All I'm saying is give libertarianism a chance.

13

Comments

  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    soulsinging wrote:
    what if my moral values include a darwinian belief in survival of the fittest which means that there is no such thing as murder, only the strong exercising their better survival tactics over the weak. how can i be held liable for murder? you prosecuting me is forcing your moral views that human life is sacred and more valuable than animals on me.

    Libertarians believe in personall freedoms as long as you are not imposing on the same freedoms of another. Hence by murdering someone you are impossing on their personal freedom.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    what if my moral values include a darwinian belief in survival of the fittest which means that there is no such thing as murder, only the strong exercising their better survival tactics over the weak. that we are all animals and humans deserve no more consideration or protection than any other animal. how can i be held liable for murder?

    Certainly. As a matter of fact, you can be summarily shot in the street for looking at me funny, based on your own moral code.
    it is an utterly reasonable moral worldview. you prosecuting me is forcing your moral views that human life is sacred and more valuable than animals on me.

    It is an utterly reasonable moral worldview. That is, however, until you question the tables being turned.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    mammasan wrote:
    Libertarians believe in personall freedoms as long as you are not imposing on the same freedoms of another. Hence by murdering someone you are impossing on their personal freedom.

    by denying me the opportunity to pursue my beliefs that im morally allowed to hunt humans, they are imposing upon my freedoms. if you're going to argue this, then there is no arguing that cinci's position is invalid. you're still making a judgment call about what life is valuable and if he believes abortion imposes on the personal freedom of a fetus, i see nothing wrong or inconsistent or "imposing on personal freedom" in his view.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly. As a matter of fact, you can be summarily shot in the street for looking at me funny, based on your own moral code.



    It is an utterly reasonable moral worldview. That is, however, until you question the tables being turned.

    cinci is not questioning the tables being turned. he's simply saying nobody cares what the baby's moral code is, it is killed without a chance. it's an arbitrary line and his view is as legitimate as any other. if he feels it's murder, then by all means, he has the right to prevent murder from occurring.. just becos the victim is helpless and cannot speak out does not make the victim less worthy of defense.

    it's all a judgment call and opposition to abortion is not an illogical opinion. and this is coming from somebody who is pro-choice.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Look at it this way. Let's say that liberal America decided that every fetus needed to undergo genetic modification while in the womb to make them more "acceptable" citizens. Do you not understand that your position on abortion gives them the right to enact such law? You've handed over the right to make reasoned individual moral judgments from the individual to the state. You're allowing the state to override one reasoned morality with another.



    Not sure what you mean by this. You may join or vote Libertarian regardless of your beliefs on abortion. You will just be among many who disagree with your position there. If that's fine with you, so be it. I'm just unsure how you can completely marry that particular position with core Libertarian principles, but it's not that big of a deal.

    So by sayong that a person should not have the right to physically enter the womb and destroy a fetus I would be giving others the right to physically enter the womb and alter the fetus? Me thinks you have that backwards.

    Your right, I find the Libertairians way too looney to actually run the country. A few here or there maybe, but as a whole, no thanks.

    Anyhow, I'm done with this. To be honest, I find no benefit in discussing it with you. If you want the last word, feel free...I'll read it, just don;t expect a response.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    cinci is not questioning the tables being turned. he's simply saying nobody cares what the baby's moral code is, it is killed without a chance. it's an arbitrary line and his view is as legitimate as any other. if he feels it's murder, then by all means, he has the right to prevent murder from occurring.. just becos the victim is helpless and cannot speak out does not make the victim less worthy of defense.

    it's all a judgment call and opposition to abortion is not an illogical opinion. and this is coming from somebody who is pro-choice.

    I'm not saying that opposition to abortion is illogical. Opposition to abortion is perfectly logical.

    I'm saying that opposition to abortion coupled with opposition to any morality-pushing from the other side is illogical.

    In the context of Libertarianism, reasoned individual will is primary. For example, most Libertarians oppose "war on drugs" legislation. That doesn't mean Libertarians are all drug dealers or proponents of drug use. They simply don't believe that they have the right to tell you what you can do simply because they believe what you're doing is wrong because that would give you the right to tell them what they can do based on your opinions of right and wrong.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    cincybearcat wrote:
    So by sayong that a person should not have the right to physically enter the womb and destroy a fetus I would be giving others the right to physically enter the womb and alter the fetus? Me thinks you have that backwards.

    You're oversimplifying by forgetting your own involvement. You're first saying that you have a right to override someone else's reasoned morality before you even begin to discuss "entering the womb". It's a prerequisite of your opinion. So once you have that right, so does your opposition. Which means that if you can tell them today that they can't "enter the womb to destroy a fetus", they can easily tell you tomorrow that they can "enter the womb to alter a fetus" based on the same moral standards.
    Your right, I find the Libertairians way too looney to actually run the country. A few here or there maybe, but as a whole, no thanks.

