Sex, Gold, and Raw Milk

Tucker Carlson writes a funny, perceptive profile of the Ron Paul campaign for The New Republic. Here's the key passage:

Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

Most Republicans, of course, profess to believe it too. But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody's paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. "I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says.

And here's my favorite part:

The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands.

A couple of hookers show up, too. Whole thing here.

Comments

Vlad Drac | December 21, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Dressed in red, her Dolly Parton hairdo and 36DDs at full attention, she sidled up to Lew Moore, Paul's campaign manager, and made her pitch. "Hi," she said. "I'm Air Force Amy, and I'd like a picture with Ron Paul." I knew right away it wasn't going to happen. "I've got a concern, I've got to be honest," Moore said, tense but trying to be nice. "If that picture surfaces, it could be very damaging to him politically."

Like a picture with a prostitute is going to hurt Ron Paul more than a picture of him with the latest two-bit Grand Kleagle.

Lamar | December 21, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Leave it to an asshole like Tucker Carlson to invite hookers to a political rally.

iowan | December 21, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed to your right not to be.

This is the only kind if messanger that has a chance of taking libertarian philosophy mainstream.

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 12:27pm | #

But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk.

As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul on this whole-heartedly

John | December 21, 2007, 12:30pm | #

The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a hooker, but doesn't know the stranger at the Value Voters summit runs Stormfront.

Jesse Walker | December 21, 2007, 12:31pm | #

What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the Nazis that stay in uniform?

iowan | December 21, 2007, 12:34pm | #

The difference is that the campaign staff knows that she's a hooker,

Having seen cathouse, I can attest that nearly all sapient beings will quickly recognize that air force amy is a hooker.

Russ 2000 | December 21, 2007, 12:38pm | #

How many voters would understand the question?)

A: More than you think, but still not enough to make a difference.

P Brooks | December 21, 2007, 12:39pm | #

"I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says.

I'll have a tall Laudanum, please.

just another lurker | December 21, 2007, 12:42pm | #

When I was a teenager in the '70's my father used to periodically drive out to a farmer in the country and get gallon jars of raw milk, straight from the cow. (It was purely decadent; I still remember the butterfat floating on the top three or four inches.) We knew completely that the milk was unpastuerized and we were taking our own risk. I'm sure that you aren't legally allowed to make a purchase like this anymore.

I mean, if you can't allow people, under any circumstances, to consume food that hasn't passed through a battery of health inspectors, should we outlaw hunting and fishing?

severin | December 21, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Legalize Milk!

Unpasteurized milk is why I love Ron Paul! (well maybe not the milk, but the idea behind it, certainly is).

A Strident Collaborator | December 21, 2007, 12:47pm | #

ChicagoTom said:

"As someone who drink unpasteurized milk daily, I support Ron Paul on this whole-heartedly"

Him there! Yes! He's the one! Drinking raw milk!
J'Accuse!

KipEsquire | December 21, 2007, 12:47pm | #

"But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk."

No, he introduced a bill to end federal regulation of unpasteurized milk. There's a difference.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to states that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

So we see, yet again, that Paul does not love liberty. He merely hates Congress. No libertarian would suggest that banning unpasteurized milk is perfectly hunky-dory at the state level, just not at the federal level.

If you want to argue that an anti-federalist is better than "business as usual," then fine. But please stop with the "Ron Paul is a libertarian" idiocy.

Chucklehead | December 21, 2007, 12:49pm | #

We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with marijuana," he said.

LOL - I love this guy!

robc | December 21, 2007, 12:54pm | #

KipEsquire,

Last time a checked, Paul was a federal congressman. He has no ability to control state laws. As he is both a federalist AND a libertarian, he wont use the power of the federal government to make states more libertarian. I would be willing to bet that if he was in the Texas state house, he would vote in favor of unpasteurized milk.

Kolohe | December 21, 2007, 12:56pm | #

"I've never gotten around to killing anything."

This is the most zen statement I have ever heard from an elected official.

And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing work like this may disuade me of that notion.

douglas gray | December 21, 2007, 12:56pm | #

If calves are fed an exclusive diet of pasteurized milk, they succumb to illness and die within six months, whereas if they drink unpasteurized milk , they remain healthy. Check out Dr. Mercola's Website to see the virtues of raw milk. I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

Just try drinking Organic Pasture's raw milk for awhile, and notice the difference (available only in CA)

Steve S. | December 21, 2007, 12:57pm | #

KipE,
In nearly 30 years of voting, I've voted for every Libertarian on the ballot. I've never pulled the lever for an D or an R.
Immigration is my #1 issue - I'm an "open the borders, end of discussion," guy.
And yet, Ron Paul is the first candidate in all those years to really give me a small glimmer of hope - not that he will win, but that his campaign might spur something important.
So to hear someone declare that Ron Paul is somehow just not libertarian enough, to me is what smacks of idiocy.
I just hope he's still around when my state's primary rolls around so I can take that R ballot for the first time. I'll feel dirty for about three seconds.

Norbert Sykes | December 21, 2007, 1:03pm | #

@ KipEsquire

Really, he doesn't love liberty just because he is a federal represenative of the people of texas and he proposes a bill that is of a purely federal nature as stipulated by the constitution. That is as much as the constitution allows with regard to this issue. How do you know that if he wasn't a state senator in texas he wouldn't propose a bill legalizing raw milk in Texas? There is nothing saying you can't be a states' rights libertarian.

Rhywun | December 21, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Maybe it's just that I'm a child of the 70's but there is no fucking way I would drink raw milk with junk floating on top. I like my milk watery, just like I like my meats packaged in a box. Preferably frozen.

R C Dean | December 21, 2007, 1:07pm | #

I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

It amazes me how many people seem to be completely oblivious to the idea that the national government is one of limited, enumerated powers, and that banning raw milk is not one of them.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:07pm | #

You are free to drink raw milk. You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated medical condition. Check.

toddb | December 21, 2007, 1:14pm | #

KipE,
So you are saying that pushing top-down dictates from the federal level is MORE libertarian than consistently preventing the use of federal power to dictate to folks at the state and local level? That seems kind of crazy.

