Posted on 07/13/2002 2:49:41 PM PDT by fporretto
Political homelessness can be a difficult thing to cope with. When I first encountered libertarian ideas, I thought my search was over, but subsequent reflection caused me to continue my quest. The refinements discussed here are my response to the widely expressed opinion that political libertarianism, particularly as promulgated by the Libertarian Party, is still "three or four feet from home."
Your comments are invited.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
All my best,
Fran
I find about one in 50 pro-lifers support punishment for women. I typically get all kinds of nonsense about how women are "victims" of abortion, etc.
So, should I be condemned as a "pro-abort" and worse for opposing the criminalization of abortion?
I'll move on to other issues between conservatives and libertarians later.
The position most
compatible with other American
ideals is to protect the weaker party
...is simply that. American idealism.
However, the construction
of libertarianism is the subject, not what
Americans conceive as being ideal. Using
American idealism to generate a philosophy
seems roundabout, inasmuch as the latter will
be constructed so as to satisfy the former.
Just define American ideals as a philosophy
and let libertarianism arise from its own
fundamentals.
This will have the effect of counterposing
the right of an individual to decide for herself
whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full
term with the question of when a fetus
approaches personhood. That is the question.
Subsuming this to whatever is in fashion
in America today is not rigorous enough.
You make some very good points. Certainly wherever possible, we need always to work on amicable terms with those with whom we are in agreement on any issue. Those who insist on some form of ideological purity, to the extent where it later makes it impossible to work with others where the grounds are common, would doom us all to endless defeat. Their fanaticism is a form of madness, but it explains why Conservatives who are more numerous than Leftists in almost every society, have been in retreat for the past century. The Left never hesitates to make common cause, when it will advance any part of their agenda. Why must we tie our hands by refusing to respond as effectively?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I describe myself as a libertarian-Christian patriot fusionist, and it's pretty tough sledding!
The Christians cannot survive a government powerful enough, as this one is, to come after their children. The power of the state must be reduced, radically in order for them to get their children back.
This reduced state will be permissive to all sorts of misbehavior which Christians abhor, but that is a small price to pay, IMHO, for the souls of their kids.
OTOH, the libertarians have to give up, "if it feels good, do it" because a lot of things that feel good, although they "don't hurt anyone" are socially destructive in the long run.
Can't we all just get along?
Finally, abortion. Let it be conceded that a woman has the right to control her body and its processes.
But let it also be conceded that a fetus in the womb is a human being with human rights, not to be deprived of that status by any sophistry.
At some point, near viablity, so conceded.
But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.
The clash is absolute; rights theory cannot resolve it. Therefore an arbitrary political decision must be made. The position most compatible with other American ideals is to protect the weaker party -- the developing baby -- from destruction by the stronger, unless doing so would demonstrably endanger the life of the mother.
Exactly, and that decision is presently based on murder law. -- The state must prove, in a trial by jury, that a human being was killed with malice.
The state does not have the power to sequester women to prevent such 'murder'. -- Thus, the human dilemma is left up to state/local prosecutors as to whether a crime has been commited in each individual case. Such is individual freedom.
Pure libertarian thinking must concede these bounds -- the bounds of individual action, individual responsibility, and clearly defined, non-contradictory rights -- before "orthodox" conservatives will take it seriously.
Constitutional law on individual rights is a very serious thing, agreed - and present abortion law is well balanced, imo.
- Medical advances may soon make it possible to grow a fetilized egg to term in an artifical womb. -- Should the state do so to preserve the developing fetus's 'rights'?
I know lots of religious libertarians.
that supports policies that no informed Christian ever would.
Libertarians support smaller federal government.
Are you saying no Christian would support smaller federal government?
They prefer Dems in ofc to the GOP, something no real
conservative would ever want, much less work for.
I voted Republican at the top of the ticket
in 2000 and libertarian from there down.
Like their allies, the Greens, they're comprised of exetremists,
Libertarians are allied with the Greens? I shudder to
think of what other "advice" you are giving to your
friends.
. It isnt for those of us who KNOW the facts about the LP, that's for sure!!!
You don't know the facts, as I have pointed out. By the way,
if you really have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science,
you'd better ask for your money back. I have attended Georgia
State as well, and came away with some eduction in my field.
They saw you coming.
Why is that obvious?
Hayek is an inspiration to me.
Which of our founding fathers do you think come closest to "libertarian" ideals in their beliefs?
A lot of what people take for libertarian-conservative conflict might be more the conflict between those who think radical changes are needed and those who don't. Many Republicans accept a lot of what's happened since FDR, though there are always some policies they are adamantly against. Let sleeping dogs lie seems to be a Republican precept. Libertarians seem to favor a more thoroughgoing rollback. On the other hand, conservatives are deeply concerned about prevailing moral laissez-faire of present day America and many libertarians take it more in stride.
Lately, I note two stripes of libertarian. There are those who strongly believe a rollback of government bureaucracy will make people more moral and responsible. And there are those who are more or less indifferent to this argument, favoring such a rollback in any case. I suspect the answer is that some people would be motivated to become more responsible, others to simply shuck off all responsibilities and live for the moment. This is pretty much what did happen before the rise of the welfare state. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" can be understood as an effort to move people from the second group into the first.
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.