Libertarianism

[Circe]

I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.

Why? Has even one single libertarian actually advocated for taking away abortion rights here?

Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder," and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.

Duh.

 

[thanatos144]

Why would they want to do that?

Because they keep trying to become republicans even though they are pro confederates . They should go back to the democrat party.

Heh... Maybe. With the phony 'two-party' system, many libertarians have concluded that the only way to advance the cause will be to take over one of the existing major parties. Seems reasonable to target the one that's floundering because its values no longer adequately represent the electorate.

Thats what it is.... Your life sucks cause the two party system has kept you down,..... How about you for once understand that if they wanted to vote for most of what libertarians stand for all they have to do is vote democrat..... You are both almost the same party.

 

[Circe]

You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?

Well, which is it? Are our soldiers killing women and children and burning villages on the other side of the planet to keep us safe (though how any of that keeps us "safe" is difficult to understand -- or believe) or is it to keep us enslaved?

You seem somewhat ambivalent about whether we are being protected or enslaved. Maybe you shouldn't support our soldiers going to the other side of the world to kill poor primitive peoples until you decide that issue.

 

[dblack]

Because they keep trying to become republicans even though they are pro confederates . They should go back to the democrat party.

Heh... Maybe. With the phony 'two-party' system, many libertarians have concluded that the only way to advance the cause will be to take over one of the existing major parties. Seems reasonable to target the one that's floundering because its values no longer adequately represent the electorate.

Thats what it is.... Your life sucks cause the two party system has kept you down,..... How about you for once understand that if they wanted to vote for most of what libertarians stand for all they have to do is vote democrat..... You are both almost the same party.

Not sure what you're going on about here. But I tend to agree that libertarians shouldn't bother with the Republican party. Most of them are just big government neocons like yourself. Better to let the party die off and replace it.

 

[thanatos144]

Heh... Maybe. With the phony 'two-party' system, many libertarians have concluded that the only way to advance the cause will be to take over one of the existing major parties. Seems reasonable to target the one that's floundering because its values no longer adequately represent the electorate.

Thats what it is.... Your life sucks cause the two party system has kept you down,..... How about you for once understand that if they wanted to vote for most of what libertarians stand for all they have to do is vote democrat..... You are both almost the same party.

Not sure what you're going on about here. But I tend to agree that libertarians shouldn't bother with the Republican party. Most of them are just big government neocons like yourself. Better to let the party die off and replace it.

You go right ahead and think that.... I think the republicans should return to their roots. The party of Lincoln.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?

What does us murdering people abroad have to do with staying in this country? That's reducio absurdum.

What is absurd is hypocritical bullshit he is spouting of the evils of this country while sucking up the freedoms those perceived evil afforded him. Like spoiled children who demand it all but never want to work for it.

Thanks for enlightening us with a typical Republicrat rationalization.

1. Even if we did enjoy the utmost freedom domestically, then that wouldn't justify all our nonsense overseas.
2. We don't have as much freedom as you pretend we do. The government is all up in our business about everything.
3. If our govt. is this corrupt, any freedom we have is surely waning. You're satiated by your morsels today. But, you'll be whining tomorrow when they all dry up.

 

[thanatos144]

What does us murdering people abroad have to do with staying in this country? That's reducio absurdum.

What is absurd is hypocritical bullshit he is spouting of the evils of this country while sucking up the freedoms those perceived evil afforded him. Like spoiled children who demand it all but never want to work for it.

Thanks for enlightening us with a typical Republicrat rationalization.

1. Even if we did enjoy the utmost freedom domestically, then that wouldn't justify all our nonsense overseas.
2. We don't have as much freedom as you pretend we do. The government is all up in our business about everything.
3. If our govt. is this corrupt, any freedom we have is surely waning. You're satiated by your morsels today. But, you'll be whining tomorrow when they all dry up.