By the way, fresh, whole milk rocks. Had a cow on the farm as a kid and it took a long time after I left home before I could drink that thin store-bought stuff!

brotherben | December 21, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Mom used to drive out to a farm and get the still warm jugs of milk. She'd bring em home and set em in the fridge overnight for the cream to rise to make butter with. I would get outta bed before everyone else and skim enough of that sweet cream to pour over my Golden Grahams. MMMMMMM

J sub D | December 21, 2007, 1:15pm | #

What has the world come to when it's the hookers and not the Nazis that stay in uniform?

Good one. ;-)

alan | December 21, 2007, 1:15pm | #

A true libertarian in a legislative body, like Paul, recognizes that he must work within the framework (here the Constitution) that gives the legislative body any semblance to legitimacy as a contract between the people and that public body.
Ron Paul does not support an expansionist definition of the commerce clause as he would have to do if he were to be a 'real libertarian' in your sense of using the word.

However, Paul is part of a much older tradition of libertarianism, Jeffersonian classical liberalism, that I can't help but noticing has been around much longer than the left libertarianism of many of Paul's critics who wish to condemn him and show him the gate.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:17pm | #

A pro-life position is simply not consistent with libertarianism.

LarryA | December 21, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

So utterly simple.

Now, how can we get the other 99.9999999999999% of the media to understand?

I agree that Paul is wrong to let States ban raw milk, but not allow the feds to do it.

So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul works, should force state legislatures to accept raw milk? How is that "libertarian?"

Apparently it's not just the media.

Rhett | December 21, 2007, 1:21pm | #

And Carlson is still mostly a hack on TV, but continuing work like this may disuade me of that notion.

This article made my day. Kudos to Carlson for doing a great job of showing who RP is and what he stands for. Positive without gushing.

[Dennis] was there in ten minutes, in an enormous stretch limo with a BunnyRanch logo on the side. He'd brought two of his girls, Brooke and Air Force Amy, as well as his driver, a middle-aged man in a cowboy hat and Western wear. It was a conspicuous group.

The thought of T. Carlson amongst this "conspicuous" group caused some coffee to hit the monitor.

SugarFree | December 21, 2007, 1:23pm | #

smacky,

Aw, no you didn't!

It is on! It is on like Donkey Kong!

Randolph Carter | December 21, 2007, 1:23pm | #

smacky,
maybe you would like to use this can opener on that worm container.

toddb | December 21, 2007, 1:24pm | #

smacky,
Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

Edward | December 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....

excrementalist | December 21, 2007, 1:27pm | #

yes it is This good

http://my.break.com/Content/view.aspx?ContentID=421034

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:29pm | #

SugarFree & Randolph,

Hee hee...I didn't even mean to troll this thread. It just comes naturally.

toddb,

I don't care about his personal pro-life position. I'm simply pointing out that advocating that some parts of the country should be allowed to oppress women with statist oversight is not compatible with true love of freedom. Just because it's not federal, does not make that kind of governmental invasiveness ok. Just sayin'.

I don't want to argue abortion today, anyway. I think Abortion Debate Friday is next Friday. Today is regular biz cas Fri.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 1:29pm | #

My favorite passage from the article (read the whole thing, it's great):

Dennis is built like a linebacker and was dressed entirely in black. Brooke and Air Force Amy looked like hookers because they are. All three slapped on Ron Paul stickers ("we could use these as pasties," Air Force Amy said, giggling) and sat near the front. Pretty soon, Paul showed up and did his 15 minutes on liberty and Austrian economics. If he noticed there were prostitutes present, he didn't show it.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:31pm | #

robc @12:54- stating the obvious for the oblivious

smaky @1:17- related to this article how? And only about 1/2 of libertarians would disagree with you on that one.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Shane,

Just like those other "libertarians" who are anti-2nd Amendment rights or pro-WOD? Heh. And I wonder how those so-called libertarians would be split amongst gender lines.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:35pm | #

smaky- i think the abortion thing goes abit deeper than either of those, and to be honest i've met a lot of pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, but none so far that have voiced an opinion against the 2nd or for the WOD.(donderooooo doesn't count)

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Anyway, Ron Paul has my support. I just think his pro-life political position (even if it decentralized) is seriously inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 1:39pm | #

* Sound of can opener opening said can of invertebrates *

smacky -- how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that pesky Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal government dictate to the states how they administer a contentious social issue about whose rights take precedence, a fetus' or the woman whose body is keeping it alive? Yeah, yeah, the Supreme Court, in a split decision, said the federal government can do that. News alert -- something isn't constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, it's only constitutional if the Constitution says it is.

It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-choice. It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-life. It's way libertarian to say it's none of the fed's damn business, so butt out already.

* Sound of duct tape resealing said can of invertebrates *

Brandybuck | December 21, 2007, 1:40pm | #

A close friend of mine is a cheese fanatic. Any kind of rare and stinky cheese delights him to no end. He once got ahold of a wedge of Stinking Bishop. Nasty stuff, but to him is was an epicurean delight. One of his pet peeves is the extreme difficulty he has in getting young raw cheeses.

He is a progressive and a Green Party registree. But he once told me a few months ago that he's leaning more and more libertarian over the silly food regulations he keeps running into. He also aked me what Ron Paul's policy was on raw cheeses. I told him it was probably too minor of an issue for Dr. Paul to have formalized a policy position on it. "Oh well," he said, "I might reregister Republican and vote for him if he did."

Now I read this today! A quick search and there it was, Ron Paul has a formalized policy position on the transport of unpasteurized milk and milk products! I forwarded this on to my friend. I think we now have a new Ron Paul supporter.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Shane,

My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Personally, i support the right of the preborn to defend themselves with firearms while smoking what they'd like to. Zygotes for Liberty!

