Writes Adam Serwer in Mother Jones, quoting a 2010 interview in which Rand Paul said:
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
Back in 2006, some of you may remember,
I got into a very uncomfortable situation with some libertarians over precisely this issue. Rand Paul wasn't around, but I got a close-up view of some libertarians displaying an attitude about private race discrimination that
literally made me cry:
What disturbed me was the assertion in the writings that the public accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were pernicious. And when I said that at the conference, a lot of the participates immediately challenged me. Did I think the law was right?!! This is what I mean by the excessive belief in the libertarian principle at the abstract level. These folks -- including [Reason Magazine's Ron] Bailey, I think -- would have left restaurants and hotels to continue discriminating against black people as long as they pleased. Someone asserted that the free market would solve the problem better than government regulation. I said that the restaurant in the case about the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in fact made more money by seating only white customers and serving take-out to black people. One other person at the table agreed, but the point was pushed past. It didn't fit the abstraction. I thought the failure to deal with this point was very damaging to the credibility of what we were reading and talking about.
Much more at that second link. What we were reading and talking about — at a big, well-funded conference — was "
a slim book touting a political philosophy that was used in its time very specifically to oppose civil rights and desegregation."
Too many people at the table wanted to talk -- at length and repetitiously -- about abstractions, such as the meaning of the word "virtue." I found this perverse and offensive.... Why should I respect this man [Frank] Meyer at all to want to engage with his book? He wrote screeds in the National Review urging the southern governors to take over the National Guard and fight off school desegregation!
I have no idea if Rand Paul has the cold inner core that I saw amongst the libertarians in 2006. I would like to like him. But this point about private discrimination and the free market... Paul needs to tell the truth!
Posts
377 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 377 of 377Iggy, Why shouldn't those little humans in the deep freeze be declared as dependents? I'm sure it's not cheap keeping them frozen.
You could also argue from a scientific standpoint that human life begins the nanosecond pronuclear fusion begins, but before that, the raw materials (the two pronuclei) have no human rights.
Aren't germ cells alive? (Yeah, I know I said I didn't want to argue semantics. Couldn't resist.)
They're alive, sure, but not genetically human; they're missing half their DNA.
No Iggy, but if the fertilized egg is fully human and an American, should it not have a Social Security number?
Why? It has no use for one. Social Security numbers aren't your Official American Citizen ID Number, even if people do tend to use them that way. :)
"No Iggy, but if the fertilized egg is fully human and an American, should it not have a Social Security number?"
Here's Igna, former nurse, ignoring the science and offering fatuous argument to further progressive dogma using lib jargon like "fully human" and "personhood."
Makes 50 million dead seem less monstrous, eh, Igna?
Homber, just think of all those little frozen humans, who will never be implanted, makes one want to weep.
Another thread aborted by Inga's circular reasoning, illogical and emotional canned talking points on abortion.
Instead of discussing the original topic of Civil Rights, Rand Paul and the libertarian view point on government control of our freedoms of association.....we stew in a mess of dopy abortion posts.
THIS is why libertarian women often don't like some of our own gender. They are an embarrassment to rational thinking people.
I cannot tell you how I hate getting sidetracked into discussions about conception.
The key issue is homicide. Homicide is defined by statute. Human death is defined by statute. The relevant criteria is any brain activity in the brain stem or cerebral cortex. Activity begins in the brain stem six weeks after conception, or 8 weeks after last menstrual period.
Of course a state is free to change its death statutes, to heartbeat or some other point. But we do have laws in regard to when people die, it's not as if we have to make shit up out of thin air.
Inga said...
No Iggy, but if the fertilized egg is fully human and an American, should it not have a Social Security number? Be included in a Census maybe?
And, after that, voting rights for the unborn, because we all know they'll vote Demo, right?
(since the Mexicans are going back to Mazatlan and the blacks are aborting themselves out of existence, they'll need a new underclass)
Inga said...
Iggy, Why shouldn't those little humans in the deep freeze be declared as dependents? I'm sure it's not cheap keeping them frozen.
Society has no reason to incentivize keeping them frozen.
With regards to the civil rights act of 1964 I believe it was the federal government's duty to ensure that states did not enforce segregation at the behest of liberal democrats. The federal government also has the duty to make sure that state laws and local laws are enforced equally. Law enforcement, common laws, and legal contracts with the weight of law all need to be enforced and adjudicated with equal protection. But the federal government should not have anything to do with individual business dealings and associations. It is impossible to enforce anyways, and as Eric Holder is aptly demonstrating humans in general are morally weak and their power over each other should be limited.
This whole thread is a testament to the absolute correctness of libertarian philosophy. Presumably everyone here is intelligent, though according to Ann Althouse women lack rationality and the ability to think for themselves. But one thing comes out loud and clear; using collective power to enforce societal rules and norms should be lowered to the lowest possible governmental level and as many things should be left to individual recognizance as possible. The more people join a group the dumber the collective IQ becomes. This discussion has gone off the rails because a bunch of otherwise intelligent people are throwing a bunch of pointless non sequiturs at each other and chasing squirrels all over the internet.
Homber, just think of all those little frozen humans, who will never be implanted, makes one want to weep.
That's just because you're one of those "emotional women", like Ann. :)
From a rational perspective, of course, there's no reason to feel sad for frozen embryos, even if you do think they are people.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Another thread aborted by Inga's circular reasoning, illogical and emotional canned talking points on abortion.
Instead of discussing the original topic of Civil Rights, Rand Paul and the libertarian view point on government control of our freedoms of association.....we stew in a mess of dopy abortion posts."
Yes, this.
But the rotten old charity case cunt has nothing else to do all day but derail Althouse threads. And people continue to engage her, instead of just mocking her for the disgusting evil old crone she is and moving on.
I've criticized Althouse for being obsessed with racism, but I take it back.* She can't help it; she grew up at a time when blacks were being treated horribly. It's reasonable to assume Althouse's visceral reaction to racism was created by the things she saw on the news and /or witnessed in person. "Jim Crow" was real to her.
But professor Althouse, please bear in mind that many of us who are younger never experienced the ugliness of Jim Crow first hand; we have seen it in movies, which is not the same. Rand Paul is my age, and when I came of age in the 70s, there were "Black is beautiful" and "Black Power" slogans everywhere. Blacks were "cool" though the eyes of many teenagers at the time. "Jim Crow" is an abstraction --something that exists only as an idea-- to Paul and younger Libertarians.
As an aside to the people who say women are emotional and illogical: There are times when an emotional response is logical. Which explains why Dukakis was seen as weird for responding coldly logically when asked a hypothetical about his wife being murdered.
*(But this is not to say that I've softened my criticism of race baiters who use racism as a tool to attack those who oppose modern progressive/liberal policies. I wish Althouse were a little more emotional about that. And no, I am not saying Althouse is a race baiter; just that she doesn't seem as bothered by them as I am.)
Sorry I can't help it. Abortion is an absolutely pointless subject and has absolutely no place at the federal level. This is in retaliation for derailing the thread.
Inga and the democrats have made their position on abortion clear. Funny how none of the news media are posting this story and you can only find it in a UK publication.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/454360/20130407/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-trial-details-babies-beheaded.htm
But like all democrats and liberals, "they were just trying to help the poor." This is a womans inviolable right of choice. Does the government have a duty at some point to protect the right of an unborn child? Sure. But that is a decision to be made by the states. And don't forget Eugenics was also a scion of the left, as well as support of slavery, and segregation. Funny how all of these evils are perpetrated by people who want more government intervention.
"I have stated many times here on Althouse that abortions should be limited to the first trimester, or 18 weeks at he latest. Democrats as a party are fence sitting on this issue also, also not admirable. Lefties also come in all shapes and sizes.
A good lesson for today."
4/11/13, 12:32 PM
Instead of discussing the original topic of Civil Rights, Rand Paul and the libertarian view point on government control of our freedoms of association.....we stew in a mess of dopy abortion posts.
As far as thread hijacks go, it was pretty impressive. And abortion is only "dopy" to people with a cold inner core. Far more interesting than discussing our 19th century obsession, race.
Of course it really is the same subject--the dehumanization of human beings. I think Inga's hijacking was brilliant, and on point.
Somehow the people who perpetrated the evils of slavery, segregation, forced sterilizations and eugenics, the progressives and democrats, say that it is libertarians that are racists. And even now we have affirmative action and enforced public schooling that is dooming another generation of Black and Hispanic youth to poverty on the democrat plantation.
It would take someone with a total ignorance of history and critical thought to come to the conclusion that libertarians are the racists. Progressives and statists have killed millions of people around the world abusing state power and push policies that are specifically designed to destroy the wealth of the black population, but it is libertarians that are evil?
