Winning the Libertarian vote

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Very few. Property rights.

What "property rights" law is in effect that has completely stopped the activity that caused its enactment?

 

[hornadylnl]

What "property rights" law is in effect that has completely stopped the activity that caused its enactment?

They allow for grievances in court.

I don't like abortion so I don't have one or have irresponsible sex with women who might.

I don't like drugs so I don't do them.

I don't like gay marriage so I married a woman.

I could do this all day.


I had a conversation with a friend the other day about the presidential election. He doesn't like Romney at all but the biggest reason he gave for voting Romney over Obama is that Romney is less like to vote for gay marriage. This guy feels the way he does for religious reasons but he'll never see the forest for the trees. By giving the government power to regulate Adam and Steve, he's giving the government power to regulate him and his wife.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

GFGT, my Great Grandmother's adoptive mother aborted at least 14 pregnancies all before 1910. Abortion was illegal then and it didn't stop anyone. Laws don't prevent, they just provide a way to prosecute.

Prohibitions have never worked, never. They often have the opposite effect.

Pull you head out of your 4th point of contact. Very few Libertarians are actually pro-abortion, they just aren't for letting fedzilla stick his nose in another tent.

This is BS. Right from the article:

Quote:
Republicans want to sharply curtail reproductive freedom

If that's not code for abortion "rights", I'll buy you the adult beverage of your choice. Even the LP sainted Johnson is for abortion.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They allow for grievances in court.

So the answer is none. No law, no prohibition, prevents anything...

 

[hacksawfg]

GFGT, my Great Grandmother's adoptive mother aborted at least 14 pregnancies all before 1910. Abortion was illegal then and it didn't stop anyone. Laws don't prevent, they just provide a way to prosecute.

Prohibitions have never worked, never. They often have the opposite effect.

Pull you head out of your 4th point of contact. Very few Libertarians are actually pro-abortion, they just aren't for letting fedzilla stick his nose in another tent.

What he said. I disagree with abortion, especially during the third trimester. That being said, if someone doesn't have the same beliefs as I do, it's not my place to judge. It's definitely not the government's, unless of course you equate the government's judgement with God's.

Ditto for drugs. I have absolutely no desire to use marijuana, but that doesn't mean that if that's what floats somebody else's boat they shouldn't be allowed to light up, as long as they're not hurting anybody. If a church decides "hey, we'll marry homosexuals" why is it the government's place to intervene? Does that not infringe on freedom of religion?

If someone can give me valid reasons why we need to have the federal government protect us from ourselves and legislate personal decisions that affect only the person(s) involved in making that decision, I'm all ears.

 

[hornadylnl]

So the answer is none. No law, no prohibition, prevents anything...

No, they don't. But it gives me the right to defend my property.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, you do. You just don't see your worldview as a morality. But it is.



If that doesn't describe the libertarians, I don't know what does.

And, as is often the case with you, you're wrong. I don't know any libertarians who want to pass laws. Especially those based on something as subjective as an individuals moral code. We'd like to see laws repealed, not put in place.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

This is BS. Right from the article:



If that's not code for abortion "rights", I'll buy you the adult beverage of your choice. Even the LP sainted Johnson is for abortion.

The choice to not supporting legislation that prohibits abortion is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.

 

[hornadylnl]

The choice to not supporting legislation that prohibits abortion is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.

You've got that wrong. Not supporting legislation that prohibits abortion is the same as performing the abortion yourself.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You've got that wrong. Not supporting legislation that prohibits abortion is the same as performing the abortion yourself.

Without permission, right?

 

[hornadylnl]

If everyone would understand that being a living example of your morality wins more hearts and minds than clubbing people over the head with it, the world would be a much better place.

I don't win hearts and minds to my religion by publicly living counter to it. I don't win hearts and minds to the sanctity of life by spending my time, energy and money picketing abortion clinics. I do so by spending my time, energy and money actually caring for those unwanted babies I profess to care so much about.

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[Classic Liberal]

This is BS. Right from the article:



If that's not code for abortion "rights", I'll buy you the adult beverage of your choice. Even the LP sainted Johnson is for abortion.

You are so misguided. I am personally against abortion and would advocate life verses the alternative, but would not want a law restricting it. People's personal opinions/morals/principles should not be placed upon other citizens by law.
As noted earlier, prohibition has never worked and attempts to enforce it only costs the tax payers more for its failure.

 

[Expat]

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.

 

[hornadylnl]

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.

It couldn't have happened. It was illegal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You are so misguided. I am personally against abortion and would advocate life verses the alternative, but would not want a law restricting it. People's personal opinions/morals/principles should not be placed upon other citizens by law.
]As noted earlier, prohibition has never worked and attempts to enforce it only costs the tax payers more for its failure.

On this, we cannot agree. To me anybody that can rationalize their ambivalence towards the murder of innocent life on such reasons are the misguided ones.

As stated above, if the hurdle for any law being consdered is that it must prevent all behaviors the law addresses, then no law may exist. For the mere existence of verbiage proclaiming a right/wrong/privilege/duty/etc will not guarantee compliance.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.

This is verbatim from Ron Paul.

Also, I don't think most would understand Kant's Categorical Imperative if it bit them from behind.
I would modify Kant's edict to indicate that we should only do that which we would will to be a universal directive for all others in the same circumstances. I won't, however, waste my time trying to suade anyone of any worldview. People will see what they want to see, do as they wish to do, condemn what they wish to condemn, and condone what they wish to condone. I don't see the Utility of trying to suade the unsuadable.

 

[Expat]

This is verbatim from Ron Paul.

Yes it is. I was waiting to see if the anti-life libertarians would notice.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I love how "Winning the Liberal vote" always turns into:

Four pages...

 

[hornadylnl]

On this, we cannot agree. To me anybody that can rationalize their ambivalence towards the murder of innocent life on such reasons are the misguided ones.

As stated above, if the hurdle for any law being consdered is that it must prevent all behaviors the law addresses, then no law may exist. For the mere existence of verbiage proclaiming a right/wrong/privilege/duty/etc will not guarantee compliance.

So what is the purpose of anti abortion laws other than to make you feel good?