Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sex, Gold, and Raw Milk
Tucker Carlson writes a funny, perceptive profile of the Ron Paul campaign for The New Republic. Here's the key passage:
Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.
Most Republicans, of course, profess to believe it too. But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody's paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. "I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says.
And here's my favorite part:
The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands.
A couple of hookers show up, too. Whole thing here.
|12.21.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Dressed in red, her Dolly Parton hairdo and 36DDs at full
attention, she sidled up to Lew Moore, Paul's campaign manager, and
made her pitch. "Hi," she said. "I'm Air Force Amy, and I'd like a
picture with Ron Paul." I knew right away it wasn't going to
happen. "I've got a concern, I've got to be honest," Moore said,
tense but trying to be nice. "If that picture surfaces, it could be
very damaging to him politically."
Like a picture with a prostitute is going to hurt Ron Paul more
than a picture of him with the latest two-bit Grand Kleagle.
|12.21.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Leave it to an asshole like Tucker Carlson to invite hookers to a political rally.
iowan|12.21.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed
to your right not to be.
This is the only kind if messanger that has a chance of taking
libertarian philosophy mainstream.
|12.21.07 @ 12:27PM|#
But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize
unpasteurized milk.
As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul
on this whole-heartedly
|12.21.07 @ 12:30PM|#
The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a hooker, but doesn't know the stranger at the Value Voters summit runs Stormfront.
Jesse Walker|12.21.07 @ 12:31PM|#
What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the Nazis that stay in uniform?
iowan|12.21.07 @ 12:34PM|#
The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a
hooker,
Having seen cathouse, I can attest that nearly all sapient beings
will quickly recognize that air force amy is a hooker.
Russ 2000|12.21.07 @ 12:38PM|#
How many voters would understand the question?)
A: More than you think, but still not enough to make a
difference.
|12.21.07 @ 12:39PM|#
"I support the right of people to drink whatever they want,"
he says.
I'll have a tall Laudanum, please.
|12.21.07 @ 12:42PM|#
When I was a teenager in the '70's my father used to
periodically drive out to a farmer in the country and get gallon
jars of raw milk, straight from the cow. (It was purely decadent; I
still remember the butterfat floating on the top three or four
inches.) We knew completely that the milk was unpastuerized and we
were taking our own risk. I'm sure that you aren't legally allowed
to make a purchase like this anymore.
I mean, if you can't allow people, under any circumstances, to
consume food that hasn't passed through a battery of health
inspectors, should we outlaw hunting and fishing?
severin|12.21.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Legalize Milk!
Unpasteurized milk is why I love Ron Paul! (well maybe not the
milk, but the idea behind it, certainly is).
|12.21.07 @ 12:47PM|#
ChicagoTom said:
"As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul
on this whole-heartedly"
Him there! Yes! He's the one! Drinking raw milk!
J'Accuse!
KipEsquire|12.21.07 @ 12:47PM|#
"But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize
unpasteurized milk."
No, he introduced a bill to end federal regulation of unpasteurized
milk. There's a
difference.
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to states that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.
So we see, yet again, that Paul does not love liberty. He merely
hates Congress. No libertarian would suggest that banning
unpasteurized milk is perfectly hunky-dory at the state level, just
not at the federal level.
If you want to argue that an anti-federalist is better than
"business as usual," then fine. But please stop with the "Ron Paul
is a libertarian" idiocy.
Chucklehead|12.21.07 @ 12:49PM|#
We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd
been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is
a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my
concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with
marijuana," he said.
LOL - I love this guy!
robc|12.21.07 @ 12:54PM|#
KipEsquire,
Last time a checked, Paul was a federal congressman. He has no
ability to control state laws. As he is both a federalist AND a
libertarian, he wont use the power of the federal government to
make states more libertarian. I would be willing to bet that if he
was in the Texas state house, he would vote in favor of
unpasteurized milk.
Kolohe|12.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"I've never gotten around to killing anything."
This is the most zen statement I have ever heard from an elected
official.
And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing work like
this may disuade me of that notion.
douglas gray|12.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
If calves are fed an exclusive diet of pasteurized milk, they
succumb to illness and die within six months, whereas if they drink
unpasteurized milk , they remain healthy. Check out Dr. Mercola's
Website to see the virtues of raw milk. I agree that Paul is wrong
to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.
Just try drinking Organic Pasture's raw milk for awhile, and notice
the difference (available only in CA)
|12.21.07 @ 12:57PM|#
KipE,
In nearly 30 years of voting, I've voted for every Libertarian on
the ballot. I've never pulled the lever for an D or an R.
Immigration is my #1 issue - I'm an "open the borders, end of
discussion," guy.
And yet, Ron Paul is the first candidate in all those years to
really give me a small glimmer of hope - not that he will win, but
that his campaign might spur something important.
So to hear someone declare that Ron Paul is somehow just not
libertarian enough, to me is what smacks of idiocy.
I just hope he's still around when my state's primary rolls around
so I can take that R ballot for the first time. I'll feel dirty for
about three seconds.
|12.21.07 @ 1:03PM|#
@ KipEsquire
Really, he doesn't love liberty just because he is a federal
represenative of the people of texas and he proposes a bill that is
of a purely federal nature as stipulated by the constitution. That
is as much as the constitution allows with regard to this issue.
How do you know that if he wasn't a state senator in texas he
wouldn't propose a bill legalizing raw milk in Texas? There is
nothing saying you can't be a states' rights libertarian.
Rhywun|12.21.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Maybe it's just that I'm a child of the 70's but there is no fucking way I would drink raw milk with junk floating on top. I like my milk watery, just like I like my meats packaged in a box. Preferably frozen.
|12.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but
not allow the feds to do it.
It amazes me how many people seem to be completely oblivious to the
idea that the national government is one of limited, enumerated
powers, and that banning raw milk is not one of them.
|12.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
You are free to drink raw milk. You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated medical condition. Check.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 1:14PM|#
KipE,
So you are saying that pushing top-down dictates from the federal
level is MORE libertarian than consistently preventing the use of
federal power to dictate to folks at the state and local level?
That seems kind of crazy.
By the way, fresh, whole milk rocks. Had a cow on the farm as a kid
and it took a long time after I left home before I could drink that
thin store-bought stuff!
|12.21.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Mom used to drive out to a farm and get the still warm jugs of milk. She'd bring em home and set em in the fridge overnight for the cream to rise to make butter with. I would get outta bed before everyone else and skim enough of that sweet cream to pour over my Golden Grahams. MMMMMMM
|12.21.07 @ 1:15PM|#
What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the
Nazis that stay in uniform?
Good one. ;-)
alan|12.21.07 @ 1:15PM|#
A true libertarian in a legislative body, like Paul, recognizes
that he must work within the framework (here the Constitution) that
gives the legislative body any semblance to legitimacy as a
contract between the people and that public body.
Ron Paul does not support an expansionist definition of the
commerce clause as he would have to do if he were to be a 'real
libertarian' in your sense of using the word.
However, Paul is part of a much older tradition of libertarianism,
Jeffersonian classical liberalism, that I can't help but noticing
has been around much longer than the left libertarianism of many of
Paul's critics who wish to condemn him and show him the gate.
LarryA|12.21.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let
adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory
of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes
it.
So utterly simple.
Now, how can we get the other 99.9999999999999% of the media to
understand?
I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not
allow the feds to do it.
So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul works,
should force state legislatures to accept raw
milk? How is that "libertarian?"
Apparently it's not just the media.
|12.21.07 @ 1:21PM|#
And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing
work like this may disuade me of that notion.
This article made my day. Kudos to Carlson for doing a great job of
showing who RP is and what he stands for. Positive without
gushing.
[Dennis] was there in ten minutes, in an enormous stretch limo with a BunnyRanch logo on the side. He'd brought two of his girls, Brooke and Air Force Amy, as well as his driver, a middle-aged man in a cowboy hat and Western wear. It was a conspicuous group.
The thought of T. Carlson amongst this "conspicuous" group caused
some coffee to hit the monitor.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 1:24PM|#
smacky,
Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he
doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?
Edward|12.21.07 @ 1:25PM|#
With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....
|12.21.07 @ 1:29PM|#
SugarFree & Randolph,
Hee hee...I didn't even mean to troll this thread. It just comes
naturally.
toddb,
I don't care about his personal pro-life position. I'm simply
pointing out that advocating that some parts of the
country should be allowed to oppress women with statist
oversight is not compatible with true love of freedom. Just because
it's not federal, does not make that kind of governmental
invasiveness ok. Just sayin'.
I don't want to argue abortion today, anyway. I think Abortion
Debate Friday is next Friday. Today is regular biz cas Fri.
|12.21.07 @ 1:29PM|#
My favorite passage from the article (read the whole thing, it's
great):
Dennis is built like a linebacker and was dressed entirely in
black. Brooke and Air Force Amy looked like hookers because they
are. All three slapped on Ron Paul stickers ("we could use these as
pasties," Air Force Amy said, giggling) and sat near the front.