The only way for these evils to persist is for people to be uneducated, ignorant, and irrational. And Ann's description of women as generally lacking the ability to think critically fits right in to their constantly voting for people who have supported and committed these atrocities.
Blogger Inga said...
"I have stated many times here on Althouse that abortions should be limited to the first trimester, or 18 weeks at he latest. Democrats as a party are fence sitting on this issue also, also not admirable. Lefties also come in all shapes and sizes.
A good lesson for today."
4/11/13, 12:32 PM
4/11/13, 3:11 PM
You voted for Obama. You vote for democrats. You tacitly support their positions. You lump people you disagree with into groups. Goose meet gander.
Until you stop supporting the abortion mill, government funded abortions through insurance mandates, and planned parenthood, you own this. You and people who vote like you who don't think about the results of your actions allow this to continue.
I would implore you to invoke a smidgeon of critical thought next time you vote, but according to Ann, women aren't capable of that.
JL at 2:59 nails it down.
Thank you.
The next generation does not have patience with boomer race anxiety. That's a good thing.
literally made me cry
That ends the argument for women; guys are still into the rules and side effects and consequences.
Guys can live with consequences if they come from rules and avoid other consequences. It's just part of the deal.
You don't want women voting.
Michelle is crying about gun death, as if the Constitution not being subject to whims of women weren't an important danger.
Althouse's link to that old 2006 led me to the subsequent thread where revenant challenged her version of the events:
Bailey's account is that he joined the conversation halfway through, after Ann started loudly accusing people of racism. That is entirely consistent with both Ann's claim that he yelled at her and his claim that he had to piece together what set off the whole argument in the first place.
I have to say that the part about Althouse accusing others of racism is consonant with her recent decision to label non supporters of SSM as bigots. I could start with her "decent people" remark.
Achilles, did I vote for Obama? Really, how do you know this?
Thank you St. Croix.
If libertarianism appeals to the young it is because of people like Mayor Bloomberg; he is a symbol of what's wrong with today's ever intrusive "liberalism", with its nanny-state regulations, PC censorship and attempts at gun control. This is reality to today's young people. Not Jim Crow.
So if libertarians seem cold to you because they do not have the same gut reaction to Jim Crow as you do, it should serve as a reminder that this is not the 50s and 60s any more. Get with the times.
As far as thread hijacks go, it was pretty impressive. And abortion is only "dopy" to people with a cold inner core. Far more interesting than discussing our 19th century obsession, race.
@ St Croix
Some of us have the ability to focus on the topic at hand....or the subject of the post.
Others have no ability to focus on anything and decide to hell with what the topic is we will discuss ABORTION until everyone's eyes glaze over. Even though the subject is NOT ABORTION. Like the tiresome cocktail party guest who turns every conversation into the one topic that they can discuss. They wonder why everyone is walking away to the other side of the room.
In addition the discussion is dopy because of the dopes and stupid illogical talking points. If someone had something new or relevant it would be interesting. Instead we just get Inga's tired repetitive rehashing of the same points.
Nothing to do with a cold inner core. It has to do with the ability to think, reason and stay the fuck on topic.
Inga said...
Achilles, did I vote for Obama? Really, how do you know this?
4/11/13, 3:40 PM
You have numerous indicators of democrat/Obama support:
1. Complete inability to stay on topic and need to throw squirrels into conversations on topics.
2. Poor to nonexistent ability to logically support rational arguments, which leads to squirrel flinging.
3. Support for gun control.
4. Support for higher taxes.
5. Support for more failed government spending on "poor people"
6. Support for government funding of planned parenthood.
7. Support for Roe v. Wade as a decision.
8. Opposition to making Social Security a private savings system that can't be looted by corrupt politicians.
9. Opposition to turning Medicare into a voucher system to give seniors a choice and control over their health care choices rather than be at the mercy of these same corrupt politicians that have already forced mass removal of cancer patients from medicaid rolls.
10. Support for Obamacare in general, and mandates on what you can buy and who pays for it forcing me to pay for your contraception, abortions, and whatever other crap you want.
11. Inability to accept that it is progressives and government abuse of power that are at the root of the most evil and widespread acts of abuse committed in this country.
DBQ, Althouse went off topic herself early on in the thread, did you miss this? Control freak.
Achilles, did I vote for Obama? Really, how do you know this?
The appropriate response to her question, Achilles, was "yawn." :)
I voted for Jill Stein.
Saint Croix said...
Instead of discussing the original topic of Civil Rights, Rand Paul and the libertarian view point on government control of our freedoms of association.....we stew in a mess of dopy abortion posts.
As far as thread hijacks go, it was pretty impressive. And abortion is only "dopy" to people with a cold inner core. Far more interesting than discussing our 19th century obsession, race.
Of course it really is the same subject--the dehumanization of human beings. I think Inga's hijacking was brilliant, and on point.
4/11/13, 3:14 PM
The problem is there is no ability to tie in the arguments and show correlation. It is a response to being totally ignorant in a subject, and rather than educate oneself and support arguments rationally you people fling out a bunch of poo like a howling pack of monkeys.
I know that somehow I am being racist or sexist. Somehow I am not respecting a womans right to something. This will come up as usual after I obliterate the logical fallacies of another ignorant individual.
My recollection was that Inga wasn't voting for Obama.
My recollection was that Inga was voting against Romney.
I mean, I don't recall her saying one positive thing about Stein but she wouldn't shut up about Romney's negatives.
My recollection was that Inga was voting against Romney.
As did millions of others.
"My recollection was that Inga was voting against Romney."
------------
"As did millions of others."
4/11/13, 4:14 PM
As did millions of women.:)
As did millions of others.
And they richly deserve what they got instead. But I didn't.
Inga said...
I voted for Jill Stein.
4/11/13, 4:07 PM
So you are ignorant, unable to make even a reasonable attempt at supporting an argument, don't have any critical thinking skills, and most importantly completely unwilling to take responsibility for your actions.
So instead of saying why you support these policies and make them happen you fling another squirrel into the conversation.
You support these positions, but don't want to take responsibility when they fail. It is a classic move. At this point this discussion has really reached epistemic closure. But we will all fall because of emotional attachment to these failed policies.
Sorry Chickelit, we live in a representative democracy. Our votes still count.
Sorry Chickelit, we live in a representative democracy. Our votes still count.
Did I say they didn't?
I just want you to fully embrace what you elected is all.
You're like Crack EmCee saying "I ain't for Obama" but meanwhile spent 99% of his time here exclusively running down Romney.
@Inga: Your avatar tells me that it was the SSM issue and only the SSM issue which made up your mind. You're like Althouse: you put the primacy of SSM above all else.
I voted for Jill Stein.
"I didn't vote for the candidate who supports late-term abortion, I voted for the candidate who supports government-funded late-term abortion".
Ranks up there with "I support gay rights and voted for Rick Santorum". :)
garage mahal said...
My recollection was that Inga wasn't voting for Obama.
4/11/13, 4:11 PM
My recollection is I don't give a shit who she voted for.
She supports the people who make infanticide, racism, and policies that enforce racial inequity happen. My guess is so do you.
Maybe you could do a better job of supporting progressives and democrats, their history of racism and racist policies, and their current involvement in enforcing racial inequity? Why do you support the people who brought us slavery laws, forced sterilizations, Jim Crow, and eugenics? Why do you force black kids into failing inner city public schools? Why do you support affirmative action which has resulted in a permanent underclass of poor black dependent voters?
Why do democrats want to keep black people poor and uneducated? Why do they subsidize planned parenthood which aborts far more black babies per capita than any other race? The same people pushed Eugenics and forced sterilization.
I see a pattern of government sponsored racism here and a bunch of government lackies trying to call libertarians racists while they push overtly racist policies.
garage, love your Johnny Cash flipping off the government avatar.
Yes, because Jill Stein has been advocating that no abortions should be allowed after the first trimester.
What a detestable twat you are Inga. Hypocritical piece of shit.
"You voted for Obama."
4/11/13, 3:23 PM
------------------------
my recollection that Inga is anti-choice for gay fetuses, pro-choice for downs fetuses, and undecided on gay downs fetuses.
So Achilles is NOT a libertarian. Nice to know.
It's important to remember that the heroes of our country--Washington, Jefferson, Madison--were all slave-owners. We don't understand this today. How could these good men be so evil? But it's easy to have a moral blind spot, when your entire society shares this prejudice.
See any abortion thread, for instance.
I'm just hoping that the nursing home she ultimately gets stuck in doesn't have wifi.
