On an article here about abortion, and why it is certainly possible to be a libertarian and "pro life" if you think that a fetus is a human being (which happens to be the editorial position of The Humble Libertarian), a commentator recently wrote:
"Your not a Libertarian if your proLife. Your just another conservative religious nut that doesn't like the current Republicans economic policies."
Here is my response (to which I have added relevant links):
Well let me ask you this- am I just another conservative religious nut because I want to end the wars in the Middle East and bring the troops home? Or because I want to significantly reduce the defense budget? Or because I want the government to stop funding faith-based initiatives? Or because I believe homosexuals are discriminated against by our state's unwarranted intervention into the marriage issue (and that this should end)? Or because I want to legalize the recreational use of drugs? Or because I want to legalize any and all sexual acts between consenting adults, including prostitution? Or because I detest the Patriot Act, torture, warrant-less wiretapping, indefinite detainment without charges, the Bush Administration, and Sarah Palin? Or because I want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and liberalize our immigration and trade policies? Or because I do not believe in a long-term strategic military alliance with the nation state of Israel (and think that the theological basis some Christians have for such a policy is the very worst possible reason they could give for it)? Or that I sympathize with the plight of Arabs and Persians who have suffered because of our foreign policy of supporting and arming their dictators? Am I just another conservative religious nut because of all this? Please give me half a chance and listen to and try to understand what I have to say before pronouncing judgments about me. You may find we have more in common than you think.
It's awfully nice when you can fit people into a neat little box, but it just so happens that neither I, nor most libertarians fit very neatly into your typical conception of politics, certainly not into the left-right (false) dichotomy. We're not partisan, we're not unreasonable, we don't play red team/blue team, and we will not be pigeon-holed.
13 comments:
That's a good one. If someone attacks my stand on something but uses poor grammar to do it, I just laugh because it just helps make the attackers look more foolish.
And speaking of this topic, you should check out my latest piece if you get the chance - it's about the sham of the pro-life movement as it relates to Rand Paul's senate race.
Wes: That was a beautiful response to an incoherent shallow thinker.
Carl- brilliant piece! I'm pumped to bring you on here.
LA- Thanks! I just wish this person would give me a chance, that's all.
Thanks!
But there is an update that I just put up. James Dobson has actually reversed his endorsement and is today backing Rand Paul. He didn't say it in as many words, but he announced that the Republican Party, prepare to be shocked, lied to him about RP. (!)
Dude. Thanks for the tip. Just covered it.
I'm with Carl on the grammar thing. And the Republican liars. And with both of you on just about everything else...
Greg- you rock. It's been a long time, and it's a thrill to hear from you. How are things?
well, as discussed in the past, I agree with you on 90% maybe 95% and respect your position on the rest.
Amnesty in my opinion is a terrible idea. Immigration reform on the other hand is a great idea. I am not in favor of rewarding law breakers no matter how crappy the law may be.
Speaking strictly as a casual commentor here, as I don't blog nor comment frequently, I have stated my opinions about Pro Life and Pro Choice. I am personally Pro Choice and have dicussed it at some length here.
No one should say you are not Libertarian if you are one or the other. I don't agree 100% with Libertarian thought. Who does?! We are all made up of our own life experiences which have formed our beliefs and opinions over time. Everyone has the right to have their beliefs and opinions, forcing them upon others is where we make our stand.
I disagree with Wes on the abortion issue. Thats fine, we are comrades in arms nonetheless. Its the goal of liberty we share and one or two differences in opinion should never deter nor distract us from the purpose of our activism.
To Wes, and others, I say thank you. Thank you for differing with myself and each other. Thank you for being diverse and bold. Thank you for caring about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In America, there are no minorities when you are simply an American.
'preciate it KOOK! Legitimate differences among friends of liberty are as you know, totally welcome here. We'll dig into the immigration issue some more soon...
Sie- very nicely said.
True libertarians can have opposing views on this one. After two unplanned pregnancies in my life - one abortion and one beautiful child I'm raising - I understand both sides of the issue.
There is a very good reason that the LP has avoided abortion in its platform. We have agreed to disagree on this issue while we are in agreement on most of the others.
Right- it's almost not even really a political controversy. Our political views on it are merely corollaries to our philosophical views- it's primarily an ontological controversy. The question is: what is a human fetus? Is it a human being or is it tissue mass belonging to the woman? We can both agree that human beings should be free but differ on this ontological question.
"Our political views on [abortion] are merely corollaries to our philosophical views- it's primarily an ontological controversy."
Now that's my kind of libertarianism! You gotta know *what* you think, and why that is, in order to know *how* to think about any political positions, which are ancillary to the primacy of reason and a more complete understanding of human nature, will, and action.
"We can both agree that human beings should be free but differ on this ontological question."
This is where I'm (stuck) at. You address the subject and its controversy really well in your article: http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/06/abortion-debate-reasoned-pro-life.html
I've shown it to a lot of my friends, and even if they still do not oppose abortion, everyone agrees that you logically and compassionately address the essential questions at stake, while employing deft reasoning, not just religious thought (which can be a deal-breaker for some, even though faith and reason are not mutually exclusive) to support your thesis.
Post a Comment