6 ms·

> If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. This statement is in conflict with itself. If a red state bans abo

> If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. This statement is in conflict with itself. If a red state bans abortions then they are imposing their will onto others in that state. Why is it only "imposing will" when the Federal Government decides to dictate to a state what to do? By this logic why not let a municipality decide to ban abortion? The state shouldn't impose its will onto the people in that city. Why not let people decide at the neighborhood level, or within their houses, or at the individual level. Why not let every individual decide what is morally acceptable and abide by their own set of laws? Trying to intellectualize the argument about who can and cant criminalize abortion ignores the hard scientific facts that we know: Criminalizing abortion does not decrease the number of abortions, only the mortality rate.

lettergram 4y ago
I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal government shouldn’t pass any law. The states probably shouldn’t either regarding this. Basically my view is that impositions of will is best served at the smallest possible unit. Hopefully, that’s at the individual level, ie I don’t want to hurt you so you don’t hurt me. But if a law must exist, do so locally. If it really must be broadened, then do so at a larger scale. If a town up the creek is poisoning a town down the creek, then at the very least you have to impose law between two said towns, else you risk violence. That would be the minimal range you could impose. The legal system is only there as an alternative to war. In this case, it seems rather obvious to me there should be no laws really. That said, If the majority of a region / town disagree who am I to impose my will from across the world? That vast majority is split on this issue globally, so I don’t think law is a good idea as it may lead to violence as it’s imposing will as opposed to resolving a conflict.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? Pretty much, yes. That’s not to say I think all the outcomes are bad. But by many measurements these acts had far reaching, catastrophic consequences that negatively impacted the United States. Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. Was it done with good intentions — perhaps. But the implementation caused impacts locally which had massive negative effects as well. Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Also as an aside, I’m always open to changing views. I don’t want to die on any hill. That said; I can acknowledge and entertain various views without degrading them or calling them ridiculous. People tend to have views for a reason so I tend to listen and discuss rather than degrade..
    - softcactus 4y ago
      > Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). This is like looking at the US before and after the civil war and pointing to inequality afterwards saying: "look how bad the inequality was after the civil war" due to slaves becoming sharecroppers. Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? > Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Second leap of logic. Localized governance would have had slavery and Jim Crow laws still enacted. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was implemented at the Federal level was because it WOULD NOT have ever been implemented at the state or local level. There is no "libertarian" solution when it comes to dealing with racism or similar conflicts. Consider any genocide, be it the Bosnian genocide or the Holocaust, etc. How do you combat that through a libertarian framework? "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to enforce segregation. Let the states decide." "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to do mass murder. Let the states decide." Finally, consider why the concept of libertarianism exists in the first place. It exists to maximize personal liberty. If one person is meaningfully limiting the liberty of another, be it through violence, or economic means, ostracization, or intimidation, then wouldn't that be the BEST time for government to intervene to maximize the overall liberty of the system? I think we can all agree that the freedom to not be oppressed is more valuable than the freedom to oppress others.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Because the United States' founding documents explicitly set things up this way. The United States is not a European country, nor is it Canada. There is really no other country on earth like it from a legal perspective, especially of its population. You can decry the founding of the country all you want, but short of Constitutional amendments, it's not changing. States and the People retain any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I understand why the mechanisms are the way they are, I'm saying that the intellectualization of criminalizing abortion in the US under libertarian theory is a lazy argument. "People shouldn't interfere with others" is fine in a hypothetical setting. Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. There's a reason why "states rights" has typically been used to justify inequity.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. Alaska does rank choice voting now, for instance. Iowa does caucus voting. Illinois does majority vote. The constitution didn’t prescribe how a vote should take place. It did say, it must be democratic. So while you may get some majority rule. The states are also setup to protect minority (politically) interests. Many have multi-chamber governmental setups, for example. What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. That is to say; there is no federal body dictating what happens / who is appointed in states. Similar to the EU, each state is effectively a country onto itself. The states came together to federalize (like the EU), but they retained most of the sovereignty. Over the years (again, much like the EU), that has been stripped away. But I think we’re at a point where sovereignty is returning to states.

