Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are only stating one version of the libertarian view of abortion. The other libertarian view of abortion is that the fetus is a human being and therefore abortion violates the libertarian principle of nonviolence by terminating that person's life. That may not be your conception of abortion, or even the official stance of the American Libertarian Party, but your view is not "the" libertarian view of abortion. It's just your interpretation.
For the other libertarian perspective on the issue see:
From a strictly "laws of men applied to other men" perspective, the only entity in the mother-unborn that all people recognize and 100% agree is an individual imbued with natural rights is the mother. Opinions and philosophies vary on the status of the unborn where natural individual rights are concerned.
I was speaking from that consensus perspective of who in the equation is recognized as an individual.
My personal perspective is that the timeline called human life begins at conception, thus I am personally opposed to abortion exactly under the non-aggression axiom as you suggest. My wife agrees with me, and we bolster our philosophical/biological belief with our faith as Catholics.
That said, I recognize that not everyone agrees on the status of the unborn as individuals, so defaulting to the one entity we do agree on, liberty defaults to mom's choice and the provider of the service under voluntary exchange.
The status of the unborn as it relates to "personhood" is one of those few discussions where either side can make good, compelling arguments for their side, yet still never agree.
My point was to illustrate that for all the bluster from both Right and LEft about how in love with liberty they are, it's mostly a lie once you include all the variables. Liberals think being pro-choice makes them the second coming of John Locke, but conveniently ignore their whole "put a gun to everyone's head to make sure abortion is compulsory, funded, and widely practiced" thing. They like to leave that part out, and us folks who have that nitpicky "any tyranny is tyranny" view of liberty say no no, can't be libertarian if you ever advocate using the State to force behaviors.
I used to think I was a liberal because I didn't want people to tell me how to live. I realized I am Libertarian because I want government basically out of my life.
I used to think I was a liberal because I didn't want people to tell me how to live. I realized I am Libertarian because I want government basically out of my life.
Everyone wants government out of their own lives. What makes a libertarian is wanting Leviathan out of everyone else's lives too. That's the part where you always find people saying "see, that right there is why I could never be a libertarian" because there's at least one area of their neighbors' lives that people are just hell bound and determined to control.
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use.[6] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[7] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism,[8][9] and by some as a synonym for anarchism.[1][2][10]
As you pointed out, the political spectrum is actually very complicated. The left and right dichotomy really makes no sense at all. Many turn the political spectrum from a single axis, to a double axis(IE the political compass). Which has the traditional left and right(which in that sense, relates to equality/property rights), along with the means to achieve it. Which is either through freedom(libertarian), or through government force(authoritarian).
In that sense, Hitler would be on the authoritarian right. Communists on the authoritarian left. Your mentioned libertarian socialism would be on the libertarian left. Anarcho-capitalists would be on the libertarian right.
Pretty much all governments around the world are on the authoritarian right.
And some people talk about the political spectrum as effectively being a "circle". Because while the relative distance between communism and anarchism seems really far on the political compass. Historically, they were practically the exact same movement. And the eventual goal of the authoritarian communist state, is anarchy(a stateless society).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
Seriously, Gunlover, you really do need to take a couple of college courses on political science. You will them realize that the Democratic party is more a center right party then a leftist party. The Republicans have pushed the country so far right, that the Democrats only seem leftist by Tea Party rightists standards.
Addressing your list:
1. ACA was based on the Republican Romneycare.
2. The right has these 2nd amendment delusions that someone is coming into their bedrooms to take their guns. They really do need to seek some good psychotherapy on this issue.
3. Amnesty started with Reagan and open borders has been a Republican staple for years until very recently.
First, the Republicans didn't push the country to the right. The country has been on the right since forever. And had been further to the right in most of our history than it is today. Secondly, the democrats are on the political right. They have always been on the political right in this country. Though they are closer to the center than are the Republicans.
That doesn't mean all democrats land in exactly the same place. For that matter, candidate Obama would be significantly further to the political left than president Obama. And some Democrats, such as Elizabeth Warren would be on the authoritarian left.
