Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[pErvinalia]

You're boring me. I'm going to bed. You'll have to argue with someone else tonight.

[Svartalf]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

given the extraordinary effort, on the down's person's and his helpers' part,j I'd say it is definitely significant

[Forty Two]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

Also, I presented no dichotomy. You did. I merely stated that I wasn't sure where a person gets the idea that one has "dominion over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else," where that person does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights.

Now, if you have a basis for individual rights, then you're not that person I was referring to. So, that's why I asked you just now to clarify what your basis for individual rights is.

If you have some other source for a concept of "dominion over one's own body" that does not stem from an idea of individual rights, then just explain where you get it from.

There's no "dichotomy" here, as I have not said that you either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. You said that. I said nothing remotely of the kind.

But that's exactly what your rhetoric is aimed at conveying.

It isn't my aim. And, it's not what I wrote.

You do this regularly.

No. I don't. Go ahead and answer the questions I posed. They were direct, and simple. I'm not getting into a personal fight with you about what you or I do regularly your usual crap.

I don't think any of the lefties posting here now are socialists, let alone authoritarian socialists.

I didn't say they were. That's not relevant to the questions I posed to you above, or the point I made about recognition of individual rights and the source of a so-called "dominion over one's own body."

We all believe in the enlightenment principles and individual rights to varying degrees.

We all do? Oh, o.k., so you believe in Enlightenment principles and individual rights? You believe in a fundamental individual right to free speech? Please, describe what right that is, and your source for it (or your reasoned analysis of where it comes from). Then I'll go take that definition/argument to our free speech threads and we can apply it there.

Yet you continue to try and paint a false dichotomy where you are the one with the one true philosophy and the rest of us are either socialists,

No no. I've not said anything about what "the rest of us" here believe. Nothing at all. I didn't even post here about what YOU believe,except after you chimed in and pointed out that you've on other threads poo pooed the idea of individual rights and natural rights. And, you have. Now, you seem to be saying - although not quite in an undeniable fashion - that you do, in fact, believe in Enlightenment principles of individual rights and natural rights -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what's coming across now in your posts. So, what I'm asking you to do is to be clear -- state what you believe is an individual right and on what basis you advance the existence of said right(s), and more specifically what's this "right to dominion over one's own body" and where does that come from? -- I mean, if it's other than an "arbitrary belief," which you said to Drewish was something that denigrated his argument...the fact that his belief was arbitrary.

So, give some clarification there, please. If you have a non-arbitrary source for the right to have dominion over one's own body, and/or other individual rights, what's the source? Popular vote? Natural right? Positivism? Something else?

on the way to become socialists, or just useful idiots.

Don't confuse me with Seth. I've not accused anyone of that. And, I disagreed with Seth on most issues. There are threads where he and I argued for days. Most of the time I disagreed with him adamantly.

The is your whole raison d'être here.

It isn't since I've never accused anyone of that - I doubt I've ever even used the term "useful idiots" here, and certainly not to accuse anyone of being that.

Find anything to argue about then spend thousands of words trying to argue that black is white. You don't show any interest in understanding anyone else's views, other than just enough that you can find something to cause a dichotomy that you exploit for your own purposes.

You don't show any interest in actually expressing your views and supporting them with any logical, rational argument and/or philosophical base. You just like to slam other people's arguments, but then not explain why and also not advance your own position.

To sum up here, you accused Drewish of advancing just an arbitrary viewpoint when he talked about "meaningful contributions." I found that odd, because I don't think there is an issue where you would acknowledge something other than an arbitrary viewpoint. When arguments are made based on things like Enlightenment philosophies, fundamental rights, natural rights, you've, by my reading of your posts poo pooed them completely - you haven't just said "I believe in those principles, but just not to the same extent as you...."

But, of course, I could be wrong, so my questions are designed to let you describe your view and clarify for me how I'm wrong -- how you did not poo poo them completely and you really do have some non-arbitrary rational basis for believing in individual rights and such "to some extent." So, (a) what's your non-arbitrary basis for your belief in individual rights, and (b) what's your non-arbitrary basis for your belief in a right to dominion over one's own body.

It's nothing for you to be in a twist over. I'm getting at, to be clear here, your criticism of Drewish for being "arbitrary." If being arbitrary is a deficiency in his argument, then I'd like to know what your view is, and how is it not arbitrary. Where this can be best illustrated is in the notion of the individual rights and dominion over one's body issues - because you have acknowledged accepting the existence of these rights to some degree. it seems quite fair to ask your non-arbitrary basis for such a position.

[Drewish]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

I understand you basic thrust: there's some dead wood in society and a bit of judicious coppicing would create room for the rest to flourish. Still, if the measure by which we determine who is to be felled for the good of all is the meaningfulness of their contribution to society then perhaps you can move beyond the declarative to discussing what a 'meaningful contribution to society' might look like - we don't want to go round lopping off the wrong branches now do we? As an in to that, I specifically asked you what would keep you and your family from falling out of that 'meaningful contributors' category - and I framed it that way because those who advocate this kind of social pruning always assume it will only apply to others and never to themselves. How do you and yours 'meaningfully contribute' to society? We need to know, and quickly, because that sound you hear is the woodsman sharpening his axe.

