Five myths about Libertarianism

[Gadawg73]

Addiction plays a part in the majority of the petty criminal and felony cases I see daily in the criminal courts.
Everyone that works in the criminal justice system sees it.
And no one forces anyone to eat pills but many of the addiction problems I see are as an example: couple gets divorced. One party is depressed and has anxiety.
If you do not know what happens next you folks are beyond stupid.
Free dope in most cases with the doctors giving them all they want.
Real world folks, and growing.
One half the docket in criminal courts is health related and most cases are dope addiction.
The dealers are not addicted and they rarely get caught.
Most all VOPs are drug related, WELL DUH!

 

[Plasmaball]

what a arrogant piece of work you are.

Fuck off, you are the arrogant one right now.

And, yes, I am arrogant, I know it and admit it, so don't bother trying to make me look bad by pointing it out.

I am not the one insulting others for using Faith to shape their lives.

Nobody cares that you use your faith to shape your life. YOUR life is the key term here. I dont need nor want your morals shaping my life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't have to support a party to be partisan, something anyone who considers themselves well informed would understand.

Definition if partisan: A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

Let me ask you something. As a brick, I fail to understand how the fact that government pays corporations to do something proves that corporations are not making money off of it. I am sure that you, such you are almost as smart as you think I am, can explain that.

I don't know anything just because somebody says it. Where is the data that proves that seniors have a large problem with addition? I am quite familiar with the criminal court system and the way it treats drug offenders, and have seen with my own eyes that most of them are not addicts, whatever it is that you think an addict is.

Most people who are arrested on drug charges are people who use the system to get away with something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. They claim to be addicts, get diverted into rehab programs, and go right back to causal use of drugs when it will no longer cause them a serious problem with the courts. I see no reason to suspect that seniors are any less capable of gaming the system simply because they are old, but I could be wrong.

As for meth, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that 5.3% of adults over the age of 26 have reported using meth at least once. Strangely enough, they don't report how many people are addicted to it. Considering that the same survey of the same people reports that only 0.4% used it in the last year, and only 0.2% have used it in the last month, my guess is that it is nowhere near the problem you think it is.

Feel free to provide something besides your totally biased personal testimony, if you know how.

Methamphetamine | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Ok, then what party, cause, faction, person or idea am I a fervent supporter or proponent of?
Can you answer the question without the other half dozen paragraphs of bull shit?

You posted bullshit, I dealt with it, and you complain.

Just last month you claimed to be a conservative, yet supported the government telling people that they had to accept other people's delusion by letting them pretend that sex organs are not real. You were even arguing that schools should be required to allow little boys whose parents want them to pretend to be girls to use the girl's restroom, and were quite passionate about it. Did you forget that in your new enthusiasm to claim to be a libertarian?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not the one insulting others for using Faith to shape their lives.

Who is doing that?

The persons who post i quoted. Now its your turn to divert by saying something about my intelligence trying hide your partisanship

This is the post you were quoting.

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?

Why don't you show me how intelligent you are by pointing out what can possibly get you to conclude that there was an insult there for not having faith about something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Addiction plays a part in the majority of the petty criminal and felony cases I see daily in the criminal courts.
Everyone that works in the criminal justice system sees it.
And no one forces anyone to eat pills but many of the addiction problems I see are as an example: couple gets divorced. One party is depressed and has anxiety.
If you do not know what happens next you folks are beyond stupid.
Free dope in most cases with the doctors giving them all they want.
Real world folks, and growing.
One half the docket in criminal courts is health related and most cases are dope addiction.
The dealers are not addicted and they rarely get caught.
Most all VOPs are drug related, WELL DUH!

Even if that was true, and it isn't, there the entire criminal population of the US is less than 5%. That is about as far from being a big problem as it is possible to get.

 

[Gadawg73]

You don't have to support a party to be partisan, something anyone who considers themselves well informed would understand.

Definition if partisan: A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

Let me ask you something. As a brick, I fail to understand how the fact that government pays corporations to do something proves that corporations are not making money off of it. I am sure that you, such you are almost as smart as you think I am, can explain that.

I don't know anything just because somebody says it. Where is the data that proves that seniors have a large problem with addition? I am quite familiar with the criminal court system and the way it treats drug offenders, and have seen with my own eyes that most of them are not addicts, whatever it is that you think an addict is.