Pretty soon, Paul showed up and did his 15 minutes on liberty and
Austrian economics. If he noticed there were prostitutes present,
he didn't show it.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:31PM|#
robc @12:54- stating the obvious for the oblivious
smaky @1:17- related to this article how? And only about 1/2 of
libertarians would disagree with you on that one.
|12.21.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Shane,
Just like those other "libertarians" who are anti-2nd Amendment
rights or pro-WOD? Heh. And I wonder how those so-called
libertarians would be split amongst gender lines.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:35PM|#
smaky- i think the abortion thing goes abit deeper than either of those, and to be honest i've met a lot of pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, but none so far that have voiced an opinion against the 2nd or for the WOD.(donderooooo doesn't count)
|12.21.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Anyway, Ron Paul has my support. I just think his pro-life political position (even if it decentralized) is seriously inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs.
|12.21.07 @ 1:39PM|#
* Sound of can opener opening said can of invertebrates *
smacky -- how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that
pesky Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal
government dictate to the states how they administer a contentious
social issue about whose rights take precedence, a fetus' or the
woman whose body is keeping it alive? Yeah, yeah, the Supreme
Court, in a split decision, said the federal government can do
that. News alert -- something isn't constitutional because the
Supreme Court says it is, it's only constitutional if the
Constitution says it is.
It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide
for the states that they must be pro-choice. It's not libertarian
to say the federal government should decide for the states that
they must be pro-life. It's way libertarian to say it's none of the
fed's damn business, so butt out already.
* Sound of duct tape resealing said can of invertebrates *
Brandybuck|12.21.07 @ 1:40PM|#
A close friend of mine is a cheese fanatic. Any kind of rare and
stinky cheese delights him to no end. He once got ahold of a wedge
of Stinking Bishop. Nasty stuff, but to him is was an epicurean
delight. One of his pet peeves is the extreme difficulty he has in
getting young raw cheeses.
He is a progressive and a Green Party registree. But he once told
me a few months ago that he's leaning more and more libertarian
over the silly food regulations he keeps running into. He also aked
me what Ron Paul's policy was on raw cheeses. I told him it was
probably too minor of an issue for Dr. Paul to have formalized a
policy position on it. "Oh well," he said, "I might reregister
Republican and vote for him if he did."
Now I read this today! A quick search and there it was, Ron Paul
has a formalized policy position on the transport of unpasteurized
milk and milk products! I forwarded this on to my friend. I think
we now have a new Ron Paul supporter.
|12.21.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Shane,
My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a
libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction
someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that
person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Personally, i support the right of the preborn to defend themselves with firearms while smoking what they'd like to. Zygotes for Liberty!
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 1:43PM|#
smacky wins the thread.
Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as
he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else
politically?
You need to look more closely at Paul's positions on abortion
toddb...
To quote Dr. Ron Paul (on his website): "Many talk about being
pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the
unborn."
HR 1094 and HR 1095 are active attempts to use federal power to
promote Paul's pro-life stance.
Removing the federal check on state-level tyranny is not the same
as promoting liberty (as, I believe, has been mentioned).
Paul's political strategy on abortion is the opposite of his
position on raw milk.
Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop states
from ALLOWING it.
Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states
from BANNING it.
It is an important difference.
|12.21.07 @ 1:46PM|#
how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that pesky
Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal government
dictate to the states how they administer a contentious social
issue
prolefeed,
You (and any other pro-lifers) are framing the question
incorrectly. Pregnancy is not a "contentious social issue", (you
must be a man), it is a personal, individual or familial issue. It
has nothing to do with "social" or "society", you
collectivist.
It's not libertarian to say the federal government should
decide for the states that they must be pro-choice.
Yes, yes it is. It is libertarian because pro-choice is the only
viewpoint that offers freedom from governmental intervention. Nice
mental gymnastics you were attempting, though.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:47PM|#
"My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a
libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction
someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that
person is -- brace yourself -- a woman."
Last line was somewhat uncalled for but not unexpected. I and more
than a few other's(including, shock, women) believe that protection
from force or fraud is a legit function of the governemnt(in the
u.s. that would be the State government as outlined in the
constitution) and that all human beings(even those who haven't yet
obtained or manage to hold onto that status we refer to as
"personhood" have an inalienable right to life. so as long as we
are picking who's a libertarian and who isn't based on this i would
say that you, as a person who accepts people being murdered as long
as the murderer is the mother or her physician, is the inconsistent
one.
|12.21.07 @ 1:47PM|#
So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul
works, should force state legislatures to accept raw milk? How is
that "libertarian?"
I don't think it is unlibertarian to use the power of the federal
government to not allow states to limit the rights of the people
who live in those states.
Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual
rights from government, not merely defining which level of
government can take rights away from you.
I would be very happy to see a bill the say refuses ag-subsidies
(since we haven't been able to do away with them) to any state that
restricts people from buying/selling raw milk
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:48PM|#
"Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop
states from ALLOWING it.
Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states
from BANNING it.
It is an important difference."
No, it's not, the whole point is removing the power from the Feds,
not what they could or couldn't do with said power. They shouldn't
be allowing or banning anything.
|12.21.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long
as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else
politically?
Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he wants
states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a bit
inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is it
justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my
opinion
toddb|12.21.07 @ 1:51PM|#
smacky,
I'm ambivalent on the abortion issue...I think you can make
rational arguments across the whole spectrum on this issue and no
consensus will ever be reached. That's why I like the decentralized
approach.
|12.21.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting
individual rights from government, not merely defining which level
of government can take rights away from you.
QFT - I defer to ChicagoTom.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Shane,
So ALLOWING and BANNING are now equivalent?
Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases liberty
while banning something (taking away your right to do) reduces
liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty, then it is
an important difference.
But smacky has already covered this point, so...
robc|12.21.07 @ 1:52PM|#
ChicagoTom,
States determine what is or isnt murder now. In some states it
would be murder (or some form of homicide) if I shoot a robber in
my house without attempting to flee first.
In my state, it isnt.
It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it isnt the
Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state crime.
(Excluding things involving multiple states or federal
officials)
|12.21.07 @ 1:54PM|#
His position on gay marriage is another non-liberty/freedom
position.
He personally opposes it, and regardless of the fact that he
believes government should be out of the marriage position, he
argues that states shouldn't have to recognize other same sex
marriages.
Sure he doesn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but
he does support giving states the power to discriminate.
He seems more of a federalist than a libertarian.
robc|12.21.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting
individual rights from government, not merely defining which level
of government can take rights away from you.
This is correct. However, libertarianism has to work within the
federalist constitution that we have. The system isnt inherently
libertarian. It is inherently federalist. This libertarians need to
work at all levels. On the federal level, we can only do what is
allowed, pushing everything else down to the states for the
libertarians there to work on.
robc|12.21.07 @ 1:56PM|#
ChicagoTom,
The constitution gave the states the power to descriminate.
Following the constitution (which all federal officials took an
oath to do) REQUIRES not making that decision at the federal level,
no matter what your views on it are.
|12.21.07 @ 1:58PM|#
It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it
isnt the Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state
crime. (Excluding things involving multiple states or federal
officials)
I agree, but that is a Federalist argument, not a libertarian
argument.
A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably
allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray area, but an
aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of your right to
life, is it not?
Sulla|12.21.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he
wants states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a
bit inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is
it justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my
opinion
I do not know Ron Paul's position on the matter, but some people,
myself included, believe that the state should not ban something
merely because it is immoral. As robc pointed out, states have
different limitations on what is "murder." Some states have such
broad protections for homeowners defending their property that in
some cases, what I would consider murder goes unpunished. This
bothers me, but I believe that on balance, the importance of
allowing people to defend themselves and their homes justifies some
such broad protections.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Neu Mejican, smacky, ChicagoTom-
Are you stating that the Federal government has or should have a
say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?
|12.21.07 @ 2:01PM|#
On the federal level, we can only do what is allowed,
pushing everything else down to the states for the libertarians
there to work on
And that means using the same incentives that are currently used to
remove freedoms, in order to protect freedoms (see my subsidy
example above).
All I am saying is that just because someone is a federalist
doesn't mean that person is a libertarian.
And since the power of the feds is in fact expanding, there is
nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding power to protect
and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and in discriminatory
ways
|12.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual
rights from government, not merely defining which level of
government can take rights away from you."
ChicagoTom, I agree with you in principle, but not in application.
Telling the federal government that it's OK to ignore the
Constitution if the supporters of some legislation think it's about
protecting people's rights as those supporters define
rights opens the door to all sorts of unpleasant federal
powers that you would vehemently oppose. The "right" to an
immigrant-free society? The "right" to protect fetuses?
The solution is not to ignore the federal Constitution's severe
limitations on power (the Tenth Amendment in particular), and cross
your fingers that The Right People will be the ones passing the
laws. The solution to tyranny is to preserve the strict limits on
the feds, and rewrite state Constitutions to impose equally
stringent limits on state powers ... and rewrite local city
charters to impose stringent limitations ... and move from states
that don't have these protections against abuses, to states that
do.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
ChicagoTom, Neu Mejican,
I'm the last person to debate this one...as I said above, I think
this is an issue too complicated to ever find reasonable consensus.
That is why I NEVER use it as a litmus for a candidate's
reason/intelligence/liberality/etc.
iowan|12.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
9-month-long state-mandated medical condition
This is probably the most de-humanizing definition of pregnancy
that I have ever seen.
The question at hand is not the meaning of libertarianism, it is
the nature of a fetus.
If the fetus is a human life deserving of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, then using the power of the state to protect
the fetus is not un-libertarian.
If the fetus is property (if it's not a human life, then it must be
property), then letting the state interfere with the owner's
disposition of that property wouldcertainly be
un-libertarian.
