Choice: Libertarian style

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Choice



Republicans are chastized as "anti-choice" because they stand against abortion. On that issues I can at least understand the discussion because there is the possibility of it being a human rights issues, especially in late term as the partial birth abortion ban is attempting to stop.



However this nice article talks about how for Democrats, the choice rhetoric pretty much stops after abortion, even on issues that are between them, their family and their doctor.



The issues it illustrates where they don't want us to have "choice" are recreational drug use, silicone breast implants (even when declared safe by the FDA), own a gun for protection, invest their own social security for retirement, or choose where there children will go to school.



What do you think? A little hypocracy in the choice rhetoric? How could a woman be informed enough, even at 12-13 to make a choice of abortion with her body, but not be capable of making the choice of where her 12-13 year old daughter should go to school?



Nick
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    A little hypocracy in the choice rhetoric?



    Yes!
  • Reply 2 of 154
    To stir things up a bit I'm a pretty thorough Libertarian, yet am Pro-Life. In dealing with matters of life and death, I don't think it's as simple as the "choice" of one person, ie the killer.
  • Reply 3 of 154
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    We're talking about different choices...



    what I can do to myself... versus what choices I make that affect others.



    How can the pro-life Bush support fertility procedures yet ban further stem cell lines? More embryos are discarded in fertility clinics than are used in stem cell research... and stem cell research uses younger cells.



    Maybe Bush doesn't understand the science... or maybe he just understands the politics.



    Either way he's seen more people put to death in his state than any other.
  • Reply 4 of 154
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    We're talking about different choices...



    what I can do to myself... versus what choices I make that affect others.



    How can the pro-life Bush support fertility procedures yet ban further stem cell lines? More embryos are discarded in fertility clinics than are used in stem cell research... and stem cell research uses younger cells.



    Maybe Bush doesn't understand the science... or maybe he just understands the politics.



    Either way he's seen more people put to death in his state than any other.




    Rhetoric in place of reality?



    How does choosing where your daughter goes to school harm others? How does recreational drug use harm others? How does investing your own retirement harm others?



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 154
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    you can choose to send your child to a private school...

    you can choose to drink alcohol...

    you can invest your after tax money wherever you want...
  • Reply 6 of 154
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Rhetoric in place of reality?



    How does choosing where your daughter goes to school harm others? How does recreational drug use harm others? How does investing your own retirement harm others?



    Nick




    1. Vouchers takes money away from public schools and therefore my child in public school has access to less resources.



    2. Recreational drug use results in higher costs for public substance abuse clinics increasing the need for additional taxation.



    3. People who screw-up their own retirement fund by making bad investments results in requiring additional public assistance or bail-out.
  • Reply 7 of 154
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Your argument is absurd. Using your logic, only anarchism is not hypocritical with respect to choice because it imposes no rules on society. I think it's obvious to what choice refers when it's used in the context of abortion. Now, if abortion actually hurt the mother you would not see much support for the procedure- which is one of the premises for the legalization of abortion- that "coat-hanger" illegal abortions actually hurt women. The case with silicone breast implants is that some say we just don't know enough about the safety of the material: some evidence suggests it hurts women.



    This topic will spin out of control fast due to it's shoddy premise I just revealed.
  • Reply 8 of 154
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka



    Either way he's seen more people put to death in his state than any other.




    Good points chu_bakka,



    This is why I am all over the political map. Political parties in America have flaws which do not hold to my views. Many "Republicans" are just too conservative with their support of the Death Penalty. Many "Democrats" are too conservative with their support of the "Late term abortion issue"



    I view it to be liberal to be for human rights. Not selfish rights.



    Don't get me wrong I am not trying to impose morality and split hairs. I am making a clear distinction between selfish "rights" and human rights.



    A true liberal I would argue would be for human rights over selfish "rights" I consider myself to be this kind of liberal in terms of my philosophy. I am all for society collectively planning for the benefit of all hence priority placed on education, public transportation, health care and promotion of the arts. This is where I am not a libertarian by definition.