How many more years of her nonsenense do we have to look forward to? The current life expectancy is 79.1 or so years for American females. Ibet Obama's destruction of the healthcare system can drag that down, and Inga's excessive alcohol consumption and weight issues could drag it down a bit.
Still, even ten more years is a long time. Invest in a good bottle of Scotch now everyone for the happy occasion.!
Tick tock.
I think a few are still a little bitter about the Romney loss.
Don't keep it all in, it's not healthy.
Talk to me.
It is, of course, absurd to argue there is a constitutional right to decapitate an innocent human being. And yet good people say this with a straight face.
St.Croix,
I actually consider it a baby from implantation. Otherwise as I said before we would have to determine the humanity of a frozen embryo.
I wish there were no abortions, ever. But being a realist, I know this will never happen.
Inga said...
So Achilles is NOT a libertarian. Nice to know.
4/11/13, 4:41 PM
I am trying to assume you are an intelligent individual. You are trying to prove me wrong.
If you read my positions and applied even a basic modicum of critical thought you would understand they are directly in line with libertarian ideology. But your complete inability to engage these concepts enforces the stereotype of the ignorant low information voter of the progressive left.
From the Libertarian Party platform,
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be KEPT OUT of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Achilles,
Nope you most certainly do not adhere to libertarian principles.
Republitarian.
"Republitarian."
4/11/13, 5:30 PM
And darn good at self deception.
From the Libertarian Party platform,
Nope you most certainly do not adhere to libertarian principles.
A party platform does not represent a movement's principles. How unimaginitive and dogmatic must one be to even claim disagreement with a party platform plank (which is a concession to political positioning) means you don't believe the philosophy?
But "most certainly"? Really? There absolutely no possibility of a different answer? Pure idiocy.
Remember this the next time she claims others are extremists or dogmatic, or that she claims to be moderate.
Talk about dishonest arguments from Inga:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
While that specifies the Libertarian Party position on abortion, it indicates that a Libertarian can hold different views on the subject and still be consistent philosophically, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
While I have several disagreements with doctrinaire libertarian philosophy (enough that I don't describe myself as a libertarian), I've found one of the best reasons to like the libertarian position is that it doesn't pretend to answer every question. Not everything needs to be political, or covered by a political philosophy.
Inga... while this concept may be a bit too much for your little brain to handle, libertarianism is NOT defined by the Libertarian Party. You might as well try arguing that since the USA is a Republic, Republicans get to define what is or isn't American. :)
Achilles is a libertarian, as am I. I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, and I doubt he is either. Few libertarians are.
"Libertarians used to be all about legal pot, porn and prostitution. Balls to the wall immigration and abortion on demand. Liberty, baby!"
I think that some people have always been attracted to Libertarian ideas because they want legal pot, porn, and prostitution and would rather not bother their darling little heads with political theory. (The exact same snowflakes are prone to become Occupods and anarchists.)
But that's hardly the focus of how libertarian (or Objectivist) theories about the role and purpose of government and human nature are uniquely different from Democrat or Republican assumptions about the role and purpose of government and human nature.
Just because some people are most interested in the permissiveness of the philosophy doesn't exclude those who understand that only a child refuses to take responsibility and "govern" themselves. But from a libertarian standpoint, if a person wants to go the libertine route they're welcome to the consequences of their actions. People have the right (or should have the right) to be stupid and make stupid choices.
But the philosophy does not demand a libertine focus. Not at all.
And the discord between pro-life and pro-choice isn't a difference of principle, it's a difference of opinion concerning personhood. Both sides agree that you don't have a right to another person's life... not unless that person is a threat to your own life.
Inga was demanding that libertarians make up their mind. It is made up. We argue and debate but from that accepted and common starting point.
People used to be able to disagree on a lot of things and still be part of the same party. Take one look at the 2nd Am. gun debate (should I scare quote "debate"?) and it's clear this is no longer true at all. There can be no disagreement. Every issue is either "left" or "right." All or nothing. Make up your mind.
And I'd say that's the central problem with the issue of this post. One must be all or nothing. If Rand thinks racism is bad then he CAN NOT have criticisms of the Civil Rights Act. If he criticizes some aspect of the Civil Rights Act then he (or anyone else) is a cold hearted bastard who just doesn't care about people.
Try to be detached and logical about an issue and women aren't going to vote for you.
Inga said...
From the Libertarian Party platform,
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be KEPT OUT of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Achilles,
Nope you most certainly do not adhere to libertarian principles.
I feel at some point the fetus becomes a baby and deserves equal protection under the law. If you do not have this distinction you end up with sex selective abortions and other morally abhorrent situations that do not meet the standard of equal protection. This is by definition a libertarian position. But calling that point conception is not a legitimate position for the government to take and is based off a religious interpretation. Allowing the cutting of spinal cords in the birth canal isn't legitimate either. You end up with near 2:1 male to female ratios in China as a result of the one child policy supported by progressives everywhere.
I don't think the government should give money to planned parenthood which as an organization seems to be chartered to abort black babies.
I also do not support Obamacare which also forces me to subsidize abortion and other stupid choices people make.
"You voted for Obama. You vote for democrats.
Until you stop supporting the abortion mill, government funded abortions through insurance mandates, and planned parenthood, you own this. You and people who vote like you who don't think about the results of your actions allow this to continue. "
4/11/13, 3:23 PM
Talk about dishonest arguments from Inga:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
----------------------
"Not everything needs to be political, or covered by a political philosophy."
4/11/13, 5:42 PM
------------------
Perhaps you should direct your observation to Achilles attention.
Talk about rank hypocrisy.
Inga lecturing on the meaning of libertarianism. Hilarious. Inga, I have to hand itto you. You are one stubborn dumb woman.
Everything does not need to be political. There's a word for political systems where everything is suborned into politics, and that word is 'totalitarian'. Systems where everything is political inevitably run into problems where the promises can't be met and quite often conflict, something we're starting to see in the US today.
There are a few issues, however, where the only solution is political. One of those issues is abortion. There is no solution to the abortion debate where someone's rights don't get violated. Slavery was a similar issue. I'm glad we solved that problem, and I think we came to the right solution, but I don't want to have to have us solve another problem the same way.
Libertarians aren't all of a single voice. I'd still prefer to deal with libertarians, where I can at least deal with them on principles, rather than deal with progressives, who vary from day to day as to what their principles are, and seem to be willing to throw their principles away to win.
every libertarian is it's own special and unique little flower. let's all respect that because libertarians never make broad sweeping judgements about other groups!
To repeat, just because most libertarian political philosophy doesn't hold a position on abortion, doesn't mean that individual libertarians are hypocrites when they hold a position on abortion.
Achillies has stated no political philosophy which is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Every fat white union cocksucker with a failed marriage and no higher education is its special and unique little flower.
It is also important to make a distinction between the Libertarian Party and people like me who fancy ourselves libertarians. I know it is hard for progressives to understand as they form their positions based off of group think models and emotional justifications. It should be common sense to any observer that a group comprised of people who believe in individual responsibility and freedom do not end up at the same decision point in a discussion and there is rarely epistemic closure on a topic that has conflicting points of view like abortion.
In my opinion it is the difference between anarchy and limited government and at some point babies need protection. As a nation of laws based off individual virtue and responsibility liberty is ensured by equal protection of all individuals under the laws that are written. But many feel the only way a government can accomplish this is to allow almost complete individual autonomy. Given that we have progressives and their group think fascism infesting courthouses they may be right.
What is hysterical here are all the conservatives who want so desperatly to be a libertarian. They don't walk the walk.
The only real libertarian here seems to be Original Mike.
What is the "walk" for a libertarian?
It's a theory of government... and a government we don't *have*.
Inga said...
"You voted for Obama. You vote for democrats.
Until you stop supporting the abortion mill, government funded abortions through insurance mandates, and planned parenthood, you own this. You and people who vote like you who don't think about the results of your actions allow this to continue. "
4/11/13, 3:23 PM
Talk about dishonest arguments from Inga:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
----------------------
"Not everything needs to be political, or covered by a political philosophy."
4/11/13, 5:42 PM
------------------
Perhaps you should direct your observation to Achilles attention.
Talk about rank hypocrisy.
4/11/13, 5:52 PM
But you see, unlike the libertarian party, I do not believe progressives hold "good faith views." This is apparent in Inga's inability to take responsibility for supporting people like Jill Stein and progressive causes. This is apparent in Garage's short, pointless posts that aren't even worth responding to. They can't authoritatively support anything. Inga's failed attempt to draw distinctions between my position and the Libertarian party platform is indicative of her inability to describe and support her own positions. It is obvious Garage can't logically support his positions, I have never seen him do it.
