Why I am a libertarian, and you should be too

You could say it about just about anyone person, or groups, so, unless you'd care to specify, it's pretty much a meaningless statement

Milton Friedman approved of a 'negative income tax', but I don't think he would approve of the massive stimulus payments.
I was worried, that during the 2008 crisis, Friedman's predictions would come true, but, alas, they didn't. It wasn't perfect, there were some abuses, but much of it was paid back, with interest ( at least the money to the auto industry was, as far as I know).

As for 'less government', that's a trope, and what does it even mean? the only thing I can do is look at legislation proposed by republicans, and what are they proposing on the whole? Most of their notable legislation, if it isn't involving the state and/or fed government interfering between doctors and female patients, it's some kind of concept that gives more and more to rich people, and less and less for poor people. Also, many of the important environmental regulations are being repealed. So, that's what they mean by "less government". I am not seeing it as a good thing. It sounds good, but when the rubber hits the road, the tires screech.

I don't support every idea that the left offers, for me, it's a case by case basis. Care to elaborate?

 

There are many things I disagree with though few I for which I would jail people. Murdering another human being in or out of the womb is one of those, homosexuality is not.

 

Oh horseshit. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing....the created a federal republic with limited powers. The founding fathers would laugh at you. And just so you know, the 10th Amendment is just for people like you.....it says that anything NOT listed in the Constitution was reserved for the States to list or for the people to do as they will. This is not a democracy.....this is a Federal Republic. If one state wants gay marriage go for it, if another wants it banned, so be it. That is what State's rights and the 10th Amendment is all about. If you don't like your State's laws, ****ing move.

 

I did not comment on whether or not the founding fathers knew what they are doing, nor did anything I express conflict with that idea, though I didn't mention it. You've drawn, therefore, an incorrect inference. And, on your second point, anything that is not mentioned in the Constitution, i.e, this:

The 10th Amendment is not about penumbra rights. In fact, it's irrelevant to my point. You have, in short, stuck your proverbial foot in your mouth.

Penumbra rights have been determined exist for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and possibly, the 14th amendment by Supreme Court justices.

One of the more salient rulings involving penumbras was Griswold v. Connecticut

Such rights have been ascertained by Supreme Court justices. In such rulings, I could not find one where the 10th amendment was used to support a ruling on the issue of penumbras. Since the 10th amendment has to do with powers, NOT interpretation of the constitutional penumbras, your point is irrelevant to mine.

Supreme Court justices, most assuredly, can rule on penumbra rights as they are constitutional rights, and if the Supreme Court cannot rule how to interpret rights granted by the Constitution, then they might as well pack up and go home.

Clearly, you are confused.

 

I don't think so bub. Don't quote me anymore because it won't turn out well for your propaganda.

 

I have a libertarian soul, in terms of a personal desire for freedom.

However I don't want a libertarian society. In a libertarian society we are back to every company making their own cell phone charger and that was annoying as ****.

 

Welcome to the forum. Voices of sanity are welcomed by other voices of sanity. Way too much partisan silliness here, not enough logic. I welcome you and your logical thoughts. I like to call myself libertarian-light. Love the concept, hate some of the specifics related to the party's platform.

 

Without R v W women were butchered. You can argue, 'it's her fault', No, we're talking about teenagers fearing parental repercussion who seek illegal abortions by incompetent abortionists, or attempt it themselves, or in back alleys, in Mexico, as was the state of it as I recall life before R v W in the 60s, finding out my 16 year old sister almost died.

You support that state of affairs? I don't. As much as I find abortion repugnant, it's a necessary evil to preserve the lives of the living.

there's blood on your hands, either way, for or against, R v W. That's they way dems see it. That is the way a majority of Americans see it.

 

You missed the point. The post was intended to let you know that your statement was meaningless.

He was suggesting it as a replacement for welfare, not as a new way to spend federal funds.

 

Nope, that's just self indulgent sophistry. I am not responsible for someone else poor decisions no matter their age. Most abortions, then and now, are not performed on teenage girls, mostly the boys were held accountable as well hence the old joke about the formal wedding with the ribbon around the the shotgun barrel.