    Some are what I call "false" liberals. They are more concerned with greed than social welfare. They collect in the marketplace as unions to expand their personal greed level as compared to being marketable as an individual. This is where I depart from this philosophy of "false" liberals.



    These same "false" liberals also practice a false virtue of wishing for pro-choice for "anything" unless it is "conservative" in their mind such as issues of gun ownership. There are always double standards with "false liberals"



    It is not liberal to be for selfish rights. That is greed rather.



    Greed is the language of business and in America greed is the name of the day business or personal.



    This greed is where I take issue with some in the Republican party in favor for libertarian views.



    I believe it is not a right for political leaders to buddy up with special interests and each scratch the back of the other and thus hijack the country away from the citizens.



    These are a few of my thoughts, more to come.



    Fellows
  • Reply 9 of 154
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I'm puzzled by the attitude that late term abortions are somehow done at the whim of women who have changed their mind.



    Why would a woman carry a baby to past 20 weeks without the intention of actually delivering it? Women have late term aboritons because their health is at high-risk and the baby will not make it to term and survive.



    The religious right portrays the late term abortion as killing a baby that would otherwise survive on it's own... which is not the case. The babies aren't partially 'born" they are not in the birthing process at all.



    The ban that was signed yesterday did not even allow for the procedure to be performed in cases where the mother's life is in danger.



    What's next? banning RU486?
  • Reply 10 of 154
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Unions are about greed?



    Unions are about collective bargaining... workers rights and safety. The blue colar class that doesn't have keys to the executive washroom or expense accounts. It's about minimum working standards.



    Unions became necessary when the factories and mines became so dangerous and the abuse so flagrant... the workers had to unite to defend themselves.



    CEOs get retirement and bonus packages that could keep entire plants from moving overseas.
  • Reply 11 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    1. Vouchers takes money away from public schools and therefore my child in public school has access to less resources.



    2. Recreational drug use results in higher costs for public substance abuse clinics increasing the need for additional taxation.



    3. People who screw-up their own retirement fund by making bad investments results in requiring additional public assistance or bail-out.




    That's because there are these constructs in place. If there weren't these safety nets, then obviously taxes would not be affected by individual stupidity.
  • Reply 12 of 154
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    you can choose to send your child to a private school...

    you can choose to drink alcohol...

    you can invest your after tax money wherever you want...




    By your own reasoning then abortion ought to be outlawed because people would just say, you could choose to not have sex, you could choose to just adopt, etc.



    Exercising the limited choices is not the same. It is an outright fallacy and shows up when applied to the issue you advocate yourself.



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 154
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    1. Vouchers takes money away from public schools and therefore my child in public school has access to less resources.



    2. Recreational drug use results in higher costs for public substance abuse clinics increasing the need for additional taxation.



    3. People who screw-up their own retirement fund by making bad investments results in requiring additional public assistance or bail-out.




    1. That is an absolute falsehood. Public schools are funded on a per pupil basis. They supply the exact amount of services necessary for the number of students they serve. If they have fewer pupils, they provide fewer services. Likewise many voucher advocates have talked of giving vouchers that are LESS than the per pupil spending, thus actually leaving MORE behind for those who remain.



    Example



    Public School A services 100 students at $5000 per pupil. They receive $500,000 to educate those students.



    A) Under a voucher program, 25 students leave for private schools. They take their $5,000 with them. Public school receives $5,000 per student for $375,000 while servicing 75 students. Private school receives $125,000 for servicing 25 students.



    B) Under voucher program, 25 students leave using $3000 vouchers to go to private schools. The remaining $2000 is put back in the school fund and is applied with the other $5000 per pupil for the remaining 75. This raises the amount of money the school receives to $425,000 to service 75 students and increases per pupil spending to $5667 on the remaining children.



    2)If recreational drug use were legal, it could be taxed in a manner that would pay for this abuse treatment. (See gambling) Likewise we already pay for this treatment now. Even more so when you consider prisons, etc.