To claim that those that do not share your world view regarding the
nature of a fetus cannot be libertarians is a form of bigotry.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"there is nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding
power to protect and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and
in discriminatory ways"
that's not libertarian, that's lefty as far as i can tell.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Shane,
Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be
involved.
Crime & food safety - both have an important role.
Sulla|12.21.07 @ 2:07PM|#
A Libertarian would not believe that a state could
conceivably allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray
area, but an aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of
your right to life, is it not?
(please note the concious use of big L)
Should a Libertarian disregard the Constitution and act in a manner
consistent with Libertarian core values at all times?
I really enjoy H&R and I hope people do not mind me posting,
even though I'm not a Libertarian, and more generally in favor of
limited government. The main reason I'm not a full-fledged
Libertarian is that I often get the feelings that Libertarians want
to impose Libertarian morality on people, just as the many on the
religious right wants to impose christian morality and the many
people on the left want to impose their version of morality.
robc|12.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
A Libertarian would not believe that a state could
conceivably allow murder
I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I believe that
a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.
Brandybuck|12.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.
On the other hand, libertarianism is not nihilism. Freedom, not
free-for-all. You do not have the right to initiate force against
another the life of another human being. If a fetus is a human
being then the libertarian position must be that one cannot
initiate force against that fetus. The mother has the right of
self-defense, but she does NOT have the right to murder. The key
question is when a fetus becomes a human being. Pro-life
libertarians believe it starts earlier than pro-abortion
libertarians.
In addition, there is also the legal principle of meeting force
with equivalent force. You may not slay a trespasser you find on
your property if he is not threatening you. For example, if come
home to find a robber passed out on your living room floor, you may
not put a gun to the sleeping head and pull the trigger. Thus, even
if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is trespass, you
are still not justified in killing the unborn human being. Only
when the mother's life is in jeopardy is abortion justified.
http://www.l4l.org
|12.21.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Are you stating that the Federal government has or should
have a say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?
I am saying that since the federal government does have a say on
things (whether you agree with it or not) the libertarian thing to
do is to act in a way that protects freedoms of people even if it
means stopping a state from discriminating.
Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the marriage
business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it easier for states
to say "well you are married in Mass. but we don't recognize it in
Kansas". That's a bullshit policy that allows discrimination and
limits freedom regardless of it happening at the state level.
I am saying that Federalism is not inherently libertarianism.
Federalism is merely a check on central authority not a check on
improper authority as a whole.
(I;m going out to lunch now, so sorry if I drop out of the
conversation.)
robc|12.21.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Sulla,
No, a Libertarian shouldnt violate the constitution to act in a
Libertarian manner. There is a constitutional amendment process
that is available.
|12.21.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases
liberty while banning something (taking away your right to do)
reduces liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty,
then it is an important difference.
Neu Mejican -- so ALLOWING someone to murder you increases liberty,
while BANNING such murder reduces liberty? ALLOWING someone to dump
radioactive wastes on your property increases liberty, while
BANNING that dumping reduces liberty?
Allowing and banning, depending on the framing, can be applied to
either side of any issue.
Increasing liberty consists of allowing you to do whatever you want
(or banning others from stopping you from doing whatever you want),
so long as you don't initiate aggression or harm another
person.
|12.21.07 @ 2:12PM|#
iowan,
LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining
fetus as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all. It is
about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what
she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given
charity. It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give
that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the
duration of a typical pregnancy. And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone
is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to
make their own choices about their own bodies.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:12PM|#
"Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be
involved."
How is taking away the federal involvement not in line with that
goal? How is allowing the federal involvement, even if to limit the
state involvement, in line with that goal? Seems to me that the
logical place to start would be the level that weilds the most
power and work your way down the ladder.
"Crime & food safety - both have an important role"
But what are the differences between the Federal role and the State
role. Does the federal government in the U.S.A. have a legitimate
role in either the sale of pastuerized milk or abortion as a crime
or abortion as a health issue?
robc|12.21.07 @ 2:13PM|#
For example, if come home to find a robber passed out on
your living room floor, you may not put a gun to the sleeping head
and pull the trigger.
That kind of thing varies by state. I would have to look up the KY
laws to try to figure out that scenario for sure, but I might be
okay since he is inside the house. Passed out in my yard - no, in
the living room - maybe yes.
Not that I would shoot someone in that situation, but I "legally"
might be allowed to.
|12.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
even if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is
trespass
Brandybuck,
Way to dismiss and gloss over an important point. Oh wait, it's
"silly". Women are silly, aren't they? Tee hee
|12.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Edward | December 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #
With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can
Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....
Hey Ed.....wheres my fucking lawsuit?
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Brandybuck,
This is an example where life is more complicated than the
simplistic axioms of libertarian philosophy.
The question is not just about "human being" or not. The point at
which that being becomes autonomous is more the crux of the issue.
While still in the womb, the baby is part of the mother's body. She
has control of her body, so she gets to decide what happens to that
part of her body.
At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part of
the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate dividing
line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."
It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide.
The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul
disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for
you.
Dr. Phibes|12.21.07 @ 2:17PM|#
I gotta start working on a uterus extraction/re-installation procedure to eliminate this issue once and for all
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:17PM|#
smacky- our bad, should have noticed from your first post on the issue that you weren't interested in a discussion. bigots, yes we're bigots, end of conversation, you don't have to go any further than bigots, and "women-haters" if that helps.
|12.21.07 @ 2:19PM|#
LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of
defining fetus children as life vs.
property. It isn't about the fetus
child at all. It is about the adult woman who is
harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is
surviving only out of her own freely given charity. It's wrong for
a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of
around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a
typical pregnancy childhood. And no,
I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view
adult women as deserving to make their own choices about
their own bodies whether to abandon their
children by a roadside or kill them if they're posing
inconveniences.
Carried your argument a few months further, smacky. Still good with
that formulation? Or willing to admit that its not as cut and dried
as you posit?
Jay D|12.21.07 @ 2:22PM|#
smacky,
Ron Paul is 100% reproductive freedom. He has no interest in
telling anyone they must reproduce or must not reproduce.
Once the reproduction process has, in fact, been initiated
however...
|12.21.07 @ 2:22PM|#
smacky -- feel free to substitute "infant" for "child" in my 2:19 post, if you want to limit the scope to just newly born infants incapable of surviving on their own.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part
of the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate
dividing line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."
It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide.
The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul
disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for
you."
Or it could be argued that Ron Paul believes that the state doesn't
have the inherit power to decide who is viable or not, who's life
is worth protecting or not. He might see it as protecting all human
beings regardless of viability, personhood status, autonomy, or
current contribution to society, from harm/force. No different than
keeping a coma pateint from being raped, or an alzheimers patient
from being used for medical experiment without their consent, even
if they are already dying or have a great possibility of dying.
wether someone is likely to survive without assistance isn't
sufficient justification to allow to be murdered, you are not
talking about allowing them to die, but of actively bringing about
that death.
robc|12.21.07 @ 2:23PM|#
prolefeed,
Algebra. Everyone knows you can abort until they can do algebra.
Higher math causes the soul to enter the body.
Pro-state? Stay away from my |12.21.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Without a state, there absolutely would be abortions.
Now, if you want to frame the question as homicide, you have to ask
yourself if there would be more homicides WITH a state or WITHOUT
one. I'm gonna reflect on the 1940's and modern Africa before I
answer that one...
WITH!
|12.21.07 @ 2:26PM|#
smacky,
It's ladies like you that made me run for this position.
To stop alien invaders:
Keep yer fookin knees closed!
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:26PM|#
prolefeed,
How that is framed, of course, matters.
We are talking about two particular acts by Ron Paul. I framed them
very carefully to highlight the distinction in how those particular
acts differ.
If you want to switch it around go ahead, but the distinction
remains. In one case Paul is on the side of increasing individual
liberty, in the other is his on the side of reducing individual
liberty. The two positions are not equivalent.
|12.21.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Shane,
I'm not the one who started with the accusations of bigotry. And my
comments weren't implying the label of "women-hater", I was just
saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so obviously lack
a grasp of the concept of pregnancy.
prolefeed,
Wow, what can I say? Other than I am not impressed with your
completely off-the-mark attempts at having a point.
robc|12.21.07 @ 2:27PM|#
From a very picky and technical reading of the KY statutes
(which is how I hope a DA would do it in this case), I can use
physical force, but not deadly force, against the dude passed out
in my living room.
Physical force is allowed against someone committing criminal
trespass, burglary, robbery or other felonies involving
force.
Deadly force is allowed against someone commiting burglary,
robbery, or other yadda yadda yadda.
I guess once he passes out, he is no longer doing any of the other
things so is only, at that point, trespassing.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Shane,
If that is what Paul believes (he does), then he should do whatever
he can to restrict the rights of mother's to have an abortion (he
does).
His position is smart, tactical, and very much about finding a way
to use state power to limit a specific right that is currently
protected with federal power.
|12.21.07 @ 2:30PM|#
No different than keeping a coma pateint from being raped,
or an alzheimers patient from being used for medical experiment
without their consent, even if they are already dying or have a
great possibility of dying.
Shane,
Yeah, it is way different. I'm not having this discussion anymore.
I'm sick of these idiotic scenarios posited by brainwashed
pro-lifer scum.
prolefeed|12.21.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the
marriage business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it
easier for states to say "well you are married in Mass. but we
don't recognize it in Kansas". and that's a
bullshit policy that allows discrimination and limits freedom
regardless of it happening at the state level
the government, at all levels, should quit arbitrating who
is or is not married, leave that up to individuals and/or their
church of choice to decide for themselves, and treat us all as
individuals.