You see the results of the policies you have supported and you throw squirrels into the conversation to avoid taking responsibility. Progressives were the last to support slavery laws. Progressives brought us Eugenics. Progressives brought us forced sterilizations. Progressives brought us Jim Crow. Progressives brought us failed inner city public schools. Progressives brought us affirmative action. Progressives brought us planned parenthood. Progressives brought us the financial collapse of 2008 and wiped out black savings and wealth.
As long as they allow progressives to determine their fate, minorities will never get off the progressive plantation.
Dust Bunny Queen wrote:
It is your CHOICE and I don't feel that it is a good choice and really wish that it didn't exist at all except in very rare cases and ONLY in the earliest stages before there is viability. (That is pretty nebulous too since viability is being obtained at ever earlier times.) After a certain point in time, I think that abortion is out and out murder.
However, as a libertarian I should not have the power to stop you and YOU shouldn't have the power to make me help you do it.
If you think it's murder then shouldnt' the state be able to prevent you from doing it? I mean, when we are talking about non abortion MURDER you can't get away with it simply because of your choice.
Inga said...
What is hysterical here are all the conservatives who want so desperatly to be a libertarian. They don't walk the walk.
4/11/13, 6:06 PM
This is what passes for logical argument for Inga. Another reason I think you are a progressive/liberal/Obama supporter:
11. Constant creation of straw men and a pathological inability to understand opposing points of view.
If it's murder then you should be able to have the state prevent it... BUT... you may also rationally decide that it's not efficacious to pass that law. That you don't insist on that law being passed, as a practical measure, doesn't mean that you can't actually believe it's murder and wrong.
You can.
Because the philosophy doesn't equate right and wrong to legal and illegal. They are separate things.
Inga said...
What is hysterical here are all the conservatives who want so desperatly to be a libertarian. They don't walk the walk. The only real libertarian here seems to be Original Mike.
Thread trolling 101, so predictable. It says something about Inga that the best contribution she can imagine from her life is intentionally trying to piss off people at Althouse.
Synova said...
the philosophy doesn't equate right and wrong to legal and illegal. They are separate things.
The philosophy is normally stated that causing direct harm to another should be illegal. If you accept it's a baby you should support illegality - as you seem to in the late stages when it's clear it's a baby. Stating a willingness to work within political reality is what I think is different.
From an earlier comment I seem to recall you changing your position as the months pass (as many people do). It sounds to me that your choice position is more tied to the uncertainty than to an unwillingness to assert that harm should be illegal.
"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians"
Oh good grief--there's a "reluctance to use the implicit violence of the government to force others to do as we wish" vibe. Whether that or its opposite should more qualify to be characterized as "inhuman" is very much in the eye Of the beholder.
"The war on women is real in the sense that something real is happening under that label,"
Yes indeed something real is happening: some crass political operators are demagogueing the shit out of that meme for all they're worth.
It says something about Inga that the best contribution she can imagine from her life is intentionally trying to piss off people at Althouse.
What really says something about Inga is that she thinks an effective way to piss people off around here is to accuse them of not being libertarians.
Inga, sweetie, most of America thinks "libertarian" is synonymous with "kook". Nobody has ever been harmed by an accusation that he's not really a libertarian. Heck, normally the lefties focus on trying to falsely claim that people ARE libertarians, e.g. Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
Synova wrote
BUT... you may also rationally decide that it's not efficacious to pass that law. That you don't insist on that law being passed, as a practical measure, doesn't mean that you can't actually believe it's murder and wrong.
We have a right to life. If you think it's murder then on a fundamental level you are for depriving someone of a right to life. Why woudlnt the state pass a law against that?
If you have a fundamental right then someone can't take away that right simply because they feel like it.
As to them not passing a law against it. If you didn't pass a law then, when would you? Again, I also think MURDER of non fetuses is murder and murder is illegal. Are we going to use the standard that we should not insist on laws being passed for murder?
Rev darlin'. It's almost a FAD amongst conservatives to want to be libertarians.
As I said earlier, if Althouse had a survey, many if not most here would self identify as liberatarian. But most of you are run of the mill conservative:)
Oh good grief--there's a "reluctance to use the implicit violence of the government to force others to do as we wish" vibe. Whether that or its opposite should more qualify to be characterized as "inhuman" is very much in the eye Of the beholder.
Another problem is that most people react to unpleasantness (of any kind) by adopting the attitude that Something Must Be Done. Libertarians recognize that demanding the government Do Something almost invariably makes things worse. Ignorant people perceive this as "not caring". We care, guys; that's why we're trying to stop your latest attempt to "help". You're like a child with a dirty stick trying to do brain surgery -- hypothetically there could be a positive outcome, I guess, but that's not where the smart money is.
Rev darlin'. It's almost a FAD amongst conservatives to want to be libertarians.
How amusingly delusional of you. :)
Kirk Parker wrote:
there's a "reluctance to use the implicit violence of the government to force others to do as we wish" vibe. Whether that or its opposite should more qualify to be characterized as "inhuman" is very much in the eye Of the beholder.
And this is why I'm not a libertarian. Trying to insist on that standard is ridiculous. Everything the govt does is coercion, and you may not agree with everything that govt does but even if you do, it's still coercion. So then what? Govt can pass no law?
It sounds good in theory. Govt shouldnt force us to do as they wish. Except when it should. In my view, govt SHOULD be able to force us to not kill each other for example.
And if a law is passed it will inevitably not be agreed to by every single person living in the country. But does that invalidate the law?
libertarians are not living on their little islands adrift from the rest of the country. As such, if a law is passed that they agree with, they can't use their principle to avoid the law.
Revenant wrote:
Another problem is that most people react to unpleasantness (of any kind) by adopting the attitude that Something Must Be Done. Libertarians recognize that demanding the government Do Something almost invariably makes things worse.
It seems that in most cases libertarians argument is DO NOTHING. That is sometimes as irrational as doing something for the sake of doing something.
They also like to pretend that their doing nothing is actually doing nothing.
If Ron Paul got his way and abolished the Fed that is doing something. If you change all the drug laws and legalize crack and meth, that is doing something. And it would be done at behest of govt and using govt power.
Why do you think libertarian doing their thing wouldnt similarly make things worse?
jr565 said...
And this is why I'm not a libertarian. Trying to insist on that standard is ridiculous. Everything the govt does is coercion, and you may not agree with everything that govt does but even if you do, it's still coercion. So then what?
It sounds good in theory. Govt shouldnt force us to do as they wish. Except when it should. In my view, govt SHOULD be able to force us to not kill each other for example.
No libertarian believes government should not be able to pass laws generally or laws against killing. They believe the fact that government is coercive means laws should have a high bar to pass before enacting: generally that they should be limited to restricting actual harm to others. Obviously killing people would qualify.
We have a right to life. If you think it's murder then on a fundamental level you are for depriving someone of a right to life. Why woudlnt the state pass a law against that?
I'll violate my normal policy of ignoring you because you're committing a common mistake: you're failing to recognize that the government needs to violate the rights of the citizenry in order to enforce laws. It is thus very easy for a law passed to protect one right to do far more harm than good.
Effectively enforcing a law against abortion would require a totalitarian police state far worse than the problem it would supposedly be solving. Yes, even if you think the problem is "millions of dead babies". We're talking about constantly monitoring all women for pregnancy, forbidding pregnant women from leaving the country, and launching criminal investigations into every miscarriage. And that's just for starters.
The best you can effectively do is return to a pre-Roe scenario, where abortions were hypothetically illegal but not hard to procure. The law existed to express societal disapproval, not to protect the unborn. Expressing disapproval ain't what government is for.
"reluctance to use the implicit violence of the government to force others to do as we wish" vibe.
So if you want to legalize drugs, wont govt have to actually pass laws that legalize drugs. What about the people who don't want to live in a world of legalized drugs? Arent they forced to go along with what libertarians want? It's not exactly a neutral action.
And you could just as easily say that libertarians are doing something for the sake of doing something and that the results will only be worse.
if Althouse had a survey, many if not most here would self identify as liberatarian. But most of you are run of the mill conservative
It's a spectrum, from libertarian to socialist. Republicans are libertarians who believe in the Civil Rights Act. Democrats are socialists who believe in free speech.
Defining people as sub-human is typically a socialist move.
It seems that in most cases libertarians argument is DO NOTHING. That is sometimes as irrational as doing something for the sake of doing something.
It is never as irrational as doing something for the sake of doing something. Doing something for the sake of doing something is always a stupid idea.
If there is a rational reason to do something, e.g. if you can rationally expect the outcome to be good and there is no rational reason to fear negative outcomes, then and only then is doing nothing "irrational".
