Posted on 06/25/2004 6:07:03 PM PDT by Commie Basher
No Libertarian would claim that Slavery is a State's Rights issue, because the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Pretty cut-and-dried, wouldn't you say? (Or is this the first time you have ever read the 13th Amendment?)
On the other hand, however, MURDER Law definitely is a State's Rights issue, because no Amendment to the Constitution has ever removed the definition and penalization of Murder from the province of the States Legislatures.
So, what exactly are you disputing?
Well, which is it, Jihadist?
Once a Right to Life Amendment is passed then abortion no longer becomes a States Rights issue, whereas the LP would be out front arguing for a repeal of the 13th since it infringes on the 'rights' of people to abrograte their own unalienable rights.
How nice. Outlaw families and then homosexuals won't have families, either. What a swell deal, if your mindset is based upon the ideology of anarchism.
Only it won't be passed. Constitutional Amendments require a 3/4 approval of the States, and there is simply zero likelihood that the 19 States of "Gore Nation" are going to approve a Right-to-Life Amendment any time in the foreseeable future (at least not until anti-contraceptive Churches and home-schoolers out-breed them for a few generations).
On the other hand, it is very reasonable to expect that most, if not all, of the 31 States in "Bush Country", would enact heavy regulation, or outright prohibition, of Abortion within months after the Repeal of Roe vs. Wade.
You would willingly, and callously, sacrifice the lives of millions of unborn babies whose lives could be saved by State Anti-Abortion Legislation on the fantastic altar of a "Right-to-Life Amendment" which, requiring 3/4 of the States, isn't going to happen -- all so you can score Political Points against Libertarians who (sensibly) favor the Repeal of Roe vs. Wade and the enactment of State Anti-Abortion Legislation.
Jihadist.... your pridefully self-congratulated "moral conscience" is an Atrocity against everything that is Good and Holy.
Abraham had a family.
Moses had a family.
Their families weren't "Outlawed". They just didn't ask the Government's permission.
And why should they?
Were their Marriages, and their Families, any less Holy and Good for their lack of... a Government License?!?!
No, that's your party platform. YOU are a bad libertarian -- you have massive disagreements with their platform -- you're way too conservative for them on social issues and foreign policy. You're the exception, the liberaltarian is the rule.
You use the word 'undoubtebly' too much.
But we know that according to libertarian ideologues, only criminals and perverts should be accorded free will in society. Normal and decent people should have no such free will to effect what they want in society.
It seems the LP vote has been relatively stable the past two or three Presidential election cycles (400K ?). What is your feeling about 2004?
If you Abolish the Government Marriage License, there would be no "Deadly Punishment" of "those who demand a marriage license". There just wouldn't be any Government Marriage License for the State to deliver.... to anyone.
Abraham and Sarah could have "demanded a marriage license" all day long, and there would have been no "deadly punishment" of them. Everyone just understood that it was absurd to imagine that the Government had any business whatsoever "licensing" a Private/Religious Contract, and Abraham and Sarah would have simply looked silly.
However, Abraham and Sarah -- unlike the Jihadist -- were not silly persons. They correctly understood that they had no Biblical need for any "Government Licensing" whatsoever of their Marriage, and that it would be absurd to seek such a foolishness.
If the Government does not issue you a "Permission to urinate in your own bathroom" License, do you imagine that you will come into "Deadly Punishment" if you demand such a License?
No, you won't. You'll just look silly for demanding a License which the Government does not issue.
Me.....I think.....(grin)
Speaking of absurd and foolish, in the libertarian ideologues' quest for imposing their moral-liberalism upon everyone else, perhaps we should abolish voting, too, since Moses never got to cast any vote for who should be the Pharoah of Egypt, nor did Abraham and Sarah get to vote for the King of Babylon.
Why are you trying to confuse these people with the facts ?
Bloviating and insulting is much more fun than reading and thinking !
< /sarcasm >
If the neo-natal infant has not the right of life, then there is no right of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, because the last 3 presume the first, and the first presumes a beginning.
So far as the Libertarian candidate, I know that the Constitution Party candidate is totally pro-life with no mental reservations.
So far as Pres. Bush is concerned, I believe (?) he is rape/incest/life of mother pro-life. (There is a large distinction between that pro-abortion.)
So far as John Kerry, he has a lifelong, radical pro-abortion voting record.
I think you're exactly correct; at the present time Constitution Party would still be my first choice. However -- I'm pleased with Badnarik's statements, and hope he comes out forcefully in favor of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade consistently with his belief that abortion is murder, and Murder Law is the province of the State Legislatures.
As I mentioned, if he does so, he will be the 4th out of the last 5 Libertarian Presidential Nominees to call for the repeal of Roe -- which is a trend I can only applaud.
Don't discount the possibility that the Jihadist is actually a Libertarian plant, who posts his absurd screeds to these threads for the purpose of making anti-libertarians look silly.
I mean, he does make it so easy, you do have to wonder....
(grin) Best, OP
In absolute hereditary Monarchies, the subjects typically don't Vote.
In elective Republics like the United States, OTOH, the citizenry does Vote.
See the difference? This concludes your course in Remedial kindergarten-level Civics.
Speaking of looking silly, the issue is marriage licenses which the government does issue, not urination licenses which the government does not.
The issue is whether or not the Government should issue Marriage Licenses. Abraham and Sarah, Moses and Zipporah -- all got along just fine without such Government red tape.
Browne received about 450,000 voted in 1996, and only about 380,000 in 2004. It's hard to say this year.
Third parties don't run in a vacuum. Other third parties, the major parties, the polls, the current issues, all affect outcome.
For instance, the media and the American people seem only able to focus on one third party candidate in any election. Perot stole the limelight in 1992, got most of it in 1996, and Nader got most of it in 2000. There's no Perot this year, no Buchanan, and Nader is weaker, so that bodes well for the LP.
Third party votes are also affected by how close an election is perceived. Gore and Bush were close enough in 2000 that Nader's numbers fell several points by November, since liberals feared letting Bush win if they "wasted" their vote on Nader. If Bush and Kerry are close this year, that bodes ill for the LP.
OTOH, both Kerry and Bush are pro-war globalists (despite all the wailing of FReepers of Kerry being a "commie" and other such nonsense). There's a big anti-war block out there, if only someone will tap into it. Many will vote for Kerry because of the false perception/wild hope that he's somehow "better than Bush." Others will vote for Nader. But some may vote LP.
If the "pro-Kerry liberal media" are wise, they'll give the LP much attention, so as to siphon votes from Bush (assuming the LP gets disatisfied conservatives -- which is a debateable theory). That may help Badnarik.
In the end, how well Badnarik does depends on (1) how dissatisfied America First/fiscal conservatives are with Bush, (2) how much attention the liberal media lavishes on Badnarick, (3) how close Bush and Kerry are in November, and (4) how well/poorly goes the economy and war in Iraq.
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.