Libertarianism and Abortion

[JohnGalt]

But your idea of interference might be different than mine, thus 'rights' have no practical meaning when you proclaim them universal.

[exodus]

To: MrLeRoy
The key is that the 'exodus' was arguing that 'Rights' are like the laws of physics and my point was that the forefathers believed no such thing.
# 162 by JohnGalt
*********************

Good analogy.

Rights are like the laws of physics, in that no matter how hard you try to deny those "abstract" laws, they still exist; and JohnGalt, the Founders of our nation believed that.

[exodus]

Until self-styled libertarians realize that proper self-government is the only solution for our miseries which comes through studying the classic's of Greece and Rome, we have no chance and no hope for survival as a culture.
*********************

Both Greece and Rome were too tyrannical for me.

Very few men were free before the Rights of Men were understood.

[thoughtomator]

Studying the classics of Greece and Rome, without also studying the works of the Enlightenment, will not produce a libertarian worldview.

[exodus]

"... I see you are trying to claim victory ..."
*********************

I did no such thing. I told you that you were wrong.

You shouldn't hold that against me; after all, you told me I was wrong too.

[exodus]

You proceeded to argue that there are 'Rights' in an abstract sense,
*********************

I did not say that Rights were abstract (unprovable) things. I said that Rights are easily demonstrated.

[exodus]

which I explained meant they had no meaning if the gubmint could take them away
*********************

The government can not take Rights away from us.

[JohnGalt]

The laws of physics are never violated; do you believe rights, since they are universal can never be violated?

Lets try this another way:

The only practical application for your theory on 'rights' is that libertarians can educate other people about their 'rights.'

What you fail to grasp is that I am promoting a practical application of restoring meaning to the word 'rights' to groups of people (communities) that are interested in preserving a culture that respects their rights.

Under your context, rights have no meaning since they can be violated at will and at this late date, there seems to be no political interest in restoring them.

[exodus]

when I boldly stated there are no rights, simply traditions respected by the community
*********************

"Simply traditions respected by the community" means that socialism is the only form of government possible, that only Government can grant Rights.

You're wrong.

[JohnGalt]

That posts captures the utter meaninglessness of your use of the phrase.


Lets demonstrate the opposite when the state gives us 'rights' I don't want:


I wish to live in a community that respects the rights of the unborn. The supra state says that even on my own property, the unborn are not entitled to a full set of rights.

I wish to live in a community that decides on a local basis what is obscene and what isn't obscene. The supra state says that standards are set in DC no in localities.

[exodus]

exodus - "Those Rights, if respected by our leaders, give us Freedom, not socialism. "
JohnGalt - This is much closer to a working definition for 'Rights.'
*********************

No, it is not. You're reading sideways.

Freedom is the free exercise of our Rights, unrestrained by our leaders in the government.

[exodus]

To: thoughtomator
This debate exposes much of the inadequacy of the libertarian worldview.
# 170 by traditionalist
*********************

This debate exposes the honest search for truth among libertarians.

It's much better than just voting for whoever the Republican leadership points at. :)

[JohnGalt]

How do you figure?

Basically, my understanding of you is that you will simply spend your life hoping that the law of unintended consquences will save your culture and your version of liberty.

If someone can violate my rights at will, as government can, are rights something I really have? If the government is no longer legitimate, and there is no recourse, what are these rights worth? If the ruling powers say that my rights are just fine (see Patriot Act) how can I tell that they are lying?

Take your word for it? You refused to renounce Lincoln (or maybe you did) so should I trust you? I don't think so.

Socialism would suggest a different role for government other than the preservation of liberty--that line does not compute.

[tpaine]

We've been arguing about that ~fact~ [the Constitution does indeed bar states from restricting or banning early term abortion] for years now. No more proof is needed as to the USSC's position.

The USSC's position is not identical to the Constitution.

That's your erronious opinion. They base the position on our BOR's.
You dont agree with the USSC on the issue.
Post your constitutional proofs that a pregnant woman can be sequestered and forced to term by the state.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from doing so or authorizes the federal government to prevent the states from doing so.

Very bold statement. Goes against every basic principle of our constitution & BOR's..
I suggest you read our 9th & 10th amendments as to states powers, and those delegated/retained by the people..

[exodus]

That is a rehash of posts we had earlier, but I should have put "rights" in quotes.
*********************

No worries, I know your understanding of "rights," so I put quotes around them myself any time you use the word.

[exodus]

I metioned that DoI contained French rhetoric on liberty,
*********************

I know nothing about the French "rhetoric" on liberty.

What did the French say that you disagree with?

[exodus]

Jefferson believed bloody revolution was the mechanism to correct governments that abused rights and that Patrick Henry believed that rights were protected through insitutions (church, education, justice, congress, and the Executive Branch.)
*********************

Jefferson was right, and Henry was right.

[exodus]

My point is that your definition of a right has no practical value (MrLeroy and you both said 'rights' have political value, potentially anyway) where as my definition gives us a framework for which to think about rights and how best to preserve them for the next generation.
*********************

Your definition gives only the State a say in what "rights" a person has.

That's socialism, not freedom.

Rights do not have political value unless used as a marketing strategy, but an understanding of Rights is necessary to understand politics in a free society.

[exodus]

But your idea of interference might be different than mine, thus 'rights' have no practical meaning when you proclaim them universal.
*********************

I do proclaim Rights to be universal, just as our Founders did; and interference means interference, it's meaning isn't a variable.

[tpaine]

Not to belabor the point, but are you able to define 'murder' independently of the authority of the Supreme Court? Had the court never ruled on the matter, how precisely would you define 'murder'?
177 -tm-


I define it the same way all of our criminal justise system defines it, and always has.

You seem to want to define it so that a state can claim the power to sequester pregnant women, as per MrLeroy, correct?