Most people who are arrested on drug charges are people who use the system to get away with something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. They claim to be addicts, get diverted into rehab programs, and go right back to causal use of drugs when it will no longer cause them a serious problem with the courts. I see no reason to suspect that seniors are any less capable of gaming the system simply because they are old, but I could be wrong.

As for meth, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that 5.3% of adults over the age of 26 have reported using meth at least once. Strangely enough, they don't report how many people are addicted to it. Considering that the same survey of the same people reports that only 0.4% used it in the last year, and only 0.2% have used it in the last month, my guess is that it is nowhere near the problem you think it is.

Feel free to provide something besides your totally biased personal testimony, if you know how.

Methamphetamine | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Ok, then what party, cause, faction, person or idea am I a fervent supporter or proponent of?
Can you answer the question without the other half dozen paragraphs of bull shit?

You posted bullshit, I dealt with it, and you complain.

Just last month you claimed to be a conservative, yet supported the government telling people that they had to accept other people's delusion by letting them pretend that sex organs are not real. You were even arguing that schools should be required to allow little boys whose parents want them to pretend to be girls to use the girl's restroom, and were quite passionate about it. Did you forget that in your new enthusiasm to claim to be a libertarian?

Quickly Wavering can not tell us what he believes so he attempts to tell others what he believes they believe.
I am not passionate about a damn thing here.
Women, dogs, horses, football and good bourbon and other things deserve passion.
You can hold your passion all you want to as you post on an internet message board all you care to but comparing that to the things I posted above is unAmerican.

 

[Gadawg73]

Addiction plays a part in the majority of the petty criminal and felony cases I see daily in the criminal courts.
Everyone that works in the criminal justice system sees it.
And no one forces anyone to eat pills but many of the addiction problems I see are as an example: couple gets divorced. One party is depressed and has anxiety.
If you do not know what happens next you folks are beyond stupid.
Free dope in most cases with the doctors giving them all they want.
Real world folks, and growing.
One half the docket in criminal courts is health related and most cases are dope addiction.
The dealers are not addicted and they rarely get caught.
Most all VOPs are drug related, WELL DUH!

Even if that was true, and it isn't, there the entire criminal population of the US is less than 5%. That is about as far from being a big problem as it is possible to get.

So oh wise one Quickly Wavering, if THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL POPULATION IS 5% like you claim, then where are they and how come they are not in jail?
If we know they are exactly 5% then we must know where they are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, then what party, cause, faction, person or idea am I a fervent supporter or proponent of?
Can you answer the question without the other half dozen paragraphs of bull shit?

You posted bullshit, I dealt with it, and you complain.

Just last month you claimed to be a conservative, yet supported the government telling people that they had to accept other people's delusion by letting them pretend that sex organs are not real. You were even arguing that schools should be required to allow little boys whose parents want them to pretend to be girls to use the girl's restroom, and were quite passionate about it. Did you forget that in your new enthusiasm to claim to be a libertarian?

Quickly Wavering can not tell us what he believes so he attempts to tell others what he believes they believe.
I am not passionate about a damn thing here.
Women, dogs, horses, football and good bourbon and other things deserve passion.
You can hold your passion all you want to as you post on an internet message board all you care to but comparing that to the things I posted above is unAmerican.

What I believe about what?

What I believe doesn't fit into a thimble. My beliefs enclose the expanse of my understanding of human knowledge, over half a century of life experience, and cannot be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, or even a book.

Were you lying earlier when you claimed you cared about your belief that those parents had a right to impose their delusions on others, or are you lying now? If you contradict yourself, how can you criticize others who are consistent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Addiction plays a part in the majority of the petty criminal and felony cases I see daily in the criminal courts.
Everyone that works in the criminal justice system sees it.
And no one forces anyone to eat pills but many of the addiction problems I see are as an example: couple gets divorced. One party is depressed and has anxiety.
If you do not know what happens next you folks are beyond stupid.
Free dope in most cases with the doctors giving them all they want.
Real world folks, and growing.
One half the docket in criminal courts is health related and most cases are dope addiction.
The dealers are not addicted and they rarely get caught.
Most all VOPs are drug related, WELL DUH!

Even if that was true, and it isn't, there the entire criminal population of the US is less than 5%. That is about as far from being a big problem as it is possible to get.

So oh wise one Quickly Wavering, if THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL POPULATION IS 5% like you claim, then where are they and how come they are not in jail?
If we know they are exactly 5% then we must know where they are.

And you say you don't care about anything.