    3) A squandered retirement means simply you don't retire. Likewise no one could squander this money as the government which has spent every dime and shows no return.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 154
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Your argument is absurd. Using your logic, only anarchism is not hypocritical with respect to choice because it imposes no rules on society. I think it's obvious to what choice refers when it's used in the context of abortion. Now, if abortion actually hurt the mother you would not see much support for the procedure- which is one of the premises for the legalization of abortion- that "coat-hanger" illegal abortions actually hurt women. The case with silicone breast implants is that some say we just don't know enough about the safety of the material: some evidence suggests it hurts women.



    This topic will spin out of control fast due to it's shoddy premise I just revealed.




    I predict your mother will catch you spitting on the mirror as you argue with your reflection again.



    Can anyone say...slippery-slope.... Owning a gun = anarchy? Public school choice = anarchy?



    Breast implants = anarchy?



    Disagreeing with Shawn = anarchy?



    I predict Shawn will be beaten and mauled for suggesting that big boobs = the end of civilization.



    Nick
  • Reply 15 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Your argument is absurd. Using your logic, only anarchism is not hypocritical with respect to choice because it imposes no rules on society.



    I wouldn't have expected you to read any of the works of John Locke. The tennents for Libertarianism are based on "enlightened" Anarchy. i.e. the concept that man is inherently good and that there is one thing that's sacred in the secular realm: personal property.



    Crimes are transgressions on the property of others. This is obviously a loose definition, but it's the only thing that's really needed to keep a general peace, since man is inherently good.



    Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy just means the lack of a ruling body. The fact that huge bureaus are needed just to make a government work at all is somewhat telling of the idea that it might not be the best way to do things, especially if you value simplicity. Anarchy is all about choice. If you make a dumb choice the effect could be equally dumb, but good choices find greater reward.
  • Reply 16 of 154
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    The tennents for Libertarianism are based on "enlightened" Anarchy.



    This is why I'm an anarchist. I love it.



    That article is just plain stupid. Don't trust a woman to invest her own Social Security? That's the dumbest stretch I've heard in a long time.



    The SS isn't 'her's,' it's ours. Democrats are more than happy to let the lady invest her money. Breast implants? It's very clear that some people believe they're unsafe, and they have caused problems. Create a safe alternative and no one is going to try and stop 'her' from getting implants.



    This is just pure crap. Any logical human being should be able to see through the rhetoric of the article and realize they're just lying to stir the coals in the fire.
  • Reply 17 of 154
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I predict your mother will catch you spitting on the mirror as you argue with your reflection again.



    Can anyone say...slippery-slope.... Owning a gun = anarchy? Public school choice = anarchy?



    Breast implants = anarchy?



    Disagreeing with Shawn = anarchy?



    I predict Shawn will be beaten and mauled for suggesting that big boobs = the end of civilization.



    Nick




    These arguments have no value.
  • Reply 18 of 154
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I just suggested you do things that are legal.

    Having an abortion is legal.



    Make certain drugs legal. Then you have the choice to do them.



    I'm all for teaching safe-sex... proper birth control. Having condoms available to those who want them.



    I wasn't talking about outlawing anything.
  • Reply 19 of 154
    its just sad the left and right uses these subjects the heartstrings of the american public to just get press and cause a stir and not fixing the real problems.



    Lots of kids die of hunger everyday, if you wanna save lives... why don't you start with the ones already born?



    Why waste all this money and time on litigation when it should be put into social security reform... education... and controlled spending...



    I wish we could stop the bleeding instead of cutting open a new wound...
  • Reply 20 of 154
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge



    That article is just plain stupid. Don't trust a woman to invest her own Social Security? That's the dumbest stretch I've heard in a long time.



    The SS isn't 'her's,' it's ours. Democrats are more than happy to let the lady invest her money. Breast implants? It's very clear that some people believe they're unsafe, and they have caused problems. Create a safe alternative and no one is going to try and stop 'her' from getting implants.



    This is just pure crap. Any logical human being should be able to see through the rhetoric of the article and realize they're just lying to stir the coals in the fire.




    I couldn't have said it better myself
Sign In or Register to comment.