Winning the Libertarian vote

[hornadylnl]

Even if we do know that, we still don't know your answer to my question.

I favor property rights. Laws that protect my property. You smoking a doob doesn't affect my property.

 

[foszoe]

I favor property rights. Laws that protect my property. You smoking a doob doesn't affect my property.

That STILL doesn't address the question I asked you.

Do you want me to go back and requote or rephrase it or drop it?

 

[hornadylnl]

That STILL doesn't address the question I asked you.

Do you want me to go back and requote or rephrase it or drop it?

Red crayon. I'm all for repealing all laws that don't protect property rights. Yes, even those will be violated. But we all have a right to our own property and property laws allow us to defend ourselves.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Rape, murder, stealing - those are all easy to condemn.

Why? You have an individual's rights being violated, and an individual intentionally violating the rights of another.

Prohibiting abortion is a more complex moral dilemma - because both individuals have rights. You would be infringing on the rights of one individual to protect the rights of another.

Since our population does not even come close to agreeing which way is best - we should not be making a law.

 

[jbombelli]

We all want to legislate our own morality. I think life is an important morality to stand for.

No.

WE don't.

What you want to do or don't want to do is YOUR choice. We don't pretend to want to make that choice FOR you, whereas YOU want to make that choice FOR US.

As long as you're not hurting someone else, do as you please. You want to marry three men? Or five women? Go ahead. You want to do a line of coke, smoke a joint, and get drunk? Be my guest. You want to sell your body? Fine.

We may not take part, but we won't stop YOU.

 

[foszoe]

Red crayon. I'm all for repealing all laws that don't protect property rights. Yes, even those will be violated. But we all have a right to our own property and property laws allow us to defend ourselves.

then how do you justify negating one law simply because its does not stop the action it prohibits?

You say it over and over. If you want to say its not valid because it doesn't protect property rights then fine, but that's not what you have been saying.

 

[foszoe]

Rape, murder, stealing - those are all easy to condemn.

Why? You have an individual's rights being violated, and an individual intentionally violating the rights of another.

Prohibiting abortion is a more complex moral dilemma - because both individuals have rights. You would be infringing on the rights of one individual to protect the rights of another.

Since our population does not even come close to agreeing which way is best - we should not be making a law.

From the libertarian platform

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.

Individual rights can not be infringed. Then it is up to the libertarian party to define individual. If they take your position then both "entities" are individuals. Personally I don't think they will because it forces them to take a stand on a difficult matter. All the rest of their principles are "easy" to understand and defend.

 

[hacksawfg]

If women are going to have abortions regardless of legality, I would prefer it to be done in a sterile setting instead of by some back alley doctor because it's illegal.

If people are going to smoke marijuana, I would rather have them get it from a business that is subject to taxation, instead of having that revenue fund the local criminal element.

If someone wants to watch Two Chicks One Cup, they should be able to do so without wondering if the government is monitoring their personal life.

I mean, the list can go on forever. I find it somewhat ironic that some who are so adamantly against government healthcare because it's not the responsibility of the federal government according to the Constitution have no problem having the government take on issues like making abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana use illegal, which are ALSO not the responsibility of the federal government.

Using the justification of protecting life, should we have government restrict consumption of bacon because it adds to the risk of heart attack? Cigarettes are a known carcinogen, lets make them illegal as well. I personally can't stand cigarettes, secondhand smoke infringes on my rights to clean air and smoke has adverse effects on a fetus. Tell me where and how you make sure they stop?

 

[foszoe]

If women are going to have abortions regardless of legality, I would prefer it to be done in a sterile setting instead of by some back alley doctor because it's illegal.

If people are going to smoke marijuana, I would rather have them get it from a business that is subject to taxation, instead of having that revenue fund the local criminal element.

If someone wants to watch Two Chicks One Cup, they should be able to do so without wondering if the government is monitoring their personal life.

I mean, the list can go on forever. I find it somewhat ironic that some who are so adamantly against government healthcare because it's not the responsibility of the federal government according to the Constitution have no problem having the government take on issues like making abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana use illegal, which are ALSO not the responsibility of the federal government.

Using the justification of protecting life, should we have government restrict consumption of bacon because it adds to the risk of heart attack? Cigarettes are a known carcinogen, lets make them illegal as well. I personally can't stand cigarettes, secondhand smoke infringes on my rights to clean air and smoke has adverse effects on a fetus. Tell me where and how you make sure they stop?

