Replies

You won’t find a single Libertarian who will support the idea of NOT saving a child. A child is incapable of making choices, as they do not realize the consequences, and have no power to enforce their decisions. This goes for kiddie porn, just like it goes for adults dragging kids into drugs. Those are unfit parents, and practically any Libertarian would support the Gov’t taking the child away from the abusive parent. At the same time, Libertarians feel it is not the Gov’t job to be involved either for or against Abortion. God is the judge, not me and not you. I and I alone will answer for my actions, and you for yours.

Neitzche espoused that “God is Dead” - not a common thought amongst Libertarians. The idea of truly “free choice” is pretty much paramount to what many consider to be Christ’s plan for salvation. If you have no choice in matters, how can you make a ‘wrong’ choice? We grow from our mistakes, if we are prohibited from making mistakes, we cease to grow.

If someone opts to commit suicide, that is their decision. This is between God and them. That said, if someone cries for help, I am obligated to do my best to rescue them. If someone is contemplating suicide, I will strive my best to get them help, to talk them out of a rash decision. However, if they are determined to do so, who are we to say “Sorry, I can’t allow you to do this; because I don’t approve of what you are doing”. In my view, this is the most dangerous thing a human can do to another; for you are forcing him to make a very critical decision. Does he want to die enough, that he will willingly kill you in order to further his goal?

We each are on earth for exactly 1 lifetime. No more, no less. In our allotted time we must make decisions that will have eternal consequences. For me to make decisions for you is to rob you of your just reward (for good, or ill).

I disagree with your statement about the helplessness of an addict. We are not animals, we have an intellect, we have a will. We each will chose what we will chose, and there are consequenes to these decisions. Some decisions are mundane, some are very important. But, for someone else to interject their values upon someone else, is to enslave that individual. An addict isn’t “stupid”, he has made a decision (a stupid decision) that drugs are more important than anything else. At the point he realizes his error, I and many others, will rush to help and support him in his recovery. But, to force a ‘recovery’ on an unwilling subject is to enslave him.

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works” Rev. 20:13

“You won’t find a single Libertarian who will support the idea of NOT saving a child.” Well, that all depends on who gets to define “child,” doesn’t it? Consider: You say you are for saving a child. May I assume that means you include in that protecting the child’s life through the force of law? If so, how old does the child have to be to warrant your protection? If your answer is “any age,” do you count birth as the beginning of that age, or do you allow that humans in the womb are “children” too? If you say a child still in the womb should be protected from harm, you doubtless make an exception for the mother, because you allow abortion, and abortion is harm to the child. What is your authority for conferring that power of harming the child to the mother? By that I mean this. One argument might be location. A child in the womb is relying on mom to provide all its survival needs. A child outside the womb might be somewhat more independent. Do you believe that dependency determines whether a mom may kill her child? If dependency is your rule, what degree of dependency in a post-birth child might warrant giving the mom a right to kill her child? Or is it developmental theory that guides you? If a human being is sufficiently developed that they have the ability to survive on their own, is that when you would step in and protect them from their own mother? If so, what degree of developmental sophistication is necessary to earn them your protection? Mental function? How much mental function? Enough to smile at mommy? Enough to solve simple math problems? Conformance to some political orthodoxy? When and how does a human graduate from being a mere protrusion of cells inside the mother to being a person with a right to live? Libertarianism as you have framed it cannot answer that question. You must rely on a liberal definition of human rights and how they are acquired. Humanist systems, even those using God-talk to sanitize their humanism, always ultimately rely on some human-created statutory authority, which in turn uses some arbitrary rule based on materialistic criteria, such as location, dependency, developmental maturity, etc., to define human rights. “Positive” law, as it is called, is the essence, the very heart, of liberal orthodoxy. Those with power can create any morality they can imagine, and impose it on anyone weaker than themselves, especially those too “stupid” to avoid self-destructive behavior. Survival of the fittest, baby, every man for himself. Hence the reference to Nietzsche. Whereas conservatism can solve this dilemma. Unalienable rights are not conferred on someone by the power of another human being. No rule you or anyone else can devise can assign a right to live to an unborn child. They have that right from the moment they begin to exist, as it is their Creator who confers it. Not you. Not the Government. And not the mother. Only God. That is the point of the Founders using the term “unalienable” as opposed to “inalienable.” There is a difference. The status of inalienable rights might change at the whim of a new law, but unalienable rights have a different source, and are literally incapable, even by the holder of those rights, of being surrendered, sold, or given away. This is the foundation of Natural Law, and it defines the American vision. We do not facilitate the destruction of human life at any stage, or any degree of development, or any degree of dependency. We cannot save everyone, because the real world won’t support that. But we cannot allow ourselves the indulgence of smug isolationism. The laws we make to protect life, especially when they are consistent with the Natural Law, are good laws, and worthy of our support, including laws that limit access to serious agents of harm. BTW, I did some research on the Netherlands. Seems they’re tightening down on their liberal drug policy. They’re trying to maintain a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs, and while neither is legal (which surprised me – I believed as you did it was open-ended), the so-called “soft” drugs are prosecuted only minimally. But there is beginning to be such an adverse effect from the wide availability of hard drugs they are searching for ways to put that genie back in the bottle. If you’ll pardon the expression. Odd thing though, you using a supremely socialist state as your model for drug policy. Holland’s euthanasia practice is of course consistent with your views on suicide as well. Only there is an escalating tendency for family and others to hurry the process along. It seems people, even in Nirvana, just can’t keep themselves from coercing people at all stages of life to die at the command of another. That’s what happens when the value of human life is debased. It will be our own dark future if we let such policies take permanent root here.