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 1:43pm | #

smacky wins the thread.

Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

You need to look more closely at Paul's positions on abortion toddb...

To quote Dr. Ron Paul (on his website): "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

HR 1094 and HR 1095 are active attempts to use federal power to promote Paul's pro-life stance.

Removing the federal check on state-level tyranny is not the same as promoting liberty (as, I believe, has been mentioned).

Paul's political strategy on abortion is the opposite of his position on raw milk.

Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop states from ALLOWING it.
Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states from BANNING it.

It is an important difference.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:46pm | #

how exactly is it libertarian or constitutional (that pesky Tenth Amendment again) to advocate that the federal government dictate to the states how they administer a contentious social issue


prolefeed,

You (and any other pro-lifers) are framing the question incorrectly. Pregnancy is not a "contentious social issue", (you must be a man), it is a personal, individual or familial issue. It has nothing to do with "social" or "society", you collectivist.

It's not libertarian to say the federal government should decide for the states that they must be pro-choice.

Yes, yes it is. It is libertarian because pro-choice is the only viewpoint that offers freedom from governmental intervention. Nice mental gymnastics you were attempting, though.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:47pm | #

"My point, to put it bluntly, was that you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman."

Last line was somewhat uncalled for but not unexpected. I and more than a few other's(including, shock, women) believe that protection from force or fraud is a legit function of the governemnt(in the u.s. that would be the State government as outlined in the constitution) and that all human beings(even those who haven't yet obtained or manage to hold onto that status we refer to as "personhood" have an inalienable right to life. so as long as we are picking who's a libertarian and who isn't based on this i would say that you, as a person who accepts people being murdered as long as the murderer is the mother or her physician, is the inconsistent one.

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 1:47pm | #

So you are saying that the U.S. Congress, where Rep. Paul works, should force state legislatures to accept raw milk? How is that "libertarian?"

I don't think it is unlibertarian to use the power of the federal government to not allow states to limit the rights of the people who live in those states.

Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.

I would be very happy to see a bill the say refuses ag-subsidies (since we haven't been able to do away with them) to any state that restricts people from buying/selling raw milk

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:48pm | #

"Raw Milk: Federal government should have no power to stop states from ALLOWING it.
Abortion: Federal government should have no power to stop states from BANNING it.

It is an important difference."

No, it's not, the whole point is removing the power from the Feds, not what they could or couldn't do with said power. They shouldn't be allowing or banning anything.

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Why do you care about his personal pro-life position as long as he doesn't claim a right to force it on everyone else politically?

Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he wants states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is it justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my opinion

toddb | December 21, 2007, 1:51pm | #

smacky,
I'm ambivalent on the abortion issue...I think you can make rational arguments across the whole spectrum on this issue and no consensus will ever be reached. That's why I like the decentralized approach.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.


QFT - I defer to ChicagoTom.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Shane,

So ALLOWING and BANNING are now equivalent?

Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases liberty while banning something (taking away your right to do) reduces liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty, then it is an important difference.

But smacky has already covered this point, so...

robc | December 21, 2007, 1:52pm | #

ChicagoTom,

States determine what is or isnt murder now. In some states it would be murder (or some form of homicide) if I shoot a robber in my house without attempting to flee first.

In my state, it isnt.

It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it isnt the Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state crime. (Excluding things involving multiple states or federal officials)

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 1:54pm | #

His position on gay marriage is another non-liberty/freedom position.

He personally opposes it, and regardless of the fact that he believes government should be out of the marriage position, he argues that states shouldn't have to recognize other same sex marriages.

Sure he doesn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he does support giving states the power to discriminate.

He seems more of a federalist than a libertarian.

robc | December 21, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you.

This is correct. However, libertarianism has to work within the federalist constitution that we have. The system isnt inherently libertarian. It is inherently federalist. This libertarians need to work at all levels. On the federal level, we can only do what is allowed, pushing everything else down to the states for the libertarians there to work on.

Dee Ann Guzman | December 21, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Rhywun, How do you like your cancer, heart disease, and diabetes???

robc | December 21, 2007, 1:56pm | #

ChicagoTom,

The constitution gave the states the power to descriminate. Following the constitution (which all federal officials took an oath to do) REQUIRES not making that decision at the federal level, no matter what your views on it are.

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 1:58pm | #

It doesnt matter which you think is right, the point is it isnt the Fed goverments business to decide, murder is a state crime. (Excluding things involving multiple states or federal officials)

I agree, but that is a Federalist argument, not a libertarian argument.

A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray area, but an aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of your right to life, is it not?

Sulla | December 21, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Isn't his personal position that abortion is murder? Yet he wants states to decide whether it is allowed or not. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If you believe something is MURDER, then how is it justified for a state to allow murder? it's disingenuous, in my opinion

I do not know Ron Paul's position on the matter, but some people, myself included, believe that the state should not ban something merely because it is immoral. As robc pointed out, states have different limitations on what is "murder." Some states have such broad protections for homeowners defending their property that in some cases, what I would consider murder goes unpunished. This bothers me, but I believe that on balance, the importance of allowing people to defend themselves and their homes justifies some such broad protections.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Neu Mejican, smacky, ChicagoTom-

Are you stating that the Federal government has or should have a say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 2:01pm | #

On the federal level, we can only do what is allowed, pushing everything else down to the states for the libertarians there to work on

And that means using the same incentives that are currently used to remove freedoms, in order to protect freedoms (see my subsidy example above).

All I am saying is that just because someone is a federalist doesn't mean that person is a libertarian.

And since the power of the feds is in fact expanding, there is nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding power to protect and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and in discriminatory ways

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"Libertarianism, to me at least, is about protecting individual rights from government, not merely defining which level of government can take rights away from you."

ChicagoTom, I agree with you in principle, but not in application. Telling the federal government that it's OK to ignore the Constitution if the supporters of some legislation think it's about protecting people's rights as those supporters define rights opens the door to all sorts of unpleasant federal powers that you would vehemently oppose. The "right" to an immigrant-free society? The "right" to protect fetuses?

