Posted on 02/11/2009 1:53:16 PM PST by rabscuttle385
All good points and I agree with them all to one extent or another. But — and you knew there had to be one — it bothers me when conservatives offer the blanket concession that social liberalism and the social aspect of libertarianism are one and the same.
To say you are an economic conservative is to say you are a libertarian on 95% of the relevant issues. But to say you are a social liberal isn't anything like saying you are a libertarian on 95% of social issues.
Social liberals are often quite aggressive advocates of using state power to impose their preffered versions of "liberty." Most libertarians are disgusted by thought-policing political correctness, by forced "sensitivity" training, by so-called Hate Crimes tribunals and racial and gender quotas. They detest smoking bans, forced volunteerism and the whole panapoly of Nanny State outrages. They may detest religious incursions on government, but they also detest governmental incursions on religion. Most libertarians are localists who believe that the federal government doesn't have an all purpose writ to make everything better. They believe in the autonomy of business and other institutions to do what they want — within obvious limits — even if what they do is bad.
. . . . .
...liber(al)tarians make a terrible mistake when they assume that a few shared values about what constitutes "social goods" or "tolerance" means that libertarians and liberals actually share a common vision of the role of government.
...liberals are dishonest or ignorant when they claim that they are particularly libertarian in their outlook when, more often, they are merely strong champions of having the State mirror and impose their value choices.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Of the 56% that don't go to trial, how may of those are because they don't have a suspect?
No man is an island; all homicide investigations start with several suspects. The problem for law enforcement is that enough evidence has to be built up to persuade a jury to convict.
Most mothers who have just suffered a miscarriage would be extremely sympathetic defendants to most juries.
If you’re asking “Would there be miscarriages?” then the answer has to be almost certainly, but, again, that rare abuse of the judicial system would be better than its complete subversion in the deaths of over a million babies per year.
We don’t legalise murder because some people do get wrongly convicted of it; we instead refine our processes to minimise the errors.
No, they don't.
You’re clearly not in law enforcement.
Family are always the first suspects; followed by acquaintances, business associates, etc.
In the rare cases of unidentifiable John Does, police then move on to the person who reported the crime, the last person to see the victim, individuals known to be familiar with the location at which the body was discovered, and so forth.
This is such a well-mapped out process I’m surprised it surprises you.
Probably the same way Republicans support abortion.
Libertarians support abortion by opposing it in their party platform?
Learn something new every day, I guess.
One quote with no context turns Rush into a statist?
Funny, I’ve listened to him off and on for maybe 15 years and never got that impression of him.
In the case of a miscarraige the mother will always immediately be the primary, and probably the only suspect. The only question is, did she do anything that potentially contributed to that miscarraige. If it can be dertermined that she did, then it becomes a question of whether it was intentional, or just negligence. Either way, it it results in a death it's potential grounds for criminal prosecution.
Will you answer the question about whether you think this was the intent of the 14th Amendment when it was written and ratified?
Wow...is that official party platform or your interpretation of what someone said or just something you made up on the spot?
Your rants against libertarians are bordering on falsehood.
Funny thing is that there are prochoice Republicans and by Conservative standards prochoice means proabortion.
Last time I read the Libertarian platform it said something about reasonable people disagreeing....I guess that is ok for Republicans but no one else?
By and large I think you find that libertarians favor protecting the lives of children.
So it is proper to say that Republicans are proabortion despite their platform because some are prochoice?
Face it, smaller government is Republican platform material but they don’t hold to it.
You might want to be careful how you swing the sword of hypocracy or how you selectively view positions on topics cause it cuts both ways.
If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit.
Read again, it wasn’t a wholesale denunciation of libertarians, just those who can’t be bothered to be troubled by an abuse of power which results in the dismemberment of hundreds of thousands, but rail against a tyranny which prevents them from buying a spliff at the drugstore.
One can agree with that or not. I do not support abortion but also beleive that it is not a federal issue. Obviously if one could wave a magic wand and solve problems that way then things could be different.
The Libertarian Party can’t make up it’s mind about infanticide—reasonable people, blah, blah—very Obamian in its helpless hand-wringing and platitudinous evasion of the atrocity being considered.
The Republican Party platform condemns abortion outright and calls for legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment does indeed apply to unborn children.
If pointing this out is hypocrisy then make the most of it.
That is a trite saying that has no place here. Unless you want to imply that any time someone challenges your statements you've stepped on their toes. Not true.
One of the big differences between libertarians and Conservatives is the Live and Let Live mentality. L/libertarians will typically stand up for the rights of others even if they themselves do not partake and this is especially true of vices. I don't gamble, drugs, porn, etc but don't think those are areas for govenment to set lines for citizens. On the other hand Conservatives will typically decry something as immoral then set up government to put limits on other citizens. IMO, Conservatives often confuse Religion and Government and want Government to enforce their Religious morals.
I don’t feel obligated to defend or explain the LP platform.
I’d certainly prefer that women would choose to preserve life...and choose not to abuse drugs....and choose not to waste thier money gambling...and choose to not smoke....and choose not to overeat....but given the opportunity the RP would offer legislation to ‘help’ people choose what the RP thinks they ought to choose.
You can be proud of that or not...I’m not.
For comparison, here is the 2008 Republican Party platform:
“Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.”
The notion that “people can hold good-faith views” on the morality or legality of rending babies limb from limb at the pleasure of the mother is ridiculous on its face, the sort of lie only a morally crippled person could expect to be taken seriously.
Make no mistake, I do not expect to change libertarian minds on this point, nor do I much care how a political fringe movement deludes itself, but I do insist that Libertarians preaching state-by-state “separate peace” on a conservative forum acknowledge that the 14th Amendment directly contradicts them. If the fetus is held by the federal courts to be a person, then elective abortion must be struck down in all states. If the fetus is not a person, then equal protection demands that states recognise the 4th amendment right of all women to be secure in their persons against unreasonable government intrusion.
A “federalist” state-by-state solution is not in the cards without amendment of the 14th Amendment; those arguing otherwise are merely confusing the issue with their ignorance or wishful thinking.
((((Yaaaawwwwwnnnnn!)))
The platform predates Obama so get off that.
At least when they recognize that reasonable people can disagree they are being realistic.
Since neither you nor I can babysit our fellow citizens we cannot ever ensure that they will always choose the way we would and we cannot enforce our choices on them when they disagree with us.
Somethings really come down to individual responsibility and accountability, and since about half of America doesn't see abortion as murder let alone homicide, passing a law that defines it as such won't work. IMO people need to have much more of a consensus on this, make it shameful and socially unacceptable first. Societal pressure can be more effective than any law.
“Societal pressure can be more effective than any law.”
So we can do away with those pesky laws against murder and rape, then? After all societal pressure is really the way to go, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.