could not provide the basic necessities for her child was expected to give it up for adoption by some loving couple who could. It was not morally acceptable to kill it just because she didn't want it or couldn't support it.

I beieve most libertarians (little "L") probably still defend that concept though they are often divided on the thornier issue of whether the unborn baby is a human life. At least they struggle with the morality of that.

That is far better than the modern view that the woman should have no reluctance to destroy a life that would be a burden for her for any reason. But if she decides to allow her baby life, she is not necessarily expected to provide it with necessities but it is okay to assign that responsibility, as well as her support, to the rest of us.

The libertarian way was better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I don't give a fuck who started it, it is wrong. The only people that try to justify a policy by who supports are partisan assholes. Until you get that through your tiny partisan brain you will remain as stupid as you are now.

FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil.

They are not evil, only people are evil.

"FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil"

They are not evil but most drugs are bad for you and addiction is a large problem now especially with seniors eating dope like candy ala the Bush Gramps and Granny Dope Buffet, all you can eat at taxpayer's expense.
Hate to break the news to you there but drug stores now bid the highest of any business entity when a prime corner opens up in a new commercial district.
And they have a drive through window for you to pick up your Viagra.
The Republicans started the war on drugs, Reagan pushed laws that sent a crack dealer with a hand full of crack to prison longer than a bank robber that pistol whipped the teller and Bush II ran on a platform of Democrats are weak on the war on drugs.
Nice to have someone like me school you once again isn't it?
Sticks and stones, I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters against some of the best.

What evidence do you have that addiction is a large problem? Is it the fact that the courts are putting a large number of people into programs that make money for the corporations and the government?


Like I said, until you learn how to think beyond your partisanship you will remain the same stupid person.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't give a fuck who started it, it is wrong. The only people that try to justify a policy by who supports are partisan assholes. Until you get that through your tiny partisan brain you will remain as stupid as you are now.

FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil.

They are not evil, only people are evil.

"FYI, drug treatment is based on the assumption that drugs are evil"

They are not evil but most drugs are bad for you and addiction is a large problem now especially with seniors eating dope like candy ala the Bush Gramps and Granny Dope Buffet, all you can eat at taxpayer's expense.
Hate to break the news to you there but drug stores now bid the highest of any business entity when a prime corner opens up in a new commercial district.
And they have a drive through window for you to pick up your Viagra.
The Republicans started the war on drugs, Reagan pushed laws that sent a crack dealer with a hand full of crack to prison longer than a bank robber that pistol whipped the teller and Bush II ran on a platform of Democrats are weak on the war on drugs.
Nice to have someone like me school you once again isn't it?
Sticks and stones, I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters against some of the best.

What evidence do you have that addiction is a large problem? Is it the fact that the courts are putting a large number of people into programs that make money for the corporations and the government?


Like I said, until you learn how to think beyond your partisanship you will remain the same stupid person.

What party am I partisan to?
This ought to be rich.
You are a complete dumbass if you do not know addiction is a large problem in the senior community and in society at large.
I am in the criminal courts almost daily and drug addiction, more often prescription dope cases, are epidemic.
Prescription drug overdoses are 8 to 1 at emergency rooms over illegal dope.
You are stupid as a brick, most all of the drug programs they put these people into are funded by government you fool.
You really need to stay away from things you know nothing about. You are the partisan hack here parroting what is spoon fed to you by media.
You really believe meth heads have money for "corporations" that have drug clinics?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
And when they get out on bond, if they can ever make bond, that they have money for drug clinics?
You do know that prescription dope is the preferred dope and is the easiest to get addicted to you, don't you?
Prescription drug abuse causes the largest % of deaths in the US from dope.
Again, what party am I partisan to? Tell me who I voted for last election.

 

[NightFox]

I beieve most libertarians (little "L") probably still defend that concept though they are often divided on the thornier issue of whether the unborn baby is a human life. At least they struggle with the morality of that.

IMHO The "thornier issue" to me is not whether the unborn baby is a human life but the question of whether it is a human being, questions such as is it self-aware? does it have the capacity for reason? if it does have these attributes when does it acquire them? remain unanswered (as far as I know) via peer-reviewed, credible scientific method.

I suspect at some point we will have the answers to these questions at which point a re-evaluation of the moral question will be in order.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said human, not tissue.

The issue is not whether or not the fetus is human...

That is the only issue in abortion. If it wasn't an issue no one would be arguing about it.