You can't increase freedom by giving the federal government more
power over this issue (or pretty much any other issue).
toddb|12.21.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Wow...if this thread doesn't illuminate the pointlessness of
discussing abortion as a political issue, nothing does. Here you
have a group of intelligent people who are mostly of a mind with
regard to their beliefs in protecting the rights of the individual
and their interest in avoiding abuses of the state...and they can't
even agree on the basic DEFINITIONS pertinent to the
discussion.
That's why I like decentralization as the most rational default on
this question.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"I was just saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so
obviously lack a grasp of the concept of pregnancy."
Well i am a young man, the father of 2 other males,a nd the lover
of a women is is studying to be an ebryologist and works at a local
obgyn.
i'm also a reasonable person.
I think i can talk about when life begins and when rights are
afforded to individuals.
i believe a human being has inalienable right from the moment of
existence as a member of the human race and that those rights can
not be seperated from that individual at any point of that life,
not pre-birth, not after brain damage, not after going
senile.
Everything i know about science, biology, and bioethics, tell me
that a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a child, are all the same
organism at various stages of life, and to claim that rights are
not afforded to that human being at certain stages of that life has
no place in consistent libertarian philosophy.
to me at least.
I don't need to be a woman to have a say about humanity,
reproduction, natural rights, or life and death.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:37PM|#
toddb,
The most decentralized position is to allow the individual to
decide.
Ron Paul supports a position way up the ladder from the
decentralized position.
He wants to allow a central authority to decide, rather than
leaving it up to the individuals involved.
The current federal law protects the decentralized solution.
Full stop.
|12.21.07 @ 2:38PM|#
You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated
medical condition.
Hey, you're always free to hurl yourself down a staircase.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"Yeah, it is way different. "
How and why? again, i'm trying to have a discussion and you hit me
back with "idiotic" and "brainwashed scum", after you state you are
not goiung to continue the conversation. so you refuse to defend
your position, call me names, and then leave.
nice.
|12.21.07 @ 2:39PM|#
well at a minimum, carlson's article is lightyears better than anything chapman has written for reason so far
|12.21.07 @ 2:44PM|#
I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I
believe that a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.
And I believe that position is anything but libertarian.
The state should not be allowed to kill people, even people who
have killed others. Nor should it turn a blind eye to those who
have had their right to life violated.
The state's role is to protect the rights of its people and protect
it's peoples rights from being violated by others.
Not to violate rights as long as it's done at the local enough
level.
Sulla|12.21.07 @ 2:44PM|#
The most decentralized position is to allow the individual
to decide.
smacky, neu mejican, any other abortion rights supporter-
Do you support an unlimited right to abort until a fetus is
born?
I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy
(the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus
becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible
choices considered.
|12.21.07 @ 2:46PM|#
ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree to
disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can
result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever
power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will
also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently
oppose -- so that, at best, you will have freedom about half the
time, and at worst, far less than half the time (assuming
politicians from both major parties are intent on increasing their
own power at our expense).
I used to hold similarly benign views about federal power, before
the Republicans started spending like drunken sailors in a
whorehouse, abrogating habeus corpus, etc. That snapped me out of
partisan mode after a period of increasingly strained
rationalizations. I suppose if the Democrats wind up controlling
the White House, the House of Representatives, and get 60+ votes in
the Senate, the inevitable excesses might snap you out of your
notion that leftish politicians can be trusted with lots of power,
unlike those sumbitches on the right.
|12.21.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I support a mother's unlimited right to abort her child until
the moment of birth.
After birth I support both parents right to abort the child.
At least until the little bastard gets a paper route.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Yeah...got that, and that's why my own personal position would
probably come closest to the same conclusion. But, given that I
think reasonable arguments can be made for many positions and that
consensus is impossible, I never pay a lot of attention to this
issue to judge a candidate. As long as RP is advocating a general
roll-back of the massive scope, intrusion and expense of the
federal government, I can easily overlook whatever his position is
on a no-win, contentious issue like abortion.
Gotta run...enjoyed the conversation all.
|12.21.07 @ 2:50PM|#
All very interesting on a Friday. But isn't anyone going to link to Air Force Amy?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I can't help but laugh, someone who probably agrees with me on
90% of the issues will call me "brainwashed scum" over the
remaining 10%...
now i feel like a "real" libertarian. :)
|12.21.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Warren,
That's cold man.
you should allow for grass cutting and babysitting imho.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Sulla,
I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy
(the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus
becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible
choices considered.
At some point, maybe. I think viability is a pretty good rule of
thumb (and that gets earlier all the time). But I am not sure it is
the state's job to punish someone who makes a very difficult choice
that is different.
The trouble comes in enforcement.
If the child deserves protection from the mother while still in the
womb, what other forms of protection are allowable? Can she be
stopped from drinking alcohol? From smoking? Should she be forced
to get prenatal care? To eat nutritious food? How much of the
mother's autonomy can be sacrificed for the child's benefit?
Leaving it up to the family and the doctors allows these decisions
to be made on a case by case basis.
|12.21.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I'd love to see the overlap between animal rights advocates and
those holding 100% pro-choice positions. IMRO, at some point a feus
is a "person" and deserving of state protection. I reject the
position that passing through the birth canal intact is that
point.
Yeah smacky, I'm a paternalistic, bigoted, misogynistic bastard if
that will make you feel morally superior.
iowan|12.21.07 @ 2:56PM|#
First I apologize for posting and runing, but I wanted to
respond before I head out the door.
LOL...
Well, I glad I didn't offend you.
you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus
as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all.
We disgree, the fetus is the only point.
It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't
matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own
freely given charity.
The woman in question freely gave charity to the sperm that was
permitted access to the womb.
It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that
kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration
of a typical pregnancy.
However, that charity results in a personal, moral responsbility
for the end product of that charity.
Again, "aliean invader" is about a de-humanizing as it gets.
And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who
do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices
about their own bodies.
I view all people, women and men, as being fully equal in rights
and responsibilities. You may choose to engage in any sexual
behavior with anyone other adult at any time in any fashion.
But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck
someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That
goes both ways, for women and men.
And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . .
well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 2:57PM|#
JsubD,
That Venn diagram would look a lot like the pro-life, pro-death
penalty one.
|12.21.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Sulla,
I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of its
mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.
Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's
breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's
alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no
primordial soup for you.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 3:01PM|#
The question is not just about "human being" or
not.
the only thing i will put forth into the worm blender is that this
is, i believe, really the crux of the issue.
Russ 2000|12.21.07 @ 3:03PM|#
I have to agree with smacky here. I mean, everyone here already
knows that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiying abortions isn't
going to stop them, it'll just make them worse. That was basically
the point made when states began to allow it - the same logic used
in the argument against alcohol and drug prohibition.
The inconsistency in libertarianism isn't nearlay as bad as the
inconsistency in pragmatism.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:09PM|#
"I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of
its mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.
Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's
breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's
alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no
primordial soup for you."
so self-sufficiency is the yardstick we use then?
|12.21.07 @ 3:11PM|#
ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree
to disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can
result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever
power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will
also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently
oppose
prolefeed,
we agree more than we disagree. I agree with much of what you were
saying. I too am leery of giving the feds too much power. But I
also want to limit the states power to do things I wouldn't want
teh feds doing either.
Furthermore, I guess I feel that -- considering the system we have
and the reality of what it is, I don't believe that there will be a
successful rollback of fed power. The next best thing to me would
be to get people in there who are willing to work withand do things
to protect the rights of individuals.
Finally, let me add that, with regard to Ron Paul, even if he does
think,as you do, that it's better/safer to take a federalist stance
with regards to his voting and the bills he supports and restrict
the power of the fed and not use it to protect rights, I still
believe that in order to consider him libertarian, he should at
least be espousing/pushing the idea that it's wrong for states to
do these things as well.
Instead his public statements have been typical federalist
positions that don't push the idea of freedom and liberty from the
tyranny of government, but merely from the tyranny of federal
government.
That is what I find the most disappointing. At a time when he has
one of the biggest platforms ever, his message seems to be merely a
federalist one rather than a libertarian one.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"I mean, everyone here already knows that prohibition doesn't
work. Prohibiying abortions isn't going to stop them, it'll just
make them worse."
That still depends on if we are talking about an individual or
property. If you are someone who believes it to be the murder of
another human being then that's not much of a rationalization as
you would have to apply that same logic to other forms of
murder.
Brandybuck|12.21.07 @ 3:12PM|#
At some point between the conception and birth, the fetus
becomes a human being endowed with the same unalienable rights as
all other human beings. It is my contention that any born or unborn
child past that point has the unalienable right to life, and that
if government has any legitimate roles at all, one of them must be
to defend that life.
To some people that point is conception. To others it is when the
baby is fully clear of the birth canal. To most, I suspect, it is
somewhere in between. But regardless of when that is, the
libertarian philosophy is opposed to any initiation of force
against that entity after the threshold of humanness been
reached.
Therefore the blanket statement that libertarians must be
pro-choice in regards to abortion is misguided. Libertarians can
legitimately hold a pro-life position.
|12.21.07 @ 3:13PM|#
But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not
to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with.
That goes both ways, for women and men.
And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work .
. well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.
