Time to form a moderate party

[kaz]

One cannot be a libertarian and be anti-choice.

That's certainly untrue if you're referring to abortion (i.e. "anti-choice"), the proposition of many (most?) "anti-choice" libertarians is that it's murder which violates the very fountainhead of all libertarian principles (the principle of non-aggression). Personally I don't happen to agree with them on that particular question but their position doesn't make them any less libertarian.

I struggle with that one. My brother and I agree on almost every issue, except abortion. I have a hard time like bendog seeing how someone who's libertarian can believe government should have the power to force a woman to carry a baby inside her own body to term. I see all his points, except why government should have the power to make that choice, which he opposes under almost every other circumstance. I haven't come to an answer how a libertarian can believe government should have that power. But people who have credibility with me they are libertarian believe it, so I haven't figured out an answer.

 

[kaz]

JohnL, you are entitled to your delusions, but thinking Americans don't buy the right wing reactonaries' nonsense and threatening anymore. The GOP will not change for you, you will change for the GOP. And you are right: the OWS did not frighten the great mainstream of Americans because it was aimed at banking and such institutions as the TPM was aimed at humans.

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever.

The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

 

[NightFox]

One cannot be a libertarian and be anti-choice.

That's certainly untrue if you're referring to abortion (i.e. "anti-choice"), the proposition of many (most?) "anti-choice" libertarians is that it's murder which violates the very fountainhead of all libertarian principles (the principle of non-aggression). Personally I don't happen to agree with them on that particular question but their position doesn't make them any less libertarian.

I struggle with that one. My brother and I agree on almost every issue, except abortion. I have a hard time like bendog seeing how someone who's libertarian can believe government should have the power to force a woman to carry a baby inside her own body to term. I see all his points, except why government should have the power to make that choice, which he opposes under almost every other circumstance. I haven't come to an answer how a libertarian can believe government should have that power. But people who have credibility with me they are libertarian believe it, so I haven't figured out an answer.

I suspect most libertarians struggle with that one but you have to think of it from the perspective that "pro-life" libertarians don't see it as the government forcing a woman to carry a child to term, they see it as the government protecting a human life. The question then boils down to what you consider a human life, IMHO either position squares with libertarian principles though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JohnL, you are entitled to your delusions, but thinking Americans don't buy the right wing reactonaries' nonsense and threatening anymore. The GOP will not change for you, you will change for the GOP. And you are right: the OWS did not frighten the great mainstream of Americans because it was aimed at banking and such institutions as the TPM was aimed at humans.

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever. The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't be libert and "anti-choice", because such a position places the choice in statist hands.

Can't do it: if you are pro-choice, you can't be a real libertarian.

 

[Ernie S.]

Time for the democrats to replace their extremist with some blue dogs!
Time for the republicans to kick the anti-science republican out! (tea-party)

Anyone raving over social issues over the economy is a raving loon!
Anyone that wants to tell me what I can say is a raving loon!
Anyone that wants to divide our nation by lies is a raving loon!

The tea party is not anti science. They are simply pro Constitution and anti tax and spend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Creationist and IDers are anti science and most like TPM socon reactionaries.

Not all TPM are anti-science.

 

[Ernie S.]

JohnL, you are entitled to your delusions, but thinking Americans don't buy the right wing reactonaries' nonsense and threatening anymore. The GOP will not change for you, you will change for the GOP. And you are right: the OWS did not frighten the great mainstream of Americans because it was aimed at banking and such institutions as the TPM was aimed at humans.

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever. The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

There is apparently not a need to provide evidence or even original thought when dealing with you. Kaz is just adopting your style of debate.
Interesting how well he predicted your response.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever. The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

There is apparently not a need to provide evidence or even original thought when dealing with you. Kaz is just adopting your style of debate.
Interesting how well he predicted your response.

Ernie, I am merely responding not making the original assertion.

Your irrelevant opinion, without good evidence, is just that: irrelevant. kaz is right with you. He will now say something about a neg, because he so rarely comes out from behind his Ignore. Who cares.

 

[Ernie S.]

Jake has gotten his neg, so,
This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.
.

 

[kaz]

JohnL, you are entitled to your delusions, but thinking Americans don't buy the right wing reactonaries' nonsense and threatening anymore. The GOP will not change for you, you will change for the GOP. And you are right: the OWS did not frighten the great mainstream of Americans because it was aimed at banking and such institutions as the TPM was aimed at humans.

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever. The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

OK, it was an easy prediction, but you're still an idiot.

 

[kaz]

Yes, you're a Republican who hates everything about the Republican party and never criticizes the Democrats ever. The next post will not be a list of specifics proving that false. None of your posts in fact will be.

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

There is apparently not a need to provide evidence or even original thought when dealing with you. Kaz is just adopting your style of debate.
Interesting how well he predicted your response.