No one disputes that it's human. It's part of a human body. Nobody disputes that your tonsils are human, do they?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't need to pass a law banning all abortion if you can demonstrate that a fetus is a human being since killing a human being is already against the law, right? It's also against generally accepted morality, right? If you cannot demonstrate that a fetus meets the generally accepted criteria for a human being then preventing the mother from aborting it would violate the mothers right to self-ownership, right?


It's just a piece of paper, it has words on it, it's not some magic relic that supplants the need for morality and reason.

The right to an abortion is God given isn't it? It's a woman's inalienable right.

Only as long as it doesn't involve killing another human being.

And has God informed us on that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said human, not tissue.

I said human tissue. If you can prove a fetus is made of something other than human tissue, let's hear it.

Are you something more than human tissue? If not, can I flush you down the toilet without repercussion? If yes, how, and when did it happen?

I am 100% human tissue, and whatever else human parts may be called, bone, etc., except for some dental work.

I have rights that fetuses don't have, because of the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So apparently a Libertarian is someone who wants to get rid of the government he doesn't like,

and keep the government he does like.

Which is pretty much everyone's opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I beieve most libertarians (little "L") probably still defend that concept though they are often divided on the thornier issue of whether the unborn baby is a human life. At least they struggle with the morality of that.

IMHO The "thornier issue" to me is not whether the unborn baby is a human life but the question of whether it is a human being, questions such as is it self-aware? does it have the capacity for reason? if it does have these attributes when does it acquire them? remain unanswered (as far as I know) via peer-reviewed, credible scientific method.

I suspect at some point we will have the answers to these questions at which point a re-evaluation of the moral question will be in order.

But then again there is no process in the reproductive process from the time the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, becomes a zygote, embryo, fetus, et al, that is any less critical or important to a sentient human being than any other part of his/her life. So there is a legitimate argument for 'life begins at conception' as well as the argument that it begins when it is viable outside the womb as well as the argument that no human is viable outside the womb until it no longer needs others to provide it with food, warmth, and other essentials and so forth.

So, the pure libertarian way is to follow his/her own conscience which may be to outlaw all abortion except for the most extreme cases of necessity, and those who hold that conviction should be allowed to have it in the society they form. However repugnant that is to the pro choice group.

Those who consider the unborn child a property of the mother to do anything with it that she chooses should be allowed to have abortion on demand in the society they form. However repugnant that is to the pro life group.

Or those who struggle with concepts in between who would apply some limits while allowing a liberal policy in some cases too. However that is repugnant to both of the other groups.

Free people generally do get around to doing the right thing with the social contracts they form, whether that be regarding gambling or prostitution or drugs or abortion or public displays of religion or morals clauses in contracts or whatever.

Using voluntary persuasion to change people's hearts and minds is the hallmark of liberty. Mandates from a central government are not.

 

[NightFox]

I beieve most libertarians (little "L") probably still defend that concept though they are often divided on the thornier issue of whether the unborn baby is a human life. At least they struggle with the morality of that.

IMHO The "thornier issue" to me is not whether the unborn baby is a human life but the question of whether it is a human being, questions such as is it self-aware? does it have the capacity for reason? if it does have these attributes when does it acquire them? remain unanswered (as far as I know) via peer-reviewed, credible scientific method.

I suspect at some point we will have the answers to these questions at which point a re-evaluation of the moral question will be in order.

But then again there is no process in the reproductive process from the time the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, becomes a zygote, embryo, fetus, et al, that is any less critical or important to a sentient human being than any other part of his/her life. So there is a legitimate argument for 'life begins at conception' as well as the argument that it begins when it is viable outside the womb as well as the argument that no human is viable outside the womb until it no longer needs others to provide it with food, warmth, and other essentials and so forth.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to invalidate the "pro-life" libertarian argument, as I have said from what I have experienced it is based on the same principled foundation as the "pro-choice" libertarian argument. The central question (for me) being the unknown that I pointed out.

Using voluntary persuasion to change people's hearts and minds is the hallmark of liberty. Mandates from a central government are not.

Agreed, reason and negotiation are always superior to the use of force as a problem solving methodology, I guess that's why we're both libertarians even though we don't agree on all public policy questions.

 

[NightFox]

The right to an abortion is God given isn't it? It's a woman's inalienable right.

Only as long as it doesn't involve killing another human being.

And has God informed us on that?

I dunno did <fill in the blank for whatever your concept of the divine is> ? Personally I base my evaluation on credible, peer reviewed scientific method and reason. If you prefer to wait for messages from on high, then that of course is your choice.