Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[dusty88]

Why is it Libertarians don't support prohibition of abortion based upon the non-aggression principle? Do they see the unborn as not a real person?

I think that abortion is an area where intelligent people can disagree. That question seems to come down to the definition or perception of the beginning of life, and therefore whether the fetus should have its life protected.

There are others who believe abortion is an act of violence, but still don't think government regulation of abortion is helpful to the outcome.

 

[D-Ric902]

Jeez,
is everything related to drug laws?

every issue, topic, idea, thought, conversation looked at through a drug haze lens

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, every time you claim to support liberty and oppose prohibition it will likely be brought up that you don't.

If you don't like that then you should be more consistent.

 

[rambone]

If a guy spent 50 pages supporting gun control, then I'd bring up guns when he said he doesn't like government telling him what is "allowed" and "prohibited."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is not true. Anarchy is not maximum liberty. Anarchy simply exchanges government tyranny for non-government tyranny. Mob rule, etc. A government can serve to maximize individual liberty if it is limited to two purposes: Protecting individual liberty from itself and from other individuals. This is the basis of the non-aggression principle. I suppose our definitions are simply muddled. The reality is that almost everyone thinks they value liberty. But when push comes to shove, most will always trade that liberty for security. Take the folks on INGO, for example. They think they value gun 'liberty' and the 2A. But most of them seem to still support 'common sense' gun control. The only difference is what they consider to be 'common sense'. Which guns are reasonable to own? Which free citizens are reasonable to own them? All up for debate. If security trumps liberty, then call yourself pro-security. Not pro-liberty. That doesn't mean you don't like liberty, when it's comfortable for you. Or that you never vote for liberty. But it's not the ultimate goal in your policy decisions. Security is the ultimate goal, and liberty comes second. You probably blew D-Ric's mind. Libertarians, on the other hand, shouldn't be surprised.

Picking nits here: "Take the folks on INGO, for example. They think they value gun 'liberty' and the 2A. But most of them seem to still support 'common sense' gun control." Just who are you talking about? I can recall very few folks (who frequent THIS forum anyway) who are "okay" with any firearms restrictions - okay, with the exception of firearms for violent felons, maybe - so I'm not certain just who you're painting with that oh-so-very-broad brush. And I don't recall _anyone_ who equates any sort of "gun control" with "security." Perhaps it's one of those "dog whistle" things . . . ?

 

[steveh_131]

Picking nits here: "Take the folks on INGO, for example. They think they value gun 'liberty' and the 2A. But most of them seem to still support 'common sense' gun control." Just who are you talking about? I can recall very few folks (who frequent THIS forum anyway) who are "okay" with any firearms restrictions - okay, with the exception of firearms for violent felons, maybe - so I'm not certain just who you're painting with that oh-so-very-broad brush. And I don't recall _anyone_ who equates any sort of "gun control" with "security." Perhaps it's one of those "dog whistle" things . . . ?

People with 'mental health' issues, for example.

I've argued with quite a few folks here who agree with the banning of certain weapons that are just 'too dangerous' for civilians to own.

Perhaps 'most' is overstating.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think that abortion is an area where intelligent people can disagree. That question seems to come down to the definition or perception of the beginning of life, and therefore whether the fetus should have its life protected. There are others who believe abortion is an act of violence, but still don't think government regulation of abortion is helpful to the outcome.

Considering the amount of scientific evidence which is available concerning the impregnation, gestation, and birth process, I think those who wish to deny that there is a living child in mommy at a very early point have more in common with the religion of Global Warming than they have with the religion of libertarianism. Unless, of course, the taking of an innocent life, even by "mommy" can somehow be twisted into that whole "nonaggression" meme. Hypocrisy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

People with 'mental health' issues, for example. I've argued with quite a few folks here who agree with the banning of certain weapons that are just 'too dangerous' for civilians to own. Perhaps 'most' is overstating.

I'll concede that I remember a couple such conversations on this forum, but I agree "most" is overstating; VASTLY overstating. I suspect the people with those beliefs don't hang out on _this_ particular forum because they get beaten up unmercifully by those of us who think they're wrong-headed.

 

[D-Ric902]

Yes, every time you claim to support liberty and oppose prohibition it will likely be brought up that you don't.

If you don't like that then you should be more consistent.

yep,
absolutes

every issue, every topic, every every

 

[jamil]

Jeez,
is everything related to drug laws?

every issue, topic, idea, thought, conversation looked at through a drug haze lens

Well, doesn't it make sense though? Let me explain.

Warning: what follows is rated for mature audiences. If lots of asterisks are offensive you you. Stop reading now.


Here goes. If you hate abortion, but you're willing to allow it, as long as you don't have to pay for it, why wouldn't you also allow drugs, as long as you don't have to pay for them? I mean drugs/abortion, same concept as long as you don't have to pay for them. (see, I'm using that socratic **** on you. It's working, right?)

Anyway, either way there's no victim. Well, unless a meth head blows up your house. But then you can just sue the meth head for blowing up your house. Well, except that he's ****ing dead now. But his estate can pa...wait....no, that **** went up in smoke too. Ok, so you're out a house, but your insurance will pay....huh? Not covered for that? ****! Should have gotten mahem insurance. That mayhem dude is a bad muther****er.

