Five myths about Libertarianism

[NYcarbineer]

My response says two things:

1. I respect your religious views enough not to engage in the petty exercise of attempting to correct you
2. I have no desire to engage in a discussion regarding religion with you

Now if you are quite through with your disingenuous attempt to deny the obvious.. you think you can muster up a small modicum of honesty? or are you bound and determined to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that discussing anything with you on a rational level is an exercise in futility?

I don't have religious views on rights.

I really don't care whether you do or not.

If you have no desire discussing religion, why did you answer the question at all?

Common courtesy and a desire to clarify my viewpoint on the fact that while I support the right of self-ownership that right is not applicable when the predicate is killing another human being. What I did not want to do is entice you to share your divine right of kings argument against the existence of natural rights or read any sermons (yeah I've been around the block a few times and can read the sign posts).

But what is and isn't a human being, and the application of that to the law, has to be decided BY the law.

That is why we have laws; that is why we choose to be ruled by laws.

 

[NightFox]

I don't have religious views on rights.

I really don't care whether you do or not.

If you have no desire discussing religion, why did you answer the question at all?

Common courtesy and a desire to clarify my viewpoint on the fact that while I support the right of self-ownership that right is not applicable when the predicate is killing another human being. What I did not want to do is entice you to share your divine right of kings argument against the existence of natural rights or read any sermons (yeah I've been around the block a few times and can read the sign posts).

But what is and isn't a human being, and the application of that to the law, has to be decided BY the law.

I've already posted my thoughts on that question multiple times in this thread.

That is why we have laws; that is why we choose to be ruled by laws.

YOU might be RULED by laws, I'm ruled by my conscience and governed by laws, when the two issue conflicting orders my conscience always wins.

 

[thanatos144]

A fact about libertarians they don't know from one to the next what they believe in other then refusing to pay a bill

 

[Foxfyre]

Listen kiddies....those of you who imagine that your declaration that you are a LIBERTARIAN is telling us something important about you are deluding yourselves

As we have seen on this very board, Libertarianism is a THEME (an approach, a vague statement of values) not a set of rigid standards.

Everybody loves liberty.

That does not make them all libertarians, does it?

Or does it since NOBODY can define meaning of the word.

To me being libertarian means this:

The person who wants government limited to ONLY that which is necessary for a healthy and free society.

Now who does not agree?

But the problem isn't that definition, the problem is IN that definition .

Who decides what laws are absolutely necessary?

I would even take the 'healthy' out of the definition as that is too subjective and is not the business of the federal government other than to regulate the safety of products imported that the people have no practical way to do themselves and no practical recourse if there is negligence.

The libertarian wants government to do no more than what is necessary to secure our unalienable rights and administrate the social contract as the people instruct. Government should never do what can be done more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically by the private sector whether the private sector chooses to do it or not.

You are right that the devil is in the details. But, if libertarians agree on the principle of what the purpose of government is, all laws and functions of government can be tested against that principle. That was the concept that guided the Founders and all who followed them until the TR Roosevelt Admiistration. If the Constitution did not allow it, they didn't do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's semantic gibberish.

Are you saying that abortion is a God given inalienable right, which under our system is now secured by our Constitution via Roe v. Wade?

More fascistic bullshit.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

.

The Declaration of Independence is essentially an opinion paper.

Why isn't abortion an inalienable right, secured by our Government?

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion. It is not a God given right to require somebody else perform an abortion. It is not a God given right to have somebody else pay for an abortion. It is not a God given right to destroy another life. It IS a God given right to utilize the willing services of others. It is NOT a God given right to demand that the services be provided.

An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation from any other. Our laws can acknowledge and respect and enforce that concept, but unalienable rights precede government and would be impractical if not impossible to enumerate.

 

[FA_Q2]

It isn't because:

1. There are no such things as inalienable rights, God given, and therefore the Declaration of Independence is horseshit?

or

2. There are God given inalienable rights but abortion isn't one of them?

Not all rights are protected. Some are inalienable and protected by law, others simply exist.

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

 

[Contumacious]

More fascistic bullshit.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

.

The Declaration of Independence is essentially an opinion paper.

Why isn't abortion an inalienable right, secured by our Government?

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion.

You have a nature's god given right to own YOUR body and seek an abortion, you have a right to find somebody who will perform that abortion , you may have a CONTRACTUAL right to have somebody perform the abortion.

Y

 

[NightFox]

Not all rights are protected. Some are inalienable and protected by law, others simply exist.

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

Should be crystal clear by now FA, see: divine right of kings vs. natural rights argument, an oldie but still tired, worn and fully fallacious.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not all rights are protected. Some are inalienable and protected by law, others simply exist.

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

You're on the right track FA, but I have to respectfully disagree that the Constitution outlines the rights of society. It does list some of the rights that the federal government will recognize and defend; i.e. the Bill of Rights. The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so not because they disagreed with them, but because they feared they would be interpreted as the ONLY rights recognized and defended by the federal government. The anti-federalists won the day though by insisting that at least a general outline of unalienable rights needed to be enumerated. The wisdom in doing that became apparent around the turn of the 20th Century. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would have been totally dismantled at that time rather than only partially dismantled.

