5 ms·

I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian.

lubos 12y ago
Well, there is also something called "Christian libertarianism". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism
- ende 12y ago
  There's also something called Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). As a concept, it defies the strict ordering of the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism is probably best not defined as a noun but as an adjective.
natmaster 12y ago
While Rand Paul is not a libertarian (this is a concept promoted by the media to make him seem radical), your understanding of abortion issues is quite off. The real debate about abortion is over when life that deserves protecting begins. There is nothing else anyone disagrees with. If the fetus was an animal PETA would be the only ones having issue; if the fetus was dead noone would have issue with removing it. Some people believe that because a baby is not yet outside its mother, it has no rights. Other believe that until a baby is named, it has no rights. That is what the issue is about, and thinking otherwise you might as well not engage because you will go in circles all day. As far as same-sex marriage, Rand Paul thinks it is not the federal government's responsibility to regulate that. Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy.
- morgante 12y ago
  I don't think Rand Paul is a libertarian (I was simply responding to the parent). As for abortion, even if you consider the fetus a "person," I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. > Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy. Delegating to the states is very different from removing the regulation. The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation.
  - natmaster 12y ago
    > I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. So all neglect laws should be removed? > The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation. That requires a constitutional amendment. Those are not easy to get passed.
    - morgante 12y ago
      > So all neglect laws should be removed? I am not a libertarian, so I wouldn't. But several libertarians I know have said we so, and also argue that there should be no duty to feed the poor, etc. > The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation. That requires a constitutional amendment. Those are not easy to get passed. That depends on what regulation we want passed. The First Amendment already includes some pretty important limits on the power of government (included limits which Paul seems loathe to enforce).
      - natmaster 12y ago
        "several libertarians I know have said we so" This is a first for me to hear, though it's important to note libertarians are individuals too, and have their own ideas! I have not found any libertarians promoting children as full-class citizens; so this is very new to hear this. Suffice it to say, I don't think that viewpoint is common. "First Amendment ..." to the constitution. Are you just agreeing with me here?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - tzs 12y ago
      > So all neglect laws should be removed? That was the position of Murray Rothbard [1], who was one of the major intellectual founders of modern libertarianism, particularly anarcho-capitalism. He was a founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Most internet libertarians seem to be followers of his school of libertarianism (although they often do not know it...). His book "The Ethics of Liberty" covers children in chapter 14. You can find the PDF online. There's a big chunk of chapter 14 here [2]. Here's the most relevant part: Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights. Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard [2] http://mises.org/library/children-and-rights http://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
dataker 12y ago
I think one should probably be pragmatic. I mean, if you're a republican, you practically need to have someone with these ideals. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to have enough votes.
scottjad 12y ago
So Ron Paul (anti-abortion) is not a libertarian? I think this is news to Ron Paul, all of Ron Paul's congressional staffers and campaign volunteers, r/libertarian, mises.org, reason.com, Cato, Students for Liberty, IHS, FEE, FFF, antiwar.com, every libertarian podcast and radio show, and libertarians everywhere. /s While pro-choice is the view held by the majority of libertarians, there is a large minority of libertarians that are pro-life and they are accepted as libertarians by almost all libertarians. If every libertarian who disagreed with the libertarian majority on one or two issues were disqualified from being a libertarian there wouldn't be any libertarians left.
crazy1van 12y ago
> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question to personal freedom, a typical libertarian position is that in the eyes of the law and gov't, a gay marriage should be the same as a heterosexual marriage. However, an individual should have the freedom to not participate in a gay marriage. In other words, saying one person has the freedom to marry who they wish and another has the freedom to not participate in the wedding is very consistent with libertarian views.
- morgante 12y ago
  > So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). > Regarding same-sex marriages: Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    > banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him. So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted. > Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy? I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."
theonemind 12y ago
People have an odd view of gay marriage, where people have some sort of right to marry who they choose. Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by society to try to promote nuclear families. They get tax breaks, etc. at the expense of anyone who doesn't prefer that family structure. Ideally, these rights could be assigned piecemeal between any two individuals, with non-exclusion (i.e., polyamory is allowed.) Perhaps my spouse isn't the best at difficult decisions, and I'd prefer my stable son to be able to make difficult medical decisions, like whether I should be kept on life support. Perhaps I would like to file taxes jointly with my roommate for two years, if we shared household expenses. In no way is granting gay marriage some kind of rights equalization, but an expansion of an already unfair system, so I oppose it, just as if white people could own black people, but not vice versa, I would not be in favor of allowing black people to own white people, and would oppose any such measure, while being in favor of real equalization by abolishing the system of anybody owning anybody.

