Be Libertarian for just one election

[clevergirl]

However, libertarianism, is, in my opinion, not practical in application in its purest form, because most people are unable to govern themselves with regards to personal responsibility- i.e. drugs etc.-

"Most" people are unable to govern themselves? Do you really believe that?

A question arises from that sentiment: If people can't be trusted to govern themselves, then why can they be trusted to govern others?

Fair question- Because you have a collective responsibility. There are others to check your behavior- they do so against the back drop of law. Everyone being held accountable equally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I were to vote Libertarian for one election I would have to close my mind, lose all compassion for my fellow Americans and look out only for myself

Really? Libertarianism and by extension, volunteerism, is the most compassionate of all the American political ideologies. You should probably do some research.

For those with means, perhaps – not for those without. And everyone’s liberties are threatened by the tyranny of the state, where one is prohibited from seeking relief in Federal court, subject to the capricious whims of the majority.

If I were to vote Libertarian for one election I would have to close my mind, lose all compassion for my fellow Americans and look out only for myself

Really? Libertarianism and by extension, volunteerism, is the most compassionate of all the American political ideologies. You should probably do some research.

I'll pass on ideologies. They seem like an excuse not to have to think.

Indeed. A pragmatic course is always best.

However, libertarianism, is, in my opinion, not practical in application in its purest form, because most people are unable to govern themselves with regards to personal responsibility- i.e. drugs etc.-

"Most" people are unable to govern themselves? Do you really believe that?

A question arises from that sentiment: If people can't be trusted to govern themselves, then why can they be trusted to govern others?

The issue is not whether or not people can be trusted to govern themselves, but can the majority be trusted with the reins of government? The history of this Nation, and Western Civilization overall, proves the answer to that question is ‘no’.

Aware of this fact, the Framers established a Republic whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not of men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The libertarian contrivance of the ‘sovereign individual’ is nothing more than a pathetic reactionary fantasy, no more appropriate today than it was 200 years ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Most" people are unable to govern themselves? Do you really believe that?

A question arises from that sentiment: If people can't be trusted to govern themselves, then why can they be trusted to govern others?

Fair question- Because you have a collective responsibility. There are others to check your behavior- they do so against the back drop of law. Everyone being held accountable equally.

I'm going to need you to explain this in more detail, because this post isn't making sense to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If I were to vote Libertarian for one election I would have to close my mind, lose all compassion for my fellow Americans and look out only for myself

Really? Libertarianism and by extension, volunteerism, is the most compassionate of all the American political ideologies. You should probably do some research.

For those with means, perhaps – not for those without. And everyone’s liberties are threatened by the tyranny of the state, where one is prohibited from seeking relief in Federal court, subject to the capricious whims of the majority.



Indeed. A pragmatic course is always best.

"Most" people are unable to govern themselves? Do you really believe that?

A question arises from that sentiment: If people can't be trusted to govern themselves, then why can they be trusted to govern others?

The issue is not whether or not people can be trusted to govern themselves, but can the majority be trusted with the reins of government? The history of this Nation, and Western Civilization overall, proves the answer to that question is ‘no’.

Aware of this fact, the Framers established a Republic whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not of men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The libertarian contrivance of the ‘sovereign individual’ is nothing more than a pathetic reactionary fantasy, no more appropriate today than it was 200 years ago.

And yet it's men that interpret the law, so it essentially comes to the same thing.

 

[clevergirl]

A question arises from that sentiment: If people can't be trusted to govern themselves, then why can they be trusted to govern others?

Fair question- Because you have a collective responsibility. There are others to check your behavior- they do so against the back drop of law. Everyone being held accountable equally.

I'm going to need you to explain this in more detail, because this post isn't making sense to me.

Why are you having difficulty?

As I explained to another, if every man were an island unto himself there would be no need for laws... Laws are designed to "govern" man within a community; society- even within his own family.

 

[uscitizen]

GARY JOHNSON Be Libertarian With Me - YouTube!

K will do if you will be gay for one day.
I need proof of your gayness though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fair question- Because you have a collective responsibility. There are others to check your behavior- they do so against the back drop of law. Everyone being held accountable equally.

I'm going to need you to explain this in more detail, because this post isn't making sense to me.

Why are you having difficulty?

As I explained to another, if every man were an island unto himself there would be no need for laws... Laws are designed to "govern" man.

Yet this just begs the question. If man can't govern himself by what right does he then turn around and proceed to govern others? You say we have a "collective responsibility," which doesn't seem to actually mean anything as far as I can tell.

 

[clevergirl]

I'm going to need you to explain this in more detail, because this post isn't making sense to me.

Why are you having difficulty?

As I explained to another, if every man were an island unto himself there would be no need for laws... Laws are designed to "govern" man within a community; society- even within his own family.

Yet this just begs the question. If man can't govern himself by what right does he then turn around and proceed to govern others? You say we have a "collective responsibility," which doesn't seem to actually mean anything as far as I can tell.