So Romney losing made you into a libertarian? I guess that makes since since you support rinos

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What is absurd is hypocritical bullshit he is spouting of the evils of this country while sucking up the freedoms those perceived evil afforded him. Like spoiled children who demand it all but never want to work for it.

Thanks for enlightening us with a typical Republicrat rationalization.

1. Even if we did enjoy the utmost freedom domestically, then that wouldn't justify all our nonsense overseas.
2. We don't have as much freedom as you pretend we do. The government is all up in our business about everything.
3. If our govt. is this corrupt, any freedom we have is surely waning. You're satiated by your morsels today. But, you'll be whining tomorrow when they all dry up.

So Romney losing made you into a libertarian? I guess that makes since since you support rinos

Welcome to my nightmare

You didn't have any real counter-point to those points, so you had to spin down the same stale avenues. I'll indulge you though. I said all along that I was a Paul supporter. You conveniently forget that. I supported Romney ahead of the others b/c he was the most honorable man and a man who worked well within the system.

And I don't care if you call Romney a rino. I don't even know what that means anymore frankly. All Republicans are in the pocket of big business and government while stomping upon the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.

Why? Has even one single libertarian actually advocated for taking away abortion rights here?

I have been discussing how this has essentially nothing to do with actual libertarian philosophy and that abortion limitations are not inherently against pro-life positions. That does not detract from the basic fact that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice. Even many that find the practice particularly barbaric, libertarians have a distaste for government and that leads them to usually want it out of almost anything.

This is true. One can be passionately libertarian (small "L"), as I am, and still be passionately pro life (which I also am) and still believe that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion or whether insurance companies cover contraception or whether public agencies hand out condoms. The role of the federal government should be to protect the unalienable rights of the people. And among those same rights is the intention that people govern themselves and make their own choices about what sort of society they wish to have.

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.

Why? Has even one single libertarian actually advocated for taking away abortion rights here?

I have been discussing how this has essentially nothing to do with actual libertarian philosophy and that abortion limitations are not inherently against pro-life positions. That does not detract from the basic fact that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice. Even many that find the practice particularly barbaric, libertarians have a distaste for government and that leads them to usually want it out of almost anything.

This is true. One can be passionately libertarian (small "L"), as I am, and still be passionately pro life (which I also am) and still believe that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion or whether insurance companies cover contraception or whether public agencies hand out condoms. The role of the federal government should be to protect the unalienable rights of the people. And among those same rights is the intention that people govern themselves and make their own choices about what sort of society they wish to have.

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

Agree 100%. Well said.

Odd that you and I disagree on the taxing and spending parts of our federal government yet agree 100% on issues of liberty.

 

[Foxfyre]

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn. And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.

 

[RKMBrown]

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn. And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.

Again agree 100% thus the irony.

Yeah on the matter of abortion, I think the child needs an advocate to argue to a judge to spare the life of the child in cases where the abortion is done late term and / or just for convenience. Convenience as a choice, IMO, should end when the child's heart is beating and/or some level of brain wave activity is present.

 

[FA_Q2]

You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?

This is nothing more than deflection and ad homonym. Not appreciated at all.

By the way, I am one of those solders (actually airman but most don’t make the distinction) so I really doubt you understand how and why I view our military in the light that I do. I will state that it is asinine to think that all people in the country must either agree that our military actions are correct/justified or that we live in an evil nation. That is a false dichotomy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder," and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.

Duh.

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

 

[Circe]

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn. And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.

What would you think as a libertarian, Foxfyre, of the common practice in China and India and other places, of sex-selective abortion? Apparently this is the most common reason for abortion in those countries: they only want boys.

This is not a practice that has come to our shores much, except (I have read) among some Oriental populations in the West.

It could easily come here, and may, soon. It seems to me that many strange new cultural practices present a problem for libertarians (men marrying men is certainly one of those!); some things seem a bridge too far, but how can you draw a line against freedom?