The solution is not to ignore the federal Constitution's severe limitations on power (the Tenth Amendment in particular), and cross your fingers that The Right People will be the ones passing the laws. The solution to tyranny is to preserve the strict limits on the feds, and rewrite state Constitutions to impose equally stringent limits on state powers ... and rewrite local city charters to impose stringent limitations ... and move from states that don't have these protections against abuses, to states that do.

toddb | December 21, 2007, 2:03pm | #

ChicagoTom, Neu Mejican,
I'm the last person to debate this one...as I said above, I think this is an issue too complicated to ever find reasonable consensus. That is why I NEVER use it as a litmus for a candidate's reason/intelligence/liberality/etc.

iowan | December 21, 2007, 2:03pm | #

9-month-long state-mandated medical condition

This is probably the most de-humanizing definition of pregnancy that I have ever seen.

The question at hand is not the meaning of libertarianism, it is the nature of a fetus.

If the fetus is a human life deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then using the power of the state to protect the fetus is not un-libertarian.

If the fetus is property (if it's not a human life, then it must be property), then letting the state interfere with the owner's disposition of that property wouldcertainly be un-libertarian.

To claim that those that do not share your world view regarding the nature of a fetus cannot be libertarians is a form of bigotry.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"there is nothing un-libertarian about using that expanding power to protect and stop states from acting in un-libertarian and in discriminatory ways"

that's not libertarian, that's lefty as far as i can tell.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #

prolefeed @ 2:03 said it better than me...

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Shane,

Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be involved.

Crime & food safety - both have an important role.

Sulla | December 21, 2007, 2:07pm | #

A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder (not self -defense which can be a gray area, but an aggressive premediated murder). It's a violation of your right to life, is it not?

(please note the concious use of big L)

Should a Libertarian disregard the Constitution and act in a manner consistent with Libertarian core values at all times?

I really enjoy H&R and I hope people do not mind me posting, even though I'm not a Libertarian, and more generally in favor of limited government. The main reason I'm not a full-fledged Libertarian is that I often get the feelings that Libertarians want to impose Libertarian morality on people, just as the many on the religious right wants to impose christian morality and the many people on the left want to impose their version of morality.

robc | December 21, 2007, 2:08pm | #

A Libertarian would not believe that a state could conceivably allow murder

I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I believe that a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.

Brandybuck | December 21, 2007, 2:08pm | #

you can't call yourself a libertarian if you think the government has a right to sanction someone else's bodily integrity or state of being. Even if that person is -- brace yourself -- a woman.

On the other hand, libertarianism is not nihilism. Freedom, not free-for-all. You do not have the right to initiate force against another the life of another human being. If a fetus is a human being then the libertarian position must be that one cannot initiate force against that fetus. The mother has the right of self-defense, but she does NOT have the right to murder. The key question is when a fetus becomes a human being. Pro-life libertarians believe it starts earlier than pro-abortion libertarians.

In addition, there is also the legal principle of meeting force with equivalent force. You may not slay a trespasser you find on your property if he is not threatening you. For example, if come home to find a robber passed out on your living room floor, you may not put a gun to the sleeping head and pull the trigger. Thus, even if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is trespass, you are still not justified in killing the unborn human being. Only when the mother's life is in jeopardy is abortion justified.

http://www.l4l.org

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Are you stating that the Federal government has or should have a say in either marriage, crime, or food saftey?

I am saying that since the federal government does have a say on things (whether you agree with it or not) the libertarian thing to do is to act in a way that protects freedoms of people even if it means stopping a state from discriminating.

Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the marriage business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it easier for states to say "well you are married in Mass. but we don't recognize it in Kansas". That's a bullshit policy that allows discrimination and limits freedom regardless of it happening at the state level.

I am saying that Federalism is not inherently libertarianism. Federalism is merely a check on central authority not a check on improper authority as a whole.

(I;m going out to lunch now, so sorry if I drop out of the conversation.)

robc | December 21, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Sulla,

No, a Libertarian shouldnt violate the constitution to act in a Libertarian manner. There is a constitutional amendment process that is available.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Allowing something (protecting your right to do) increases liberty while banning something (taking away your right to do) reduces liberty. If the government's role is to protect liberty, then it is an important difference.

Neu Mejican -- so ALLOWING someone to murder you increases liberty, while BANNING such murder reduces liberty? ALLOWING someone to dump radioactive wastes on your property increases liberty, while BANNING that dumping reduces liberty?

Allowing and banning, depending on the framing, can be applied to either side of any issue.

Increasing liberty consists of allowing you to do whatever you want (or banning others from stopping you from doing whatever you want), so long as you don't initiate aggression or harm another person.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

iowan,

LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all. It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity. It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy. And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Dammit -- preview -- close italics tags. My bad.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

"Marriage - neither state or federal governments should be involved."

How is taking away the federal involvement not in line with that goal? How is allowing the federal involvement, even if to limit the state involvement, in line with that goal? Seems to me that the logical place to start would be the level that weilds the most power and work your way down the ladder.


"Crime & food safety - both have an important role"

But what are the differences between the Federal role and the State role. Does the federal government in the U.S.A. have a legitimate role in either the sale of pastuerized milk or abortion as a crime or abortion as a health issue?

robc | December 21, 2007, 2:13pm | #

For example, if come home to find a robber passed out on your living room floor, you may not put a gun to the sleeping head and pull the trigger.

That kind of thing varies by state. I would have to look up the KY laws to try to figure out that scenario for sure, but I might be okay since he is inside the house. Passed out in my yard - no, in the living room - maybe yes.

Not that I would shoot someone in that situation, but I "legally" might be allowed to.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 2:15pm | #

even if you try to argue the silly point that pregnancy is trespass


Brandybuck,

Way to dismiss and gloss over an important point. Oh wait, it's "silly". Women are silly, aren't they? Tee hee

fish | December 21, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Edward | December 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

With a smirking asshole like Tucker Carlson on his side, how can Ron Paul lose. Let's see, let me count the ways....