Anyway, forget all that ADD rambling, you get the point, yer just being completely ridiculous if you want to allow one thing to be unregulated and you won't allow everything else to be unregulated to. It's all interrelated. Because, you see, it's all about the force. And who initiates it.

So if I, being Darth jamil and all, as sith lord of sarcasm, I do the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you, then I'm the bad guy, which I don't understand why us sith always have to be the ****ing bad guy. Pisses me off. But lets say you're some kind of master jedi goodie two shoes *******, and while I'm float choking you, you see some metal balls, and you do that floating balls thingy, and use the force to cause the balls to like thwap me upside my head, causing me to momentarily loose my dark side floating choke hold thingy, (I don't have a helmet like that dickhead Vader. I always thought Sidious shaped it like that on purpose, if you know what I mean.)

So even though we both used the force, I initiated the force, albeit dark. Not that I think it matters if it's dark side or not. I'm not trying to play the force card here. But I suspect that dark side always is in the wrong because of that politically correct ******* Mace Windu (at least he got what he deserved). But because you're one of those goodie two shoes jedi *******s, you'll claim it's my fault because I started using the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you first. Even though those ****ing balls hurt WAY more. I got marks now.

Point is, there's really no victim? Well, maybe the balls are the victim. But they can't feel or see that they've thwapped me upside the head. Maybe I should have borrowed that dickhead's helmet. Sometimes a helmet is just a helmet.

So I dunno. I'm confused now. But I know how to clear it all up. I can use the dark side of the force to channel the great departed hornadylnl:
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Wait, it takes a second here.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I think I got him.......

"A government big enough to ban abortion is a government big enough to ban marajuana everywhere but Colorado and Washington state, and possibly Washington DC might decide to legalize it."

So, now do you see why every issue, topic, idea, thought, conversation is looked at through a drug haze lens?









disclaimer: the preceding was just for fun. It neither endorses nor opposes any ideological whim or makes any point whatsoever. No sith were injured during the writing of this post.

 

[steveh_131]

I'll concede that I remember a couple such conversations on this forum, but I agree "most" is overstating; VASTLY overstating. I suspect the people with those beliefs don't hang out on _this_ particular forum because they get beaten up unmercifully by those of us who think they're wrong-headed.

That may be true.

The general principle remains.

 

[LPMan59]

Well, doesn't it make sense though? Let me explain.

Warning: what follows is rated for mature audiences. If lots of asterisks are offensive you you. Stop reading now.


Here goes. If you hate abortion, but you're willing to allow it, as long as you don't have to pay for it, why wouldn't you also allow drugs, as long as you don't have to pay for them? I mean drugs/abortion, same concept as long as you don't have to pay for them. (see, I'm using that socratic **** on you. It's working, right?)

Anyway, either way there's no victim. Well, unless a meth head blows up your house. But then you can just sue the meth head for blowing up your house. Well, except that he's ****ing dead now. But his estate can pa...wait....no, that **** went up in smoke too. Ok, so you're out a house, but your insurance will pay....huh? Not covered for that? ****! Should have gotten mahem insurance. That mayhem dude is a bad muther****er.

Anyway, forget all that ADD rambling, you get the point, yer just being completely ridiculous if you want to allow one thing to be unregulated and you won't allow everything else to be unregulated to. It's all interrelated. Because, you see, it's all about the force. And who initiates it.

So if I, being Darth jamil and all, as sith lord of sarcasm, I do the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you, then I'm the bad guy, which I don't understand why us sith always have to be the ****ing bad guy. Pisses me off. But lets say you're some kind of master jedi goodie two shoes *******, and while I'm float choking you, you see some metal balls, and you do that floating balls thingy, and use the force to cause the balls to like thwap me upside my head, causing me to momentarily loose my dark side floating choke hold thingy, (I don't have a helmet like that dickhead Vader. I always thought Sidious shaped it like that on purpose, if you know what I mean.)

So even though we both used the force, I initiated the force, albeit dark. Not that I think it matters if it's dark side or not. I'm not trying to play the force card here. But I suspect that dark side always is in the wrong because of that politically correct ******* Mace Windu (at least he got what he deserved). But because you're one of those goodie two shoes jedi *******s, you'll claim it's my fault because I started using the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you first. Even though those ****ing balls hurt WAY more. I got marks now.

Point is, there's really no victim? Well, maybe the balls are the victim. But they can't feel or see that they've thwapped me upside the head. Maybe I should have borrowed that dickhead's helmet. Sometimes a helmet is just a helmet.

So I dunno. I'm confused now. But I know how to clear it all up. I can use the dark side of the force to channel the great departed hornadylnl:
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Wait, it takes a second here.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I think I got him.......

"A government big enough to ban abortion is a government big enough to ban marajuana everywhere but Colorado and Washington state, and possibly Washington DC might decide to legalize it."

