Replies

I understand that only Libertarians are entitled to have an opinion or pose an argument on any topic. Everyone else, or at least me, is too stupid to see your truths. Accepting that, how will you Libertarians assure that people who don’t wish to be put to death aren’t put to death? Will you regulate it? How will you regulate it, will regulations be formulated by government? If so, whose government? Will the masses of Libertarians rise up and elect a Libertarian government to assure that the government death regulations are just? Will you Libertarians need allies to achieve your ends? Will those allies be, perhaps, democrats who already don’t value life—oops that damn slippery slope argument creeps in again, can’t have that. Those fetuses aren’t valuable anyway are they except for stem cell research that has achieved nothing to date? Will those who implement those perfect deaths be clad in brown shirts or in black shirts? Since I’m not worthy of life in Libertarian land, will I be a candidate for death in your brave new non-slippery slope world? Who will make that determination? You, the DNC, the LNC, a committee of my peers? Nope, there’s no such thing as a slippery slope and I shouldn’t complain until they come for me.

Wow. What a ridiculous, flame-baiting response. Your attemots to deconstruct my argument by taking it to the utmost extreme are ridiculous. Examine every statement in its own context, without taking it to the next level. You'll sound much more credible.

The fact of the matter is, that the issue here is whether or not the people want to die. The slippery slope is still a non-argument, and your post only serves to prove that knee-jerk reactionaries will always rely on such nonsensical babble. No one ever said that "only Libertarians are entitled to have an opinion or pose an argument on any topic". However, people like you will always reach that conclusion, even with faced with just the opposite. Amazing, really that you can't review each issue on its own merits. Next thing you know, you'll be accusing me of encouraging people to die. In response, No, I wouldn't regulate such a business model. It's business, government should stay out of the final model, just like any other business. Stop making ridiculous moral arguments, such as "how will you Libertarians assure that people who don’t wish to be put to death aren’t put to death?" A far better question would be: How do you know that this will happen? And even if it does a minority of the time, we charge the guilty with murder, and move on with with our lives. Morality should not be the province of government.

And, for the record, This isn't a matter of not valuing life - it's a matter of the way rights should be determined, and how laws should be written. Unless it interferes with another citizen's rights, it should be legal. The effects on society are a seperate issue entirely, and should be left up to private citizens to determine. If you think for a second that the nanny state should mandate morality, you are no better than the liberals and socialists you claim to stand against. You have just tossed your hat safely in the side of the ring that represents goverment control taken to an extreme. No matter whether your do so (supposedly) in the name of our Lord, or just in the name of spite, you are still wrong. Government control over morality will always be wrong.