Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
The libertarian platform on abortion says do what you want, when you want, at whatever stage that you want.
Zero restrictions, zero obstacles, zero anything, just do what you please, it’s all your call.
This is insanity.
_________________________
No, fool. Both are areas where states asserted juristriction
I am far more comfortable with Sowell the classical liberal than I am with Sowell the libertarian.
What? Why do you say things that you know aren’t true?
We are not allowing anyone to call anything marriage.
The military does not recognize any and all relationships as marriage.
Why do you post things like that, do you have a condition?
The death penalty would require a trial, where the defendent (the unborn child), could not be deprived of life without due process.
It would also require an arrest, and a successful prosecution of a capitol crime. None of which apply to the unborn child.
So I agree, with you - the death penalty would argue that we ought not kill the unborn child without due process.
As our law now stands (butchered by the left), it is a federal matter. It wasn’t in the beginning. Find me where the Constitution grants the earthly, legal definition of personhood to the federal government. The real definition is of course beyond our political structures. I think you know that.
The Constitution, as written, leaves everything not enumerated as a federal power to the states. Do you contest this?
The 14th explicitly rules out state regulation wrt personhood. A state cannot pass a law that would permit one person (the girl) to take the life of another (the unborn child). Thus, parental consent is irrelevant. Consent could not be given for that which requires taking the life from another person.
The 14th amendment to the constitution contests this.
The death penalty would require a trial, where the defendent (the unborn child), could not be deprived of life without due process.
It would also require an arrest, and a successful prosecution of a capitol crime. None of which apply to the unborn child.
So I agree, with you - the death penalty would argue that we ought not kill the unborn child without due process
_______________________________
You are word twisting. I am referring to the fact that states have determined they have jurisdiction in cases of death penalty and they certainly have had jurisdiction in cases of abortion. Not a federal matter.
“I am referring to the fact that states have determined they have jurisdiction in cases of death penalty”
The fifth amendment to the US constitution prohibits this.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
Why, is that another area where you need the federal government there to hold your hand and make sure you don’t get an ouchy?
Well, the labels can be what they are, but I don’t see Sowell changing to suit them. I am comfortable with Sowell, regardless of labels. If I could pick x number of people to have dinner with, he would make almost any list. I remember seeing him on Firing Line over 30 years ago, and thinking, damn, this guy is amazing!
“I am referring to the fact that states have determined they have jurisdiction in cases of death penalty”
__________________________
What you posted has nothing to do with what I said. Time to end this conversation.
Good night.
Not if you are an originalist, which is the only way I can see to read much of anything with honesty. I’m not one for penumbric emanations and the like. I don’t bend the plain meaning and original intent of words to mean what I want them to mean. That’s the dishonest game of the left. If we abandon the truth, then we become them. It’s tempting, but no. Besides, we can’t even get the SC to say that an unlisted, imaginary right doesn’t exist, so your creative formulation of the 14th has no chance in Realville.
No I don't get that because it is inaccurate, I lived through those years and remember well that there was little awareness of killing a person, the media talked in terms of nonviable tissue mass, growths, just tissue, the public did not see that abortion was actually killing a person, like they do today.
Presumably you know it though. I asked you "would you be against ending abortion at the federal level if we can"
I think your long, discouragingly negative lecture, showed that the answer is a clear yes, I can't see you doing anything but being against it. I don't detect social conservatism in you, which of course would explain why you fight social conservatives on thread after thread tirelessly, obsessively, endlessly.
Thank goodness that the constitution is the authority and not you.
Right now I would settle for 1970 laws... but 1912 would be better.
Okay, not the best characterization of conservatism. I’ll give you that tangent.
And I’m really not even arguing against his being a conservative. What I’m arguing is what I started off arguing at the beginning of the thread, which is that it’s absurd to say that liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing. As evidence I’m offering up Thomas Sowell, who we can all agree is no liberal, and the fact that he finds the libertarian label the most fitting for his beliefs. If libertarianism and liberalism were the same thing, he wouldn’t have said that. Also the sky is blue and water is wet.
I don't think a state can kill the innocent can they? Once we decide that a baby is a human, or person hood if that is the term, then I think the killing has to stop.
No qualms with the man himself, just the labels others might apply to him!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.