I didn't say that it was exactly 5%, I said it was less than that. That is based on BJS numbers that combine everyone that is incarcerated and on some type of supervised release. I applied simple arithmetic to get my estimate,

Does your superior intellect understand arithmetic?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[8] Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole.[12] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[12]
In addition, there were 70,792 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2010.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Since your experience is with people who are in court, it is, by definition, a very small part of the larger numbers I am using here.

 

[FA_Q2]

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

Technically, he is correct. The sad part is he doesn't see that criminalizing drugs is legislating a different morality. That might be because he doesn't know how to argue.

Technically, he is not. You are not ‘legislating’ morality when you have no actual legislation. That is actually what legalization is: removing current laws that make drugs illegal. The government does not legislate the morality of taking a nap no your couch because there is no legislation about napping in your home. No legislation does not equal legislating morality.

Now, illegalizing drugs OTOH, THAT is legislating morality because they have passed laws concerning drug use where there are no victims of the so called ‘crime.’

I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that we can have a government but one that somehow does not legislate morality and society.

How exactly does that work?

Every law every regulation represents SOME KIND of moral value.

There is simply no way to avoid the reality that governments and their laws are the codification of the value system of the society they represent.

Nobody is really against legislating morality. Mostly they're just against the other guy legislating morality they don't agree with.

I disagree with my morality when it comes to government legislation. That is because, unlike you, I understand that the concept of legislating morality is inherently evil, even if done by people with good intentions.

Exactly my point. I owe you some rep on this post

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?

There's no need for doctors to be in any way licensed? No need for safety regulations on automobile manufacturing?

There is no conceivable argument you can lay out that makes sense to anyone who does not support government interference in the doctor patient relationship, which you claim is sacrosanct when it cones to abortion. I dare you to try so I can show you how stupid requiring a prescription for anything is.

As for doctors, the reason they are licensed is because of something called rent seeking.

And you really do not want to try and defend regulating automobile manufacturing, you will find out that the government is actually regulating cars to be less safe than they can be.

Can you source this claim? I am interested. I don’t doubt your claim – I see similar regulations all the time in my own experiences with regulation but it is always good to arm yourself with information.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Science has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is indeed the case. The problem is not whether or not it is a living person but rather at what point should that person start receiving protections of its inherent rights. The ‘person’ argument is a bullshit way for those that support killing their future child justification and is rather sick. I support the right of choice but at the very least I demand that we be honest with ourselves in our actions and decisions. Justifying a killing by claiming that the target is simply not alive or a person is abhorrent to me.

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.

I think that the answers are already there. Science has identified when brain activity starts (very early) and when the brain coalesces from 5 separate pieces into the thinking machine that we are born with. They have made very real observations of that brain activity and many of the effects that the chemicals have on the baby effectively keeping it from thinking clearly until birth as it would be very bad for the child to decide to start exploring a little too early. IOW, the brain capacity exists somewhere in the second trimester when the brain forms into a fully functioning organ but the self-aware part is staved off by drugs until born and even then, self-awareness takes time to manifest – an event that takes months after birth. Personally, I believe there is ample evidence to make an informed decision in abortion – the only reason that we are having a hard time doing so is that the issue is charged and people refuse to think clearly when discussing it. When the vast majority of the nation views abortion as something that should be legal but regulated to the first 2 trimesters (agreeing with Roe) but the argument never gets passed complete legalization or outright ban you end up with a useless discourse. It is really disgraceful how people treat this issue – almost like their brains simply stop working as soon as abortion is mentioned. Not that holding either extreme (outright ban to complete legalization) is an unthinking position mind you. Many reach those conclusions through solid reasoning. The problem I have is that most don’t bother with the reasoning part at all and just start screeching. That is inexcusable.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

What a useless statement. Not to invoke Goodwin but…
The Nazi’s wanted to get rid of government that they did not like and institute government that they did like. Does that mean they have any equivalency with liberalism or conservatism? Of course not. It is an empty statement.

The defining difference in modern liberal and conservative philosophies of government they want/don’t want and libertarianism is that libertarians want to maximize freedom. IOW, the libertarian government really is not taking anything away from you, you are still free to do as you choose. YOU OTOH, want to install government that forces the libertarian to support your values and give up the freedoms that you don’t like. Libertarians are not forcing anything on you but the modern liberal/conservative political philosophies are totally different in that regard.