Prove to me the individual in the womb is consensual in an abortion and I will concede the point is equivalent to most if not all of your other examples.

 

[hacksawfg]

Prove to me the individual in the womb is consensual in an abortion and I will concede the point is equivalent to most if not all of your other examples.

Prove to me the individual in the womb was consensual in its conception. Following your logic of protecting life if it doesn't consent to being taken, I'm guessing you don't eat bacon, since I bet that pig wasn't consensual in becoming your food. There shouldn't be a death penalty, because that person isn't consensual in his execution either.

For most rational people it's not an easy decision to have an abortion, contrary to what both liberals and conservatives would have us believe. I don't have to agree with it on a moral level to say the right thing to do to is to at least make sure that those who ARE going to have an abortion regardless have a sterile environment to prevent even more potential loss of life.

 

[level.eleven]

Can we at least agree that my inability to legally purchase beer at Wal-Mart on Sunday is ridiculous?

If so, I will concede to you that rape is a crime.

Xenu and his celestial pals don't like this idea of a Bud Light on Sunday.

 

[foszoe]

Prove to me the individual in the womb was consensual in its conception. Following your logic of protecting life if it doesn't consent to being taken, I'm guessing you don't eat bacon, since I bet that pig wasn't consensual in becoming your food. There shouldn't be a death penalty, because that person isn't consensual in his execution either.

For most rational people it's not an easy decision to have an abortion, contrary to what both liberals and conservatives would have us believe. I don't have to agree with it on a moral level to say the right thing to do to is to at least make sure that those who ARE going to have an abortion regardless have a sterile environment to prevent even more potential loss of life.

Would I be correct to believe that you extend equal rights of the individual to animals?

Water on my land who owns it?

 

[hacksawfg]

Would I be correct to believe that you extend equal rights of the individual to animals?

Water on my land who owns it?

Nope. I have no problem with the death penalty, either. In fact, it's funny to me that liberals, who have no problem with abortion in the third trimester, have serious issues with the death penalty. I don't agree with abortion, but I would rather have it done in a clinic than a back alley. I may not like gays marrying, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it. How hard is it to just stay out of other people's business?

At the end of the day, I just don't think that people's personal lives need to have the level of government involvement that both parties in the current forms would give us. I have enough issues with the existence of the BATF, I certainly don't need the government to have BATFA (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Abortions), or the AAEA (Anti-Abortion Enforcement Agency) in addition to the DEA.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This has got to be one of the most irrelivent things posted.

WTF!

I can-not believe you wrote this. I was simply using the logic of a couple of posters, written earlier to explain why abortion should not be made illegal, and extend that same logic to other behaviors that therefore should not be made illegal. For if it's true for the former, it must hold true for those latter activities listed.

Here is one of those pearls of wisdom for your reference:

To me;
abortion is evil.
government is evil.
Evil+Evil, does not = Good
Anyone besides me remember the old wisdom of two wrongs not making a right?

 

[88GT]

So if we just pass a law, the unborn will no longer be murdered or abused?

They allow for grievances in court.

Can we say "contradiction?"

I suppose you're right though. Dead men don't talk and dead babies can't file suit for the grievance of their lives being taken without due process.

Laws, therefore, should only protect those who have the legal capacity to pursue reparations.

But wait: that would mean children are not protected from property crimes. Well, I suppose their parents could act in proxy. Oh, but if it's the parent who's violating the property rights? What to do, what to do?

I could do this all day.

And we likely will until you apply your libertarian logic to all issues instead of just the ones you support.

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.

Try this on for size: by giving the government the power to decide who can be killed without due process, we're giving the government the power to decide who can be killed without due process. Right now, it's just the unborn. Enemies of the state are afforded more protection by your standard than an innocent unborn child.

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.

I may not have been clear, but I was not wrong. My statement was less about your wanting to enact more laws than it was about your wanting to govern according to YOUR morality.

You want self-governance only if it's on your terms. How is that any different than any other group out there?

You see, I have a problem with the libertarian insistence that people can't enact laws via their representatives in what is supposed to be a nation of the self-governed just because you oppose them. No matter how much I may disagree with the law. What kind of freedom can we have if there's no freedom to self-govern?

Abortion should be a state issue. That should be the extent of the debate necessary at a Federal level, when we are choosing our next president. Being pro-life or pro-choice only matters if we are choosing state reps. Ron Paul agrees.