Because he does so collectively- He creates laws collectively. He manages resources collectively- etc. It's also know as democracy. In our nations system it is a democratic republic.

Perhaps you wish to explain yourself? The bold edit above was added for clarity- perhaps that is where I am going wrong in my explanation?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why are you having difficulty?

As I explained to another, if every man were an island unto himself there would be no need for laws... Laws are designed to "govern" man within a community; society- even within his own family.

Yet this just begs the question. If man can't govern himself by what right does he then turn around and proceed to govern others? You say we have a "collective responsibility," which doesn't seem to actually mean anything as far as I can tell.

Because he does so collectively- He creates laws collectively. He manages resources collectively- etc. It's also know as democracy. In our nations system it is a democratic republic.

Perhaps you wish to explain yourself? The bold edit above was added for clarity- perhaps that is where I am going wrong in my explanation?

I think I understand your argument now. So your point is that man individually cannot be trusted to govern himself, however, if enough of these untrustworthy individuals come together collectively they can be trusted, correct?

 

[clevergirl]

Yet this just begs the question. If man can't govern himself by what right does he then turn around and proceed to govern others? You say we have a "collective responsibility," which doesn't seem to actually mean anything as far as I can tell.

Because he does so collectively- He creates laws collectively. He manages resources collectively- etc. It's also know as democracy. In our nations system it is a democratic republic.

Perhaps you wish to explain yourself? The bold edit above was added for clarity- perhaps that is where I am going wrong in my explanation?

I think I understand your argument now. So your point is that man individually cannot be trusted to govern himself, however, if enough of these untrustworthy individuals come together collectively they can be trusted, correct?

No- I stated quite clearly that if man were an island unto himself- he would need no governance. But man is not. man lives in groups- society. As such man forms governments in order to maintain order and justice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because he does so collectively- He creates laws collectively. He manages resources collectively- etc. It's also know as democracy. In our nations system it is a democratic republic.

Perhaps you wish to explain yourself? The bold edit above was added for clarity- perhaps that is where I am going wrong in my explanation?

I think I understand your argument now. So your point is that man individually cannot be trusted to govern himself, however, if enough of these untrustworthy individuals come together collectively they can be trusted, correct?

No- I stated quite clearly that if man were an island unto himself- he would need no governance. But man is not. man lives in groups- society. As such man forms governments in order to maintain order and justice.

I know that you said that, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Among the most bewildering and inconsistent aspects of libertarian dogma is the role of the states with regard to individual liberty.

With regard to Ron Paul’s position on the right to privacy, for example:

Ron Paul on Abortion: A Pro-Life Champion

Drawing on his background as a gynecologist who brought more than 4,000 babies into the world, Ron Paul unambiguously declares that "life begins at conception" and the right to life applies to "those born and unborn." Not afraid to tackle the issue head on, he calls for a repeal of Roe v. Wade and plans to pass a "Sanctity of Life Act" that makes his understanding of the beginning of life the law. Furthermore, he calls for a federal defunding of abortions, in particular Planned Parenthood.

To Paul, abortion is a road marker on a "slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation." In a statement consistent with his current stand on the issue, he addressed the legislature in 2003 concerning the partial-birth abortion ban. Even at this juncture, the current presidential candidate did not neglect to highlight that dealing with crimes related to abortion is fundamentally a states' rights issue, not a matter of federal jurisdiction. Although he favored the partial-birth abortion ban, he did not approve of its language that placed legislators into a position to "draw a 'bright line' between abortion and infanticide."

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and Abortion, Other Social Issues - Yahoo! News

The only logical extrapolation of this, therefore, is Paul advocates destroying the Constitutional right to privacy by overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey, allowing the states greater control over personal, private decisions at the expense of individual liberty. That one’s civil liberties are destroyed by a state government as opposed to the Federal government is irrelevant.

In addition to destroying the right to privacy, Paul would also have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment, as overturning the case law upholding Incorporation Doctrine would be procedurally impossible, case law up to and including Heller/ McDonald.

It’s usually at this point the libertarian will abandon the debate, retreating to the delusional redoubt of ‘all the case law is wrong and meaningless,’ and ‘judicial review isn’t in the Constitution,’ and ending the discussion with ‘the Supreme Court usurped the authority to interpret the Constitution and got it all wrong.’

Consequently the libertarian’s refusal to acknowledge the fact of judicial review and the settled law authorizing the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution makes any attempt at debate pointless.

 

[clevergirl]

Among the most bewildering and inconsistent aspects of libertarian dogma is the role of the states with regard to individual liberty.

With regard to Ron Paul’s position on the right to privacy, for example:

Ron Paul on Abortion: A Pro-Life Champion

Drawing on his background as a gynecologist who brought more than 4,000 babies into the world, Ron Paul unambiguously declares that "life begins at conception" and the right to life applies to "those born and unborn." Not afraid to tackle the issue head on, he calls for a repeal of Roe v. Wade and plans to pass a "Sanctity of Life Act" that makes his understanding of the beginning of life the law. Furthermore, he calls for a federal defunding of abortions, in particular Planned Parenthood.

