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'?
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.
Generally, I regard libertarians as "being on the same page that I am on" often enough that I see them as allies. At one time here down South, there was a breed of Southern Democrat who was often more conservative that the more moderate Republicans. Indeed, I have supported a few in years gone by. I will try to get back tomorrow and look over the replies.
Abortions occur whether there are laws against them or not. Civil society expresses a strong approbation against abortion that serves to dissuade responsible women as strongly as any law. Does society benefit when the irresponsible reproduce? Should a woman who will abort be prevented from doing so if the result is destined to be another irresponsible adult? Can a woman legally decide for herself that her optimal reproductive strategy does not permit her to successfully raise an additional child or a specific child? Where in the Constitution is the state empowered to make this decision for her? Can a woman refuse to permit her own child to parasitize her body for nine months and then constrain her to a life of unremitting toil to raise the child to adulthood? Decisions of this kind belong exclusively to the family or to the woman (only women can reproduce).
Where governments dictate reproductive policy the results are necessarily at odds with the objective of a sustainable civilized society because the law of unintended consequences always prevails. The Chinese government limited families to one or two children. Because of the limit and the widely held desire for at least one male child the female fetus is routinely aborted. As a result of this policy the sex ratio in some locations is 20 males to 1 female. Most of those precious male children will never have children of their own.
If the United States were to prohibit abortion not only would a new criminal activity and corresponding law enforcement apparatus come into existence but it would also skew the population ratio of illegitimate and unwanted children to children who are loved and wanted. The effect on society would be coarsening and destructive. Leaving the decision to the mother is the most efficient way of resolving the abortion issue. All the consequences are confined to the woman and her unborn child if abortion is legal. If abortion is illegal then society pays for the policy as well.
My hope when I chose my freeper name was to remake the GOP in a more libertarian direction without adopting the non-agression and other bad ideas from the Libertarian party.
Libertarianize the GOP