Well that's assuming a bit about implementation. I mean, my thoughts are that parents having the right to abort (even a couple weeks after birth) as a means of ensuring unwanted children don't exist is only part of it. Tying access to a welfare state with sterilization is another (want free food , subsidized housing, etc... fine, but we're gonna have you fixed first to prevent you creating more dependents). I view is that any form of collectivism needs to have standards and not just guarantees, and that a "right to life" is much like a "right to free speech" in that it is a negative right, one that the government shouldn't infringe on, but should not guarantee. Collectivists don't like to admit that not all people are equal and the idiots breed more, and individualists don't like to admit that people will starve / rebel to avoid starvation under their system. My motivation if based on what I think will actually lead to human flourishing.

[Brian Peacock]

...
Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

I understand you basic thrust: there's some dead wood in society and a bit of judicious coppicing would create room for the rest to flourish. Still, if the measure by which we determine who is to be felled for the good of all is the meaningfulness of their contribution to society then perhaps you can move beyond the declarative to discussing what a 'meaningful contribution to society' might look like - we don't want to go round lopping off the wrong branches now do we? As an in to that, I specifically asked you what would keep you and your family from falling out of that 'meaningful contributors' category - and I framed it that way because those who advocate this kind of social pruning always assume it will only apply to others and never to themselves. How do you and yours 'meaningfully contribute' to society? We need to know, and quickly, because that sound you hear is the woodsman sharpening his axe.

Well that's assuming a bit about implementation. I mean, my thoughts are that parents having the right to abort (even a couple weeks after birth) as a means of ensuring unwanted children don't exist is only part of it. Tying access to a welfare state with sterilization is another (want free food , subsidized housing, etc... fine, but we're gonna have you fixed first to prevent you creating more dependents). I view is that any form of collectivism needs to have standards and not just guarantees, and that a "right to life" is much like a "right to free speech" in that it is a negative right, one that the government shouldn't infringe on, but should not guarantee. Collectivists don't like to admit that not all people are equal and the idiots breed more, and individualists don't like to admit that people will starve / rebel to avoid starvation under their system. My motivation if based on what I think will actually lead to human flourishing.

If I'm making assumption I'm not the only one. Remember, this strand of the discussion follows from the comments you made about how someone born with Downs wouldn't/couldn't make a meaningful contribution to society. On the basis of this assessment you're happy to place the burden for deciding if someone, their child, will make a meaningful contribution to society on parents. Fine. However, and as I've asked a number of times now, what actually is a 'meaningful contribution to society'? Above, you suggest that being in receipt of some sort of welfare would be cause enough to forgo one's reproductive rights - again, one assumes (because no explanation has been forthcoming so far), because the unemployed are incapable of meaningfully contributing to society. By this you tie the implementation of a public policy, forced sterilization for the unemployed, to this notion of a socially beneficial contributory responsibility - clearly implying that the unemployed are not contributors to society, or if they are their contribution are not meaningful enough at least.

So, what is a meaningful contribution to society? And if you get laid off and the bank forecloses on you should we send the woodsman round for your bollocks and the ovaries of you daughters as a condition for getting your soylent voucher?

[L'Emmerdeur]

... And if you get laid off and the bank forecloses on you should we send the woodsman round for your bollocks and the ovaries of you daughters as a condition for getting your soylent voucher?

Well put! Thanks for the chuckle.

[Drewish]

... And if you get laid off and the bank forecloses on you should we send the woodsman round for your bollocks and the ovaries of you daughters as a condition for getting your soylent voucher?

Well put! Thanks for the chuckle.

YES! These same standards should be applied universally, to myself included.

[Feck]

Libertarianism is a silly joke .

[Feck]

^ at best, at it's worst it's fucking offensive

[Feck]

And posting on the interweb about libertarianism is fucking ludicrous

[pErvinalia]

... And if you get laid off and the bank forecloses on you should we send the woodsman round for your bollocks and the ovaries of you daughters as a condition for getting your soylent voucher?

Well put! Thanks for the chuckle.

YES! These same standards should be applied universally, to myself included.

To yourself particularly...

[JimC]

Physician heal thyself!

[Forty Two]

^ at best, at it's worst it's fucking offensive

How so? What concepts or aspects of libertarianism do you find offensive?

What are your feelings on hereditary monarchies and entrenched aristocracies overseeing parliaments of commoners?

[Brian Peacock]

Anyway. Back to the topic. Libertarians are inherently pro-choice, indeed they must be, because, regardless which sect of the social-economic philosophy is favoured, Libertarianism is fundamentally an ideology which seeks to maximise freedom and self-ownership. Arguing for Libertarianism while arguing against abortion is something that can't really be squared unless, that is, one just goes in for a pick-and-mix, full-bigot kind of Libertarianism which denies maximal self-ownership for women but not men.

[Sean Hayden]

They just give personhood to the fetus and for them presto, the contradictions vanish.

Women might consider appealing to the libertarian's sense of justice and fair play by claiming that in the case of an abortion the fetus is an unwelcome intruder. It's essentially violating the most sacred space, and therefore abortion should be allowed along the lines of the castle laws allowance for shooting burglars.