J sub D,
You were saying something about moral superiority?
So now the government's in charge of enforcing personal
responsibility, Brandybuck? Are you sure the pro-life movement is
not just a little bit of schadenfreude courtesy of the morally
superior? I do wonder...
|12.21.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Smacky reminds me of a kid who when it becomes obvious they're losing a game of checkers decides to swipe the board off the table and trundle away in tears.
|12.21.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Akhbar,
Ha, that's a very cute analogy. Shane reminds me of someone who
uses contorted and dissimilar analogies to morally browbeat a --
oh, wait! That is what he's doing.
|12.21.07 @ 3:22PM|#
If I believe that the female of the species is of no value to humanity until she is able to reproduce said species, can I kill them at will? If not, why not. If not, what govt. office should regulate my will to kill the useless girls?
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
So for those who are supporting a government role in this
decision...
What crime is appropriate?
Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?
Manslaughter?
Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?
How would you enforce it?
Do the doctors also get punished?
Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?
Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"Shane reminds me of someone who uses contorted and dissimilar
analogies to morally browbeat a -- oh, wait! That is what he's
doing."
So counter it! If my arguements are flawed or illogical or just
stupid, then show me where and show me up. I'm not claiming
superiority over anyone, and if i'm mistaken in my beliefs then
please point out where you think that is. I'm not the one calling
names and quitting.
I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm
pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected
from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create
zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think
they should be protected from harm just as much as other
humans.
Not trying to brow beat, just showing where i'm coming from.
Chucklehead|12.21.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Aw man... this thread has become crap. And on a Friday. Before the holidays, even.
|12.21.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Well, people might be a bit nicer if you didn't resort to immature name calling and throw hissy fits when things don't sem to b going your way. I tgought you said you were done with this thread anyway? Anywho, here's a nice article from Gene Callahan that puts up a god defense of the anti-abortion libertarian position. You'll probably find it reductionist but it's a good read none the less. http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:28PM|#
re: punishment
The compromise position...given a state-mandated medical
condition.
Abortion is illegal.
Punishment, time served.
Chucklehead|12.21.07 @ 3:28PM|#
I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm
pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected
from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create
zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think
they should be protected from harm just as much as other
humans.
That'll cause the tax rates to go up.
|12.21.07 @ 3:32PM|#
chucklehead,
nah, just picking an arbitrary position on murder. that would make
me pro-choice.
imho, life beginning at conception is the only morally defensible
position in the abortion debate.
|12.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
The problem is that libertarians, a lot of them, anyway, tend to believe the Constitution is an important document to take seriously. In reality, the real question is not what level of government has a right to prohibit, but what form of government will do the least prohibiting. Always pushing for state's rights and decentralization is one strategy for achieving this, but not necessarily the only strategy. The argument is over strategy.
Fluffy|12.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Shane:
There's a pretty simple reason that the pro-choice position is the
libertarian position.
If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply
because the fetus is in a position of complete dependence - and if
the state can use the police power to enforce that obligation -
then it seems to me that all of us would be obligated to care for
any and all persons in a state of dependence, and that the state
would be entitled to use the police power to enforce that
obligation. But that would make state socialism enforced by terror
the most moral form of government. Since I don't want to be trapped
into that conclusion, I am forced to posit that the woman does not
in fact have such an obligation.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:34PM|#
"What crime is appropriate?"
Murder
"Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?"
yes
"Manslaughter?"
no, murder.
"Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?"
Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.
"How would you enforce it?"
With evidence presented at trial.
"Do the doctors also get punished?"
Yes
"Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?"
Depends on their role, but i would imagine it would be
murder.
"Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?"
Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.
Whatever you would charge someone who killed a 9 year old, 6 year
old, 3 year old, or newborn is what i think you should charge
someone who kills or helps to kill or hires to kill a preborn. If
it ain't in self-defense it's murder.
Fluffy|12.21.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Shane,
Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will starve
to death this year?
They would live, if only you would feed them. Maybe you can hook
yourself up to a really long placenta whose other end is in the
Sudan.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will
starve to death this year?"
We're talking about termination not neglect. You can't charge me
for not supplying them food, You can charhe me if i dismemberone or
more of them, even if a doctor helps me to do so.
Dave D|12.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Brandybuck hit the nail on the head.
Smacky, I am rabidly pro-choice. But that has nothing to do with
being a Libertarian. If a Libertarian thinks that a fetus is a
person and thus part of the "social contract," then of course it
should be protected from violence.
Jay D|12.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive!
Don't forget the complimentary "I survived an abortion and all I
got was this lousy T-shirt" T-shirt.
When the child grows up, she should have something to remember this
tender loving moment with.
|12.21.07 @ 3:44PM|#
What crime is appropriate?
Furthermore,
what about a pregnant mother engaging in behavior like riding a
horse, or speeding or drinking while pregnant?
If a fetus has the exact same rights as a human, then any action a
mother takes that may or does cause a miscarriage would be a
variation of manslaughter?
The position that a fetus has the exact same rights as a born
person leads to inane outcomes.
If it ain't in self-defense it's murder
Until the baby is viable, it is equivalent to a parasite. It cannot
exist without feeding off of the mother. If the mother doesn't want
a parasite feeding off of her, could that not be self defense?
Fluffy|12.21.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Shane -
It would be pretty straightforward to reconfigure most early
pregnancy abortions as removals, not dismemberments. Not to mention
the fact that RU-486 does not involve surgery at all.
What then?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply
because "
before we get to "simply because", does she have an obligation to
care for her offspring? What's the libertarian position on child
abuse/neglect? Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a
child who is legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function
of the state to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and
food to my minor children?
If the answer is yes, and i and/or their other parent are legally
and ethically obligated to provide care for our minor children,
then why should it be any different for this woman?
|12.21.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Did anyone see that episode of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia where it turns out that Charlie survived an abortion attempt? I don't know but for some reason this thread reminded me of it...
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Shane,
Thanks.
We are clear on your position.
Now, how do you feel about punishing mothers who assault their
children by drinking alcohol, or smoking?
|12.21.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is
legally my responsibility?
Adoption?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Neu Mejican-
I guess it would depend on what amount of harm was caused, or if
you can even prove harm was done. Drinking around children causes
no physical harm that i know of, though a parent forcing a child to
drink against their will could and should be prosecuted. A parent
allowing a child to drink or smoke, not my concern as i don't
really see that as "causing harm" unless you're talking about use
of force.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Shane,
By the way, I am very much on your side when it comes to the
concept of rights being inextricably linked to
responsibilities.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Shane,
I am talking about drinking or smoking while pregnant. The link to
harm is well established.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Shane,
So that would be...
How do you feel about punishing a mother for assaulting her child
by forcing them to drink which harms their development?
Dave D|12.21.07 @ 3:57PM|#
One other note - I always find it strange when someone wants to
ban abortion but is willing to make an exception for rape or
incest. I mean, if abortion is murder, how can it be justified just
because the mother was raped? Similarly, I don't understand
pro-choicers who want to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE". If
(like me) you do NOT see abortion as murder, why should it be any
rarer than any other birth control method? Granted it's a bit
pricier.
Abortion is one of those issues where I understand the extreme
positions, but not the "moderate" ones.
Fluffy|12.21.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is
legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function of the state
to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and food to my minor
children?
There are a number of different ways in which citizens can legally
abandon their children. So I guess the answer is No, huh?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Fluffy- Use of RU-486 would be too difficult to prove, and i'm
not for banning or restricting possession of it, but if it can be
proven that is the method used to kill the individual then yes,
prosecute.
removal not dismemberment: You are still describing an action that
has been taken with the purpose of ending a life, not feeding the
sudanese is not an action intended to cause them death.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 4:03PM|#
not feeding the sudanese is not an action intended to cause
them death
Talk about your philosophical slippery slope.
Defining the nature of action.
Tough.
Isn't making a choice that you know will lead to a particular end
morally equivalent no matter the nature of the acts involved?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"How do you feel about punishing a mother for assaulting her
child by forcing them to drink which harms their
development?"
Well, i'm not a lawyer so i don't know how a prosecutor would
procede with something like that. I would guess it would be a
matter of intent. Sort of like if you knowingly pass HIV to someone
else who wasn't aware that you were doing so.
I'm not a lawyer, judge, or law maker, so i don't know what laws
would be applied or how, besides that, to me how you would enforce
those laws are secondary to ensuring the protection of life.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:06PM|#
"There are a number of different ways in which citizens can
legally abandon their children. So I guess the answer is No,
huh?"
"legally abandon" being the code phrase here. A mother can drop off
a newborn at a safe haven without fear of prosecution, if she lives
a newborn in a dumpster or on a park bench and harm comes to that
newborn she will be prosecuted, no?
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Shane,
Doesn't the warning label on the bottle/pack or cigarettes get rid
of that defense? The mother has to be knowingly harming the child
(unless she can't read perhaps) when she engages in the activity
(ignoring, for the moment that the consequences are complex).
|12.21.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Wanted:
One exceptionally wealthy benefactor to purchase a block of time on
a major broadcast TV network and finance the production of a
medical documentary showing the various surgical procedures
implemented to remove unwanted fetuses from human women.
Brett|12.21.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Damn, saw the H&R post, read the Carlson article (which was
excellent, IMHO), then hit the comments section for what I thought
would be a nice, Friday RP love-a-thon. Then...BAM!