Hey Ed.....wheres my fucking lawsuit?

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Brandybuck,

This is an example where life is more complicated than the simplistic axioms of libertarian philosophy.

The question is not just about "human being" or not. The point at which that being becomes autonomous is more the crux of the issue. While still in the womb, the baby is part of the mother's body. She has control of her body, so she gets to decide what happens to that part of her body.

At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part of the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate dividing line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."

It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide. The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for you.

Dr. Phibes | December 21, 2007, 2:17pm | #

I gotta start working on a uterus extraction/re-installation procedure to eliminate this issue once and for all

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:17pm | #

smacky- our bad, should have noticed from your first post on the issue that you weren't interested in a discussion. bigots, yes we're bigots, end of conversation, you don't have to go any further than bigots, and "women-haters" if that helps.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:19pm | #

LOL...you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus children as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus child at all. It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity. It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy childhood. And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies whether to abandon their children by a roadside or kill them if they're posing inconveniences.

Carried your argument a few months further, smacky. Still good with that formulation? Or willing to admit that its not as cut and dried as you posit?

Jay D | December 21, 2007, 2:22pm | #

smacky,

Ron Paul is 100% reproductive freedom. He has no interest in telling anyone they must reproduce or must not reproduce.

Once the reproduction process has, in fact, been initiated however...

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:22pm | #

smacky -- feel free to substitute "infant" for "child" in my 2:19 post, if you want to limit the scope to just newly born infants incapable of surviving on their own.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:22pm | #

"At some point, the baby is autonomous and no longer just a part of the mother's body...viability may be the more appropriate dividing line, philosophically, than "alive" or "aware."

It is a tricky issue that the parents and the doctor should decide. The state needs to stay out of it, for the most part. Ron Paul disagrees. He thinks the state should have the power to decide for you."

Or it could be argued that Ron Paul believes that the state doesn't have the inherit power to decide who is viable or not, who's life is worth protecting or not. He might see it as protecting all human beings regardless of viability, personhood status, autonomy, or current contribution to society, from harm/force. No different than keeping a coma pateint from being raped, or an alzheimers patient from being used for medical experiment without their consent, even if they are already dying or have a great possibility of dying. wether someone is likely to survive without assistance isn't sufficient justification to allow to be murdered, you are not talking about allowing them to die, but of actively bringing about that death.

robc | December 21, 2007, 2:23pm | #

prolefeed,

Algebra. Everyone knows you can abort until they can do algebra. Higher math causes the soul to enter the body.

Pro-state? Stay away from my prostate | December 21, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Without a state, there absolutely would be abortions.

Now, if you want to frame the question as homicide, you have to ask yourself if there would be more homicides WITH a state or WITHOUT one. I'm gonna reflect on the 1940's and modern Africa before I answer that one...

WITH!

President: he-man woman haters club | December 21, 2007, 2:26pm | #

smacky,
It's ladies like you that made me run for this position.
To stop alien invaders:
Keep yer fookin knees closed!

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:26pm | #

prolefeed,


How that is framed, of course, matters.

We are talking about two particular acts by Ron Paul. I framed them very carefully to highlight the distinction in how those particular acts differ.

If you want to switch it around go ahead, but the distinction remains. In one case Paul is on the side of increasing individual liberty, in the other is his on the side of reducing individual liberty. The two positions are not equivalent.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Shane,

I'm not the one who started with the accusations of bigotry. And my comments weren't implying the label of "women-hater", I was just saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so obviously lack a grasp of the concept of pregnancy.


prolefeed,


Wow, what can I say? Other than I am not impressed with your completely off-the-mark attempts at having a point.

robc | December 21, 2007, 2:27pm | #

From a very picky and technical reading of the KY statutes (which is how I hope a DA would do it in this case), I can use physical force, but not deadly force, against the dude passed out in my living room.

Physical force is allowed against someone committing criminal trespass, burglary, robbery or other felonies involving force.

Deadly force is allowed against someone commiting burglary, robbery, or other yadda yadda yadda.

I guess once he passes out, he is no longer doing any of the other things so is only, at that point, trespassing.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:29pm | #

Shane,

If that is what Paul believes (he does), then he should do whatever he can to restrict the rights of mother's to have an abortion (he does).

His position is smart, tactical, and very much about finding a way to use state power to limit a specific right that is currently protected with federal power.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 2:30pm | #

No different than keeping a coma pateint from being raped, or an alzheimers patient from being used for medical experiment without their consent, even if they are already dying or have a great possibility of dying.


Shane,

Yeah, it is way different. I'm not having this discussion anymore. I'm sick of these idiotic scenarios posited by brainwashed pro-lifer scum.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Marriage is a good example. Since government is in the marriage business -- then the feds shouldn't be making it easier for states to say "well you are married in Mass. but we don't recognize it in Kansas". and that's a bullshit policy that allows discrimination and limits freedom regardless of it happening at the state level the government, at all levels, should quit arbitrating who is or is not married, leave that up to individuals and/or their church of choice to decide for themselves, and treat us all as individuals.

You can't increase freedom by giving the federal government more power over this issue (or pretty much any other issue).

toddb | December 21, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Wow...if this thread doesn't illuminate the pointlessness of discussing abortion as a political issue, nothing does. Here you have a group of intelligent people who are mostly of a mind with regard to their beliefs in protecting the rights of the individual and their interest in avoiding abuses of the state...and they can't even agree on the basic DEFINITIONS pertinent to the discussion.

That's why I like decentralization as the most rational default on this question.

brotherben | December 21, 2007, 2:33pm | #

O M F G !

I can't even see straight now.

> takes ball and trundles home---

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:35pm | #

"I was just saying that only someone who isn't a woman would so obviously lack a grasp of the concept of pregnancy."