As for your list, most mainstream democrats most assuredly want to confiscate most of the guns in this country. They just know the American people don't want it. Basically, they would if they could. And it is pretty plain to see by some of the language they use.
And it doesn't even bother me that much that they feel that way. I once felt largely the same way about guns. I thought the very concept of someone with a pistol or semi-automatic rifle taking on the US military seemed ridiculous. I also felt like the country would be significantly safer without guns. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do was get rid of them.
Of course, I don't feel the same way. Because back then, I didn't really understand the cause of crime. And I didn't understand the power of even a small number of men with small arms. The wars in the Middle-East have changed my mind.
On top of that, the gun debate is really about the city vs the country. The cities don't really benefit from them, but the countryside does. You cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy.
Everyone wants government out of their own lives. What makes a libertarian is wanting Leviathan out of everyone else's lives too. That's the part where you always find people saying "see, that right there is why I could never be a libertarian" because there's at least one area of their neighbors' lives that people are just hell bound and determined to control.
I don't want to control any part of anyone's life. I want government completely out of my life, including taxes.
Because libertarians often want gay marriage and drugs to be legalized, to use two examples, liberals with a limited capacity for critical thinking see that as being similar to them.
They don't comprehend that the specific points where liberalism and libertarianism agree are not philosophical similarities,
I don't know of one Libertarian that wants gay marriage. The Libertarian stance is to get government completely out of the marriage business. Not make government bigger, with rules and laws greater.
Same with Drugs. Education is way better than any mandate where freedom is concerned.
Everyone wants government out of their own lives. What makes a libertarian is wanting Leviathan out of everyone else's lives too. That's the part where you always find people saying "see, that right there is why I could never be a libertarian" because there's at least one area of their neighbors' lives that people are just hell bound and determined to control.
The problem here, is that if people must share the same space, they must create rules for interactions between them in that shared space. If the rules aren't limited through some commonly accepted principle, then the rules can eventually become unlimited. Basically a "tyranny of the majority".
In my view, the only way to prevent tyranny of the majority, is to eliminate as much shared space as possible(ideally all of it). The more shared space you have, the more rules you must have.
Basically, "The greater the government's responsibility, the greater its authority."
If there are government-run public schools, then the government has to create rules not only for their creation, operation, and curriculum. But also in regards to how the children themselves interact with each other. And if your children are forced to be around some other person's children, then you will be forced to have an opinion about the other children.
If there are government roads, then the government must create rules for them. If there are government hospitals, then the government must control them. And so on and so forth.
Which really comes down to the problem of "freedom of religion". If you are only allowed to have freedom of religion in places the government does not control. Then if the government controlled everything, then there can't be religion anywhere.
In my view, the only way to have real freedom is two things. Abolish all shared space(or at least as much as possible), and abolish the property tax(or at least create a much larger deduction, enabling most people a total exemption).
If you do not do these things, then there cannot be freedom.
As you pointed out, the political spectrum is actually very complicated. The left and right dichotomy really makes no sense at all. Many turn the political spectrum from a single axis, to a double axis(IE the political compass). Which has the traditional left and right(which in that sense, relates to equality/property rights), along with the means to achieve it. Which is either through freedom(libertarian), or through government force(authoritarian).
In that sense, Hitler would be on the authoritarian right. Communists on the authoritarian left. Your mentioned libertarian socialism would be on the libertarian left. Anarcho-capitalists would be on the libertarian right.
Pretty much all governments around the world are on the authoritarian right.
And some people talk about the political spectrum as effectively being a "circle". Because while the relative distance between communism and anarchism seems really far on the political compass. Historically, they were practically the exact same movement. And the eventual goal of the authoritarian communist state, is anarchy(a stateless society.
I'm a libertarian who is leftist. That's the main point: libertarian first. This means force/coercion is unacceptable at all times. No exceptions. None. Not one. Let me say it again: none.
Now, within this libertarian state I would choose to live according to the tenets of a socialist/anarchist depending on the situation. It's no matter the dogma/label but the struggle.
This sums me up...
Quote:
Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Many people in US think a libertarian is "fiscal conservative and social liberal" but there are contradictions there too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
