The Great "Conservative" Split is coming.

[Scam of God]

edit: However, the emotional decision making and the avatar suggest you are not a libertarian.

And your inability to argue coherently suggests you are incapable of ever being one.

[Zarn]

If objective reason does not exist, then why are you attacking libertarians for believing differently on the abortion issue?

They are arguing for the life and liberty of particular beings. That is libertarian.

[Vepres]

Cool! I thought this would happen, as most Republicans under 39 seem relatively pro-gay.

[Zarn]

edit: However, the emotional decision making and the avatar suggest you are not a libertarian.

And your inability to argue coherently suggests you are incapable of ever being one.

You have not said one constructive thing, yet.

[Scam of God]

If objective reason does not exist, then why are you attacking libertarians for believing differently on the abortion issue?

Because I am not a relativist. I simply don't pretend that I appeal to anything other than pure egoism to formulate my philosophical grounding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are hamfistedly serving the interests of their Religious Right political masters, and in doing so prove themselves servile weaklings.

[Zarn]

If objective reason does not exist, then why are you attacking libertarians for believing differently on the abortion issue?

Because I am not a relativist. I simply don't pretend that I appeal to anything other than pure egoism to formulate my philosophical grounding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are hamfistedly serving the interests of their Religious Right political masters, and in doing so prove themselves servile weaklings.

No good arguments here. Moving along...

[TheGreatOne]

If objective reason does not exist, then why are you attacking libertarians for believing differently on the abortion issue?

They are arguing for the life and liberty of particular beings. That is libertarian.

No, Pro-Life Libertarians argue in favor of the Non-aggression principle when considering abortion, because they beleive the initiation of physical force against person or property is illegitimate.  However, the Pro-choice libertarian movement has found a loophole in the Pro-life argument.  They say that Non-Aggression Principle includes the right to defend oneself.  Since a fetus is scientifically a parasite that consumes a woman's nutrients, creates physical disabilities for a mother, and could cause complications for a woman, a fetus is a threat to the life, liberty and limb of a human.


In regards to your argument, many libertarians would argue that a fetus does not have rights because it is unborn.  Ayn Rand said, "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

[TheGreatOne]

As far as pro-life and libertarianism go, again I say that one cannot really be libertarian - on a philosophical level - and pro-life.

From a mere propertarian perspective, as I've said before, the body is the primordial form of property: I own it as soon as I am disgorged from the womb; it is mine; no man can use it, because they cannot inhabit it (and there is no such thing as a soul, or, consequently, possession). But all things within the body are mine, from my blood and gall to any parasites I may carry.

From a deeper perspective, as an egoist, I doubt the sincerity of all arguments "from morality", where morality is vague and utterly abstracted from the sensual world.

Then again, I don't really think that Christianity (or theism in general) and libertarianism are compatible, either.

You own yourself, once you exist. It doesn't matter, if you haven't been born, yet.

You aren't thinking like a libertarian. You are thinking with emotion.

Um, wrong.  The fact that something exists doesn't give it a right to live.  Flies exist, but I kill them because they bother me.  A tapeworm exists, but I have the right to extinguish its life if it is taking proper nutrients from me.  I also have a right to kill a dog if it bites me, even though it provides me a service by giving me companion.  I have the right to limit myself from the harm of others.  Abortions provide the access for me to make the mature decision whether a fetus should or shouldn't live.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are plenty of people who would argue abortion violates the rights of the fetus, and others who believe only the mother has rights, so that's not really a settled issue among libertarians either way. The gay issue less so although obviously Big-L Libertarians believe that private organizations and individuals should be allowed to discriminate however they wish because of things like property rights and freedom of association. (Obviously I think that's an insane, impractical idea that ultimately results in the worst for almost everyone but then I'm not libertarian.)

While I certainly agree that discriminating against people because of their sexual identity is stupid and self-damaging I disagree that the state should be involved in private decisions because they are stupid and self-damaging.  So long as the bigot does not act to force others to follow his beliefs he should be left to his stupidity.

The same logic that is used to justify the state acting against private discrimination can also be used to justify the state acting in favor of discrimination.  I'd much rather the state not use force in either direction.  An idealistic and Utopian preference to be sure, but certainly the goal to be sought for.