Well i am a young man, the father of 2 other males,a nd the lover of a women is is studying to be an ebryologist and works at a local obgyn.

i'm also a reasonable person.

I think i can talk about when life begins and when rights are afforded to individuals.

i believe a human being has inalienable right from the moment of existence as a member of the human race and that those rights can not be seperated from that individual at any point of that life, not pre-birth, not after brain damage, not after going senile.

Everything i know about science, biology, and bioethics, tell me that a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a child, are all the same organism at various stages of life, and to claim that rights are not afforded to that human being at certain stages of that life has no place in consistent libertarian philosophy.

to me at least.

I don't need to be a woman to have a say about humanity, reproduction, natural rights, or life and death.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:37pm | #

toddb,

The most decentralized position is to allow the individual to decide.

Ron Paul supports a position way up the ladder from the decentralized position.

He wants to allow a central authority to decide, rather than leaving it up to the individuals involved.

The current federal law protects the decentralized solution.

Full stop.

Warty | December 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

You are also free to suffer a 9-month-long state-mandated medical condition.

Hey, you're always free to hurl yourself down a staircase.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

"Yeah, it is way different. "

How and why? again, i'm trying to have a discussion and you hit me back with "idiotic" and "brainwashed scum", after you state you are not goiung to continue the conversation. so you refuse to defend your position, call me names, and then leave.

nice.

Au standard | December 21, 2007, 2:39pm | #

well at a minimum, carlson's article is lightyears better than anything chapman has written for reason so far

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 2:44pm | #

I not only believe that a state could allow murder, I believe that a state could COMMIT murder. And most do.

And I believe that position is anything but libertarian.

The state should not be allowed to kill people, even people who have killed others. Nor should it turn a blind eye to those who have had their right to life violated.

The state's role is to protect the rights of its people and protect it's peoples rights from being violated by others.

Not to violate rights as long as it's done at the local enough level.

Sulla | December 21, 2007, 2:44pm | #

The most decentralized position is to allow the individual to decide.

smacky, neu mejican, any other abortion rights supporter-

Do you support an unlimited right to abort until a fetus is born?

I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy (the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible choices considered.

prolefeed | December 21, 2007, 2:46pm | #

ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree to disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently oppose -- so that, at best, you will have freedom about half the time, and at worst, far less than half the time (assuming politicians from both major parties are intent on increasing their own power at our expense).

I used to hold similarly benign views about federal power, before the Republicans started spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, abrogating habeus corpus, etc. That snapped me out of partisan mode after a period of increasingly strained rationalizations. I suppose if the Democrats wind up controlling the White House, the House of Representatives, and get 60+ votes in the Senate, the inevitable excesses might snap you out of your notion that leftish politicians can be trusted with lots of power, unlike those sumbitches on the right.

Warren | December 21, 2007, 2:47pm | #

I support a mother's unlimited right to abort her child until the moment of birth.

After birth I support both parents right to abort the child.

At least until the little bastard gets a paper route.

toddb | December 21, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Neu Mejican,
Yeah...got that, and that's why my own personal position would probably come closest to the same conclusion. But, given that I think reasonable arguments can be made for many positions and that consensus is impossible, I never pay a lot of attention to this issue to judge a candidate. As long as RP is advocating a general roll-back of the massive scope, intrusion and expense of the federal government, I can easily overlook whatever his position is on a no-win, contentious issue like abortion.

Gotta run...enjoyed the conversation all.

creech | December 21, 2007, 2:50pm | #

All very interesting on a Friday. But isn't anyone going to link to Air Force Amy?

Shane | December 21, 2007, 2:52pm | #

I can't help but laugh, someone who probably agrees with me on 90% of the issues will call me "brainwashed scum" over the remaining 10%...

now i feel like a "real" libertarian. :)

brotherben | December 21, 2007, 2:52pm | #

Warren,
That's cold man.

you should allow for grass cutting and babysitting imho.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:55pm | #

Sulla,

I tend to be of the opinion that at some point in the pregnancy (the exact standard and point in time is open to debate), the fetus becomes an individual itself, with a right to have its possible choices considered.

At some point, maybe. I think viability is a pretty good rule of thumb (and that gets earlier all the time). But I am not sure it is the state's job to punish someone who makes a very difficult choice that is different.

The trouble comes in enforcement.

If the child deserves protection from the mother while still in the womb, what other forms of protection are allowable? Can she be stopped from drinking alcohol? From smoking? Should she be forced to get prenatal care? To eat nutritious food? How much of the mother's autonomy can be sacrificed for the child's benefit?

Leaving it up to the family and the doctors allows these decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

J sub D | December 21, 2007, 2:55pm | #

I'd love to see the overlap between animal rights advocates and those holding 100% pro-choice positions. IMRO, at some point a feus is a "person" and deserving of state protection. I reject the position that passing through the birth canal intact is that point.

Yeah smacky, I'm a paternalistic, bigoted, misogynistic bastard if that will make you feel morally superior.

iowan | December 21, 2007, 2:56pm | #

First I apologize for posting and runing, but I wanted to respond before I head out the door.


LOL...

Well, I glad I didn't offend you.

you are missing the point. It is not a matter of defining fetus as life vs. property. It isn't about the fetus at all.

We disgree, the fetus is the only point.

It is about the adult woman who is harboring it. It doesn't matter what she's calling it...it is surviving only out of her own freely given charity.

The woman in question freely gave charity to the sperm that was permitted access to the womb.

It's wrong for a state to dictate that a woman must give that kind of around-the-clock care to an alien invader for the duration of a typical pregnancy.

However, that charity results in a personal, moral responsbility for the end product of that charity.

Again, "aliean invader" is about a de-humanizing as it gets.

And no, I'm not a bigot. If anyone is a bigot, it is those who do not view adult women as deserving to make their own choices about their own bodies.

I view all people, women and men, as being fully equal in rights and responsibilities. You may choose to engage in any sexual behavior with anyone other adult at any time in any fashion.

But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That goes both ways, for women and men.