Of course, I am not sure why I bother as you have been shown this a dozen times but you simply want to insist that libertarians are just like you – I guess because it is easier to demonize them when you demand that they follow the same asinine precepts that you do. Ironic.

 

[FA_Q2]

So there is a legitimate argument for 'life begins at conception'

I take contention with that because there is no legitimate argument. It is simply established as fact by the very definition of the terms used. It is fact that life begins the instant the egg is fertilized. I realize that it is very close to what you are saying but I only bring this up because I refuse to allow those that refuse to acknowledge this basic fact any more room to wiggle on this matter. I tire of them demanding that the life has not started to justify hiding from what they support.

 

[FA_Q2]

Back to the 'myths'.

According to Pew Research, libertarians are 67% male.

Section 3: Demographics and News Sources | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

And?

That does not mean it is a ‘boys club.’ It means there is a significant portion that is female even though males are overly represented within the political ideology.

You seem to think that we need a split that matches demographics in order to not be deemed a boys club. Color me unsurprised as you are from the party that thinks if testing scores are not reflective of minority statistics the problem MUST be a racially biased test even if there is NOTHING that established that supposition.

That is the inherent problem that comes about when you are looking for an assumed outcome rather than simply looking at the facts.

 

[FA_Q2]

Addiction plays a part in the majority of the petty criminal and felony cases I see daily in the criminal courts.
Everyone that works in the criminal justice system sees it.
And no one forces anyone to eat pills but many of the addiction problems I see are as an example: couple gets divorced. One party is depressed and has anxiety.
If you do not know what happens next you folks are beyond stupid.
Free dope in most cases with the doctors giving them all they want.
Real world folks, and growing.
One half the docket in criminal courts is health related and most cases are dope addiction.
The dealers are not addicted and they rarely get caught.
Most all VOPs are drug related, WELL DUH!

What you face in the courts is a VERY small cross section of people that have been SPECIFICALLY singled out in a manner that fits the notions that you hold. IOW, all you see is the bad and the abusers. You don’t really see any of the recreational users, non-users and all around those that do not have a drug problem.

This is exactly why anecdotal evidence is a fallacy. Your personal section of the world is heavily biased by your circumstances and other local effects that simply do not carry over to the nation at large. If you can back those statements up with statistical analysis then you have something otherwise you do not.

I know that we use anecdotal evidence though all the time, I do it as well and that is just fine when there is nothing challenging that supposition but QW has given you something that contradicts your suppositions and that is a far stronger argument than your anecdotal evidence.

 

[NightFox]

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

Science has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is indeed the case. The problem is not whether or not it is a living person but rather at what point should that person start receiving protections of its inherent rights. The ‘person’ argument is a bullshit way for those that support killing their future child justification and is rather sick. I support the right of choice but at the very least I demand that we be honest with ourselves in our actions and decisions. Justifying a killing by claiming that the target is simply not alive or a person is abhorrent to me.

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.

I think that the answers are already there. Science has identified when brain activity starts (very early) and when the brain coalesces from 5 separate pieces into the thinking machine that we are born with. They have made very real observations of that brain activity and many of the effects that the chemicals have on the baby effectively keeping it from thinking clearly until birth as it would be very bad for the child to decide to start exploring a little too early. IOW, the brain capacity exists somewhere in the second trimester when the brain forms into a fully functioning organ but the self-aware part is staved off by drugs until born and even then, self-awareness takes time to manifest – an event that takes months after birth. Personally, I believe there is ample evidence to make an informed decision in abortion – the only reason that we are having a hard time doing so is that the issue is charged and people refuse to think clearly when discussing it. When the vast majority of the nation views abortion as something that should be legal but regulated to the first 2 trimesters (agreeing with Roe) but the argument never gets passed complete legalization or outright ban you end up with a useless discourse. It is really disgraceful how people treat this issue – almost like their brains simply stop working as soon as abortion is mentioned. Not that holding either extreme (outright ban to complete legalization) is an unthinking position mind you. Many reach those conclusions through solid reasoning. The problem I have is that most don’t bother with the reasoning part at all and just start screeching. That is inexcusable.

I have not personally seen credible science that indicates to me that we have a clear demarcation on the pre-human-being/human being line. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist just means that I haven't seen it and thus my answer must be I don't know when/if that transition takes place pre-birth (granted abortion isn't high on my interest list for research so take that for what it's worth), I suspect that it does but suspicion does not equal reason. What I do know is that :

• Absent said credible scientific evidence I would always side with the right of self-ownership
• If said credible scientific evidence were provided I would contend that the killing of another human being under any circumstances (excepting self defense of course) is immoral and should also be illegal. The right of self-ownership being voided when the predicate involves aggression toward another human being, something I assumed would be self-evident but clearly is not to some people.

