Libertarianism

[Misty]

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

I believe libertarians are pro choice but only because they believe in less government control of the individual.

I hate abortion but I do believe a woman should have the right to choose.

I also believe that true feminists would want to be in charge of and PAY for their own birth control cuz that's a choice too.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
Actually. Corporations have all those things b/c politicians are bought and paid for (IE Big government). Without their political favors, they'd have to operate on the level; just like the rest of us.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ron Paul was a hardcore warrior for 30 years. And Gary Johnson lowered taxes 14 times while never raising them. You got any more nonsense to spew? Or will that be all for today?

 

[thanatos144]

Ron Paul consistently traded his ideology for votes and show did Johnson. what did you forget about all the pork they loved

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[PaulS1950]

The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the USA.
It has had members elected to congress in some states and to the US congress.
There have been Libertarian governors as well.
The Libertarian party has as its platform the constitution - whether it is the state constitution or the federal constitution they follow the constitutional limits on government and taxation.
They allow each individual to have their own opinions on topics not associated with the respective constitution. The Party does not try to influence issues other than those that are provided for in the constitution because that is the privy of the people and not the government.
For more information that is both informative and accurate see:

Our History | Libertarian Party

 

[PaulS1950]

You could be sure if you took the time to visit the party's website listed above.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ron Paul consistently traded his ideology for votes and show did Johnson. what did you forget about all the pork they loved

Love?

RP was clear that the people elected him to serve their interests. If the federal government syphons millions of your dollars away, of course your going to try to get some of it back.

Meanwhile, republicrats like you support guys like Rick Santorum who take big pharma money to jack up prices. Don't pretend like you care about the waste.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

Given that you have not provided a legitimate basis for Libertarians to forego their principle of upholding individual rights in this regard must we assume that you are now conceding the point?

First, you seems to be unaware of how I actually feel about this which is strange considering I am in another thread coving this exact subject with you. This was a discussion on libertarian thought on the matter. I may be a libertarian BUT I do not speak for them all and there was a variety that I covered in my post.

As has been stated, they are not forgoing their principal one iota. As a matter of fact, they are adhering to it. You still have refused to acknowledge that there is another party here that is involved and there are rights for the unborn that need to be taken into account for those that believe the unborn to be another person. Further, this ‘right’ that you speak of is not a right in that sense anyway. It was a mandate by the court that itself did NOT recognize that a mother has a blanket right to abort. AGAIN, this is NOT a libertarian/left/right issue. There are SPECIFIC personal beliefs that factor in here across the entire spectrum. By claiming that libertarians not supporting abortion rights are ‘sheep’ rather than ‘goats’ is an attempt to cram YOUR personal beliefs into the libertarian concept.

QW pointed out, correctly, that if you feel abortion is the murder of a child then it simply goes without saying that it would not be allowed. Further, it is worthy to point out that the vast majority of libertarians DO see this as a tenth amendment concept to be taken care of by the states as you pointed out the tenth applies. I have a feeling though that you would still call that breaking their values if the state did ban abortion. Again, it needs to be stated that most libertarians are actually pro-choice even giving the above BUT it must be stated that such a stance is not really related to political ideology but much more closely related to personal beliefs about ‘personhood.’

 

[FA_Q2]

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?

First, the bold is off base. That has nothing to do with the pro-life movement. That is simply how the pro-choice movement puts it in order to demonize the opposition. Please do not stoop to that level.

Second, even with the demonization, you are correct that the pro-life stance has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. It is a rare stance within the movement anyway because of the opposition against federal power though you will find more that think the states themselves should ban the practice. Either way, that is not a libertarian stance but a personal one that has no conflict with libertarianism depending on how the individual views and treats life.

 

[FA_Q2]

The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.

That's actually a very interesting issue to me --- the question of what IS "harm." In Libertarianism you should be free as long as what you do doesn't harm others.

Well, just how tightly does the law, government, etc. define "harm"? There are a lot of great complainers in the world, always calling the law on their neighbors for this reason, that reason, but mainly for the reason that they are bad-tempered and have feelings of entitlement.

Needs thought.

This is why ‘harm’ is a really crappy term to use in this situation. The reality is that harm is FAR too subjective in that manner. I prefer, and have always used, infringe on rights rather than harm. That term, while referring to a MASSIVE number of things, is quite a bit less ‘fuzzy.’

 

[SayMyName]

It's best just to go an read their own works and the website of the Party itself. Libertarians can be found active in both major parties, and voting this or that way because of stands on economic or social issues, but, for the most part, it is only because their feelings on the choices between two perceived evils that in fact make up one huge Demo-Republican cabal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Actually, it's a very realistic statement. Politics is a big money sport now. There may be just a handful of Congressmen who are fresh and idealistic and not so tainted. But, that's it. Senators, you bet your ass they're corrupt. They didn't get to where they are by being anything but shrewd.

Look at the perpetual problems that we have. Do you think they'd be so bad if the Congress was upright? In fact, the public every so often gets so sick of it and buys into that 'small govt' line the Republican feed them. Then they do nothing and lose power the very next cycle an then the Dems do another decade or so of all the nonsense they want while Republicans cry about how corrupt they are while voting for virtually all their nonsense. You don't get the game yet? You really have faith in Republicans? Oh, you're ever so useful to Republicans.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not really. Bush/Obama has mimmicked Hoover/FDR on a great many levels. And Lincoln was really a Reagan. Did some 'heroic' things while stomping the Constitution but otherwise being a memorable, charismatic Republican leader.

What has changed? Weaponry is much more deadly. Technology is much more intrusive despite its great helpfulness.

I'd say the biggest change is corruption. Just within the last 30 years, we've seen this country go from at least fairly honorable to perhaps the most corrupt nation. That's a reflection of our amoral society. The apathy of our culture has hit a pinnacle. It used to be that at least a few weeds were rooted out and it was a cautionary tale. But now, it's cart blanche. And even the villains ultimately end up being heroes. And heroes are villainized. These be perilous times for sure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.

 

[Circe]

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.

Well said. I suggest this is impolitic for Libertarians to get into: libertarianism is on the rise due to the real collapse of the GOP, and they could eat the Republicans' lunch if they scoop up the fleeing women who are looking for somewhere politically to stand that ISN'T socialist. The GOP is throwing us away, and we're the majority: this could be libertarians' moment of opportunity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And...it should not be. There is no way to create a law to stop abortion and that's the only position legislatively that there is. Otherwise, there is no issue.

I can be against abortion and also be agaisnt legislating abortion laws. Because the reality is, someone will perform them regardless. And it takes a significant bend in logic to find any reason to force people on something they will do regardless. Take drugs for instance. How is that illegal status working out? We have jails filled to the brim with vistimless crimes and yet, people still grow/manufacture/sell/use drugs.

It's an argument lost a long time ago.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's sort of (my) point. Many libertarians don't see abortion as victimless.

 

[Circe]

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

Are they pro-life for themselves, or against other people they don't know?

That is, do they have a moral position for themselves, or are they trying to force other people with laws?

The latter doesn't sound libertarian to me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

I know. I happen to be one of them in defense of life. However, I do not believe that the issue will ever be resolved. Therefore, it should not be up for legislation. At the very best, let the citizens of a statee or locale decide if they will allow them. Some will, some wont and those who want/need to have one can have it done in places where they aren't barred. People that are heavily invested in the issue who are in an area that performs them have options too. It is never going to get any better than that. Period.