Libertarianism and Abortion

[JohnGalt]

Libertarianism does not imply 'no government at all'


Leftwing libertariansm, yes. Market Anarchists on the extreme right of rightwing libertarianism believe you are statist.

It is a very rich spectrum with lots to talk about. Sadly, I think Mssr.Paine forgot these conversations only work if we imagine ourselves sitting on bar stools, sipping ales, and smoking tobacco.

[thoughtomator]

Why does accepting that government has a legitimate function make one a 'left-wing' libertarian? I don't understand how simple acknowledgment of the fundamental reasons why government exists in the first place makes one either left- or right-wing. According to this scale, "right-wing libertarianism" would be indistinguishable from anarchism, which isn't libertarian at all, as anarchy gives no respect to liberty.

[JohnGalt]

In the context of the 'traditional' statists-anti-statists libertarian spectrum, the far left is any totalitarian government (Nazis and Reds) and the Far Right is the anarcho-capitalists.

While you favor a very limited government which puts you on the 'right' on the traditional spectrum, your general belief in the state puts you on the left side of the more narrowly defined libertarian spectrum. Where as tpaine wants to make sure abortionists right to sell their wares and consumer rights to purchase them are enforced (with state aparatus) you believe that the state aparatus should be used to protect the rights of the in ueteros but yet you also favor a state large enough to use coercively obtained revenues to fight wars.

It's just a slight difference, really; in my world view, you both favor very large states and while I agree with you culturally, that abortion is murder, we have very different theories on gubmint.

[thoughtomator]

How do you infer the necessity of a 'very large' state from what I have put forward? Does a state need to be large to defend its people and to make and enforce laws against murder, and other offenses to liberty?

[JohnGalt]

Only a large state can go $500 billion into debt in one year to fight a war that serves no purpose 10,000 miles away, fought by government employees who hoped they would never see action and just needed the job, and financed through a anti-libertarian fiat currency, guaranteed through the anti-libertarian income tax.


No serious right wing libertarian can support the Iraq adventure. Rather, rightwing libertarians support closed borders, a well-armed citizenry and a decentralized government as they always have done.

"Does a state need to be large to defend its people and to make and enforce laws against murder other offenses to liberty ?"

A large state can't do any of those things very well and your stated support for Lincoln's war fought by Irish conscripts against Southern Civilians and paid for via an illegal income tax and complete suspension of the 5th Amendment is necessary in order to fight aggressive wars.

There is plenty of scholarship on the nature of the welfare-warfare state in rightwing libertarian circles, but leftwing libertarians continue to believe they can have the warfare state w/o the welfare state. That is why in the end, I am more at home with tpaine's left libertarianism that your version of 'libervensionism' which to me comes across as anti-Abortion Randianism.

[tpaine]

At 381 you say I 'forget' what? -- Is it the same common courtesy you forget by not pinging me to your commets?

Then at 383 you get really bizarre with:

--- "Where as tpaine wants to make sure abortionists right to sell their wares and consumer rights to purchase them are enforced (with state aparatus)"; -- a
total, off the wall, unsupported lie.

Now you conclude with a left wing slur:
"I am more at home with tpaine's left libertarianism."
385 -jg-


I can only surmise that you are too cowardly/ignorant to continue arguing conventionally, and have stooped to the baiting game.

Such tactics only serve to make you look more foolish. Play on.

[JohnGalt]

If you still think being a left-libertarian is a slur after 350 posts, I can't help you.

You are the angry drunk at the end of the bar, for sure, and not much interested in conversation.

I assumed we were all reading each others posts so there is no need to ping each other on this thread, less we lose sight of who we are talking to.

In anonymous cyberspace, your unwillingeness to even attempt to find common ground is frankly bizarre; my natural conclusion is that you are new to this type of exchange that goes on for years if you stick around.

If you are an anarchist and yet still believe in these rights of yours, great, I take it all back and misunderstood. You are a rightwing libertarian afterall.

[tpaine]

If you still think being a left-libertarian is a slur after 350 posts, I can't help you.

You can 'help' by not baselessly characterizing me in asides to others. .

You are the angry drunk at the end of the bar, for sure, and not much interested in conversation.

And you're the sneaky little bozo at the other end, muttering idiotic comments like that into your beer..

I assumed we were all reading each others posts so there is no need to ping each other on this thread, less we lose sight of who we are talking to.

Bull, -- your lie at 383 is obvious baiting.

In anonymous cyberspace, your unwillingeness to even attempt to find common ground is frankly bizarre; my natural conclusion is that you are new to this type of exchange that goes on for years if you stick around.

I've been here longer than you, - trying to find common ground about our liberties with rational people. Quite a few at FR fill that bill..
People who argue that from the moment of conception, a pregant woman loses her liberty, -- are not being rational, imo.

If you are an anarchist and yet still believe in these rights of yours, great, I take it all back and misunderstood. You are a rightwing libertarian afterall.

Another weird comment. Give me a clue as to your point in making it, and why I should care.

[JohnGalt]

Here are a couple spectrums based on the statist vs antistatist princip:

Market anarchists on the far-right vs liberventionists/'statist' libertarians (Randians, for instance) on the far left.

Radical localists in the middle-right vs classical liberals in the middle left

Of course, you can offer your own spectrum and debate and defend it so that I can understand your world view a little bit better.

And it's hardly baiting to call someone a left libertarian-- left is not a bad word; I feel more at home with your consistencey than a someone claiming to be a 'pro-life, pro-war libertarian'-- I just find too many contradictions in his point of view to think him trustworthy. I mean that.


"People who argue that from the moment of conception, a pregant woman loses her liberty, -- are not being rational, imo. "

That is fine, I don't even disagree with you; I argued earlier that there was no 'right to life'.

I don't care what non-Christians do to their babies. I have had trouble with people who refuse to call the destruction of a unique combination of DNA anything short of murder, however. It's hard for me to think they are being rational.

In addition, any women who contracts to murder her own baby is a threat to my liberties in a democracy. 20,000,000 baby killers, as we have seen, tend to love big socialist government.



As I stated in my first couple posts, that these conversations tend to get nasty unless one pictures themself on a bar stool having a drink and smoke tobacco, talking passionately.

Your refusal to seek out political compromise and yet your continued posts to me, seems rather odd, but whatever.

[tpaine]

You write of contradictions, yet you can't see the irrationality in these contradictory commemts:


"I argued earlier that there was no 'right to life'."

"-- any women who contracts to murder her own baby is a threat to my liberties in a democracy."

"I don't care what non-Christians do to their babies."


But whatever..
My 'continued' posts to you were to counter your rather odd unsolicited comments I saw this morning. -- Obviously, this too is beyond your understanding.

-- So take the last word, and end this futile exchange.

[JohnGalt]

Those are not contradcitions at all but I find it interesting that you read them as contradictions--perhaps you could lay out your reasoning?

Perhaps your love of democracy is more Jacobin then you realize. I stated my case very clearly that my belief is that women who contract to murder their own babies tend to vote for socialists governments and thus pose a threat to my liberties-- and yours for that matter whether you agree with my conclusion or not.

I still don't believe there is a right to life; I believe, just as I believe you do, that a women maintains her property rights over the fetus, however, abortion is still murder.

I find that you bring many assumptions to the table that you are having a hard time setting aside for an ideological discusion.