Abortion in the case of rape and incest, was available in 38 of the fifty states, and in the case of threat to the mother's life in all fifty.
And no all Americans are not in favor of abortion as last ditch birth control. The majority, in fact, the overwhelming majority favor abortion the case of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is at risk, you know the majority standard pre roe. Please note this currently represents in total according to both NARAL, and PP about 8% of abortions Nationwide.

By the way the idea way the idea that the woman is the one doing the choosing is ludicrous. As often as not it is the man in her life, some would say jackass, has a very heavy hand in that decision.

 

Sophistry? Tell that to SCOTUS who gave us R v W, and has been upheld for decades. We live in what I hope is a thing called civilization. If one policy results in teenage deaths when another policy greatly reduces it, we, as a collective entity, are, indeed, responsible for those deaths if we choose the former policy. Your logic is anecdotal, and anecdotal logic is worthy of consideration, but should not be the prime mover of creating policy, because public policy is collective by it's very nature, the opposite of anecdotal consideration, which is private in nature. See, we listen to constituents, their anecdotal stories are important, but, on the whole, we must weigh outcomes of policy, do what is the greater good for the optimum survival of the nation. Democrats believe R v W is for the greater good, as it results in significantly fewer teenage girls dying, and comports with privacy rights ( penumbras) determined by SCOTUS to be constitutional. Let's get one thing clear, we don't "love" abortion, as many on the right love to put words into the mouths of democrat ( apparently, it makes them feel superior), we see it as a necessary evil, and, as one notable person said, " “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” (rare for an individual, spouting aggregate stats won't change the spirit of that statement ).

Your sentiment, which is, essentially "it's on the girls" is a cop out, a right wing cop out., a rationalization to twist a narrative to further a right wing agenda in which a minority wants to impose their religious values on the majority, who, on the whole, support R v W.

 

Sorry it did no such thing. Again sir the majority dies not support abortion on demand but a far more limited approach and has done so for decades. The average abortion today and fifty years ago was performed on a 20 something middle class woman.

 

R v W is supported by the vast majority, period. I'm okay with updating the policy, as long as it's not interfering with the doctor/patient relationship, and does not put arbitrary roadblocks for access to care.

Your 'average abortion' stat is meaningless because illegal abortions were not tracked, nor were those who died from them, but some stats were given of female deaths due to botched abortions, though they cannot possibly reflect the true number. Many older, affluent women got abortions anyway, because they could afford to find doctors who would perform them, or fly out of the country to where they are legal or where it would be easier to find a doctor that would perform them, etc., and, again, such statistics would not be accounted for as they were illegal. There is no way to really tell if there is a demographic shift when it comes to who receives abortions, past and now, because of that fact.

 

I see no reason to assume that said average has changed between today and sixty years and for every teen age girl dead from a botched abortion prior to Roe 200 girls at a minimum died in the womb since.

 

This seems like a peculiar definition of freedom, or at least a peculiar understanding to base a government on. Would you be fine with a federal government that didn't outlaw anything, but made certain things we associate with freedoms prohibitively expensive? Like, you have freedom of speech, but every tweet, blog, article etc. is taxed at a few million dollars? If it was true that "You're free to do it, but you don't have the means to exercise it" was a good justification, then that example is above board, yet it doesn't feel like it to me.

As I understand it, there is some baseline for humans (at least as far as the U.S. authority stretches) which the federal government should supply, and then one can opt into other additions by moving to states in which those additions apply. The question that much of politics revolves around is what that baseline is. If we believe that all men are created equal, at least in terms of human worth, but reality treats people with different worth, then it is not clear that governmental non-interaction is the baseline. Some libertarians argue that we must look to arguments of authority to resolve that, but it is not clear to me that that allows anything, even defence or law enforcement.

 

So you still hold some libertarian positions and sentiments - not really fitting in well with either left or right.

 

If the legislations is happening in the state then I am OK with it. My problem is with the federal government doing such a thing. If a state were to pass ridiculous legislation like you suggest, then the rest of the country wouldn't be involved in it.