But the Founders did intend that the federal government be strictly limited to what it was authorized to do via the Constitution using THEIR definition of the common defense, general welfare, etc. Only in that way would the people's unalienable rights be respected and secured as they would have all the power to determine the laws under which they would consent to live.

 

[thanatos144]

The Declaration of Independence is essentially an opinion paper.

Why isn't abortion an inalienable right, secured by our Government?

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion.

You have a nature's god given right to own YOUR body and seek an abortion, you have a right to find somebody who will perform that abortion , you may have a CONTRACTUAL right to have somebody perform the abortion.

Y

I am pretty damn sure God doesn't like the idea of you killing his innocent children

 

[NightFox]

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

You're on the right track FA, but I have to respectfully disagree that the Constitution outlines the rights of society. It does list some of the rights that the federal government will recognize and defend; i.e. the Bill of Rights. The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so not because they disagreed with them, but because they feared they would be interpreted as the ONLY rights recognized and defended by the federal government. The anti-federalists won the day though by insisting that at least a general outline of unalienable rights needed to be enumerated. The wisdom in doing that became apparent around the turn of the 20th Century. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would have been totally dismantled at that time rather than only partially dismantled.

But the Founders did intend that the federal government be strictly limited to what it was authorized to do via the Constitution using THEIR definition of the common defense, general welfare, etc. Only in that way would the people's unalienable rights be respected and secured as they would have all the power to determine the laws under which they would consent to live.

Well put Foxfyre, interesting debate there too Federalist/Anti-Federalist No.84 , well worth the read IMHO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not all rights are protected. Some are inalienable and protected by law, others simply exist.

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government.

Which means that Men decide what our rights will be, not God.

 

[Foxfyre]

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

You're on the right track FA, but I have to respectfully disagree that the Constitution outlines the rights of society. It does list some of the rights that the federal government will recognize and defend; i.e. the Bill of Rights. The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so not because they disagreed with them, but because they feared they would be interpreted as the ONLY rights recognized and defended by the federal government. The anti-federalists won the day though by insisting that at least a general outline of unalienable rights needed to be enumerated. The wisdom in doing that became apparent around the turn of the 20th Century. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would have been totally dismantled at that time rather than only partially dismantled.

But the Founders did intend that the federal government be strictly limited to what it was authorized to do via the Constitution using THEIR definition of the common defense, general welfare, etc. Only in that way would the people's unalienable rights be respected and secured as they would have all the power to determine the laws under which they would consent to live.

Well put Foxfyre, interesting debate there too Federalist/Anti-Federalist No.84 , well worth the read IMHO.

Exactly. For instance in #84 (paraphased here), Hamilton argued against an enumerated right to a free press. Why should it be enumerated that the liberty of the press not be restrained when no power was given to the government to restrict the press in the first place? To spell it out might infer that if the government was not specifically restricted from doing something, then it could do it.

That turned out to be prophetic when T.R Roosevelts "Square Deal" turned constitutional intent on its head and gave the federal government license to do anything it wanted that was not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt was no libertarian.

Libertarians would limit the federal government to its enumerated responsibilities and nothing more as the Founders intended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More fascistic bullshit.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

.

The Declaration of Independence is essentially an opinion paper.

Why isn't abortion an inalienable right, secured by our Government?

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion. It is not a God given right to require somebody else perform an abortion. It is not a God given right to have somebody else pay for an abortion. It is not a God given right to destroy another life. It IS a God given right to utilize the willing services of others. It is NOT a God given right to demand that the services be provided.

An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation from any other. Our laws can acknowledge and respect and enforce that concept, but unalienable rights precede government and would be impractical if not impossible to enumerate.

So you think it's a God given right to have an abortion as long as you pay for it and the abortion provider performs it voluntarily,

therefore by your own thinking abortion is a constitutional right protected by the spirit of the law in the Declaration of Independence,

and by the letter of the law in the Ninth Amendment?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Declaration of Independence is essentially an opinion paper.

Why isn't abortion an inalienable right, secured by our Government?

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion. It is not a God given right to require somebody else perform an abortion. It is not a God given right to have somebody else pay for an abortion. It is not a God given right to destroy another life. It IS a God given right to utilize the willing services of others. It is NOT a God given right to demand that the services be provided.

An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation from any other. Our laws can acknowledge and respect and enforce that concept, but unalienable rights precede government and would be impractical if not impossible to enumerate.

So you think it's a God given right to have an abortion as long as you pay for it and the abortion provider performs it voluntarily,

therefore by your own thinking abortion is a constitutional right protected by the spirit of the law in the Declaration of Independence,

and by the letter of the law in the Ninth Amendment?

