Re: Digest Number 1176, reply to ...

[Guest guest]

>________________________________________________________________________

>

>Message: 14

> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:44:38 -0700

>

>Subject: Libertarianism (was Re: Digest Number 1175)

>

>wholphin48 wrote:

>

> > If the federalists were really libertarians, why did they call

> > themselves " federalists "

>

>The term " libertarian " didn't exist yet, but the philosophy is the

>same. Come on, that's an easy one.

Matter of opinion. I guess one could interpret some old

testament passages to be Christian since they predict events of Christ's

life but most of us would consider that incorrect.

>

> > How much real libertarian writing have you even read?

>

>Quite a bit. I know that it is all based on the philosophy that a

>person owns himself, and no one else does. That's at the heart of

>everything the libertarians stand for. It is the philosophy of free

>individuals, not of serfs whose only value is as part of a collective.

>Once you accept that, you can't help but agree with the libertarians on

>almost all issues. Everything they stand for is rooted to that simple

>concept. If you want the people (not the government) to choose what

>they can do with their bodies, their labor (including the fruits

>thereof), and their property, then you favor liberty; you favor

>libertarianism. If you think the government should decide what people

>may do with their bodies, their labor, and their property, you do not

>favor liberty; you favor authoritarianism.

>

> > Do names like

> > Ayn Rand and Henry , two people actually associated with

> > Libertarianism, ring a bell?

>

>Of course. I went to a presentation by the Ayn Rand institute when I

>was a student at Cal Poly (hosted by the College Republicans, of which I

>was a member at the time), as a matter of fact. At the time, I had no

>idea that my particular opinions were parallel to the idea of

>libertarianism (or objectivism)... but the things the speaker said made

>a lot of sense,

Fine but have you ever actually read any of the great libertarian

author's books?

and I particularly recall his statement about the draft

>(that in a just war, it is unnecessary, since there will be enough

>volunteers, and if there are NOT enough volunteers, it should not be

>pursued anyway; the government does not have the right to enslave people

>and force them to serve, possibly die, if they do not wish to serve.)

Well, count on a draft soon. There is at least one bill in the

house to bring it back.

>

>Later that year, when I was a delegate to the California College

>Republican Convention (1991), and I was one of three members of my club

>(about 30 members total, including proxies) to vote to strike the

>anti-abortion plank from the CR platform (while the more right-wing

>members chanted at us),

Well, I have to part with your wing of libertarians on that

one.....unborn fetuses have rights too. As women's right to choice, they

have always had the right to say " yes " or no. "

I was told that I was a " part of the libertarian

>wing of the Republican party. " Since then, I have learned that I am

>much more libertarian than conservative.

Well said but since i know you as more than a fellow listmate,

I hope that someday your practice of libertarianism will equal your

professed belief. Pulling your own weight is a key action that most

Libertarians take great pride in. I sincerely believe that if you really

don't think you can support yourself in our present economy, you would be

much worse off in the one you embrace.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> Fine but have you ever actually read any of the great libertarian

> author's books?

No, I haven't read any of the books. I have the book " Libertarianism "

by Boaz, Executive VP of the Cato Institute, and I read a lot of

columns and articles online.

> Well, count on a draft soon. There is at least one bill in the

> house to bring it back.

There may be a bill in the House, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

Certainly, it would not go anywhere if libertarians had their way. The

draft is a form of slavery, really, and is an abomination.

> Well, I have to part with your wing of libertarians on that

> one.....unborn fetuses have rights too.

I think that they have the same rights as any other appendage, organ, or

tumor within a woman's body-- that is, none. If the woman chooses to

cease being a host for any organism, it is perfectly within her rights

to evict that organism, regardless of the consequences. She owns the

body; she can decide who lives in it. Until the embryo or fetus is able

to live on its own, it is not a distinct organism-- it is a part of the

mother's body, and she can do with it as she pleases.

> As women's right to choice,

> they have always had the right to say " yes " or no. "

And they should have the right to abort any fetus right up until the

time that it could survive on its own, at which point abortion would be

unnecessary.

> Well said but since i know you as more than a fellow listmate, I hope

> that someday your practice of libertarianism will equal your

> professed belief.

Everyone here knows that I am not supporting myself. I have not hidden

that.