If Ron Paul got his way and abolished the Fed that is doing something. If you change all the drug laws and legalize crack and meth, that is doing something.
Semantic games on your part. "Doing nothing" vs "doing something" refers to government activity, not to individual activity. Ending the war on drugs is not "government activity" any more than abstinence is a form of rape. :)
Revenant wrote:
I'll violate my normal policy of ignoring you because you're committing a common mistake: you're failing to recognize that the government needs to violate the rights of the citizenry in order to enforce laws. It is thus very easy for a law passed to protect one right to do far more harm than good.
I didn't realize you had such a policy, But don't go changing it on my behalf.
But since you responded I'll respond. Just because you say it's a right, doesn't mean that it is a right.
And let me get this straight. People actually do have a right to murder, but in order to enforce the law govt is in fact violating the citizens right to murder?
People do have a right to theft but the govt in enforcing the law is violating the citizens right to theft?
Revenant wrote:
It is never as irrational as doing something for the sake of doing something. Doing something for the sake of doing something is always a stupid idea.
But that's your interpretation of what people are doing. No one makes the conscious choice to do something just for the sake of doing something. It may end up having the result of being a wasted action or not actually do anything for what is being addressed (like say the latest rounds of gun restrictions). But they are not doing those things just for the sake of doing those things.
They are simply wrong about the results.
It might even be refreshing to have someone say "I'm just doing this to do something even though I know it's complete bullshit". but who ever says that?
Revenant wrote:
It is never as irrational as doing something for the sake of doing something. Doing something for the sake of doing something is always a stupid idea.
But that's your interpretation of what people are doing. No one makes the conscious choice to do something just for the sake of doing something. It may end up having the result of being a wasted action or not actually do anything for what is being addressed (like say the latest rounds of gun restrictions). But they are not doing those things just for the sake of doing those things.
They are simply wrong about the results.
It might even be refreshing to have someone say "I'm just doing this to do something even though I know it's complete bullshit". but who ever says that?
Revenant wrote:
Semantic games on your part. "Doing nothing" vs "doing something" refers to government activity, not to individual activity. Ending the war on drugs is not "government activity" any more than abstinence is a form of rape. :)
The drug war involves laws passed by govt. Ending the drug war requires govt changing laws. How is that not government activity?
Effectively enforcing a law against abortion would require a totalitarian police state far worse than the problem it would supposedly be solving.
Also tough to punish rape, which I hear sometimes happens in bedrooms.
I guess we have to find a constitutional right to rape women, then. That solves that problem. Thanks, Rev.
Revenant wrote:
If there is a rational reason to do something, e.g. if you can rationally expect the outcome to be good and there is no rational reason to fear negative outcomes, then and only then is doing nothing "irrational".
Who is defining rationality? Libertarians? Liberals? if you ask each person I'd imagine each person would give a totally separate answer.
And let me get this straight. People actually do have a right to murder, but in order to enforce the law govt is in fact violating the citizens right to murder?
You have, as usual, gotten it wildly wrong.
And since past experience has taught me that educating you is a waste of my time, I shan't bother. :)
Effectively enforcing a law against slavery would require a totalitarian police state far worse than the problem it would supposedly be solving.
We had to get as far as a civil war to end the practice. And lets not forget all the govt coercion. So , better to have not ended it, right?
I wonder what libertarians would have said that in the days before the constitution was drafted about the constitution or the bill of rights. How can the govt so restrict our freedoms.
Go live in a jungle if you want absolute freedom.
Revenant wrote:
And since past experience has taught me that educating you is a waste of my time, I shan't bother. :)
No, I think I got it exactly right. You just don't have a compelling argument, nor one that is consistent with laws you do support. Oh, and eat me. :)
Stop being The Stupid Party!
Whenever Ann gets boxed into a logical corner, this is her response.
We don't need more liberal philosophy, we need less. Freedom seems to me to have been the engine behind the great rise of the US, economically. Now the leftist/feminists are using the fruits of freedom to tear it down.
The simple question is what world is better? The world of freedom, or the world of liberalism? Take the warts and all. I believe the world of freedom is far, far better. For everyone.
So take your anti-freedom laws, your stupid feminism, and stuff it.
Libertarian ideals are offputting to women. Good, we should make laws based on what puts off women. Ann Coulter is right. Women should never have been given the vote, if they are such socialist wusses as you.
I suppose the argument could be made about murder that could be made against abortion (which some are saying is murder). Namely, to enforce it would require totalitarian police state far worse than the problem it would supposedly be solving.
Dante wrote:
The simple question is what world is better? The world of freedom, or the world of liberalism?
I'm no fan of liberalism, but I dont think libertarians can appropriate "the world of freedom" since all sides are for freedom of varying sorts.
The world of freedom taken to its absolute is anarchy. Do I want to to live in that world either?
Also tough to punish rape, which I hear sometimes happens in bedrooms.
Not even remotely as tough, for two obvious reasons:
1. The rape victim is able to report the crime.
2. Society is aware that the rape victim exists.
Neither of those two points applies to abortion. How do you prevent the "murder" of a "person" when that person's existence is known only to the would-be murderer? You can't.
One other point I missed earlier: you'd have to eliminate the judicial standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Virtually all abortions can be performed in a manner indistinguishable from miscarriage, so there would almost always be reasonable doubt that the miscarriage was induced rather than natural.
Revenant wrote:
Neither of those two points applies to abortion. How do you prevent the "murder" of a "person" when that person's existence is known only to the would-be murderer? You can't.
If a woman goes to a doctor and the doctor says she's pregnant then the doctor knows she exists. If she gives birth to someone while in seclusion in her house, technically no one else may know of the childs existence. Would that mean that infanticide was ok too?
Also, if the rapist kills the victim she really can't report the crime either.
Another problem is that most people react to unpleasantness (of any kind) by adopting the attitude that Something Must Be Done
But libertarians go along all the time with stuff the government does That Must Be Done.
Sometimes, It Must Be done!
Also, Croix, you're conflating "lack of government coercion" with "the right to do something".
For example, child rape could be sharply reduced if the government installed security cameras in every room of your house, so independent parties could ascertain you were not raping your children. You are undoubtedly against this policy; from this, using your line of thinking, I conclude that you believe you have a right to rape your children. If you didn't think you had that right, you'd want the government to do everything in its power to keep children maximally safe.
Except... no. It turns out that keeping children rape-free is not the end-all and be-all of human existence. Our lives do not revolve around that one thing. It is not worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrificing all personal privacy in the hopes of eliminating it. You have no right to rape your children, but society ALSO has no right to constantly monitor you to make sure you aren't.
Cost-benefit analysis, Croix. Look into it. :)
But libertarians go along all the time with stuff the government does That Must Be Done.
In the sense black people "went along all the time" with Jim Crow laws, sure. Few indeed are the people willing to be ground under by the state just to make a point about self-determination. :)
Also, if there is an abortion, especially a later term abortion, there are body parts, usually put in plastic bags at an abortion clinic showing that the fetus did exist. So, anyone who sees those body parts knows that those body parts exist. Also, ultrasounds are good evidence too.
I swear, if you go too far to the right, you become a lot like a damn socialist. It's all dream, dream, dream. But instead of utopia, the libertarian has nightmares about dystopia.
We're talking about constantly monitoring all women for pregnancy, forbidding pregnant women from leaving the country, and launching criminal investigations into every miscarriage. And that's just for starters.
Oh no! A Handmaid's Tale! Pregnant women, just trying to get on an airplane, will be forced to undergo 3-D ultrasounds. And tattoos! We'll tattoo all the pregnant women!
Abortion has never been outlawed and we can't imagine a society where it is outlawed because such a society would be like 1972 or something. It's just unthinkable!
So the libertarian smokes another bong hit and thinks happy thoughts about humanity, free of government control.
"Leave me alone, Mom, I'll apply for a job tomorrow."
St Croix, if anyone can turn me into a conservative it would be YOU, LOL!!
Outstanding reply to Revenant@7:56.
Virtually all abortions can be performed in a manner indistinguishable from miscarriage, so there would almost always be reasonable doubt that the miscarriage was induced rather than natural.
For fuck's sake, Rev, aren't you a lawyer? Haven't you read Carhart? I've talked about it enough. You want to describe a D&E abortion, or shall I?
You are undoubtedly against this policy; from this, using your line of thinking, I conclude that you believe you have a right to rape your children.
Rev, the Fourth Amendment actually protects privacy.
Roe v. Wade protects abortion. That's a substantive right to do something. Do you not get the difference between process and substance?
Revenant said...