 

[Circe]

Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder," and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.

Duh.

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why? Has even one single libertarian actually advocated for taking away abortion rights here?

I have been discussing how this has essentially nothing to do with actual libertarian philosophy and that abortion limitations are not inherently against pro-life positions. That does not detract from the basic fact that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice. Even many that find the practice particularly barbaric, libertarians have a distaste for government and that leads them to usually want it out of almost anything.

This is true. One can be passionately libertarian (small "L"), as I am, and still be passionately pro life (which I also am) and still believe that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion or whether insurance companies cover contraception or whether public agencies hand out condoms. The role of the federal government should be to protect the unalienable rights of the people. And among those same rights is the intention that people govern themselves and make their own choices about what sort of society they wish to have.

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

Agree 100%. Well said.

Odd that you and I disagree on the taxing and spending parts of our federal government yet agree 100% on issues of liberty.

It’s not really odd at all. Fox and you have very similar concepts of what liberty truly is. Like MANY libertarian views, the core concept is centered on maximized liberty and freedom but there are always different views on how to get to that liberty. On social issues, that is a simple exercise – less government intrusion is better. Most libertarians are going to agree with those processes/policies. Tax policy is another ball of wax as the government is intruding – that what taxing is – and that leads to several different views. In the end, we are all working to the same goals so most fundamentals will be the same but tax policy is not so cut and dry. That is guaranteed to lead to different concepts on what intrusion is the lesser one and that is a good thing. More ideas means more things to try and the best way will show itself as long as we are all working to the same goals – in this case liberty.

 

[RKMBrown]

This is true. One can be passionately libertarian (small "L"), as I am, and still be passionately pro life (which I also am) and still believe that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion or whether insurance companies cover contraception or whether public agencies hand out condoms. The role of the federal government should be to protect the unalienable rights of the people. And among those same rights is the intention that people govern themselves and make their own choices about what sort of society they wish to have.

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

Agree 100%. Well said.

Odd that you and I disagree on the taxing and spending parts of our federal government yet agree 100% on issues of liberty.

It’s not really odd at all. Fox and you have very similar concepts of what liberty truly is. Like MANY libertarian views, the core concept is centered on maximized liberty and freedom but there are always different views on how to get to that liberty. On social issues, that is a simple exercise – less government intrusion is better. Most libertarians are going to agree with those processes/policies. Tax policy is another ball of wax as the government is intruding – that what taxing is – and that leads to several different views. In the end, we are all working to the same goals so most fundamentals will be the same but tax policy is not so cut and dry. That is guaranteed to lead to different concepts on what intrusion is the lesser one and that is a good thing. More ideas means more things to try and the best way will show itself as long as we are all working to the same goals – in this case liberty.

Well said... odd was the wrong term. Perhaps, frustrating or disconcerting

 

[Circe]

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

I find the philosophical implications of this post fascinating. Do you see, Foxfyre, that you are assuming that the whole people will make ONE decision about a given issue? That is, the great majority will decide not to eat horsemeat, not to have abortions in X circumstances, not to go naked in public, etc.

However, even in this statist culture, there are nude bathing beaches and a whole area in San Francisco (I read) where homosexual men normally walk around quite nude. (I believe the city fathers are trying to stop that, but there have been protests.)

In a libertarian culture wouldn't there be even more diversity? The culture wouldn't make just one decision, but many. People would experiment wildly. Like in the '60s! I was reading a sci-fi by Charles Stross that had a lot of that -- people joining a group that did tissue culture of exotic animals to eat, people who grew horns and wings by using DNA transplants, people who became unisex --- Unsex, they called it.

I don't see a libertarian society as making one common consensus culture, but wild experimentalism so that lots more possibilities open up. If a person doesn't like all this confrontational change, and wants laws against it, isn't that rather a traditionalist conservative position rather than libertarian?

 

[RKMBrown]

Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder," and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.

Duh.

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?