lubos 12y ago

Well, there is also something called "Christian libertarianism". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism

ende 12y ago
There's also something called Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). As a concept, it defies the strict ordering of the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism is probably best not defined as a noun but as an adjective.

natmaster 12y ago

While Rand Paul is not a libertarian (this is a concept promoted by the media to make him seem radical), your understanding of abortion issues is quite off. The real debate about abortion is over when life that deserves protecting begins. There is nothing else anyone disagrees with. If the fetus was an animal PETA would be the only ones having issue; if the fetus was dead noone would have issue with removing it. Some people believe that because a baby is not yet outside its mother, it has no rights. Other believe that until a baby is named, it has no rights. That is what the issue is about, and thinking otherwise you might as well not engage because you will go in circles all day. As far as same-sex marriage, Rand Paul thinks it is not the federal government's responsibility to regulate that. Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy.

morgante 12y ago
I don't think Rand Paul is a libertarian (I was simply responding to the parent). As for abortion, even if you consider the fetus a "person," I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. > Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy. Delegating to the states is very different from removing the regulation. The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation.
- natmaster 12y ago
  > I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. So all neglect laws should be removed? > The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation. That requires a constitutional amendment. Those are not easy to get passed.
  - morgante 12y ago
    > So all neglect laws should be removed? I am not a libertarian, so I wouldn't. But several libertarians I know have said we so, and also argue that there should be no duty to feed the poor, etc. > The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation. That requires a constitutional amendment. Those are not easy to get passed. That depends on what regulation we want passed. The First Amendment already includes some pretty important limits on the power of government (included limits which Paul seems loathe to enforce).
    - natmaster 12y ago
      "several libertarians I know have said we so" This is a first for me to hear, though it's important to note libertarians are individuals too, and have their own ideas! I have not found any libertarians promoting children as full-class citizens; so this is very new to hear this. Suffice it to say, I don't think that viewpoint is common. "First Amendment ..." to the constitution. Are you just agreeing with me here?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 12y ago
    > So all neglect laws should be removed? That was the position of Murray Rothbard [1], who was one of the major intellectual founders of modern libertarianism, particularly anarcho-capitalism. He was a founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Most internet libertarians seem to be followers of his school of libertarianism (although they often do not know it...). His book "The Ethics of Liberty" covers children in chapter 14. You can find the PDF online. There's a big chunk of chapter 14 here [2]. Here's the most relevant part: Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights. Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard [2] http://mises.org/library/children-and-rights http://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

dataker 12y ago

I think one should probably be pragmatic. I mean, if you're a republican, you practically need to have someone with these ideals. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to have enough votes.

scottjad 12y ago

So Ron Paul (anti-abortion) is not a libertarian? I think this is news to Ron Paul, all of Ron Paul's congressional staffers and campaign volunteers, r/libertarian, mises.org, reason.com, Cato, Students for Liberty, IHS, FEE, FFF, antiwar.com, every libertarian podcast and radio show, and libertarians everywhere. /s While pro-choice is the view held by the majority of libertarians, there is a large minority of libertarians that are pro-life and they are accepted as libertarians by almost all libertarians. If every libertarian who disagreed with the libertarian majority on one or two issues were disqualified from being a libertarian there wouldn't be any libertarians left.

crazy1van 12y ago

> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question to personal freedom, a typical libertarian position is that in the eyes of the law and gov't, a gay marriage should be the same as a heterosexual marriage. However, an individual should have the freedom to not participate in a gay marriage. In other words, saying one person has the freedom to marry who they wish and another has the freedom to not participate in the wedding is very consistent with libertarian views.

morgante 12y ago
> So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). > Regarding same-sex marriages: Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?
- crazy1van 12y ago
  > banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him. So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted. > Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy? I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."

theonemind 12y ago

People have an odd view of gay marriage, where people have some sort of right to marry who they choose. Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by society to try to promote nuclear families. They get tax breaks, etc. at the expense of anyone who doesn't prefer that family structure. Ideally, these rights could be assigned piecemeal between any two individuals, with non-exclusion (i.e., polyamory is allowed.) Perhaps my spouse isn't the best at difficult decisions, and I'd prefer my stable son to be able to make difficult medical decisions, like whether I should be kept on life support. Perhaps I would like to file taxes jointly with my roommate for two years, if we shared household expenses. In no way is granting gay marriage some kind of rights equalization, but an expansion of an already unfair system, so I oppose it, just as if white people could own black people, but not vice versa, I would not be in favor of allowing black people to own white people, and would oppose any such measure, while being in favor of real equalization by abolishing the system of anybody owning anybody.