What toddb said at 2:32pm.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:13PM|#
"Doesn't the warning label on the bottle/pack or cigarettes get
rid of that defense? The mother has to be knowingly harming the
child (unless she can't read perhaps) when she engages in the
activity (ignoring, for the moment that the consequences are
complex)."
Again i'm not a lwayer, law enforcer, or judge, but i would venture
yes, if it was reasonable to assume her actions would lead to the
death or harm of another person, if she knowingly infringes on the
liberty of another person, she should be prosecuted for doing
so.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:16PM|#
"Isn't making a choice that you know will lead to a particular
end morally equivalent no matter the nature of the acts
involved?"
agreed, that is a slippery slope.
I would say that some common sence and reason would be used here.
Did my actions have a direct result of harming someone else? was it
reasonably foreseeable to me that harm would occur to another
person as a direct result of my actions or inaction?
Do i have more of an obligation toward my 3 year old than i do
toward the homeless guy i see on the freeway? i would think so.
Brandybuck|12.21.07 @ 4:17PM|#
So now the government's in charge of enforcing personal responsibility, Brandybuck?
Do you even bother to read my posts before responding?
Sheesh...
|12.21.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make
abortion "safe, legal, and RARE".
It's easy to understand it if you just look at it the right way.
It's a turn of phrase to keep people from feeling uncomfortable
about it -- and prevent pro-lifers from labeling people who want
aboriton legal (and those who get them) as advocating abortion as a
form of birth control.
Most people believe in keeping abortions legal. They also find the
concept icky. The point of this is to reinforce the notion that
abortion is a painful decision that people make and is a big deal
and not merely a form of birth control.
Personally, I have known many people who have had abortions, and
none of them did it callously nor did they find it an easy choice
to make. They weren't sluts or irresponsible people overall. And it
was the most heart-wrenching decision they ever had to make.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:20PM|#
"The point of this is to reinforce the notion that abortion is a
painful decision that people make and is a big deal and not merely
a form of birth control."
But why? if it's not a real person and it's about as morally
questionable as clipping a toenail or getting a tumor removed, why
would it be such a painful or heart-wrenching experience. getting
my tooth pulled isn't, neither is using a condom. why is abortion
so distasteful?
|12.21.07 @ 4:25PM|#
why is abortion so distasteful?
Maybe you're just not using the right seasonings.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 4:27PM|#
smacky again with the smartass non-answer.
think i'm done with this today.
|12.21.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Shane,
It's NOT a painful, heart-wrenching experience for plenty of
people. I'm sure for SOME people it is, some people even wince when
they have to kill a pest that has intruded into their living
quarters. And for others it's not.
|12.21.07 @ 4:38PM|#
My catch-all solution - morning after pills provided by a local
charitable organization. If they were available discreetly and for
free/low cost, no more market for abortions.
Who wants to start a non-profit?
|12.21.07 @ 4:45PM|#
But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not
to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with.
That goes both ways, for women and men.
And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . .
well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.
J sub D,
You were saying something about moral superiority?
A) That wasn't from anything I posted.
B) It is the way I've lived my life.
If the rubber breaks (and when you're hung like me that is a
constant worry :-P ) I'm possibly fucked. Y'know, taking
responsibility for your own actions? Many do it.
I'm not a 100% pro-lifer by any means.
A zygote is not a person.
A fetus at eight months developement is.
Dave D.|12.21.07 @ 4:46PM|#
"It's a turn of phrase to ... prevent pro-lifers from labeling
people who want abortion legal (and those who get them) as
advocating abortion as a form of birth control."
I guess that's what I find strange, as I DO advocate abortion as a
form of birth control. Actually, by definition it is a form of
birth control whether I advocate it or not. Granted, it's
preferable to use a condom or whatever, but that is due to cost
(and of course the inherent risk of any medical procedure), not due
to any moral issues.
Then again, I'm not a woman. I would imagine most women are
hard-wired to want to protect their fetus; millions of years of
evolution is pretty good at that kind of thing. So I can see how it
would be a wrenching decision on a personal level. I just do not
see why society in general would want to reduce the number of
abortions.
On a related note, it REALLY annoys me that one can be charged with
murder/manslaughter if one assaults a woman and ends up killing her
fetus. Either a fetus is a person or it isn't. Now, I wouldn't mind
having a special law against destructing someone else's fetus that
carried mega jail time, or even life in prison, since destroying
someone's fetus is very traumatic to the mother. But calling it
murder is inconsistent with being pro-choice.
|12.21.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Heh. Ultimately, I see no difference between the topics of
abortion and Terry Sciavo.
Yes, a zygote is a living entity. So is a liver fluke. Whether life
begins at conception is irrelevant, because status as an organism
is not a meaningful factor in the debate. Status as a human
individual is the crux, and it's a terribly hard line to draw, and
erring on the side of caution might be reasonable; so I fully
understand the pro-life libertarian position.
Yes, a pregnant woman is harboring a parasite. That's what a fetus
is. Just because it's a parasite which is generated by her own body
and is probably capable of becoming a human, does not
necessarily mean it is a human yet. I wonder if anyone
else remembers a Monty Python skit with the Catholics singing,
"Every sperm is sacred!" because they might be people one day too.
Even beyond this, the position that one individual has no inherent
duty to care for another at personal cost is reasonable; so I fully
understand the pro-choice libertarian position.
Frankly, I'm with Warren on this one. But regardless of my personal
opinion, the most important fact is that there are divergent
opinions on this matter, all of which arise from principled
consideration. This being the case, Paul's position on the matter
(make these decisions as locally to the concerned individuals as
possible) strikes me as the only pragmatic policy solution.
|12.21.07 @ 4:53PM|#
What crime is appropriate?
Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?
Manslaughter?
Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?
How would you enforce it?
Do the doctors also get punished?
Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?
Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?
Those questions should be struggled and dealt with by those who
advocate "personhood" for a fetus. Myself included. It would, and
should be, a long passionate discussion.
For all those who have the morally certain 100% answers on
abortion, I envy your surety. Don't necessarily respect your
critical thinking though.
Mr. Lechter|12.21.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make
abortion "safe, legal, and RARE".
Me neither. I prefer medium-well myself.
Dave D|12.21.07 @ 5:01PM|#
I do find it annoying that RP voted for the federal ban on partial birth abortions, with him being Mr. States Rights and all. He says he did it to counteract Roe v. Wade, which he sees as a bad ruling (as do I). That, IMHO, is pretty lame: RP claims to only vote for things authorized by the constitution, which in this case he obviously didn't.
Pedant|12.21.07 @ 5:03PM|#
This being the case, Paul's position on the matter (make
these decisions as locally to the concerned individuals as
possible) strikes me as the only pragmatic policy
solution.
As has been pointed out up-thread, this is not Paul's position.
Paul supports having a government make the decision. As close to
the concerned individuals as possible is the "pro-choice" position.
Paul is not pro-choice.
|12.21.07 @ 5:04PM|#
For all those who have the morally certain 100% answers on
abortion, I envy your surety. Don't necessarily respect your
critical thinking though.
Well, for some of us (read: women), the practical issues might be a
weighty consideration. Weighty like carrying a bowling ball around
in your abdomen for a few months, accompanied by violent
illness.
It would, and should be, a long passionate
discussion.
A private medical decision "would, and should be" a long and
passionate discussion for others? I really don't think it's anyone
else's business.
|12.21.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Dave D,
For what it's worth, I recall an interview with Paul (I believe it
was the News Hour one) in which he said that his vote on the
partial-birth bill was a hard choice for him, and he's not entirely
sure he made the right decision.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:05PM|#
JsubD,
So you don't like my "time served" solution.
And here I thought I had solved the whole abortion debate in two
simple words.
Damn...
Back to the drawing board.
|12.21.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I'm simply pointing out that advocating that some parts of
the country should be allowed to oppress women with statist
oversight is not compatible with true love of freedom.
Our system is (supposed to be designed) to protect freedom in a
more global sense, by limiting the power of the federal government
and reserving some/many issues to the states. Whether to
criminalize abortion is an issue that, at first blush, is a state
issue, not a federal issue.
It becomes a federal issue if, and only if, criminalizing abortion
violates one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Regardless of the merits of the abortion issue, its very hard to
see that it does (Roe being a famously flawed opinion, what with
its emanations of penumbras and all).
Now, on the merits:
A pro-life position is simply not consistent with
libertarianism.
This is well-plowed ground. If you believe that at some point a
fetus becomes a person (and of course that's the Big If of
abortion), then abortion is a violation of that person's rights,
and the state can step in to criminalize abortion. This is a
principled position consistent with libertarian philosophy. The
argument is over the Big If, an issue on which reasonable people
can disagree.
Most people agree that:
A zygote is not a person.
A fetus at eight months developement is.
So maybe the real issue isn't the Big If, but the Big When, as in
when do we deem a fetus to be a person.
David D|12.21.07 @ 5:10PM|#
A private medical decision "would, and should be" a long and
passionate discussion for others? I really don't think it's anyone
else's business.
Smacky, that's begging the question. the "long, passionate
discussion" is to determine IF abortion is indeed a private medical
decision, or if it is murder.
Loved the seasoning comment, btw.
|12.21.07 @ 5:12PM|#
As close to the concerned individuals as possible is the
"pro-choice" position.