And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . . well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 2:57pm | #

JsubD,

That Venn diagram would look a lot like the pro-life, pro-death penalty one.

SugarFree | December 21, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Shane,

It's basically your libertarian bar mitzvah.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Sulla,

I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of its mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.

Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no primordial soup for you.

dhex | December 21, 2007, 3:01pm | #

The question is not just about "human being" or not.

the only thing i will put forth into the worm blender is that this is, i believe, really the crux of the issue.

Russ 2000 | December 21, 2007, 3:03pm | #

I have to agree with smacky here. I mean, everyone here already knows that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiying abortions isn't going to stop them, it'll just make them worse. That was basically the point made when states began to allow it - the same logic used in the argument against alcohol and drug prohibition.

The inconsistency in libertarianism isn't nearlay as bad as the inconsistency in pragmatism.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:09pm | #

"I think if the fetus can survive on its own without the aid of its mother, then abortion was probably the wrong thing to do.

Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive! If it's not breathing on it's own...well, sorry, no primordial soup for you."

so self-sufficiency is the yardstick we use then?

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 3:11pm | #

ChicagoTom -- I guess we're going to have to cordially agree to disagree on whether giving the federal government more power can result in more freedom. I would like to remind you that whatever power you grant to the politicians whose agenda you agree with will also be available to the politicians whose agenda you vehemently oppose

prolefeed,

we agree more than we disagree. I agree with much of what you were saying. I too am leery of giving the feds too much power. But I also want to limit the states power to do things I wouldn't want teh feds doing either.

Furthermore, I guess I feel that -- considering the system we have and the reality of what it is, I don't believe that there will be a successful rollback of fed power. The next best thing to me would be to get people in there who are willing to work withand do things to protect the rights of individuals.

Finally, let me add that, with regard to Ron Paul, even if he does think,as you do, that it's better/safer to take a federalist stance with regards to his voting and the bills he supports and restrict the power of the fed and not use it to protect rights, I still believe that in order to consider him libertarian, he should at least be espousing/pushing the idea that it's wrong for states to do these things as well.

Instead his public statements have been typical federalist positions that don't push the idea of freedom and liberty from the tyranny of government, but merely from the tyranny of federal government.

That is what I find the most disappointing. At a time when he has one of the biggest platforms ever, his message seems to be merely a federalist one rather than a libertarian one.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:12pm | #

"I mean, everyone here already knows that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiying abortions isn't going to stop them, it'll just make them worse."

That still depends on if we are talking about an individual or property. If you are someone who believes it to be the murder of another human being then that's not much of a rationalization as you would have to apply that same logic to other forms of murder.

Brandybuck | December 21, 2007, 3:12pm | #

At some point between the conception and birth, the fetus becomes a human being endowed with the same unalienable rights as all other human beings. It is my contention that any born or unborn child past that point has the unalienable right to life, and that if government has any legitimate roles at all, one of them must be to defend that life.

To some people that point is conception. To others it is when the baby is fully clear of the birth canal. To most, I suspect, it is somewhere in between. But regardless of when that is, the libertarian philosophy is opposed to any initiation of force against that entity after the threshold of humanness been reached.

Therefore the blanket statement that libertarians must be pro-choice in regards to abortion is misguided. Libertarians can legitimately hold a pro-life position.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 3:13pm | #

But you do have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy or not to fuck someone that you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. That goes both ways, for women and men.

And if you did take preventive measures, but they didn't work . . well so sad. You rolled the dice and lost.


J sub D,

You were saying something about moral superiority?


So now the government's in charge of enforcing personal responsibility, Brandybuck? Are you sure the pro-life movement is not just a little bit of schadenfreude courtesy of the morally superior? I do wonder...

Akhbar Goldberg | December 21, 2007, 3:16pm | #

Smacky reminds me of a kid who when it becomes obvious they're losing a game of checkers decides to swipe the board off the table and trundle away in tears.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Akhbar,

Ha, that's a very cute analogy. Shane reminds me of someone who uses contorted and dissimilar analogies to morally browbeat a -- oh, wait! That is what he's doing.

brotherben | December 21, 2007, 3:22pm | #

If I believe that the female of the species is of no value to humanity until she is able to reproduce said species, can I kill them at will? If not, why not. If not, what govt. office should regulate my will to kill the useless girls?

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:24pm | #

So for those who are supporting a government role in this decision...

What crime is appropriate?
Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?
Manslaughter?

Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?

How would you enforce it?

Do the doctors also get punished?
Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?

Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:24pm | #

"Shane reminds me of someone who uses contorted and dissimilar analogies to morally browbeat a -- oh, wait! That is what he's doing."

So counter it! If my arguements are flawed or illogical or just stupid, then show me where and show me up. I'm not claiming superiority over anyone, and if i'm mistaken in my beliefs then please point out where you think that is. I'm not the one calling names and quitting.

I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think they should be protected from harm just as much as other humans.

Not trying to brow beat, just showing where i'm coming from.

smacky | December 21, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Whoa, somebody went off of their meds today. And I don't mean me.

Chucklehead | December 21, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Aw man... this thread has become crap. And on a Friday. Before the holidays, even.

Ahkbar Goldberg | December 21, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Well, people might be a bit nicer if you didn't resort to immature name calling and throw hissy fits when things don't sem to b going your way. I tgought you said you were done with this thread anyway? Anywho, here's a nice article from Gene Callahan that puts up a god defense of the anti-abortion libertarian position. You'll probably find it reductionist but it's a good read none the less. http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html

Chucklehead | December 21, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Planning on moving to China brotherben? ;-)

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:28pm | #

re: punishment

The compromise position...given a state-mandated medical condition.

Abortion is illegal.

Punishment, time served.

Chucklehead | December 21, 2007, 3:28pm | #

I might be young and still have a lot to figure out, but i'm pro-life because i believe that all human life should be protected from harm, science tells me that when humans reproduce they create zygotes, embryos and fetus which are new humans, therefore i think they should be protected from harm just as much as other humans.