Neither of those two points applies to abortion. How do you prevent the "murder" of a "person" when that person's existence is known only to the would-be murderer? You can't.
One other point I missed earlier: you'd have to eliminate the judicial standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Virtually all abortions can be performed in a manner indistinguishable from miscarriage, so there would almost always be reasonable doubt that the miscarriage was induced rather than natural.
I think the idea that it should be legal because it's too difficult to stop is wrong. The totalitarian result you cite might be what you'd have to do to prevent every abortion. But preventing every murder would require similar actions. Instead of using that as a justification to allow it we live with the reality we can't stop everything.
Revenant wrote:
Except... no. It turns out that keeping children rape-free is not the end-all and be-all of human existence. Our lives do not revolve around that one thing. It is not worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrificing all personal privacy in the hopes of eliminating it. You have no right to rape your children, but society ALSO has no right to constantly monitor you to make sure you aren't.
Cost-benefit analysis, Croix. Look into it. :)
Cost benefit analysis usually is more than all or nothing calculations. Granted preventing rape is not the be all end all. But despite that fact it doesn't mean that because it isnt that therefore we should show it no consideration.
Maybe we can't spend our entire budget on the preventing of raped children but does that mean we should spend none. And how bout sacrificing SOME personal privacy or personal liberty. Not a lot, but a smidge.
Like say you have a door on your house. Do you put a lock on it? Granted you shouldn't spend your entire pay on one lock, but does that mean you should spend none on a door that protects your house? If you are locking your door arent you giving up some personal freedom for a tiny bit more security?
In the sense black people "went along all the time" with Jim Crow laws, sure.
PUH-Leeze.
More rubble, less trouble (!)...... [and yes, please do, tap my phones]
Russ Feingold was the only senator in congress that voted against the Patriot Act. A Commie from Madison.
Oh no! A Handmaid's Tale! Pregnant women, just trying to get on an airplane, will be forced to undergo 3-D ultrasounds. And tattoos! We'll tattoo all the pregnant women!
By all means, Croix, if you have a way of preventing murders when you never even knew the victim existed, do share it with the rest of us.
Or keep bashing straw men -- you know, whatever works for you. :)
Abortion has never been effectively outlawed
Fixed it for you. Also, abortion is far easier to perform now than in 1972; it doesn't even need to be surgical, in the vast majority of cases. Technology marches on.
thanks, Inga! And can I say I am digging your liberty-justice-multi-racial-hot-lesbian-action avatar?
Revenant said...
Also, Croix, you're conflating "lack of government coercion" with "the right to do something".
And you are conflating "making something illegal" with using the maximum amount of coercion to enforce it.
Except... no. It turns out that keeping children rape-free is not the end-all and be-all of human existence. Our lives do not revolve around that one thing. It is not worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrificing all personal privacy in the hopes of eliminating it. You have no right to rape your children, but society ALSO has no right to constantly monitor you to make sure you aren't.
But we still make child rape illegal, and prosecute case that come to our attention, and that certainly reduces the total amount of child rape.
The same could be done with abortion, reducing the number that happen by millions without the sort of intrusive enforcement that you suggest.
For fuck's sake, Rev, aren't you a lawyer? Haven't you read Carhart? I've talked about it enough.
No, I'm not a lawyer. And yes, I've read your endless rants about Carhart.
You want to describe a D&E abortion, or shall I?
Um, Croix... D&E is often performed after a miscarriage to ensure that no parts of the fetus remained behind. So when the woman and the doctor insist that the woman had a natural miscarriage and the D&E procedure was necessary to deal with the dead fetus, that's reasonable doubt right there.
ignorance is bliss wrote:
But we still make child rape illegal, and prosecute case that come to our attention, and that certainly reduces the total amount of child rape.
Exactly. Libertarians are prone to make all or nothing arguments. The world doesn't work that way.
We always hear this argument when it comes to say illegal immigration. We can't do anything because you can't deport every illegal alien. Well who says you have to deport EVERY single illegal alien. If you can't deport them all, you can deport ANY?
Rev, unless women are using coat hangers, then doctors will know what they are doing when performing abortions. As such, there will be proof that abortions are done.
As I've said before, I'm not a libertarian. I do, however, enjoy arguing devil's advocate. "Passing laws" is not the real thrust of libertarian complaints about government, but rather "government enforcement of laws".
Suppose the government passes a law removing restrictions on food trucks. In the strictest sense, government has done something (passed a law). The libertarian objection to "government action" is not complaint that the government passes laws, but that the government takes action to restrict behaviors. A law removing restrictions on food trucks means the government uses less force to cause people to do things, which is good for libertarians. A law placing restrictions on food trucks restricts peoples freedoms via the threat of force, which is bad.
Ultimately, people prosper most when they are free to make their own economic decisions without government restriction, but only with security against fraud or theft, which need not always come from a government.
PUH-Leeze. More rubble, less trouble (!)...... [and yes, please do, tap my phones]
Are you having a seizure?
Russ Feingold was the only senator in congress that voted against the Patriot Act.
And the libertarian senators in 2002 were... who, exactly? :)
Prior to the Tea Party elections of 2010 the only arguably libertarian Congressman was Ron Paul. There were a few more back in the day (Goldwater, for example) but none recently. The Republican Party pretty much walked away from the idea of limited government starting with the election of Herbert Hoover.
Um, Croix... D&E is often performed after a miscarriage to ensure that no parts of the fetus remained behind. So when the woman and the doctor insist that the woman had a natural miscarriage and the D&E procedure was necessary to deal with the dead fetus, that's reasonable doubt right there.
Are doctors actively lying about killing fetuses? I.e. they are kiling fetuses and then saying they are miscarriages?
If so, and if abortion is in fact a murder, and doctors are lying about the practice, why wouldn't that be the states business? If doctors are lying about any procedure that is grounds for the state to be involved. That's fraud.
And you are conflating "making something illegal" with using the maximum amount of coercion to enforce it.
No, like I said above my scenario only applies to effective bans. Bans that ignore almost all of the actual criminal activity are possible; they're just undesirable because they undermine the rule of law.
Civilis wrote:
Suppose the government passes a law removing restrictions on food trucks. In the strictest sense, government has done something (passed a law). The libertarian objection to "government action" is not complaint that the government passes laws, but that the government takes action to restrict behaviors.
Ok but what is the law that the govt removed that restricted trucks? Some of those laws might have merit.
government takes action to restrict behaviors.
Why is this always a bad thing? Some behaviors should be restricted, like say Child rape. Or murder, or theft, or what have you.
The same could be done with abortion, reducing the number that happen by millions without the sort of intrusive enforcement that you suggest.
No, it couldn't, because for the vast majority of those millions of abortions nobody but the "conspirators" even knows the fetus existed in the first place.
Like I said before, you can go after rapists because victims talk. Similarly, you can go after murderers because dead people are missed. Neither scenario applies to abortion.
Explain how you even find out most of those millions of abortions are happening in the first place *without* in-depth surveillance of doctors and female patients? The government can't even keep people from using heroin, for pity's sake, and heroin addicts are a heck of a lot easier to spot than a woman in her first trimester.
Civilis wrote:
Ultimately, people prosper most when they are free to make their own economic decisions without government restriction,
Theft is an economic decision. Should people be able to make that decision wihtout govt restriction?
Are you having a seizure?
"More rubble less trouble" was the rallying cry of the 2002 libertarian. Of course now they've changed and they're against adventurism abroad. 10 years *after* the dirty fucking hippies were speaking out against it happening in real time.
Um, Croix... D&E is often performed after a miscarriage to ensure that no parts of the fetus remained behind.
You are confusing D&E with D&C.
D&C is a first trimester abortion that doctors sometimes have to do after the abortion pill leaves tissue behind. D&C often causes Asherman's syndrome in women.
D&E is the graphic homicide that is described in detail in the Carhart opinions.
A significant number of people would obey the law just because it is the law. Doctors could be caught via sting operations without any sort of intrusion into anyone's privacy.
Ok but what is the law that the govt removed that restricted trucks? Some of those laws might have merit.
Again, I'm not a libertarian. The libertarian argument is that if I want to buy food from the food truck, and the food truck owner wants to sell me food, and no one else is involved, what principle justifies the government using force (possibly killing me) to stop me?
Laws are easy to justify when (as with murder or rape) one of the participants does not consent or is unable to give meaningful consent.
Theft is an economic decision. Should people be able to make that decision wihtout govt restriction?
One of the individuals involved in the theft is not (obviously) consenting to the transaction, so the theft itself not an economic decision. It's up to the potential victim to weigh the economic costs of mitigating the risk of theft or accepting the risk.
