Five myths about Libertarianism

[DailyPolitrix.]

Agreed

 

[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.

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

Read it again. Man decides the rights that he/she feels necessary to be protected by the government. The rights themselves exist as a function of being a person. You have them no matter what but some are important enough to ensure their protection through government.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

.

So in your mind the ninth amendment gives us the right to murder?

 

[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.

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.

Well we're probably arguing on the same side of the fence on this one But my point was that we have to be careful that we don't infer that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are the only rights that apply. The intent was to provide the means for the people to live and enjoy with complete freedom to exercise their unalienable rights and such rights are too many to enumerate. The Founders did a good job covering the bases, but there is just enough wiggle room for misinterpretation if we don't keep pushing the Founders' intent with what they gave us.

The Constitution is a principle as much as it spells out dos and don'ts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

That is because you do not have a clear understanding of what a human being is. There is absolutely no medical difference between a child 1 hour before birth and 1 hour after it, the only thing that has changed is its external environment. SCOTUS copped out on the question when they decided Roe, and arbitrarily decided that the decision point centered around viability. That does not make a pre viable child not human, it just gives viable human beings more rights than that child, the same way that white human beings had more rights than colored ones just a century earlier.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The law does not give you rights, unless you count things like voting as a right.

All rights that are legally protected are given to us by the law. Where abortion is a legal right, a woman has the right to an abortion protected by the law. Where abortion is not legal, a woman does not have the right to an abortion protected by the law.

The law is the difference between her having the right or not having the right.

No they are not. The simple truth is that even animals recognize the concept of rights, so they exist even if there is no law.

Unless you can show me the law of the jungle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I don't like any government.

I am, however, willing to keep some government around for the people who believe they need government in order to define their freedom.

Your will is not the determining factor.

It is for me. The fact that you don't get that is not a reflection on me, it is a commentary on you.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

So in your mind the ninth amendment gives us the right to murder?

Wut?

.

 

[thanatos144]

[/B]

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.

.

So in your mind the ninth amendment gives us the right to murder?

Wut?

.

That's what you said

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Do you understand what the word human means? Hair is not human, even if you can argue that it is human tissue at some point. Human is the entire thing that you are, and includes the ability to think and reason.

Come to think of it, you might not be human by that definition, which could totally explain your problem here.

You're referring to personhood, to treating the fetus as though it is sufficiently comparable to a person who has been born and thus must be treated exactly as born persons are treated,

all else being equal.

If you believe there is no material difference between a zygote consisting of a few human cells and, say, a two year old child,

then logically you believe that the penalty under the law for killing either of them should be the same.

Until you can tell me why a change of environment makes a person a person, except when it doesn't, you are the one that is arguing in circles.

Any side bets on whether NYcarbineer is going to get the point I just made?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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'?

That would be you in regard to your rights, me in regard to mine, and every other individual or corporate life form in the universe in regard to their rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

In order for any of the above to be true, you first have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of God,

and having accomplished that, which you cannot of course,

you then have to prove that God holds all of the positions you attributed to God in your post,

which of course you also cannot.

Thus nothing in your post is of any value in a fact based debate.

Why?

 

[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?

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.

It was your top priority, and you defended the government when it put a gun to the head of the people who disagreed. You did that while claiming to be a conservative who wants less government. Now you claim to be a libertarian.

How is using force to get others to comply with your belief conservative, or libertarian?

 

[Contumacious]

So in your mind the ninth amendment gives us the right to murder?

Wut?

.

That's what you said

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.

You be a religious nut.

The Constitution , a CIVIL document , recognizes that the women own their bodies and have a right to remove whatever the fuck they want from the same including a fetal clump of cells.

.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

The claim that safety regulations on cars cause cars to be less safe than without those regulations. The concept interests me because I know parallels in other areas (for instance I run a daycare and we are required to pour bleach on all the food like bleach is safer than bacteria) and would like to know more about the car regs specifically.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

The claim that safety regulations on cars cause cars to be less safe than without those regulations. The concept interests me because I know parallels in other areas (for instance I run a daycare and we are required to pour bleach on all the food like bleach is safer than bacteria) and would like to know more about the car regs specifically.

Umm...WHAT?!?

 

[FA_Q2]

Which claim specifically?

The claim that safety regulations on cars cause cars to be less safe than without those regulations. The concept interests me because I know parallels in other areas (for instance I run a daycare and we are required to pour bleach on all the food like bleach is safer than bacteria) and would like to know more about the car regs specifically.

Umm...WHAT?!?

That’s not a joke. The state requires that we bleach ALL vegetables and many other foods before serving it to the children.

I am not sure if the regulation is state or federal as the WAC that covers it is a conglomeration of all the regs (and it is several thousand pages to boot) mostly because many state regulations are reflections of federal mandates that the state set up but it is true. There is a bleach solution that must be made each day (as the state says the solution ‘goes bad&#8217 and it is used on ALL surfaces and the food that you serve. Absolutely insane. We do not follow that regulation (I think it endangers the children) but if we were caught we would be closed down.

We wonder why cancer is such a problem and then we think it is all right to ingest manmade chemicals. Some things just make you go what!?!?!

(its a bleach solution btw as there is water in it as well and is used as a wash)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The claim that safety regulations on cars cause cars to be less safe than without those regulations. The concept interests me because I know parallels in other areas (for instance I run a daycare and we are required to pour bleach on all the food like bleach is safer than bacteria) and would like to know more about the car regs specifically.

How about the fact that you once were able to get bumpers on a car that withstood a 5mph crash without damaging the car, now they can only withstand a 2.5 mph impact? Or the fact that smaller, lighter cars are inherently less safe than larger cars, and that CAFE standards reduce the size and weight of every vehicle sold in the US?

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

Then we have the single most dangerous thing about new cars, they do not come with a spare.

New cars sold without spare tires: Automakers sell more cars without spare tires - Los Angeles Times