Some libertarians are wrong just as some major party proponents are. Libertarians generally want less government and protection of freedoms. Every single libertarian has his or her own agenda as well. I'm not suggesting that we should have no government. I am suggesting that having governmental power more decentralized provides for more freedom.

Our founders wanted federal government to handle defense of the nation, relations with other nations, a national currency and resolution for interstate disputes. The rest of govenrmental activities were assigned to the states. Over the years, the federal government has taken most of the power of states away from the states. I would like to go backward as far as possible to the founders concepts.

 

You keep repeating the same fallacy - despite being corrected numerous times - sounding kind of like Hillary in 2016 - the Parrot on the Broken Record - only able to repeat "Bad Trump - Bad Trump" over and over. No message no plan forward - no objective rational - just "Bad Trump .. Bad Trump" hoping that repetition will somehow make what is false - somehow true.

Albeit at least in Hillary's case it was partially true - not so much in your case.

The zygote is not a "Girl" -until you can show that it is a living human - and you have not - can not - and in fact have not even tried.
Repeating "Its a Girl .. Its a Girl" over and over again is not an argument for much. It is "Assumed Premise" fallacy.

 

Well - that and keeping the poor fed

 

Libertarianism is not on the spectrum of right or left, regarded unto itself, but it can be a component of the left, or the right. There are many leftists who share some libertarian ideals, such as legalizing victimless crimes. There are conservatives who share libertarian ideals, but it's not usually on the subject on victimless crime, it's usually on the subject of regulations and entitlements. That being said, William F Buckley supported the legalization of all drugs, including the hard narcotics. i also support removing the mandate for vaccinations, which i believe should be a doctor patient decision. I believe the president, and one time, shared that position on vaccinations. Many of the conservatives of today embrace a strong libertarian view, following the teachings of Ayn Rand, but ignoring her views on religion.

 

Four the ninety fifth time the zygote stage is done 24 hours after a woman becomes pregnant. You can keep claiming wholly unscientific BS all day long and into the night but that makes it no less wholly unscientific BS.

 

What "unscientific BS" ? I have done no such thing. I am not the one claiming that a zygote is a living human - that would be the religious right anti abortion movement.

It is that group that wants to make law on the basis of "wholly unscientific BS" - coupled with fallacious gibberish and false narrative.

You are correct that the zygote is done in a short period of time - so for at least 24 hours - no living human exists -
but now we have 2 offspring of the zygote - and neither of these will be part of the living human under creation. The workers are at work - the blueprint has been created - but not one cell from structure - the body - of the creature in that blueprint has been created.

Each and every one of the first two hundred or so "Totipotent" zygote spawn - has the capability to create a new human. The workers form a sack - the blastocyst - then at some point - these totipotent cells start spitting out specialized and differentiated cells.

These are the first blocks of the building under construction - referred to as the embryoblast - which grows inside the blastocyst - which goes on to become the placenta - which some folks like to eat - and the whole stem cell industry started around using these totipotent cells.

So then .. can we at least agree that up until the embryoblast - there is no living human - at least from a Scientific Perspective.

If you want to claim a soul exists prior - that is fine - but, from a Scientific Perspective you are hooped.

Hard to claim "A living Human exists" - when not a single cell from the body of that human exists.

We are much further in time than 24 hours at this point -- so when - when does a living human exist ?

 

More self serving bullshit. The average abortion happens at ten weeks source both PP and NARAL. By that time the only real difference between that child and a new born is size and lung capacity

 

Nothing I said was BS - all completely true. You can move the goalposts to 10 weeks if you like - but this is different than what the religious right anti aborts have been legislating and trying to legislate. These silly folks want to claim a zygote is a living human.

So for you - 10 weeks is when a living human exists - and you are good with abortion from a legal perspective prior to that time.

Glad we are in agreement that no living human exists prior to this point

 

I'm not moving any goal posts. Like it or not it's six weeks before most women begin to suspect they're pregnant. Talking about what happens day one is disengenuous blather.