Only if you do not consider the fetus to be one of the concerned
individuals. Many do, for the principled reasons I described
above.
|12.21.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Raw Milk is catching on - it was once the "good milk" until a government and shitty milk company campaign changed people's age old perceptions of what "good" and "bad".
|12.21.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Why in the world is Tucker Carlson writing for The New Republic? I thought the magazine was on the rebound, but between this and giving Johah Goldberg a weekly platform to appear as a "serious thinker" it seems clear that this is not the case.
|12.21.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Brandybuck,
Crap. Sorry about that. I accidentally attributed a comment to you
that iowan had in fact made.
Dave D|12.21.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Smacky's touchy-feely descriptions of pregnancy reminded me of this Onion article from a few months back.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:18PM|#
tejon,
Only if you do not consider the fetus to be one of the
concerned individuals.
That's a nice try...
The fetus's family has a closer connection to the child than the
state, no?
Shane|12.21.07 @ 5:23PM|#
"Just because it's a parasite which is generated by her own body
and is probably capable of becoming a human, does not necessarily
mean it is a human yet. I wonder if anyone else remembers a Monty
Python skit with the Catholics singing, "Every sperm is sacred!"
because they might be people one day too."
Understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. A sperm is not a
human it is a part of a human. A fetus might be considered a
parasite, but it is not seperate species, at the least it's a
parasitic human. a fetus is not "generated by her own body", the
egg is, just as the sperm is generated from the males, whent the
two haploid cells merge to become the 1 diploid cell what you have
is no longer an egg or sperm but a seperate and new living
organism, one that is human, not "one that has the potential to be
human" that makes no sense. if it's not human what sepcies is it? a
table leg?
A new zygote and an 8 month old fetus are the same organism, the
same, the only difference being developementally.
So you can argue whether it is a "person" yet, but to deny that it
is human is to deny established fact. It is human.
|12.21.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Okay, this is absolutely hilarious. I've got both camps arguing
with me now, because I had the nerve to address both camps'
arguments as valid and principled.
Way to miss the point, guys.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:34PM|#
tejon,
I am pretty sure that there is wider agreement that the father
raping his daughter is committing a crime than there is on the
abortion issue.
I thought we both agreed that the decentralized solution was
motivated by the controversial nature of the act.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Shane,
You don't need to give us the biology lessons.
We all understand the basics.
Re: you position of RU-486... since what it does is prevent
implantation, is it the same as abortion after implantation?
David D|12.21.07 @ 5:38PM|#
The decentralized solution is for non-controversial stuff too; there is no reason to have a federal law banning a father from raping his daughter, to use your example.
|12.21.07 @ 5:38PM|#
A new zygote and an 8 month old fetus are the same organism,
the same, the only difference being developementally.
So you can argue whether it is a "person" yet, but to deny that it
is human is to deny established fact. It is human.
That is why I used the word person. Terry Schiavo was human until
she passed. She had stopped being a person long before.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:40PM|#
David D,
True that, but we are talking about degrees of decentralization.
The more controversial the issue, the more important that the
solutions be left decentralized.
For things that everyone agrees upon, the centralized solution
steps on fewer toes than in the controversial cases.
|12.21.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Okay, this is absolutely hilarious. I've got both camps
arguing with me now, because I had the nerve to address both camps'
arguments as valid and principled
That is a major impediment when discussing the issue. People get on
their moral high horse and denigrate the morality of those that
disagree. Compromise is verboten, and platitudes carry the day.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:42PM|#
David D,
And strangely, it is the most central segment of the government
that protects the decentralized solution in this case, by limiting
the power of the government actors that might interfere with the
decentralized decision making.
Dave D|12.21.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Terry Schiavo was human until she passed. She had stopped
being a person long before.
Sort of getting off topic here, but I was actually with the parents
on this issue, assuming they were going to pay for her care.
Schiavo was, for all intents and purposes, a breathing corpse, so
it is not like she "cared" if she was kept alive or not. If the
parents want to pretend that she sees them and smiles at balloons
and all that, why not let them keep her around?
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:45PM|#
David D,
To clarity.
The federal law banning the father's raping of his daughter is
federal power acting against an individual.
In the case of federal abortion rights, the power of the central
government limits the powers of government, not individuals.
It is an important difference.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 5:46PM|#
"You don't need to give us the biology lessons.
We all understand the basics.
Re: you position of RU-486... since what it does is prevent
implantation, is it the same as abortion after implantation"
im sure you are, i had my doubts about tejon whose post i was
referring to.
RU-486 before implantation: still murder, though you'd never get
away with banning it for that reason nor should it be( after all,
RU-486 doesn't kill people, people kill people). as far as law
enforcement, i would think that would be too hard to enforce any
ban on that pill or to come up with the evidence needed to charge
anyone with a crime. I'm sure there is much more to it, but i
honestly havent look too far into RU-486.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Shane,
RU-486 doesn't kill people, people kill people
I am sure that your average pro-choice libertarian agrees with you
on both clauses in that statement...but for different
reasons.
I don't think you were going for a play on words, but my mind went
right to it.
|12.21.07 @ 6:01PM|#
NM: Yes, there is a wider agreement over incestuous rape than
over abortion (ironically more because of the incest than the rape,
but I digress). I don't think that makes it a poor analogy. It can
easily be called a precedent.
All I'm saying here is that it can be argued by reasonable
people in a principled manner that there is no obvious place
to draw a line between humanity and mere fetushood, so we must err
on the side of caution and protect the fetus as we protect other
humans.
I can't easily argue with this. I don't like it, but I can't just
brush it aside. This is a difficult topic filled with gray, and
nobody holds the moral high ground. Both camps are validly trying
to protect someone's interest.
|12.21.07 @ 6:08PM|#
It's HTML, you can use either (emphasis, defaults to italic
on most browsers but configurable by the user) or
(italics).
Just be sure to use a or tag at the end,
otherwise you'll have italics to the end of your post (see my
previous post). :P
|12.21.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Holy crap, Preview converted the escaped characters to real ones
in the text box. That's annoying as all hell. :D
Those were <em> (emphasis) and <i> (italics).
Shane|12.21.07 @ 6:11PM|#
btw, i'm not trying to to take any type of moral high ground or
anything, just presenting my case. This conversation about abortion
came up because someone had the balls to say you can't be pro-life
and be libertarian, i think we've at least covered that there is a
libertarian defense for the pro-life position.
also, i like raw milk, that stuff in the supermarket is nothing but
sugar.
|12.21.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Shane,
There's a defense for any sort of incorrect position. That doesn't
make it right, or libertarian, for that matter. I was already well
aware what the defense was.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 6:21PM|#
There's a defense for any sort of incorrect position. That
doesn't make it right, or libertarian, for that matter.
I know, and so i forgive you for your defense of genocide knowing
that at least you believe it to be consistent with your
worldview.
peace.
|12.21.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Shane,
You just keep on using the state to force your beliefs on the
bodies of other people. Just try not to do this in the name of
freedom.
|12.21.07 @ 6:32PM|#
shane - how is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg
murder? Are you one of the "onan spilled his seed, so he murdered
billions" school of thought? Or would he have had to get all
onanistic over a steaming bowl of eggs for it to be murder?
I guess the point I'm making is that this is all arbitrary
line-drawing, and of course as with any arbitrary limit issue
(drinking, age of consent, etc.) no one can ever be correct.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 6:34PM|#
tejon,
My problem with the rape to abortion analogy is the fact that in
one case the central authority is acting against the individual
(don't rape) and in the other against the state government (don't
outlaw abortion).
For that reason alone, I think it is inapt.
But I think we are really pretty close on the issue.
There are principled reasons on both sides of the issue.
|12.21.07 @ 6:47PM|#
ok, understood - but isn't it true that during the first few
days (I'm talking days 1 and 2) of pregnancy, there's no way to
tell that a person's pregnant? If that's true, how can you kill
something whose existence can't be proven?
I am generally pro-life, so I'm not asking this in a needling way.
I just think the morning after pill is the best idea in the world
and should go out in cereal boxes. No more unwanted
pregnancies!
Shane|12.21.07 @ 6:49PM|#
"but isn't it true that during the first few days (I'm talking
days 1 and 2) of pregnancy, there's no way to tell that a person's
pregnant?"
true, you don't know if you are killing something or not at that
point, like shooting into the dark, but if the bullet hits...
|12.21.07 @ 6:55PM|#
I think it's more like being told that you've shot the invisible
man but it can't be proven that you've shot him because he's
invisible. Pretty tenuous.
So just to be clear - you think that "life" begins at the moment of
conception, and from that point on any attempt to stop it from
becoming a baby is murder?
Should there be a 3-day waiting period after sex for women so they
can figure out if they're pregnant or not before they smoke or
drink?
I think your position is logically consistent and all, I just
disagree.
Elemenope|12.21.07 @ 6:56PM|#
The most hilarious part, of course:
A fairly well-written piece by a fairly consistent blow-hard in a
bow-tie about possibly pot-spiked brownies, prostitutes and the
Federal Reserve on the campaign trail leads to a...
GOD DAMNED MIRTHLESS discussion of fetuses, federalists and women
and whether any or all of those three categories are human beings
deserving of human rights (whatever the fuck those
are).
I read the article, and I laughed. I read the thread, and I cried.
Roe v. Wade ruined American politics for two generations,
for precisely the reason playing out here...that all the ethical
thought and political platitudes and pragmatic instinct in the
world are utterly useless in divining the moral valence of
Abortion. Even the proverbial wisdom of Solomon
would not avail against this Gordian knot.