Some libertarians do not follow any laws that are invalid-- that is, any

that are unconstitutional (as are most federal laws) or that criminalize

behaviors that do not create a victim. I do not do that. I follow the

laws, even the ones that are invalid or just plain stupid. Some

libertarians might claim that I am, thus, not living up to the

libertarian ethos in that way either. To each his own, I guess. I do

what I can to further the libertarian view-- I support it rhetorically,

and with my vote. If there comes a time when my refusal to obey invalid

laws or take federal entitlements can reasonably be expected to make a

difference vis-a-vis the advancement of liberty, I will be compelled to

consider such things again.

> Pulling your own weight is a key action that most

> Libertarians take great pride in. I sincerely believe that if you

> really don't think you can support yourself in our present economy,

> you would be much worse off in the one you embrace.

Maybe, maybe not. I know your beliefs are sincere; that is not

something I have ever doubted. However, my view of what is right and

wrong for the government to do has nothing to do with my own well

being. I cannot simply modify my views of what is right and wrong to

suit myself. I am not going to convince myself that stealing a

percentage of a person's income is just and righteous, just because I

currently depend on such confiscation for my own existence.

Stealing is stealing; stealing is wrong, no matter how noble a fashion

the ill-gotten money will be spent. However, refusing to take a slice

of the tax money my father paid over the years (I am not on SSI; my

sustenance comes from his Social Security Disability insurance) would

not do a thing to solve the problem of excessive taxation. It would not

lower anyone's tax burden. While some libertarians can't separate the

two, I have no issue with that at all.

No libertarian I have encountered says that the disabled should just be

left to die. They all say that the social spending for such people

would be voluntary and done by private charity. Right now, that level

of non-government social spending does not exist, so it is pointless to

ask such people to eschew government monies in favor of private ones.

The point is to get the government (particularly the federal one) out of

people's daily lives. The " pulling your own weight " concept is an

extension of that. It is a shame that people that are not able to

support themselves are ignored by the libertarian movement, if not

shunned by it. If they understood that the point is to get rid of the

government interference in daily life, not to let the disabled wither

and die, then maybe they would be more willing to adopt a philosophy of

personal liberty too.

[Guest guest]

>

> > Fine but have you ever actually read any of the great

libertarian

> > author's books?

>

> No, I haven't read any of the books. I have the

book " Libertarianism "

> by Boaz, Executive VP of the Cato Institute, and I read a

lot of

> columns and articles online.

I only read " Progress and Poverty " by Henry and some

articles.

>

> > Well, count on a draft soon. There is at least one bill in the

> > house to bring it back.

>

> There may be a bill in the House, but I doubt it will go

anywhere.

I wonder. If it does, I am sure that neither Bush nor Kerry

will offend any of their kind; it will exempt college kids and

probably women too.

> > As women's right to choice,

> > they have always had the right to say " yes " or no. "

>

> And they should have the right to abort any fetus right up until

the

> time that it could survive on its own, at which point abortion

would be

> unnecessary.

Ever seen an actual result of a third-trimester abortion?

>

> No libertarian I have encountered says that the disabled should

just be

> left to die. They all say that the social spending for such

people

> would be voluntary and done by private charity.

Knowing full well they have no intention of doing it.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

wholphin48 wrote:

> Ever seen an actual result of a third-trimester abortion?

I have seen the anti-abortion propaganda; I am not sure which trimester

they were from. It is irrelevant, though, how it looks. It is up to

the owner of the body if she wants something growing in it.

> > No libertarian I have encountered says that the disabled should

> just be

> > left to die. They all say that the social spending for such

> people

> > would be voluntary and done by private charity.

>

> Knowing full well they have no intention of doing it.

That will be their choice. It's their money.

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> Well, count on a draft soon. There is at least one bill

> in the house to bring it back.

I think there are two, and the one by Rangel calls

for women and college students to be eligible - not that

the bill wouldn't get changed before passing.

> Well, I have to part with your wing of libertarians on

> that one.....unborn fetuses have rights too. As women's

> right to choice, they have always had the right to say

> " yes " or no. "

I think people have the right to be wrong once in awhile,

without it ruining their entire lives. People make mistakes

all the time, like mistaking adolescent passion for love,

trusting the wrong guy, miscounting the number of days, etc.

I'm just old enough to remember the days when the " best "

solution for a girl " in trouble " was to jump off a bridge,

or go to a abortion quack. I wouldn't want to return to

those days. Any woman should have the right to decide what

happens to her body, the decision belongs to her alone. A

child Born in this country has the rights of a citizen, but

not until then.

Clay