I've even told Jake that at some point when he endlessly refuses to respond to a point or answer a question that other people will do the same. So I just banter with him. I'm not going to bother writing content when I get zero back.

Apparently I'm not the only one who's made that observation with Jake...

Don't worry about it Jake, we're just a couple reactionaries who blah blah and whatever you always say blah blah about us.

 

[kaz]

You made an opinion without evidence, only your feelings, kaz, so that does not count.

None of you, when making assertions, never give acceptable evidence, making my job so much easier to pull your nonsense apart

You far right reactionaries will adopt to the mainstream GOP or you can go on down the street.

There is apparently not a need to provide evidence or even original thought when dealing with you. Kaz is just adopting your style of debate.
Interesting how well he predicted your response.

Ernie, I am merely responding not making the original assertion.

Your irrelevant opinion, without good evidence, is just that: irrelevant. kaz is right with you. He will now say something about a neg, because he so rarely comes out from behind his Ignore. Who cares.

Actually I provided my evidence. You endlessly defend the Democrats, you never criticize them and you endlessly blast the GOP. Two simple lists from you would dispel any wrong ideas on those counts.

 

[bendog]

To me, the closest we've come to libertaraians were the founders, esp those in the Madison Jefferson camp. I'm not aware there were any restrictions on abortions in the US in the 18th century, and anti-choice laws really stemmed from later christian sentiments, so I don't see the logic in saying anti-choice is consistent with libertarianism, when libertarianism is founded on the notion that someone elses religious beliefs cannot legitimately impact another without some direct harm to the person(s) with such beliefs.

Perhaps we could compromise (oh that dirty word) on 20 months, or a severe, demonstrable in a family court, negative health effect on the woman, but I don't see Cruz, Paul or Ryan compromising on anything less than nothing ever, and get rid of that pesky morning after pill too, while we're at it.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to be the first to insult another poster, so I'm outta this thread for now.

 

[NightFox]

To me, the closest we've come to libertaraians were the founders, esp those in the Madison Jefferson camp. I'm not aware there were any restrictions on abortions in the US in the 18th century, and anti-choice laws really stemmed from later christian sentiments, so I don't see the logic in saying anti-choice is consistent with libertarianism, when libertarianism is founded on the notion that someone elses religious beliefs cannot legitimately impact another without some direct harm to the person(s) with such beliefs.

Perhaps we could compromise (oh that dirty word) on 20 months, or a severe, demonstrable in a family court, negative health effect on the woman, but I don't see Cruz, Paul or Ryan compromising on anything less than nothing ever, and get rid of that pesky morning after pill too, while we're at it.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to be the first to insult another poster, so I'm outta this thread for now.

Libertarianism wasn't "founded" on anything to do with religion, it's foundation is the principle of non-aggression, if one believes that a legitimate role of government is the protection of the lives of the governed and ones believes that this includes the lives of the unborn then it's perfectly consistent with libertarian principles to be "pro-life", it's essentially performing the same function as forcibly preventing one person from shooting another person in the eyes of the pro-life libertarian.

 

[bendog]

I must not have been clear. To me, the founders were the closest we've come to libertarian govt (though they compromised), and the basis for beliving in libertarianism is to get as close to those ideals as possible. I view it as admirable in theory, but unworkable. (Ayn Rand was an immigrant whose views were largely shaped by communism, and viewed american society through that prism, so while she may have chops as a philospher, I'm not sure about political commentary.)

I'm not aware that the founders ever addressed abortion. They were largely deists. Believing in an almighty being, but not subscribing to specific religious tracts, miracles, saints or largely fromal religion.

To my knowledge, anti-choice laws stemmed from mostly protestant awakenings post 18th century. Because they are based upon religious beliefs, I don't see how they can be consistent with libertarianism.

However, I wish you, and Kaz, well.

 

[NightFox]

I must not have been clear. To me, the founders were the closest we've come to libertarian govt (though they compromised), and the basis for beliving in libertarianism is to get as close to those ideals as possible. I view it as admirable in theory, but unworkable. (Ayn Rand was an immigrant whose views were largely shaped by communism, and viewed american society through that prism, so while she may have chops as a philospher, I'm not sure about political commentary.)

I'm not aware that the founders ever addressed abortion. They were largely deists. Believing in an almighty being, but not subscribing to specific religious tracts, miracles, saints or largely fromal religion.

To my knowledge, anti-choice laws stemmed from mostly protestant awakenings post 18th century. Because they are based upon religious beliefs, I don't see how they can be consistent with libertarianism.

However, I wish you, and Kaz, well.

I think you have a misconception of what the basis of the pro-life libertarian view is, it doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's based on the belief the legitimate function of government is the protection of life, liberty and property and that government is justified in using force to protect those things (otherwise why have government at all?).