“You won’t find a single Libertarian who will support the idea of NOT saving a child.”

Well, that all depends on who gets to define “child,” doesn’t it?

Consider: You say you are for saving a child. May I assume that means you include in that protecting the child’s life through the force of law? If so, how old does the child have to be to warrant your protection? If your answer is “any age,” do you count birth as the beginning of that age, or do you allow that humans in the womb are “children” too?

If you say a child still in the womb should be protected from harm, you doubtless make an exception for the mother, because you allow abortion, and abortion is harm to the child. What is your authority for conferring that power of harming the child to the mother?

By that I mean this. One argument might be location. A child in the womb is relying on mom to provide all its survival needs. A child outside the womb might be somewhat more independent. Do you believe that dependency determines whether a mom may kill her child? If dependency is your rule, what degree of dependency in a post-birth child might warrant giving the mom a right to kill her child?

Or is it developmental theory that guides you? If a human being is sufficiently developed that they have the ability to survive on their own, is that when you would step in and protect them from their own mother? If so, what degree of developmental sophistication is necessary to earn them your protection? Mental function? How much mental function? Enough to smile at mommy? Enough to solve simple math problems? Conformance to some political orthodoxy? When and how does a human graduate from being a mere protrusion of cells inside the mother to being a person with a right to live?

Libertarianism as you have framed it cannot answer that question. You must rely on a liberal definition of human rights and how they are acquired. Humanist systems, even those using God-talk to sanitize their humanism, always ultimately rely on some human-created statutory authority, which in turn uses some arbitrary rule based on materialistic criteria, such as location, dependency, developmental maturity, etc., to define human rights. “Positive” law, as it is called, is the essence, the very heart, of liberal orthodoxy. Those with power can create any morality they can imagine, and impose it on anyone weaker than themselves, especially those too “stupid” to avoid self-destructive behavior. Survival of the fittest, baby, every man for himself. Hence the reference to Nietzsche.

Whereas conservatism can solve this dilemma. Unalienable rights are not conferred on someone by the power of another human being. No rule you or anyone else can devise can assign a right to live to an unborn child. They have that right from the moment they begin to exist, as it is their Creator who confers it. Not you. Not the Government. And not the mother. Only God.

That is the point of the Founders using the term “unalienable” as opposed to “inalienable.” There is a difference. The status of inalienable rights might change at the whim of a new law, but unalienable rights have a different source, and are literally incapable, even by the holder of those rights, of being surrendered, sold, or given away.

This is the foundation of Natural Law, and it defines the American vision. We do not facilitate the destruction of human life at any stage, or any degree of development, or any degree of dependency. We cannot save everyone, because the real world won’t support that. But we cannot allow ourselves the indulgence of smug isolationism. The laws we make to protect life, especially when they are consistent with the Natural Law, are good laws, and worthy of our support, including laws that limit access to serious agents of harm.

BTW, I did some research on the Netherlands. Seems they’re tightening down on their liberal drug policy. They’re trying to maintain a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs, and while neither is legal (which surprised me – I believed as you did it was open-ended), the so-called “soft” drugs are prosecuted only minimally. But there is beginning to be such an adverse effect from the wide availability of hard drugs they are searching for ways to put that genie back in the bottle. If you’ll pardon the expression.

Odd thing though, you using a supremely socialist state as your model for drug policy.

Holland’s euthanasia practice is of course consistent with your views on suicide as well. Only there is an escalating tendency for family and others to hurry the process along. It seems people, even in Nirvana, just can’t keep themselves from coercing people at all stages of life to die at the command of another. That’s what happens when the value of human life is debased. It will be our own dark future if we let such policies take permanent root here.