Posted on 12/15/2001 11:36:38 AM PST by jackbob
The rebellious spirit, though, perhaps....
I think you should stay a conservative. Maybe look at working to change the Republican Party, or possibly taking a look at the Constitution Party. But to answer your question, yes one can be both a libertarian and pro life. Many are.
But most libertarians (outside the party are pro-choice). The pro choice LP members have in recent years dropped to a minority, but I suspect they will be back. I believe, not know, that more pro-life libertarians convert to pro-choice, than vice versa. While this is not my topic of particular interest, I must admit I'm an open minded reluctant pro-choicer.
The problem discussing any of this at FR, is that JR has made it against the rules. Thus it can't be argued. Therefore, if I make the switch to pro-life, it will not occur here, where the pro-choice arguments are not allowed, and thereby cannot be challenged.
At any rate, anyone who feels as strongly about a single issue, that is not directly addressed by libertarian principle, should not become a libertarian. At least that is my opinion.
No, I think who put up the biggest fuss is Dan Burton.
It's ok to raise caine when the other party abuses a power, but it's good strategy when 'our' party does it?
Isn't this classic 'ends justify means' tactics?
Uh yes, EagleEye. I see and applaud good strategy when I see it(i.e combatting the democrats and the liberal press). I live in the real world. You can live in your world where the New York Times and the Washington Post don't exist, but alas they do.
As far as the Libertarian platform goes, I could have written it myself I agree with it so completely.
C'mon guys. Let's not confuse "Libertarian" with "Libertine". They are NOT the same.
THANK YOU! Now, translated to English - "I, Dane, fully support tyranny if the tyrants are in accord with my politics"
That has been my understanding of libertarianism in its purest form, how then does this freedom work out under real-life conditions? Will those who have been given this freedom to choose exercise it with the inherent responsibility to life whose burden we all share? Regulating morality is always an exercise in futility and a waste of resources, but the tenants of life supersede morality and is not open to debate. My screen name is derived from the way I fit into conservatism, it is a tight squeeze, and it looks like I will be stuck there until the Libertarians are more aligned with the natural forces of life.
OK, you are free to choose death instead of life in the fetus' stead,(fetus=baby).
I saw a cartoon drawing of a freckled, pigtailed girl, with a big belly.
There was an arrow pointing to the girl, saying,"The power of the Federal Government is for you." Another arrow pointed at the girl's big belly. That arrow said,"This kid's on his own!"
With all due respect, don't crap on my head and tell me it's a hat.
A libertarian looks at this question and asks - "Should YOU be forced to sacrifice YOUR individual liberties because someone else has not exercised THEIR individual liberties repsonsibly?"
What we are realizing here is that a libertarian philosophy requires the intellgience and maturity to act responsibly without laws or government forcing us to do so. I am not blind, I realize well that many people are hardly up to this task. So ............
I do not profess to have all the answers. I do not say that there ought be lawlessness such that irresponsibility goes unpunished. I say only that the solution must NEVER involve violating the individual liberties of the innocent
Huh. I think that they were throwing snowballs in hell after this quoted comment by Barney Frank in the New York Times.
Mr. Bush's action produced angry criticism from the chairman of the committee, Representative Dan Burton of Indiana, a fellow Republican who has been known principally as a relentless critic of Mr. Clinton.
At the same time, several of the committee's Democrats agreed at a hearing today that Mr. Bush's decision was an excessive use of executive power. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, even offered an unexpected tribute to Mr. Burton for his persistence in seeking the documents about the F.B.I.'s behavior in Boston.
Mr. Frank said he and others had misjudged Mr. Burton as a partisan Republican motivated only by a desire to hound Mr. Clinton. "I see now a genuine intellectual integrity in his approach," Mr. Frank said.
"Most House Republicans have been very submissive to the White House," Mr. Frank said, adding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's problems with mob informers was a perfectly appropriate subject for Congressional oversight.
A rare moment of "sunshine" from the NYT. When Barney Frank, "doth protests too much", I know that Bush/Ashcroft landed a "blow"(sorry about the bad pun).
You are quite right here. I'm quite sure Nolan would also agree. The problem is realty. Ideas never get implemented in their full form instantly. Libertarianism is a direction, which will be achieved one step at a time. We cannot just focus totally on the ends (which will probably never be reached as we recognize them now - that will be for later generations to develop and accomplish). But we can do is keep them in view, continually revising, and improving them, as we focus on the interim, or advanced society view, thereby allowing for the development of strategic visions which can unify us for getting there.
Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave.
That makes no sense at all.
Let me repeat the question, in a little more detail. If the parents, as the surrogates for their children, decide to kill them, do you apply the same logic to those particular parents and let them off? The civil liberties of the innocent have nothing to do with it, unless you think killing children is a civil liberty.
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.