 

[editec]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
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.

Exactly.

Note how many different versions of LIBERTARIANSIM we see on this board?

EVerybody's a freaking libertarian in their own minds.

Legislating morality?


A freaking STOP SIGN is the manifestation of a MORAL value.

What moral value, you ask?

the MORAL value that suggest that the roads are a resource we hold IN COMMON, and therefore users are subject to regulation.

That is a MORAL value underpinning that stop sign, folks.


All government, all rules, all regulations, hell all economic systems REFLECT THE MORAL VALUE SYSTEM OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF THE SOCIETY.

 

[NightFox]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
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.

Exactly.

Note how many different versions of LIBERTARIANSIM we see on this board?

Yes it's a crying shame that us libertarians just can't seem to get with the conformity program and dance to the tune of partisan puppet masters, the hubris of using reason to arrive at my own conclusions is sometimes more than I can stand.

EVerybody's a freaking libertarian in their own minds.

Rest assured that given the content of your posts it's a fairly safe bet that nobody is going to accuse you of being a libertarian inwardly or outwardly, so rest easy, you're safe.

Legislating morality?


A freaking STOP SIGN is the manifestation of a MORAL value.

What moral value, you ask?

the MORAL value that suggest that the roads are a resource we hold IN COMMON, and therefore users are subject to regulation.

That is a MORAL value underpinning that stop sign, folks.


All government, all rules, all regulations, hell all economic systems REFLECT THE MORAL VALUE SYSTEM OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF THE SOCIETY.

Any object that serves a practical purpose in the public sphere (like say ... attempting to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic) also serves a secondary purpose of defining morality?

.. and all this time I thought stop signs were just a common sense technical development designed to do exactly what they appear to do, who knew? I wonder what we'll find when we delve into the morality of sidewalks and manhole covers.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have not personally seen credible science that indicates to me that we have a clear demarcation on the pre-human-being/human being line. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist just means that I haven't seen it and thus my answer must be I don't know when/if that transition takes place pre-birth (granted abortion isn't high on my interest list for research so take that for what it's worth), I suspect that it does but suspicion does not equal reason. What I do know is that :

• Absent said credible scientific evidence I would always side with the right of self-ownership
• If said credible scientific evidence were provided I would contend that the killing of another human being under any circumstances (excepting self defense of course) is immoral and should also be illegal. The right of self-ownership being voided when the predicate involves aggression toward another human being, something I assumed would be self-evident but clearly is not to some people.

I would dig up some of my pervious notes but I don’t think that is really necessary as per the bolded part. I actually agree with that statement as abortion is a minute issue to the very real problems that we face today. Beside the point that you are not going to eradicate it if you wanted to and I almost always side on the position that ensures the most freedom in my estimation, abortion is really a non-issue. Add to that the simple fact that politically, nothing about abortion is going to change any time soon and you have the real picture. Politicians have been campaigning on abortion for decades and yet the law has been almost identical over the entire time. The only real reason that I engage on such a topic is because I can’t stand the way that MANY proponents of choice (of which I am one of the proponents with some basic restrictions over later terms) simply refuse to accept what they are actually doing in order to morally justify a killing. I don’t need falsehoods to justify my decision to support the freedom of an individual over her own body. I believe that doing so makes the entire debate dishonest and leads to such asinine positions like the ‘moral exercise’ of the paper on AFTER birth abortions. When you start to distort reality to justify your positions, you end up justifying anything you want.

Yes it's a crying shame that us libertarians just can't seem to get with the conformity program and dance to the tune of partisan puppet masters, the hubris of using reason to arrive at my own conclusions is sometimes more than I can stand.


----------------[snip]----------------

Any object that serves a practical purpose in the public sphere (like say ... attempting to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic) also serves a secondary purpose of defining morality?

.. and all this time I thought stop signs were just a common sense technical development designed to do exactly what they appear to do, who knew? I wonder what we'll find when we delve into the morality of sidewalks and manhole covers.

Oh the dripping sarcasm

Thanks for that post – I am going to be giggling for an hour

 

[thanatos144]

Like I said... Libertarians are the most partisan people next to progressives.