lettergram 4y ago

I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal government shouldn’t pass any law. The states probably shouldn’t either regarding this. Basically my view is that impositions of will is best served at the smallest possible unit. Hopefully, that’s at the individual level, ie I don’t want to hurt you so you don’t hurt me. But if a law must exist, do so locally. If it really must be broadened, then do so at a larger scale. If a town up the creek is poisoning a town down the creek, then at the very least you have to impose law between two said towns, else you risk violence. That would be the minimal range you could impose. The legal system is only there as an alternative to war. In this case, it seems rather obvious to me there should be no laws really. That said, If the majority of a region / town disagree who am I to impose my will from across the world? That vast majority is split on this issue globally, so I don’t think law is a good idea as it may lead to violence as it’s imposing will as opposed to resolving a conflict.

softcactus 4y ago
I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? Pretty much, yes. That’s not to say I think all the outcomes are bad. But by many measurements these acts had far reaching, catastrophic consequences that negatively impacted the United States. Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. Was it done with good intentions — perhaps. But the implementation caused impacts locally which had massive negative effects as well. Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Also as an aside, I’m always open to changing views. I don’t want to die on any hill. That said; I can acknowledge and entertain various views without degrading them or calling them ridiculous. People tend to have views for a reason so I tend to listen and discuss rather than degrade..
  - softcactus 4y ago
    > Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). This is like looking at the US before and after the civil war and pointing to inequality afterwards saying: "look how bad the inequality was after the civil war" due to slaves becoming sharecroppers. Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? > Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Second leap of logic. Localized governance would have had slavery and Jim Crow laws still enacted. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was implemented at the Federal level was because it WOULD NOT have ever been implemented at the state or local level. There is no "libertarian" solution when it comes to dealing with racism or similar conflicts. Consider any genocide, be it the Bosnian genocide or the Holocaust, etc. How do you combat that through a libertarian framework? "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to enforce segregation. Let the states decide." "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to do mass murder. Let the states decide." Finally, consider why the concept of libertarianism exists in the first place. It exists to maximize personal liberty. If one person is meaningfully limiting the liberty of another, be it through violence, or economic means, ostracization, or intimidation, then wouldn't that be the BEST time for government to intervene to maximize the overall liberty of the system? I think we can all agree that the freedom to not be oppressed is more valuable than the freedom to oppress others.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Because the United States' founding documents explicitly set things up this way. The United States is not a European country, nor is it Canada. There is really no other country on earth like it from a legal perspective, especially of its population. You can decry the founding of the country all you want, but short of Constitutional amendments, it's not changing. States and the People retain any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

softcactus 4y ago
I understand why the mechanisms are the way they are, I'm saying that the intellectualization of criminalizing abortion in the US under libertarian theory is a lazy argument. "People shouldn't interfere with others" is fine in a hypothetical setting. Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. There's a reason why "states rights" has typically been used to justify inequity.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Put into practice under the US legal system you just end up with tyranny of the majority at the State level, meanwhile the Federal government is powerless to intervene because of anti-democratic measures like the Senate and the Filibuster. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on election related issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if they rule (correctly, based on the constitution) that every state can manage its own voting laws. Alaska does rank choice voting now, for instance. Iowa does caucus voting. Illinois does majority vote. The constitution didn’t prescribe how a vote should take place. It did say, it must be democratic. So while you may get some majority rule. The states are also setup to protect minority (politically) interests. Many have multi-chamber governmental setups, for example. What is also often overlooked is that each state is self-governing. That is to say; there is no federal body dictating what happens / who is appointed in states. Similar to the EU, each state is effectively a country onto itself. The states came together to federalize (like the EU), but they retained most of the sovereignty. Over the years (again, much like the EU), that has been stripped away. But I think we’re at a point where sovereignty is returning to states.