For someone who opposes government sanctioned killing, I find your position hypocritical.

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

Yes, I see now. Passing laws prohibiting something actually makes it worse. I'm converted. In the spirit of true libertarianism, let's repeal all the laws. People will be less likely to murder, rape, and pillage without Big Brother telling him he shouldn't.

 

[buckstopshere]

I consider myself to be an unrepresented independent and always have. My views have mostly been very libertarian. I don't think it's right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their own body. I also believe that you can violate yourself all you want but when you violate someone else or their property, you need to be held accountable for that.

Life, to me, begins at conception so how can abortion be morally right? Your wants or needs have just violated the rights (the right of life) of another human being in one of the worst possible ways, you've murdered them.

Most arguments I hear for the right of choice stem from its not right for the .gov to tell someone what they can do with their own body but ask that same person if they would support an abortion a week before the due date and that pro choice support erodes quickly. So what's the difference? If the .gov can't tell you at 40 weeks, why can they at 4?

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? This is also a core foundation of libertarian principles but that edict doesn't extend to this issue. If you do not wish to be pregnant, don't have sex or use protection. Take personal responsibility for your actions. If you find yourself pregnant, you have the option of giving the baby up for adoption.

The last aspect of abortion that really bothers me is the fact that the father has no say what so ever. Even though it takes two to get pregnant, only the woman has a "choice".

Bottom line for me, abortion is wrong as your choice effects the life of another person, a life that you chose to put inside your body (in the majority of cases) through intention or a lack of responsibility.

I'm still voting for Gary Johnson. If Romney wants to earn my vote, he will have to eliminate Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, end the fed, stop foreign aid, eliminate the tax code, shrink our .gov, acknowledge the soverignty of the states and end our foreign wars. It's not like some of this stuff is on the table with Romney, none of it is. So he can't have my vote. BHO will never have my vote.

 

[hacksawfg]

Just like getting rid of guns won't get rid of crime, making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening. We don't need more government interference. You want to minimize the number of abortions? Work on the government to make it easier for a couple to adopt a child. Push insurance companies to offer birth control for women. I've got two kids, I know how much a pregnancy costs, and that money would buy a LOT of birth control. If you want to stop a problem, you can't just say "make it illegal" and sweep it under the rug, you've got to work on the root causes.

What has the drug war gotten us? Is there a chance of us ever winning? How much more money are we going to waste, how much more crime on the border are we going to tolerate, and how many more times are we going to see things like this

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...llowed_by_no_knock_raid_10_minutes_later.html

before we say "This is a waste of money. Instead of making them illegal, maybe we should educate people on reasons NOT to do drugs, etc. At the bare minimum we'd have more space in prisons to keep violent offenders incarcerated. If you legalized marijuana tomorrow I'm not going to go out and smoke a joint, because I have no desire to ever smoke marijuana.

Ditto for gay marriage. If two consenting adults who both happen to men want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, who am I to say they can't? In a country where you're free to practice your religion (or lack thereof), how do you forbid this on religious/moral principles?

 

[buckstopshere]

Just like getting rid of guns won't get rid of crime, making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening. We don't need more government interference. You want to minimize the number of abortions? Work on the government to make it easier for a couple to adopt a child. Push insurance companies to offer birth control for women. I've got two kids, I know how much a pregnancy costs, and that money would buy a LOT of birth control. If you want to stop a problem, you can't just say "make it illegal" and sweep it under the rug, you've got to work on the root causes.

What has the drug war gotten us? Is there a chance of us ever winning? How much more money are we going to waste, how much more crime on the border are we going to tolerate, and how many more times are we going to see things like this

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...llowed_by_no_knock_raid_10_minutes_later.html

before we say "This is a waste of money. Instead of making them illegal, maybe we should educate people on reasons NOT to do drugs, etc. At the bare minimum we'd have more space in prisons to keep violent offenders incarcerated. If you legalized marijuana tomorrow I'm not going to go out and smoke a joint, because I have no desire to ever smoke marijuana.

Ditto for gay marriage. If two consenting adults who both happen to men want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, who am I to say they can't? In a country where you're free to practice your religion (or lack thereof), how do you forbid this on religious/moral principles?

I agree that you will not eliminate abortions by making them illegal. You do however greatly reduce the number of abortions in a given year. Back alley abortions will be inevitable as ou can't legislate moral behavior.

