Libertarianism

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.

It's not a separate life until the life is separate.

As long as the life is not separate from the woman concerned, libertarianism applies. IMO.

The fetus only has whatever rights the woman concerned is willing to give it pre-viability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are deliberately confusing the issue there now Derideo and you know it. That is a personal belief on YOUR part. To understand the libertarian position you MUST accept that there is a competing interest here and that is the rights of the unborn child. YOU might disagree with that fact BUT there are others that see that a different way. You know that I am a pro-choice individual with some basic limitations but pro-life is not necessarily counter to libertarian ideals. There are the rights of other involved. MOST libertarians that I know are prochoice simply on the grounds that they don’t want the government involved with your life that deeply but to try and direct this to an abortion debate is an attempt to derail the topic.

Abortion is not a right/left/libertarian subject. That crosses the line of deeply held beliefs on when life begins and rights start.

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

All of that flowery speech to ignore the premise that another person's life is on the line. I mean come on. Use your head.

FYI the term "person" in the legal sense does not apply to a fetus until after it is born. Only at that stage does the "person" have constitutional rights of their own. The State can choose to grant a fetus 3rd trimester rights but it cannot force a woman to sacrifice her life for that of the fetus.

Some women will die if they are denied 3rd trimester abortions. That is something that many anti-choicers prefer to ignore. Are you willing to sacrifice their lives because of a "potential life" that might not even survive the pregnancy?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

All of that flowery speech to ignore the premise that another person's life is on the line. I mean come on. Use your head.

FYI the term "person" in the legal sense does not apply to a fetus until after it is born. Only at that stage does the "person" have constitutional rights of their own. The State can choose to grant a fetus 3rd trimester rights but it cannot force a woman to sacrifice her life for that of the fetus.

Some women will die if they are denied 3rd trimester abortions. That is something that many anti-choicers prefer to ignore. Are you willing to sacrifice their lives because of a "potential life" that might not even survive the pregnancy?

According to the law a fetus is not a person. However, not all libertarians agree with that viewpoint.

And we can get into 'exceptions' but that's really a tangent from what you were arguing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...' My views on libertarianism are well known on the board.

You have never heard of Barry Goldwater? Let me guess, you think he was a rich white guy who hated blacks and wanted the government to control everyone.

By the way, if you are all for freedom for everyone why do you support Obamacare, which is the exact opposite of freedom?
I deleted the rest of your post because it, like you, has no idea what the concept of debate is. This thread is where you present a challenge to me to prove that libertarians have not discussed an issue you think is important, and I prove you wrong. It is not where you come in and copy the same lies you have repeated everywhere else, and then ignore the multiple people that come in and show you that they are lies. If you want to do that go start your own thread in a forum where copying other people's words counts as thinking.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, if there was an amendment allowing for a federal income tax, then it would be Constitutional. But there is no such amendment. Sorry, Republicrat.

Facts suck for you.
Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource, the free online library

Yes indeed, facts are facts. Which number amendment do you think grants the federal government to have an income tax; as if I don't know.

So why dont you answer the question, if you know?

 

[Circe]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.

That's actually a very interesting issue to me --- the question of what IS "harm." In Libertarianism you should be free as long as what you do doesn't harm others.

Well, just how tightly does the law, government, etc. define "harm"? There are a lot of great complainers in the world, always calling the law on their neighbors for this reason, that reason, but mainly for the reason that they are bad-tempered and have feelings of entitlement.

Needs thought.

Of course it needs thought, and lots of people have thought about it. I think this guy gets into the exceptions and explains why you cannot always say it is wrong to initiate aggression, but he might be going too far in saying that we should ignore the non aggression principle entirely.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Facts suck for you.
Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource, the free online library

Yes indeed, facts are facts. Which number amendment do you think grants the federal government to have an income tax; as if I don't know.

So why dont you answer the question, if you know?

Because I don't want to put words into your mouth. But, since you seem to be beckoning me to presume, then I will. You likely think the sixteenth amendment grants the right for the federal government to have an income tax. But, it does not.

 

[SayMyName]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

As I have always understood it, and to which I subscribe, in this age of birth control, it is not an issue, really.

Abortion is a persons right. At the same time, a doctor has a right to say, "Yes," or "No."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

You are deliberately confusing the issue there now Derideo and you know it. That is a personal belief on YOUR part. To understand the libertarian position you MUST accept that there is a competing interest here and that is the rights of the unborn child. YOU might disagree with that fact BUT there are others that see that a different way. You know that I am a pro-choice individual with some basic limitations but pro-life is not necessarily counter to libertarian ideals. There are the rights of other involved. MOST libertarians that I know are prochoice simply on the grounds that they don’t want the government involved with your life that deeply but to try and direct this to an abortion debate is an attempt to derail the topic.

Abortion is not a right/left/libertarian subject. That crosses the line of deeply held beliefs on when life begins and rights start.

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

The principle of liberty and privacy does not mean people get to commit murder out of the public eye and expect to get away with it. If a libertarian thinks it is murder to abort a child then they are being principled when they oppose it. Just because their principles are different than yours does not mean they are not principled, something even you should understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.

It's not a separate life until the life is separate.

As long as the life is not separate from the woman concerned, libertarianism applies. IMO.

That is what makes it interesting, I fully believe that a inborn baby is a separate life. Strangely enough, I am pretty sure you believe the same thing, and would be willing to support murder charges if someone killed a baby that the mother wanted 30 minutes before the delivery of the baby. The only real question is, when does it become a separate life. Science tells me that life starts before birth, not after it, so I will play it safe and push it back further than that just to be safe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.

It's not a separate life until the life is separate.

As long as the life is not separate from the woman concerned, libertarianism applies. IMO.