Not quite. It is a God given right to choose to seek and utilize legal services offered and provided by others. But it is not your right to demand that others make such services available or that they be made legal.

It is the God given right of the people to enact and enforce laws necessary to the lifestyle they wish to live. And if the majority of the people don't want gambling or liquor or drugs or prostituion or public nudity or abortion at the local level, it is their God given right to form social contract that does not include these things. Ditto if they want them.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that gives the federal government authority to address the issue of abortion. And in my opinion, it was illegal when it did so.

 

[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?

We all know that one of your top priorities in this country is focusing on a little boy that goes into the stall in a girl's bathroom, closes the door and pisses.
That is in your top ten in priorities and is on your A list as to what a conservative should believe in.
Those of us with hundreds of thousands of capital at risk in the market place with the businesses we own believe you are a quack for defining where a boy takes a piss as a top issue for conservatives.
It isn't and is maybe 147th on our list.
We focus on financial issues that affect job growth and capital investing. Taxes and spending top our list, foreign policy, energy, the debt and the dozens of things that capitalists have to study and keep track of daily to make a profit.
Your dumb ass is focused on where someone takes a piss and prop that up as the poster child for "conservatism".
You are a joke. You do not have a clue what a conservative stands for.

 

[FA_Q2]

And what is the authoritative source that gives us the list of rights deemed 'inalienable'?

The constitution outlines the rights that society has deemed require the protection of the government. That is plain as day so I think you are being obtuse on purpose here. If not, let’s get to the point shall we. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

You're on the right track FA, but I have to respectfully disagree that the Constitution outlines the rights of society. It does list some of the rights that the federal government will recognize and defend; i.e. the Bill of Rights. The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights did so not because they disagreed with them, but because they feared they would be interpreted as the ONLY rights recognized and defended by the federal government. The anti-federalists won the day though by insisting that at least a general outline of unalienable rights needed to be enumerated. The wisdom in doing that became apparent around the turn of the 20th Century. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would have been totally dismantled at that time rather than only partially dismantled.

But the Founders did intend that the federal government be strictly limited to what it was authorized to do via the Constitution using THEIR definition of the common defense, general welfare, etc. Only in that way would the people's unalienable rights be respected and secured as they would have all the power to determine the laws under which they would consent to live.

Read my statement again FF. That is essentially exactly what I stated. See the bold comment as well as the comment before that post, ie not all rights are protected rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Declaration of Independence was far more than an opinion paper. It was the entire basis for a war and the rejection of an oppressive government.

And at risk of repeating myself, again re abortion:

It is a God given right to hold whatever convictions you hold re abortion. It is not a God given right to require somebody else perform an abortion. It is not a God given right to have somebody else pay for an abortion. It is not a God given right to destroy another life. It IS a God given right to utilize the willing services of others. It is NOT a God given right to demand that the services be provided.

An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation from any other. Our laws can acknowledge and respect and enforce that concept, but unalienable rights precede government and would be impractical if not impossible to enumerate.

So you think it's a God given right to have an abortion as long as you pay for it and the abortion provider performs it voluntarily,

therefore by your own thinking abortion is a constitutional right protected by the spirit of the law in the Declaration of Independence,

and by the letter of the law in the Ninth Amendment?

Not quite. It is a God given right to choose to seek and utilize legal services offered and provided by others. But it is not your right to demand that others make such services available or that they be made legal.

It is the God given right of the people to enact and enforce laws necessary to the lifestyle they wish to live. And if the majority of the people don't want gambling or liquor or drugs or prostituion or public nudity or abortion at the local level, it is their God given right to form social contract that does not include these things. Ditto if they want them.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that gives the federal government authority to address the issue of abortion. And in my opinion, it was illegal when it did so.

There Constitution does address abortion in the Ninth Amendment, by your own logic.

You conceded that abortion was a God given right, as such it would be covered as an unenumerated right in the ninth.

 

[Contumacious]

So you think it's a God given right to have an abortion as long as you pay for it and the abortion provider performs it voluntarily,

therefore by your own thinking abortion is a constitutional right protected by the spirit of the law in the Declaration of Independence,

and by the letter of the law in the Ninth Amendment?

Not quite. It is a God given right to choose to seek and utilize legal services offered and provided by others. But it is not your right to demand that others make such services available or that they be made legal.

It is the God given right of the people to enact and enforce laws necessary to the lifestyle they wish to live. And if the majority of the people don't want gambling or liquor or drugs or prostituion or public nudity or abortion at the local level, it is their God given right to form social contract that does not include these things. Ditto if they want them.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that gives the federal government authority to address the issue of abortion. And in my opinion, it was illegal when it did so.

There Constitution does address abortion in the Ninth Amendment, by your own logic.

You conceded that abortion was a God given right, as such it would be covered as an unenumerated right in the ninth.

That is correct..

That means that you have a right to pursue it - it does not mean that the government or taxpayers must pay for it nor that a medical providers is required to provide it for free.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Which claim specifically?