On second thought, Solomon would probably just cut the baby in
half. See? Solomon's wisdom: radically pro-choice.
Shane|12.21.07 @ 7:03PM|#
So just to be clear - you think that "life" begins at the
moment of conception, and from that point on any attempt to stop it
from becoming a baby is murder?
I think that life begins at the moment of conception, and from that
point on any attempt to "terminate" the human being that now exists
is murder.
Barney|12.21.07 @ 7:04PM|#
I like it un-homogenized, but still pasteurized. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the USDA is keeping me safe.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 7:08PM|#
I've been gone for 3 hours and I see that the arguments have
moved less than a millimeter. Let's see how many people have
changed their minds?...oh yeah, none!
Here's a question in a slightly different direction: Given that RP
is personally pro-life and may have been a little inconsistent with
his vote on this issue, how many here who would otherwise vote for
him would not give him their vote because of it?
I think it's a boon that he is socially conservative (whether I
agree with his position or not) on this issue because the only way
he is going to get any traction with enough Republican voters is if
he can convince the so-cons he's one of them on abortion.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 7:18PM|#
toddb,
I think Ron Paul's positions on the issue are not a problem while
he is in the legislative branch.
I have a problem with his views on judicial power and individual
rights once he is in a position to start appointing Supreme Court
judges.
|12.21.07 @ 7:20PM|#
I know a whole bunch of folks,(hundreds,) that will choose a
candidate based upon that one issue.
Yes it is that important to millions of people. Agree with abortion
or not, it wins and loses elections.
toddb, I agree it is the best way for Paul to get the attention of
the right, as they are getting desperate for a seemingly righteous
candidate.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I might agree with you if I thought the topic would be central to
the judges he would select, but I have a feeling this is not a
topic that would even come up. I think he would be more concerned
with selecting judges that could more rationally interpret the
interstate commerce clause and the definition of the "general"
welfare.
I wouldn't pass on a chance to have some of those judges on the
possibility that they would disagree with Roe v. Wade!
|12.21.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Worth repeating:
How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky
Followers.
Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, "First, confuse the
vocabulary."
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call
them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his
person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the
answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don't report his
reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them
generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and
courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 7:32PM|#
brotherben,
Agreed, hence the rise of Huckabee...so-cons are willing to ignore
the fact that he is the kind of governor that gets an 'F' grade
from Cato on fiscal responsibility because he is a Baptist preacher
who flies the pro-life flag loudly. I have nothing against
Baptists, preachers, or those who cannot make peace with the
concept of abortion, but it drives me crazy that anyone would make
this issue their litmus test for candidates. And by the way, ditto
for those on the pro-choice side.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 7:36PM|#
toddb,
I have a problem with Ron Paul's views on judicial power more
broadly than just on the issue of abortion.
He wants judges that agree with his interpretation of the
constitution. Those that disagree are labeled "activist." He sees
the judiciary as promoting an "activist, secular, multicultural
political agenda of which most Americans disapprove."
I don't see it that way, and think he is likely to appoint judges
that are activist in an opposite valance.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Sage,
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest
and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
I would disagree.
1) Even his well reasoned positions are not always popular.
2) He holds positions that are no more or less consistent with his
stated principles than your average politician.
He ain't a bad candidate, but he is far from flawless.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 7:43PM|#
And Sage,
You can see an example of an honest and courteous technical debate
on one of his positions in this thread (starting around 1:30pm or
so).
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 8:06PM|#
toddb, Sage,
Ron Paul: "they dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as
hopelessly outdated..." (from the link above)
I have a problem with any politician that supports the idea of a
"strict constructionist" judiciary.
Wiki has a nice quote from Scalia on the issue of strict
constructionism...
Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the
narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most
identified with the term, has said that he is "not a strict
constructionist and no-one ought to be,"[5] and has called the
philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole
philosophy into disrepute." In contrast, he claims to look for the
ordinary meaning of words, not their "strict" meaning.
Hope Sage is not confused by an honest courteous debate about flaws
in Ron Paul's positions.
|12.21.07 @ 9:40PM|#
He ain't a bad candidate, but he is far from
flawless.
Oh, I agree. I, for example, part ways with him on immigration, and
to a certain extent on foreign policy. I think people should be
able to come and go as they please. I also think that our chess
pieces are spread out pretty far and trying to bring them all back
at once could leave us highly vulnerable.
But keep in mind that he would be fighting a recalcitrant Congress
in trying to acheive his goals. Still, two steps forward and one
back is better than vice-versa.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 10:08PM|#
Neu Mejican,
We would probably disagree a little about the judges. Conservatives
have railed against "activist" judges which they identify as being
willing to buck the legislature when they overreach constitutional
bounds to pass legislation popular with their ideological
constituents. Progressives no doubt would have problems with
different judges for the same reasons/different ideology. I don't
see the point in having anything but activist judges playing their
proper role of drawing some kind of constitutional line in the
sand. The proper definition of that line is debatable, but in my
opinion is way out of whack right now.
Sage,
I agree that any fear about an out of control RP is kind of
funny...no way he gets almost anything through Congress...he would
be the ultimate veto wielding brick wall - stalling and sometimes
stopping the usual crap that Congress tries to dump on us. That
would make him as close to the perfect POTUS that we could hope for
in this day and age...grind them to a halt for a couple of years
and give us some breathing room!
|12.21.07 @ 10:16PM|#
I should also point out that the copypasta I served up above was
directed at the folks trying to railroad the discussion with 'teh
nazi' crap. Stick with the issues, yes?
I do think he could use the bully pulpit to expose just how much
waste and pork we're paying for. As others have said, he's already
gotten his main goal - providing much more exposure to libertarian
ideas.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 10:25PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Just had a chance to read that linked article...I see what you are
troubled by and sympathize with your point. You are always going to
have mixed results, but overall I would rather see judges acting as
a brake on the system...even if it sometimes has a perverse result,
the alternative is to open the doors wide to whatever power the
central government wants to assert...this is great as long as the
"right" type of people are in charge, but I don't like the
potential consequences of that approach.
toddb|12.21.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Yep...more than we could have hoped for...at least his campaign has raised awareness that there is an alternative way of looking at things that doesn't involve endless growth of the federal government.
|12.22.07 @ 12:45PM|#
the argument that his has been a federalist and not libertarian position on certain issues is pretty much a non sequiter. Even if it is a federalist argument, that doesnt necessarily remove him from the libertarian pool, since people can be both. His opposition to the WoD is certainly a libertarian stance for example (while also argued in federalist terms)
Neu Mejican|12.22.07 @ 1:03PM|#
raza,
Even if it is a federalist argument, that doesnt necessarily
remove him from the libertarian pool
Some federalist positions are consistent with libertarianism, some
are not. Paul's federalist position on raw milk IS, his positions
on abortion are NOT.
raza|12.22.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Dunno how to italicize here, so bear with me..
>Some federalist positions are consistent with
>libertarianism, some are not.
Perhaps, however people were saying such and such shows hes a
federalist not libertarian, which doesnt make sense.
>Paul's federalist position on raw milk IS, his >positions on
abortion are NOT.
Without going into the abortion debate, is it impossible to believe
that the fetus represents a human being, while being libertarian?
Personally I dont think the fetus is a person debate has anything
to do with libertarian philosophy. And if you happen to be on "yes"
side of the fetus is a person debate, then the correct libertarian
position would be that of Ron Paul's i.e. protect the human being
from harm by another human being.
|12.22.07 @ 2:37PM|#
This was a great article.
I read someone say libertarians can't be pro-life. I know that's
untrue because I am a pro-life libertarian.
The logic is this: the unborn has rights which the mother can't
infringe upon by killing.
You can disagree, but I disagree with you and don't assume you're
right just because you think the mother has rights. We think the
unborn have rights.
And also we know all the arguments like zygotes and stuff. We just
disagree with your conclusion that it isn't human life. My stand is
always, "I'm glad no one messed my my zygote." or Reagan's "I've
noticed looking around the room that no one here who supports
abortion was aborted theirselve."
Last, I agree with Paul (who we all know is an OB/GYN) that we wont
ever have zero abortions because sometimes they're needed.
In conclusion, I support the woman's right to chose anything... but
in the case of abortion, the baby should get a say....
Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 12:20PM|#
raza,
This has all been covered up-thread.
I never claimed that you can not hold a libertarian pro-life
position. Ron Paul's position, however, isn't an example.
See ChicagoTom's posts above.
raza|12.23.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Neu Mejican
Apologies, I didnt go through the entire thread. However I did just
now go through ChicagoTom's posts, and dont really find anything in
there that would specifically address how he has a non-libertarian
view of abortion. Yes he makes federalist arguments in both of
those instances (abortion and milk) however that shows that hes a
federalist, thats it.
One may feel that he couldve taken the oppurtunity to further the
libertarian cause, but isnt that kindof indicated in the kind of
things he raises these arguments against? End WoD, maybe argued in
federalist terms, but libertarian issue. Arguing against regulation
of raw milk, again a libertarian issue. Pushing for free markets,
internet privacy, online gambling etc.. againlibertarian, sometimes
argued in federalist terms (if there is federal regulation involved
im guessing thats the most convenient line of attack)
Im not at all conversant in the history of the libertarian party
and all the splits involved and factions, but I do feel its a
strange idea that an erstwhile libertarian presidential candidate
is not considered libertarian enough, merely on the idea that he
has argued for (often libertarian causes) in federalist terms.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245