    Ok.
    Anyhow, I'm done with this. To be honest, I find no benefit in discussing it with you. If you want the last word, feel free...I'll read it, just don;t expect a response.

    I won't expect anything.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    By the Federal government to manage the programs. A privately held company, it is my belief, will be more effective in restricting the mismanagement of funds and better equiped to detect abuses. If theydo not run the program effectively they can simply be replaced by another company that will do a better job. The federal government has no one to answer to. If they engage in wastefull spending and do nothing to curb abuses of the system there is no over sight. There is no risk of them lossing out to another campany. Technically they are supposed to answer to us the voters but we all know that is a fabrication.

    Ok, this is where you part company with a lot of Libertarians. Not saying you're wrong or anything here, just saying you've pinpointed the difference.

    A contract is a representation of will. So if the "federal government" contracts with someone, we can say that the contract represents the will of the federal government. Most Libertarians, particularly hard-core Libertarians, would say that a federal government has no inherent right to contract for individuals against their will. So, in your example, you're telling me that I must sacrifice something directly against my individual will for the benefit of another, which would invalidate the concept of "contract" by turning it into a forced situation.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    soulsinging wrote:
    by denying me the opportunity to pursue my beliefs that im morally allowed to hunt humans, they are imposing upon my freedoms. if you're going to argue this, then there is no arguing that cinci's position is invalid. you're still making a judgment call about what life is valuable and if he believes abortion imposes on the personal freedom of a fetus, i see nothing wrong or inconsistent or "imposing on personal freedom" in his view.

    Your assuming that I believe that Cincy's point is invalid, which I never stated. Cincy does have a valid agruement I just don't agree with him. In fact it was Cincy who stated that the Libertarian policy on abortion is a "cop out" which in my interpritation means that he believes that there point is invalid.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok, this is where you part company with a lot of Libertarians. Not saying you're wrong or anything here, just saying you've pinpointed the difference.

    A contract is a representation of will. So if the "federal government" contracts with someone, we can say that the contract represents the will of the federal government. Most Libertarians, particularly hard-core Libertarians, would say that a federal government has no inherent right to contract for individuals against their will. So, in your example, you're telling me that I must sacrifice something directly against my individual will for the benefit of another, which would invalidate the concept of "contract" by turning it into a forced situation.

    I understand that and that is where I differ from traditional Libertarian ideals. A point I would like to make though is that by no means would you be forced to participate in this program. You can rely on your community for assistance to help you through. The program would be in place for those that wish to accept the help.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    I understand that and that is where I differ from traditional Libertarian ideals. A point I would like to make though is that by no means would you be forced to participate in this program.

    How would that program be funded?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How would that program be funded?

    Tax dollars of course and before it is even stated my idea of a welfare sysytem would not require the amount of funding it does now. Not everyone that is on welfare now would be eligable. There would be a reduction is mismanaged finances and cases of abuse by recepiants. I understand that I differ from the Libertarian party with regards to welfare and that you most likely will not agree with my idea. You seem to be more of a true Libertarian than I am.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    mammasan wrote:
    Even if by voting Libertarian you would be supporting a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. I respect the fact that you are pro-life but aren't there other more pressing issues facing our nation today that need immediate attention.

    In my mind, sanctioned murder (and that's what I personally view abortion as - whether you agree with me or not) is more important than the size of the government.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What "pro-abortion" stance? Most Libertarians simply do not believe there should be laws against it. That doesn't mean they think abortion is morally right.

    Do they believe there should be laws against the murder of an adult?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    However, there are and have been many pro-life LP candidates.

    These might be people I could vote for, but I couldn't join the party if it isn't against abortion.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mwachsman
    mwachsman Posts: 474
    I voted for all the Libertarian candidates here in GA. Too bad no one has any chance of winning. Yay, I get to bitch about the government for another 2 years until I get to vote again for candidates that have no chance at winning!
    "So, you must really love Led Zeppelin. That’s the oldest shirt I’ve ever seen on someone who wasn’t a bum."
    "Hey, if God didn’t want me to wear it so much, he wouldn’t have made them rock so hard."
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    Do they believe there should be laws against the murder of an adult?

    Very much so, yes.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    These might be people I could vote for, but I couldn't join the party if it isn't against abortion.

    That's certainly your right. I doubt the Libertarian Party will ever, as a party, take a "ban abortion" position.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    know1 wrote:
    In my mind, sanctioned murder (and that's what I personally view abortion as - whether you agree with me or not) is more important than the size of the government.

    How is it "sanctioned"? Are you, by not physically putting a stop to each and every abortion, also "sanctioning murder"?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How is it "sanctioned"? Are you, by not physically putting a stop to each and every abortion, also "sanctioning murder"?

    If they are opposed to banning it, it is like sanctioning it in my mind. This is strictly my opinion, and I know it's a bit of a stretch. The point of my comment, however, was that even though making the government much, much smaller is a big deal to me, it's not as important to me as stopping abortion.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.

Categories