The fetus only has whatever rights the woman concerned is willing to give it pre-viability.

Women do not give people rights anymore than governments do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

All of that flowery speech to ignore the premise that another person's life is on the line. I mean come on. Use your head.

FYI the term "person" in the legal sense does not apply to a fetus until after it is born. Only at that stage does the "person" have constitutional rights of their own. The State can choose to grant a fetus 3rd trimester rights but it cannot force a woman to sacrifice her life for that of the fetus.

Some women will die if they are denied 3rd trimester abortions. That is something that many anti-choicers prefer to ignore. Are you willing to sacrifice their lives because of a "potential life" that might not even survive the pregnancy?

For your information, the word person is a legal concept that applies to the fetus whenever the courts say it does. It is entirely possible for the court to treat a fetus as a person under one circumstance, and turn around and declare the same fetus, at the same gestation point, is not a person under others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

In theory they should be but it appears as though in practice this is not the case. Standing on principle is easier said than done. It is always the difficult choices that separate the sheep from the goats. No offense intended by that figure of speech.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

It's funny how you're putting these spins on it like 'religious structures' or 'conservative moralism.' It's simple. When did libertarians only start believing 2/3 of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you believe that a fetus is a life then you are honor bound to protect him or her. That life deserves the same rights as everyone else, does it not?

If you're arguing that people are only responsible for their own actions because its their bodies then by all means, child abandonment would be justifiable based upon not wanting to put stress upon one's body.

Being libertarian doesn't mean that you have to forget that we have basic inherent humanitarian obligations to one another.

 

[midcan5]

As this thread demonstrates too well there is no debating a belief system that like communism or socialism are idealized versions of a political and social system. Libertarians believe, same as the communist or socialist or whatever believe. How much for instance is too much regulation, or how big should government be, or what does freedom mean when you cannot find a decent job. In the end there is no simple answer and libertarianism offers none either. Vague pronouncements about freedom are meaningless outside of social reality. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html

A few more links for the doubters:

"Libertarians believe, therefore, that we are singularly inept as a group. Assuming for a moment that the proposition is true-- there is a lot of evidence for it -- a cynic would propose that the reason we are collectively incompetent is that we are individually incompetent as well....Libertarians, however, are optimists. I cannot fault them for this; I have written elsewhere about the importance of optimism in any human scheme, even to the point of self-deception. Nonetheless, libertarians assume, as most people do, that there is a way out of any given dilemma; their self-deception may consist of believing that what we cannot accomplish collectively, we can more effectively do individually." Why I Am Not a Libertarian

"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument...The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all..." Why is libertarianism wrong?

"Libertarianism is a philosophy of individual freedom. Or so its adherents claim. But with their single-minded defense of the rights of property and contract, libertarians cannot come to grips with the systemic denial of freedom in private regimes of power, particularly the workplace. When they do try to address that unfreedom, as a group of academic libertarians calling themselves “Bleeding Heart Libertarians” have done in recent months, they wind up traveling down one of two paths: Either they give up their exclusive focus on the state and become something like garden-variety liberals or they reveal that they are not the defenders of freedom they claim to be." Let It Bleed: Libertarianism and the Workplace ? Crooked Timber


"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson

 

[Derideo_Te]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

It's funny how you're putting these spins on it like 'religious structures' or 'conservative moralism.' It's simple. When did libertarians only start believing 2/3 of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you believe that a fetus is a life then you are honor bound to protect him or her. That life deserves the same rights as everyone else, does it not?

If you're arguing that people are only responsible for their own actions because its their bodies then by all means, child abandonment would be justifiable based upon not wanting to put stress upon one's body.

Being libertarian doesn't mean that you have to forget that we have basic inherent humanitarian obligations to one another.

Exactly what "liberty" does a fetus have? If a pregnant women commits a heinous crime must she remain free because imprisoning her would deny her fetus the right to "liberty'?

Furthermore the fetus is incapable of "life" pre-viability. The woman is the one who is providing the fetus the means of "life". That you see it as having an "independent life" all its' own with separate constitutional rights is going to result in some serious unintended legal consequences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

Really? What if I provided you with scientific proof that life begins at 13 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours after conception? Would it be conservative moralism to insist that the baby has all the same rights as an adult at that point?

(Not: I do not have proof of that, I just pulled the number out of the air.)

It is a difference of opinion on how to apply the non aggression principle to a life that cannot speak for itself. There are atheists who oppose abortion, this is not a religious issue to everyone.

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

It's funny how you're putting these spins on it like 'religious structures' or 'conservative moralism.' It's simple. When did libertarians only start believing 2/3 of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you believe that a fetus is a life then you are honor bound to protect him or her. That life deserves the same rights as everyone else, does it not?

If you're arguing that people are only responsible for their own actions because its their bodies then by all means, child abandonment would be justifiable based upon not wanting to put stress upon one's body.

Being libertarian doesn't mean that you have to forget that we have basic inherent humanitarian obligations to one another.

Exactly what "liberty" does a fetus have? If a pregnant women commits a heinous crime must she remain free because imprisoning her would deny her fetus the right to "liberty'?

Furthermore the fetus is incapable of "life" pre-viability. The woman is the one who is providing the fetus the means of "life". That you see it as having an "independent life" all its' own with separate constitutional rights is going to result in some serious unintended legal consequences.

Not according to doctors.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ooo - The evil big business argument. As if they come close to a corrupt government. If people don't like big business, they can stop buying the product. Big government has the power to oppress. Just look at state of medicine. The prices are artificially high due to government laws; not big business. I guarantee you that medicine was never meant to be one-fifth of the economy. But, once you erase market options and insert these phony underpayments that everyone has to pay, that's why it's all messed up; and all at the hands of government pretending they're regulating their 'fairness.'