Explain how you even find out most of those millions of abortions are happening in the first place *without* in-depth surveillance of doctors and female patients?
It's the all-or-nothing fallacy that's so damn stupid. I have to come up with a master plan? I just want to outlaw infanticide.
The government can't even keep people from using heroin, for pity's sake, and heroin addicts are a heck of a lot easier to spot than a woman in her first trimester.
Yeah yeah, and murders keep happening. And rape, and kidnapping. Do you really consider this an argument for legalization?
"More rubble less trouble" was the rallying cry of the 2002 libertarian.
Which is odd, given that the only libertarian to use the phrase said it in 2006. :)
I'm no fan of liberalism, but I dont think libertarians can appropriate "the world of freedom" since all sides are for freedom of varying sorts.
Government interference should be kept to a minimum. Take this very example. Despite all the meddling by the government, has anything changed, in a meaningful way for blacks? I don't think so.
Why aren't blacks doing well like Asians? Asians don't get the benes. Maybe it's because of the benes the blacks are so poorly off.
The point is to keep as much power in the citizenry as possible. But when it comes to Ann's favorite things she likes, it's time to remove power from the citizens. And she justifies it with what I view as stupidity. "Women don't like it." So, I don't like all this welfare, and I suppose most men who work don't either. And guess what, it's anti-freedom.
So there you have it. When Ann writes about the Stupid party, what she really means is "Here are some things where I want the Government to get in the middle and steel people's freedom." And the women agree with her.
Shit, she talks for all women now too. So women are anti-freedom socialists, wanting to be taken care of by the Big Nanny State.
You are confusing D&E with D&C.
No, I'm not. You're confusing "D&E is used for abortions" with "D&E is only used for abortions".
Civilis wrote:
Again, I'm not a libertarian. The libertarian argument is that if I want to buy food from the food truck, and the food truck owner wants to sell me food, and no one else is involved, what principle justifies the government using force (possibly killing me) to stop me?
I want to sell plutonium from a truck. I want to sell an endangered species from a truck. I want to transport illegal immigrants across state lines in my truck.
This is not to say that the law shouldn't br repealed. Only it doesn't guarantee more freedom and even if it did, such freedom may not be a good thing.
Marshal,
Synova said...
the philosophy doesn't equate right and wrong to legal and illegal. They are separate things.
"The philosophy is normally stated that causing direct harm to another should be illegal. If you accept it's a baby you should support illegality - as you seem to in the late stages when it's clear it's a baby. Stating a willingness to work within political reality is what I think is different."
I don't know why it's reasonable to separate direct and indirect harm. But there are practical problems because what *doesn't* harm someone? Right?
But I don't think that libertarianism demands criminalizing wrong behavior. A person could even say that "whatever" is evil, no ambiguity about it, without necessarily having to believe that it was the place of the state to prevent and punish "whatever".
And yes, protecting (or avenging) life and property is usually seen as the legitimate role of government by libertarians.
I don't know how much my opinion has "evolved" on the issue because I think it's pretty clear- scientifically, biologically, ethically,- that "a person is a person no matter how small"
The problems that arise are practical ones... *can* the state prevent women from killing their babies? If not, a law against it is so much emotional symbolism just like most of the anti-gun bills. The government isn't there to make me feel better through symbolism. The other practical problem is that "self-defense" is somewhat hard to determine in some cases. Making a law that defines just how much risk any individual is required to face is bound to fail more often than not... and then you've got Tiller aborting healthy infants for the "mental distress" of the mother, or you've stopped that happening and end up forcing someone in true distress to carry to term.
Worry about desperate women getting back alley abortions was a compassionate worry. Where it all went wrong was in the social and cultural *necessity* of equating legality with "this is good."
No. It's not "good". It's bad. Very, very bad.
But our current (non-libertarian) paradigm is that whatever is bad must be illegal, and if it's not illegal then it's good.
So abortion became good. Nothing to be ashamed of. Don't you dare say a person is being killed and make some woman feel bad. Get a t-shirt and celebrate your abortion. Listen to a preacher preach that abortion is a *blessing* to all women.
Wow. What happened? What happened is that "legal" equals "good" and there is no conceptual space for something being both "legal" and "bad."
We've entirely lost the ability for social pressure to balance legality. To say to people that, while you may have license, you're going to be judged for the scum bucket you are if you kill your baby for anything less than a serious risk to your health or full blown mental break.
A significant number of people would obey the law just because it is the law.
If ever there was a time when Americans were inclined to obey the law out of respect for the law -- as opposed to obeying it out of fear of punishment -- that time was long before I was born.
This is particularly true given that roughly half of America will view the law as a gross violation of basic human rights. So people who would normally have nothing to do with abortions personally (e.g., me) would instead actively assist people in escaping "justice".
Which, come to think of it, is another reason it would be pointless to pass an abortion ban: jury nullification.
Again, I'd probably agree with you on all three cases.
But dismissing the libertarian argument off-hand does the debate a disservice. The plutonium is an issue because of the risks it poses to the people nearby, so it can't merely be seen as a transaction between two people. It may also be best handled by liability for any proven damages incurred (this is assuming the plutonium is private property to begin with).
Likewise, the ownership of an endangered species is a tricky situation. If I do my part to raise the endangered species myself (say at a zoo) shoudn't it be mine to do with as I pleae? Would being able to see the species members be an incentive for people to bring them back from the brink?
Finally, with the illegal immigrant question, this raises the separate economic debate about what harm (if any) illegal immigrants do to the country, and what damage they'd do in a libertarian economy.
It's the all-or-nothing fallacy that's so damn stupid.
Learn to read. I'm asking how you'll catch *most* abortions, not all.
I have to come up with a master plan? I just want to outlaw infanticide.
Infanticide is already illegal. You mean you want to outlaw something you think is infanticide and most Americans don't.
And yes, you have to come up with a master plan. We've had enough of dumbasses who think "don't bother me with the details, I just want something done" is good reason to pass a law.
The government isn't there to make me feel better through symbolism.
And here we see why Synova is my favorite commenter. :)
"What about the people who don't want to live in a world of legalized drugs? Arent they forced to go along with what libertarians want? It's not exactly a neutral action."
What about the people who don't want to live in a world with ugly roadside memorials? Or the people who don't want to live in a world with anti-science, fundy, bible-thumping, gaia murders? Or the people who don't want to live in a world split by violent political schisms? Or the people who don't want to live in a world where we allow hate speech and intolerance?
Revenant said...
I'm asking how you'll catch *most* abortions, not all.
You don't need to catch most. If you catch a small percent of those that happen now, you will prevent a lot from people who don't want to risk getting caught. Jury nullification will happen, but many people would not take that chance and would plead to a lesser charge, or they would make a deal to testify against their doctor.
On a side note... we already live in a world of legalized drugs. There actually hasn't been a point in American history where seriously mind-altering substances weren't legally available. Which specific mind-altering drugs are legal has varied, of course.
Jury nullification will happen, but many people would not take that chance and would plead to a lesser charge, or they would make a deal to testify against their doctor.
So the purpose of this law wouldn't be to actually convict people of it, but to hand the government a tool with which to extort confessions to a different crime?
Pass. If you can't convict someone of a crime, it shouldn't be a crime. Plea bargains should be illegal.
Take this test Political Compass
As always,,,, I end up almost exactly on the spot where Milton Friedman is. Libertarian Right.
One other thing:
If you catch a small percent of those that happen now, you will prevent a lot from people who don't want to risk getting caught.
That's the thinking behind drug prohibition, too. Small problem: it is empirically wrong. The extent to which drug users are prosecuted turns out to have no discernible impact on actual drug use -- unless the measures taken are so truly draconian that they inspire real fear.
Abortion would be in a similar situation to drug use. The crime is essentially undetectable unless you care forced to undergo testing, and the odds of any given perp being arrested for any given instance of the crime are vanishingly small. Add in the desperation driving the crime and the discouragement factor is effectively nil.
Civilis wrote:
But dismissing the libertarian argument off-hand does the debate a disservice. The plutonium is an issue because of the risks it poses to the people nearby, so it can't merely be seen as a transaction between two people. It may also be best handled by liability for any proven damages incurred (this is assuming the plutonium is private property to begin with).
so if it poses a risk to people nearby its ok to outlaw? Ok, so the discussion might be to lift the speed limit gives more freedom but in doing so you cause more accidents thus endangering people. And isn't requiring people to have insurance just another example of limiting freedom? What if the law lifted was to not require trucks to have insurance?
Revenant wrote:
Jury nullification will happen, but many people would not take that chance and would plead to a lesser charge, or they would make a deal to testify against their doctor.