However, someone has to speak for the unborn life. Right now, even the father can not do this. That child has a right to life and is only alive in the mothers womb because of a choice she and the father made. If you did not want a child, you should not have taken steps to create one. We seem to jump on that line of thinking when it comes to things like who we vote for or how much debt we accumulate but can't get there for a life that wants to be lived?

IMO, the only reason this issue is complicated is because of an entitlement mentality which is ironic since we all on this forum seem to rail against. Even though I made the choice to get pregnant, although it may have been accidental, I don't want the responsibility so someone else has to pay and in this case, it's an unborn child. Similar to I chose not to graduate from high school but $7 an hour doesn't pay the bills so I'm not going to work since its better for me to take other peoples money and stay home. I benefit, others suffer.

I also think you can make it illegal and not make it a punishment detrimental to tax payers. Just making it illegal to do it for medical practitioners is a start. They lose their license or something similar. The mother then has to choose a less than sanitary approach with consequences that could be much worse. IDK, just thinking out loud here in response to the wrong package thread.

 

[ViperJock]

While that article is basically true it is full of fail. First; Medicare has to be preserved or thousands of retired folks will not be able to get medication or health care. It needs an efficiency overhaul, but you can't just eliminate it.
Secondly; what is the reproductive freedom the republicans oppose? Is this a euphemism for abortion? I don't recall Republicans telling people not to reproduce. Anything that needs a euphemism to make it acceptable is questionable in my book. The libertarian ideal is based on taking personal responsibity for things. So take some responsibility for your reproductive system before it gets pregnant. I digress....

 

[hacksawfg]

I agree that you will not eliminate abortions by making them illegal. You do however greatly reduce the number of abortions in a given year. Back alley abortions will be inevitable as ou can't legislate moral behavior.

Again, without streamlining the adoption process what will happen to those babies who may be unwanted/grow up in broken homes? Everybody likes to say "What if that's the next Einstein, what if the child would have grown up to find the cure for cancer." Well, what if that child was the next Hitler? What if that child who wasn't wanted goes to a life of crime and slaughters some family? There's always a flip side to every argument, and as much as want abortion to go away, making it illegal isn't going to change anything. In fact, I will say it make government intrusion worse and WON'T have an impact, because in this day and age, social media will allow people to find doctors who will perform the procedure in their house if necessary, and the only way for the government to fight that is through more eavesdropping.

However, someone has to speak for the unborn life. Right now, even the father can not do this. That child has a right to life and is only alive in the mothers womb because of a choice she and the father made. If you did not want a child, you should not have taken steps to create one. We seem to jump on that line of thinking when it comes to things like who we vote for or how much debt we accumulate but can't get there for a life that wants to be lived?

If a woman gets raped and DOESN'T want the child should it still be illegal? If two people get pregnant, then the guy decides he's going to bail and be a deadbeat, should the woman be forbidden from even having the choice to keep the baby or not? Blanket illegality is NOT the answer. Again, if you want to work to really reduce it, strive to streamline the adoption process so a woman can know that if she does carry it to term, someone else will take care of it.

IMO, the only reason this issue is complicated is because of an entitlement mentality which is ironic since we all on this forum seem to rail against. Even though I made the choice to get pregnant, although it may have been accidental, I don't want the responsibility so someone else has to pay and in this case, it's an unborn child. Similar to I chose not to graduate from high school but $7 an hour doesn't pay the bills so I'm not going to work since its better for me to take other peoples money and stay home. I benefit, others suffer.

Some women don't choose to get pregnant. Condoms break, there's still a VERY small chance birth control pills won't work, there's rape, etc. Unless you're going to ban sex unless for procreation (good luck making that work), there are always going to be cases where it wasn't a choice. People don't choose to be in car accidents, but you can't control other drivers. Someone going the other way may have a heart attack. I'm betting nobody chooses to have their house burn down, you can take all the precautions in the world, but if someone else comes into your house and leaves their curling iron plugged in, it might happen anyway.

The reason it's complicated has nothing to do with entitlement, it's just a complex issue. Do you define live as starting at the moment of conception, when it's basically one cell? There's no brain, heart, bones, etc. at that time. Is it at the point when it develops these organs and resembles a human being? Is at the point when the fetus can survive on its own without medical assistance? Should these determinations be made on a religious or scientific basis? What if the sex wasn't consensual? What if you took precautions and they didn't work? What if the father decides HE doesn't want it and leaves/refuses to pay child support? There's a million different scenarios, all with different justifications for and against.