That'll cause the tax rates to go up.

brotherben | December 21, 2007, 3:32pm | #

chucklehead,
nah, just picking an arbitrary position on murder. that would make me pro-choice.

imho, life beginning at conception is the only morally defensible position in the abortion debate.

Larry N. Martin | December 21, 2007, 3:33pm | #

The problem is that libertarians, a lot of them, anyway, tend to believe the Constitution is an important document to take seriously. In reality, the real question is not what level of government has a right to prohibit, but what form of government will do the least prohibiting. Always pushing for state's rights and decentralization is one strategy for achieving this, but not necessarily the only strategy. The argument is over strategy.

Fluffy | December 21, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Shane:

There's a pretty simple reason that the pro-choice position is the libertarian position.

If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply because the fetus is in a position of complete dependence - and if the state can use the police power to enforce that obligation - then it seems to me that all of us would be obligated to care for any and all persons in a state of dependence, and that the state would be entitled to use the police power to enforce that obligation. But that would make state socialism enforced by terror the most moral form of government. Since I don't want to be trapped into that conclusion, I am forced to posit that the woman does not in fact have such an obligation.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:34pm | #

"What crime is appropriate?"

Murder

"Should the mother be prosecuted for murder?"

yes

"Manslaughter?"

no, murder.

"Should the punishment be jail, death, a fine?"

Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.

"How would you enforce it?"

With evidence presented at trial.

"Do the doctors also get punished?"

Yes

"Are they charged with murder? Manslaughter?"

Depends on their role, but i would imagine it would be murder.

"Jail time? Lose their license? Fine?"

Whatever the local laws prescribe for committing murder.

Whatever you would charge someone who killed a 9 year old, 6 year old, 3 year old, or newborn is what i think you should charge someone who kills or helps to kill or hires to kill a preborn. If it ain't in self-defense it's murder.

Fluffy | December 21, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Shane,

Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will starve to death this year?

They would live, if only you would feed them. Maybe you can hook yourself up to a really long placenta whose other end is in the Sudan.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:40pm | #

"Can I prosecute you for murder for all the Sudanese who will starve to death this year?"

We're talking about termination not neglect. You can't charge me for not supplying them food, You can charhe me if i dismemberone or more of them, even if a doctor helps me to do so.

Dave D | December 21, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Brandybuck hit the nail on the head.

Smacky, I am rabidly pro-choice. But that has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. If a Libertarian thinks that a fetus is a person and thus part of the "social contract," then of course it should be protected from violence.

Jay D | December 21, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Ok, how about a compromise? Just scoop it out and see if it's breathing on its own. If it's alive, then, great -- Igor, it's alive!

Don't forget the complimentary "I survived an abortion and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" T-shirt.

When the child grows up, she should have something to remember this tender loving moment with.

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 3:44pm | #

What crime is appropriate?

Furthermore,

what about a pregnant mother engaging in behavior like riding a horse, or speeding or drinking while pregnant?

If a fetus has the exact same rights as a human, then any action a mother takes that may or does cause a miscarriage would be a variation of manslaughter?

The position that a fetus has the exact same rights as a born person leads to inane outcomes.

If it ain't in self-defense it's murder

Until the baby is viable, it is equivalent to a parasite. It cannot exist without feeding off of the mother. If the mother doesn't want a parasite feeding off of her, could that not be self defense?

Fluffy | December 21, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Shane -

It would be pretty straightforward to reconfigure most early pregnancy abortions as removals, not dismemberments. Not to mention the fact that RU-486 does not involve surgery at all.

What then?

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:46pm | #

"If a woman is obligated to supply her womb to the fetus simply because "

before we get to "simply because", does she have an obligation to care for her offspring? What's the libertarian position on child abuse/neglect? Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function of the state to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and food to my minor children?

If the answer is yes, and i and/or their other parent are legally and ethically obligated to provide care for our minor children, then why should it be any different for this woman?

Akhbar Goldberg | December 21, 2007, 3:46pm | #

Did anyone see that episode of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia where it turns out that Charlie survived an abortion attempt? I don't know but for some reason this thread reminded me of it...

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Shane,

Thanks.
We are clear on your position.

Now, how do you feel about punishing mothers who assault their children by drinking alcohol, or smoking?

ChicagoTom | December 21, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility?

Adoption?

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Neu Mejican-

I guess it would depend on what amount of harm was caused, or if you can even prove harm was done. Drinking around children causes no physical harm that i know of, though a parent forcing a child to drink against their will could and should be prosecuted. A parent allowing a child to drink or smoke, not my concern as i don't really see that as "causing harm" unless you're talking about use of force.

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:52pm | #

"Adoption?"

Well adoption isn't murder or neglect is it?

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Shane,

By the way, I am very much on your side when it comes to the concept of rights being inextricably linked to responsibilities.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Shane,

I am talking about drinking or smoking while pregnant. The link to harm is well established.

Neu Mejican | December 21, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Shane,

So that would be...

How do you feel about punishing a mother for assaulting her child by forcing them to drink which harms their development?

Dave D | December 21, 2007, 3:57pm | #

One other note - I always find it strange when someone wants to ban abortion but is willing to make an exception for rape or incest. I mean, if abortion is murder, how can it be justified just because the mother was raped? Similarly, I don't understand pro-choicers who want to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE". If (like me) you do NOT see abortion as murder, why should it be any rarer than any other birth control method? Granted it's a bit pricier.

Abortion is one of those issues where I understand the extreme positions, but not the "moderate" ones.

Fluffy | December 21, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Am i and/or should i be obligated to care for a child who is legally my responsibility? is it a legitmate function of the state to prosecute me if i refuse to provide shelter and food to my minor children?

There are a number of different ways in which citizens can legally abandon their children. So I guess the answer is No, huh?

Shane | December 21, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Fluffy- Use of RU-486 would be too difficult to prove, and i'm not for banning or restricting possession of it, but if it can be proven that