So, now do you see why every issue, topic, idea, thought, conversation is looked at through a drug haze lens?









disclaimer: the preceding was just for fun. It neither endorses nor opposes any ideological whim or makes any point whatsoever. No sith were injured during the writing of this post.

TL; dr.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm sorry guys, you're not going to win this one.

If you adamantly defend drug prohibition and then start calling prohibition 'repulsive', you're gonna get called out.

If you don't like it, start coming up with some logically consistent arguments.

 

[D-Ric902]

"Only a Sith would speak in absolutes"

there "is" a fringe because there "is" a middle. The fringe is defined by how far from the middle they are.

Absolute liberty and freedom on every every everything or your are Stalin/Hitler/Mao
thats fringe, and fringe doesn't win anything but the offensive/obnoxious/aggravating contest.

if you are pro life then you stand in front of a clinic reaching with a gory sign. Or your free abortion for everyone all the time everytime -fringe-

Freedom of any and all drugs anytime anywhere. Or you are a Prohibitionist and hate Liberty -fringe-

always remember, most people are average by definition



Who called prohibition repulsive?

I don't see anybody use the words "Prohibitionist" "statist" but you

I can't be pro life and anti drug at the same time? I think your perspective is slanted toward the fringe side

 

[jamil]

I'm sorry guys, you're not going to win this one.

If you adamantly defend drug prohibition and then start calling prohibition 'repulsive', you're gonna get called out.

If you don't like it, start coming up with some logically consistent arguments.

Who all is in the set of "guys" here?

 

[steveh_131]

Who all is in the set of "guys" here?

D-Ric's waffling and your never-ending defense of wafflers

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

jamil does his findingZzero impersonation act...

Well, doesn't it make sense though? Let me explain.

Warning: what follows is rated for mature audiences. If lots of asterisks are offensive you you. Stop reading now.


Here goes. If you hate abortion, but you're willing to allow it, as long as you don't have to pay for it, why wouldn't you also allow drugs, as long as you don't have to pay for them? I mean drugs/abortion, same concept as long as you don't have to pay for them. (see, I'm using that socratic **** on you. It's working, right?)

Anyway, either way there's no victim. Well, unless a meth head blows up your house. But then you can just sue the meth head for blowing up your house. Well, except that he's ****ing dead now. But his estate can pa...wait....no, that **** went up in smoke too. Ok, so you're out a house, but your insurance will pay....huh? Not covered for that? ****! Should have gotten mahem insurance. That mayhem dude is a bad muther****er.

Anyway, forget all that ADD rambling, you get the point, yer just being completely ridiculous if you want to allow one thing to be unregulated and you won't allow everything else to be unregulated to. It's all interrelated. Because, you see, it's all about the force. And who initiates it.

So if I, being Darth jamil and all, as sith lord of sarcasm, I do the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you, then I'm the bad guy, which I don't understand why us sith always have to be the ****ing bad guy. Pisses me off. But lets say you're some kind of master jedi goodie two shoes *******, and while I'm float choking you, you see some metal balls, and you do that floating balls thingy, and use the force to cause the balls to like thwap me upside my head, causing me to momentarily loose my dark side floating choke hold thingy, (I don't have a helmet like that dickhead Vader. I always thought Sidious shaped it like that on purpose, if you know what I mean.)

So even though we both used the force, I initiated the force, albeit dark. Not that I think it matters if it's dark side or not. I'm not trying to play the force card here. But I suspect that dark side always is in the wrong because of that politically correct ******* Mace Windu (at least he got what he deserved). But because you're one of those goodie two shoes jedi *******s, you'll claim it's my fault because I started using the dark side floating choke hold thingy on you first. Even though those ****ing balls hurt WAY more. I got marks now.

Point is, there's really no victim? Well, maybe the balls are the victim. But they can't feel or see that they've thwapped me upside the head. Maybe I should have borrowed that dickhead's helmet. Sometimes a helmet is just a helmet.

So I dunno. I'm confused now. But I know how to clear it all up. I can use the dark side of the force to channel the great departed hornadylnl:
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Wait, it takes a second here.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I think I got him.......

"A government big enough to ban abortion is a government big enough to ban marajuana everywhere but Colorado and Washington state, and possibly Washington DC might decide to legalize it."

So, now do you see why every issue, topic, idea, thought, conversation is looked at through a drug haze lens?









disclaimer: the preceding was just for fun. It neither endorses nor opposes any ideological whim or makes any point whatsoever. No sith were injured during the writing of this post.

 

[D-Ric902]

D-Ric's waffling and your never-ending defense of wafflers

Live been called a lot of things

"waffler" has never been one

if I waffle back and forth between pro life and anti drug and conservative views and anti moonbat and pro military and anti stupid then...........I'm ok with that

(but Jamil is still too nice)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how an abortion isn't a violation of "nonaggression."

 

[BugI02]

I've waded thru this whole thread (whew!). What follows is strictly my opinion, which is mine. I do see a tendency to favor absolute idealogical purity on the part of (self declared?) Libertarians/libertarians. This makes me think/fear that LibertarianLand would pretty quickly have a Fuhrer and a Geheime Statpolizei equivalent. But the trains might run on time.