To Paul, abortion is a road marker on a "slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation." In a statement consistent with his current stand on the issue, he addressed the legislature in 2003 concerning the partial-birth abortion ban. Even at this juncture, the current presidential candidate did not neglect to highlight that dealing with crimes related to abortion is fundamentally a states' rights issue, not a matter of federal jurisdiction. Although he favored the partial-birth abortion ban, he did not approve of its language that placed legislators into a position to "draw a 'bright line' between abortion and infanticide."

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and Abortion, Other Social Issues - Yahoo! News

The only logical extrapolation of this, therefore, is Paul advocates destroying the Constitutional right to privacy by overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey, allowing the states greater control over personal, private decisions at the expense of individual liberty. That one’s civil liberties are destroyed by a state government as opposed to the Federal government is irrelevant.

In addition to destroying the right to privacy, Paul would also have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment, as overturning the case law upholding Incorporation Doctrine would be procedurally impossible, case law up to and including Heller/ McDonald.

It’s usually at this point the libertarian will abandon the debate, retreating to the delusional redoubt of ‘all the case law is wrong and meaningless,’ and ‘judicial review isn’t in the Constitution,’ and ending the discussion with ‘the Supreme Court usurped the authority to interpret the Constitution and got it all wrong.’

Consequently the libertarian’s refusal to acknowledge the fact of judicial review and the settled law authorizing the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution makes any attempt at debate pointless.

Libertarians spell it out quite clearly here- any supposed right to privacy as interpreted to shove ROE down our collective throats, is dealt with in this statement.

Libertarians for Life
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.

We see our mission as presenting the pro-life case to libertarians and the libertarian case to pro-lifers. Among supporters of LFL, some of us are members of the Libertarian Party, some are not. Some are religious, some are not. (Doris Gordon, our Founder and Coordinator, is a Jewish atheist.) Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional.

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

 

[clevergirl]

I think I understand your argument now. So your point is that man individually cannot be trusted to govern himself, however, if enough of these untrustworthy individuals come together collectively they can be trusted, correct?

No- I stated quite clearly that if man were an island unto himself- he would need no governance. But man is not. man lives in groups- society. As such man forms governments in order to maintain order and justice.

I know that you said that, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

That's unfortunate. Perhaps if you ponder the concept of being all alone in the world you'll figure it out

 

[dblack]

Among the most bewildering and inconsistent aspects of libertarian dogma is the role of the states with regard to individual liberty.

With regard to Ron Paul’s position on the right to privacy...

Ron Paul's views on abortion aren't, strictly speaking, libertarian. And while it's fair to say it's not a settled libertarian issue, most Libertarians do not believe government has justifiable authority over the goings on inside a woman's body. This is one example where Paul leans more conservative than libertarian. As a gynecologist who specialized in delivering babies, it is perhaps understandable that Paul leans this way, though I - and most libertarians I know - disagree with his views on abortion.

I do, however, find his position on abortion less threatening than any other pro-life conservative's, because he's consistently opposed any efforts to outlaw abortion at a federal level - though by making it a state issue it does allow for states to pursue laws limiting the practice on their own.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No- I stated quite clearly that if man were an island unto himself- he would need no governance. But man is not. man lives in groups- society. As such man forms governments in order to maintain order and justice.

I know that you said that, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

That's unfortunate. Perhaps if you ponder the concept of being all alone in the world you'll figure it out

Perhaps.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm going to need you to explain this in more detail, because this post isn't making sense to me.

Why are you having difficulty?

As I explained to another, if every man were an island unto himself there would be no need for laws... Laws are designed to "govern" man.

Yet this just begs the question. If man can't govern himself by what right does he then turn around and proceed to govern others? You say we have a "collective responsibility," which doesn't seem to actually mean anything as far as I can tell.

You're assuming everyone is equally capable, and that the same qualities that go into self control go into governing.
From Bill Clinton we know this isn't the case.

 

[Paulie]

However, libertarianism, is, in my opinion, not practical in application in its purest form, because most people are unable to govern themselves with regards to personal responsibility- i.e. drugs etc.-

"Most" people are unable to govern themselves? Do you really believe that?

I do believe I clarified my statement- but perhaps I could have been more wordy?. If every man lived on an island unto himself and had no interactions with others- then I imagine he would have no need of laws. But that is not the case now is it? Even drug use impacts others within a society. This is why we have laws and government.

This might come as a shock to you, but even us libertarians believe in laws.

There needs to be some form of government there with the tools to protect the rights of the individuals in a society.

Drug use in and of itself is not where the problem arises, because there are plenty of people who use drugs and remain law abiding citizens otherwise. There are plenty of laws in place to protect the rights of the individual against someone who may have acted negatively while using drugs. Coincidentally, they're the same laws that are in place to protect the rights of the individual against someone who may have acted negatively while NOT using drugs.