As far as the founders go they were a mixed bag of ideologies but collectively they were heavily influenced by classical liberal ideas birthed during the enlightenment (John Locke in particular), libertarianism is an evolution and refinement of these ideas and while you are correct in that the question of abortion was not explicitly dealt with to any significant degree by the founders, they were clear that the protection of the lives of the citizenry was a legitimate role of government and that government was well within the authority granted to it to utilize force in pursuing that end, the pro-life libertarian has come to the conclusion based on their own analysis, soul-searching, etc.., that the lives of the citizenry includes that of the unborn.

Hope that all makes sense and have a great day Bendog.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is apparently not a need to provide evidence or even original thought when dealing with you. Kaz is just adopting your style of debate.
Interesting how well he predicted your response.

Ernie, I am merely responding not making the original assertion.

Your irrelevant opinion, without good evidence, is just that: irrelevant. kaz is right with you. He will now say something about a neg, because he so rarely comes out from behind his Ignore. Who cares.

Actually I provided my evidence. You endlessly defend the Democrats, you never criticize them and you endlessly blast the GOP. Two simple lists from you would dispel any wrong ideas on those counts.

When you provide an affirmation, you need to provide evidence. I demonstrated all we have some folks acting like their opinion mean anything on then their opinions. Kaz, your opinion is not evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I must not have been clear. To me, the founders were the closest we've come to libertarian govt (though they compromised), and the basis for beliving in libertarianism is to get as close to those ideals as possible. I view it as admirable in theory, but unworkable. (Ayn Rand was an immigrant whose views were largely shaped by communism, and viewed american society through that prism, so while she may have chops as a philospher, I'm not sure about political commentary.)

I'm not aware that the founders ever addressed abortion. They were largely deists. Believing in an almighty being, but not subscribing to specific religious tracts, miracles, saints or largely fromal religion.

To my knowledge, anti-choice laws stemmed from mostly protestant awakenings post 18th century. Because they are based upon religious beliefs, I don't see how they can be consistent with libertarianism.

However, I wish you, and Kaz, well.

I think you have a misconception of what the basis of the pro-life libertarian view is, it doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's based on the belief the legitimate function of government is the protection of life, liberty and property and that government is justified in using force to protect those things (otherwise why have government at all?).

As far as the founders go they were a mixed bag of ideologies but collectively they were heavily influenced by classical liberal ideas birthed during the enlightenment (John Locke in particular), libertarianism is an evolution and refinement of these ideas and while you are correct in that the question of abortion was not explicitly dealt with to any significant degree by the founders, they were clear that the protection of the lives of the citizenry was a legitimate role of government and that government was well within the authority granted to it to utilize force in pursuing that end, the pro-life libertarian has come to the conclusion based on their own analysis, soul-searching, etc.., that the lives of the citizenry includes that of the unborn.

Hope that all makes sense and have a great day Bendog.

You are a statist not a libertarian, Nightfox.: a right wing progressive statist wanting to use Big Government to deny a woman's choice.

 

[NightFox]

I must not have been clear. To me, the founders were the closest we've come to libertarian govt (though they compromised), and the basis for beliving in libertarianism is to get as close to those ideals as possible. I view it as admirable in theory, but unworkable. (Ayn Rand was an immigrant whose views were largely shaped by communism, and viewed american society through that prism, so while she may have chops as a philospher, I'm not sure about political commentary.)

I'm not aware that the founders ever addressed abortion. They were largely deists. Believing in an almighty being, but not subscribing to specific religious tracts, miracles, saints or largely fromal religion.

To my knowledge, anti-choice laws stemmed from mostly protestant awakenings post 18th century. Because they are based upon religious beliefs, I don't see how they can be consistent with libertarianism.

However, I wish you, and Kaz, well.

I think you have a misconception of what the basis of the pro-life libertarian view is, it doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's based on the belief the legitimate function of government is the protection of life, liberty and property and that government is justified in using force to protect those things (otherwise why have government at all?).

As far as the founders go they were a mixed bag of ideologies but collectively they were heavily influenced by classical liberal ideas birthed during the enlightenment (John Locke in particular), libertarianism is an evolution and refinement of these ideas and while you are correct in that the question of abortion was not explicitly dealt with to any significant degree by the founders, they were clear that the protection of the lives of the citizenry was a legitimate role of government and that government was well within the authority granted to it to utilize force in pursuing that end, the pro-life libertarian has come to the conclusion based on their own analysis, soul-searching, etc.., that the lives of the citizenry includes that of the unborn.

Hope that all makes sense and have a great day Bendog.

You are a statist not a libertarian, Nightfox.: a right wing progressive statist wanting to use Big Government to deny a woman's choice.

There's that reading disability of yours rearing it's ugly head yet again, as I've already stated in this thread I do not share the opinions of pro-life libertarians on the question of abortion, however I understand why you didn't get it since it wasn't written in monosyllabic words accompanied by a graph and a copy of "English for Idiots".