Libertarianism and Abortion

[traditionalist]

States can reasonably restrict/regulate most public activites. They have no power to outlaw non-violent consensual 'sinful activities'.

They do have such power and they have exercised it since the founding of our Republic. The very same people who wrote our constitution also wrote state laws exercising this power.

[traditionalist]

You're only making your communitarian agenda more evident.

My communitarian agenda was always evident. I make not qualms about it. Conservatism has always been communitarian.

[tpaine]

States can reasonably restrict/regulate most public activites.
They have no power to outlaw private non-violent consensual 'sinful activities'.

They do have such power

Nope. - under the supremacy clause, states are bound to our constitution & BOR's as they are the "Law of the Land". States cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process. Thus, they have not been granted the power to 'outlaw' such private non-criminal activities; -- they can only reasonably regulate them in public.

and they have exercised it since the founding of our Republic.

Of course they have, -- violations of our constitution are far too common from folks like you.

The very same people who wrote our constitution also wrote state laws exercising this power [violating the BOR's].

Yep, some did.. Damn shame that many politicians are two faced hypocrites, who pander to authoritarian socialistic schemes to get votes.

[tpaine]

You claim; "Conservatism has always been
communitarian." ..

I'd like to see you find or write a short article attempting to prove that view, and post it.

Two bits it would be blasted off the main forum as an obviously divisive troll, -- an attempt to start a flame war.

[thoughtomator]

Look how many so-called 'libertarians' (see thoughtomator) claim they believe in a right to life but have no problem with the state dropping 'bunker-busters' on civilians.

Do me a favor and ping me if you're going to engage in ad hominem against me.

If they're US civilians, I sure do have a problem with it.

If they're foreigners, it all goes back to the Hobbesian state of war (unless they have negotiated a better arrangement with us) in which all recourse to violence, including dropping 'bunker busters', is equally legitimate. I would of course prefer that they not be dropped on civilians if the military goal can reasonably be realized without doing so.

[thoughtomator]

Ironically, while take potshots at me, each of you are closer to my point of view than you are to each other's.

[tpaine]

As a rightwing libertarian, I look at large states as inherently corrupt.

Yep, libertarians want limited government.. What else is new?

Look how many so-called 'libertarians' (see thoughtomator) claim they believe in a right to life but have no problem with the state dropping 'bunker-busters' on civilians.

Bad manners [on your part].. Ping him about it, not me.

I mentioned thoughtmator to demonstrate that you and I shared common ground on certain issues, and Mssr. TM has no moral high ground over you, IMO.

He has just demonstrated his 'moral high ground' by accusing me of taking a "potshot" at him since I dismissed him.. --- Bizarre reaction.

[thoughtomator]

Why do things that are obvious to a 3 year old, like the fact that you say I support dropping bombs on civilians being a potshot, or that a baby is alive and human even before it is born, seem so bizarre to you?

Are you done being freaked out by pictures of living baby humans?

[tpaine]

It's obvious to a 3 year old that I did not take a potshot at you.

Don't post to me any further unless you can regain rationality on this issue.

[thoughtomator]

"Regain rationality"? How dishonest do you want to be? Now a completely fabricated ad hominem attack doesn't qualify to be modestly called a "potshot"... just like an unborn child is a fetus and not a "person", and abortion is a choice and not a "murder", of which you're sure, even though you are religiously opposed to being held to a clear definition of the word "murder" in the first place...

Man, you have to stop digging that hole, mate. Go over to the thread I pinged you last. Are you going to tell me that that is not a murder?

[tpaine]

You've lost all self control.

Dont post to me any more.

[thoughtomator]

Well, not everybody can deal with their tiny little world being shattered by facts... I understand. Project, avoid subject matter at all costs, and do what you can to save the remnant of your ego. Sad to see someone who calls himself libertarian have to resort to that.

Your worldview simply isn't compatible with reality, you will have to rethink fundamentals. Don't bother arguing with me, and go read Leviathan that I linked above. Then, when you have the conceptual tools to engage in a debate about rights, and do so honestly, you will be able to speak with credibility under examination.

[tpaine]

You have mail.

[agrandis]

"Poppycock" is not all I said, you will notice.

[thoughtomator]

And the mail says:

---

Re: Libertarianism and Abortion
From tpaine | 10/02/2003 9:16 PM PDT read

Don't post to me anymore.

---

I guess then this issue is settled. Don't kill helpless babies, people!!

[tpaine]

All private vice affects the community. That is why the community has the legitmate power to crack down on it when it is prudent.
-traditionalist~

---

The central question for an American court is whether liberty means the right to define one's own concept of existence and of the mystery of life. This issue, contrary to what some may suppose when they read such loose language, is very large.

At stake is whether the Court's majority is now inclined to support the libertarian view that no state has the authority to restrict conduct affecting only one's self and one's consenting partner.

If so, this would mean that there could be no state law against prostitution, bestiality, heroin consumption, physician-assisted suicide, or gay marriage because all of these behaviors involve private, intimate actions that harm no human outsider.

I find it hard to believe that the Court would apply its new-found policy so broadly; after all, it is not indifferent to political realities. (It did, for example, unanimously strike down a state law authorizing physician-assisted suicides. But would it repeat that decision today?)

But then, in 1973 I found it even harder to believe that a right to privacy could support a constitutional right to abortion; nevertheless, it did.

-James Q Wilson-

Has the Supreme Court Gone Too Far?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994062/posts

[JohnGalt]

That was harldy ad hominem; your point of view 'liberventionist' is well documented.

[JohnGalt]

You are representing an ideology as opposed to a theory on government; you apologize for the state when it robs the people to pay for its wars, and also, apparently want the state to provide security for all rights.

That is the path to a very large and powerful state which I find to be completely illogical and unworkable in the context of 'libertarianism' but that is why I am a rightwing libertarian and you are a left-libertarian.

[MrLeRoy]

such communities are violating the rights of their members.

On what basis?

A person or community may justifiably use force only to defend the rights of one or more individuals. No rights are violated by one's not adhering to rigid aesthetic regulations.

Staying up late and drinking alcohol are not vicious in and of themselves [...] Use of addictive and harmful drugs for non-medical purposes is inherently vicious

Alcohol IS an addictive and harmful drug.

as is drinking to excess, as is goofing off all night to the extent that it interferes with one's ability to be a productive member of society.

So society would be within its rights to forcibly prevent one from goofing off all night to the extent that it interferes with one's ability to be a productive member of society?

I think these few cases do not justify broad bans on sodomy or IV use.

First of all, we're talking about up to a million cases

Provide evidence that up to a million people got AIDS "from blood transfusions, medical and dental accidents, and the like."

Any kind of sodomy, even if not with multiple anonymous partners, creates public health problems because sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act.

Nonsense---mutually monogamous sex has no public health consequences. What am I at significant risk for because Joe and Jim bugger each other and only each other?

So we'd be within our rights to arrest the single mothers for the actions they actually took?

If doing so would benefit the common good, yes

Here we must agree to disagree---I find that statement self-evidently nuts.

[thoughtomator]

I am in fact representing a theory of government - that the government has limited powers over the individual and that individuals as well, by consenting to be governed, relinquish their right to violence against others in order to receive recourse through the government with respect to violence against them.

Libertarianism does not imply 'no government at all'. It implies government strictly limited to what is necessary for it to fulfill its reason for existence. The #1 reason for any government's existence is to protect its people against foreign invasion. It is not libertarian at all to suggest we hide our heads in the sand when a foreign power declares war on us and murders thousands of our citizens in cold blood.