So the purpose of this law wouldn't be to actually convict people of it, but to hand the government a tool with which to extort confessions to a different crime?
Pass. If you can't convict someone of a crime, it shouldn't be a crime. Plea bargains should be illegal.
if you couldn't convict people of crimes they wouldn't take a plea bargain. A plea bargain is a cost benefit analysis on the part of the accused that he will get a better deal than having a jury find him guilty. Why should that be illegal?
And to adopt your viewpoint notice how much rejiggering if laws is required.
Should a lawyer who is found guilty of offering a plea bargain be jailed? Won't that lead to a totalitarian state?
I thought you were for freedom.
"Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy throughout Western Europe is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass propaganda to an extent hitherto unheard of and unimagined? Do you put this down to the mere mechanical fact that the press and the radio and so on have made propaganda much easier to distribute over a wide area? Or do you sometimes have an uneasy suspicion that the product of modern educational methods is less good than he or she might be at disentangling fact from opinion and the proven from the plausible?
Have you ever, in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question, or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side? Or have you ever pondered upon the extremely high incidence of irrelevant matter which crops up at committee meetings, and upon the very great rarity of persons capable of acting as chairmen of committees? And when you think of this, and think that most of our public affairs are settled by debates and committees, have you ever felt a certain sinking of the heart?
Have you ever followed a discussion in the newspapers or elsewhere and noticed how frequently writers fail to define the terms they use? Or how often, if one man does define his terms, another will assume in his reply that he was using the terms in precisely the opposite sense to that in which he has already defined them?"
- Dorothy L. Sayers, from "The Lost Tools of Learning", a speech given at Oxford 1947
"Scorn in plenty has been poured out upon the mediaeval passion for hair-splitting; but when we look at the shameless abuse made, in print and on the platform, of controversial expressions with shifting and ambiguous connotations, we may feel it in our hearts to wish that every reader and hearer had been so defensively armored by his education as to be able to cry: "Distinguo."
For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects." - DLS again
so if it poses a risk to people nearby its ok to outlaw? Ok, so the discussion might be to lift the speed limit gives more freedom but in doing so you cause more accidents thus endangering people. And isn't requiring people to have insurance just another example of limiting freedom? What if the law lifted was to not require trucks to have insurance?
A libertarian would handle these sorts of issues (hazardous substances and lack-of-insurance) by imposing liability on the offending party if problems occur. All these issues you've listed can be handled without the government prohibiting anything and threatening to kill people for not complying.
And that's ignoring the real issue. You've been throwing the most absurd hypothetical situations possible without addressing the underlying question: what business is it for the government to threaten someone with force (and possibly death) for a freely entered transaction between consenting individuals?
If I run an uninsured panda steak sandwich truck, and I'm selling my own panda meat from my own raised pandas on private property and I never get in an accident and my customers find my sandwiches worth buying, what's the harm? In the real world, the laws relating to food trucks mostly exist to benefit politically connected competitors and serve to harm customers.
In the real world, and not my hypothetical devils-advocate libertarian one, certain issues (immigration and pollution come to mind) make the total absence of regulations impossible. But that's doesn't mean that the libertarians don't have a very valid and very overlooked point.
DBQ - I come out a bit to the left of Mr. Freidman but at about the same elevation.
Did you see they had a chart with last election's presidential candidates? Obama and Mitt were almost on top of each other right smack middle of the right/authoritative block.
So people who would normally have nothing to do with abortions personally (e.g., me)
You know what's weird? We never see the abortion hypocrite. We never see the person who says, "I love abortion for me, I just don't think you should have one." Where is the abortion hypocrite? We never see them.
But what we do see, all the frickin' time, is the sweet, tolerant abortion-hater. "Oh, I hate abortion so much! It's awful. Abortion is the worst. It's okay if you do it, though."
Fanatics are dangerous in every ideology. I think libertarians are especially prone to fanatical abstractions because their ideals aren't manifested anywhere and never are going to be.
I see this as an ex-libertarian. It's play time in the sand box. There is nowhere in the real world where it is ever going to be tried, much less work, so they can be as pie in the sky and devoted to the pure ideal as they please.
There is no free market in reality. There is no sanctuary to be found there.
But what we do see, all the frickin' time, is the sweet, tolerant abortion-hater. "Oh, I hate abortion so much! It's awful. Abortion is the worst. It's okay if you do it, though."
It is so very hard to be you, Croix.
Anyway, in your rush to climb on your high horse you read too much into what I said. I said I would normally never have anything to do with it, not that I hate it. I don't hate it -- I just don't go around fathering unwanted children. Birth control is not hard to use.
Perhaps in your world men are divided into "those who hate abortion" and "those whose girlfriends have Planned Parenthood on speed dial". My world's a little different. :)
I think libertarians are especially prone to fanatical abstractions because their ideals aren't manifested anywhere and never are going to be.
That's a particularly idiotic statement.
If you're just trying to say "our preferred form of government will never be enacted, in full, in perfect form" then, well, duh -- that describes Democrats and Republicans, too. It describes any political ideal.
Subsets of libertarian political ideology can be and have been enacted, however, with astounding success. My personal favorite example is how free market economics lifted Hong Kong from poverty to wealth in one generation.
Rev,
I absolutely love the description of the Hong Kong situation that goes, "The British governors of Hong Kong reserved to themselves all rights to regulate economic dealings... and then did nothing with that power."
jr565,
"Should a lawyer who is found guilty of offering a plea bargain be jailed? Won't that lead to a totalitarian state?
I thought you were for freedom."
What a non sequitur. Surely you are aware that the only "lawyer" who can offer a plea bargain is a prosecutor--i.e. a government employee? I have no problem, not the slightest bit of a problem, with holding these employees of ours to a higher standard than they currently are. Plus, it's not all that hard: (1) All plea bargains must be in writing, and must be signed off by a judge, and (2) no person shall be charge with a crime more serious than that for which a plea bargain was offered him.
And if we catch a few Eliot Spitzers in this mechanism and grind them to bits, well that's just icing on the cake.
A libertarian would handle these sorts of issues (hazardous substances and lack-of-insurance) by imposing liability on the offending party if problems occur. All these issues you've listed can be handled without the government prohibiting anything and threatening to kill people for not complying.
Not really. iF you are into assigning liability then it requires courts, which requires laws, which means that the cops are going to enforce that law, and you're going to have to go to court to determine liability.
as far as prohibiting things, you have to take them on a case by case basis.
Kirk Parker wrote:
What a non sequitur. Surely you are aware that the only "lawyer" who can offer a plea bargain is a prosecutor--i.e. a government employee? I have no problem, not the slightest bit of a problem, with holding these employees of ours to a higher standard than they currently are. Plus, it's not all that hard: (1) All plea bargains must be in writing, and must be signed off by a judge, and (2) no person shall be charge with a crime more serious than that for which a plea bargain was offered him.
Judges accept the role of plea bargains now.
Yes the prosecutor is the one offering it, but a defendant may realize its better than waiting for the jury verdict and so take it. It's a negotiation that is sometimes in his interest as the better of the worst options.
Kirk Parker wrote:
no person shall be charge with a crime more serious than that for which a plea bargain was offered him.
Im not sure then why you would offer a plea bargain. A plea bargain is a deal where you face less jail time if you forgo a trial or give the prosecutors something they need with the idea that if you don't you face a jury trial where the penalty would be worse.
So with that in mind, of course not taking the plea bargain will be worse. The choice would be have a trial or dont have a trial and in either case the results will be exactly the same? Ok, so I can either have a trial or not have a trial. then I'll skip the trial and you'll charge me the same anyway. Huh?
Also, with a plea bargain you have to allocate and profess guilt. With a trial you have to be proven guilty. A trial offers you a chance for a total acquital. So you have a chance to either get whatever you would get being found guilty or you get off.
Plea bargains can't work that way.
Of course plea bargains can't really work that way; that's why the concept is inherently corrupt.
If you have a catering company and do NOT wish to be forced to do business with a gay couple catering for their marriage, because you have religious objections.
As a libertarian, I would say that's just bad business practice.
I'm a pro-choice libertarian, but I think abortion is a pretty awful way to solve inconvenient pregnancy problems.
@SaintCroix:
You probably won't see this but I have seen abortion hypocrites. They are the militant pro-life types who get abortions ... and it happens, I want to emphasize... ALL THE TIME... usually with mothers in toe, but sometimes the mothers themselves.
You can search that out and you'll find it - probably on the pro-choice sites of course. No one's going to admit to it on the pro-life areas, but it's there. It's there.
At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Rand Paul was one year old in 1964.
Post a Comment