[Zarn]

As far as pro-life and libertarianism go, again I say that one cannot really be libertarian - on a philosophical level - and pro-life.

From a mere propertarian perspective, as I've said before, the body is the primordial form of property: I own it as soon as I am disgorged from the womb; it is mine; no man can use it, because they cannot inhabit it (and there is no such thing as a soul, or, consequently, possession). But all things within the body are mine, from my blood and gall to any parasites I may carry.

From a deeper perspective, as an egoist, I doubt the sincerity of all arguments "from morality", where morality is vague and utterly abstracted from the sensual world.

Then again, I don't really think that Christianity (or theism in general) and libertarianism are compatible, either.

You own yourself, once you exist. It doesn't matter, if you haven't been born, yet.

You aren't thinking like a libertarian. You are thinking with emotion.

Um, wrong.  The fact that something exists doesn't give it a right to live.  Flies exist, but I kill them because they bother me.  A tapeworm exists, but I have the right to extinguish its life if it is taking proper nutrients from me.  I also have a right to kill a dog if it bites me, even though it provides me a service by giving me companion.  I have the right to limit myself from the harm of others.  Abortions provide the access for me to make the mature decision whether a fetus should or shouldn't live.

The fetus is human, not a tapeworm or a dog.

[Scam of God]

As far as pro-life and libertarianism go, again I say that one cannot really be libertarian - on a philosophical level - and pro-life.

From a mere propertarian perspective, as I've said before, the body is the primordial form of property: I own it as soon as I am disgorged from the womb; it is mine; no man can use it, because they cannot inhabit it (and there is no such thing as a soul, or, consequently, possession). But all things within the body are mine, from my blood and gall to any parasites I may carry.

From a deeper perspective, as an egoist, I doubt the sincerity of all arguments "from morality", where morality is vague and utterly abstracted from the sensual world.

Then again, I don't really think that Christianity (or theism in general) and libertarianism are compatible, either.

You own yourself, once you exist. It doesn't matter, if you haven't been born, yet.

You aren't thinking like a libertarian. You are thinking with emotion.

Um, wrong.  The fact that something exists doesn't give it a right to live.  Flies exist, but I kill them because they bother me.  A tapeworm exists, but I have the right to extinguish its life if it is taking proper nutrients from me.  I also have a right to kill a dog if it bites me, even though it provides me a service by giving me companion.  I have the right to limit myself from the harm of others.  Abortions provide the access for me to make the mature decision whether a fetus should or shouldn't live.

The fetus is human, not a tapeworm or a dog.

That's a stupidly metaphysical way of looking at the situation.

If we are honest - brutally honest - with ourselves, we understand that precious little actually separates man from the animal kingdom of his descent. All religions, all codified forms of morality hitherto have done little but attempt to obscure this basic fact; they therefore are dishonest, abstracting man from nature as they do in the service of power. They ought therefore be confronted and destroyed.

[Zarn]

As far as pro-life and libertarianism go, again I say that one cannot really be libertarian - on a philosophical level - and pro-life.

From a mere propertarian perspective, as I've said before, the body is the primordial form of property: I own it as soon as I am disgorged from the womb; it is mine; no man can use it, because they cannot inhabit it (and there is no such thing as a soul, or, consequently, possession). But all things within the body are mine, from my blood and gall to any parasites I may carry.

From a deeper perspective, as an egoist, I doubt the sincerity of all arguments "from morality", where morality is vague and utterly abstracted from the sensual world.

Then again, I don't really think that Christianity (or theism in general) and libertarianism are compatible, either.

You own yourself, once you exist. It doesn't matter, if you haven't been born, yet.

You aren't thinking like a libertarian. You are thinking with emotion.

Um, wrong.  The fact that something exists doesn't give it a right to live.  Flies exist, but I kill them because they bother me.  A tapeworm exists, but I have the right to extinguish its life if it is taking proper nutrients from me.  I also have a right to kill a dog if it bites me, even though it provides me a service by giving me companion.  I have the right to limit myself from the harm of others.  Abortions provide the access for me to make the mature decision whether a fetus should or shouldn't live.

The fetus is human, not a tapeworm or a dog.

That's a stupidly metaphysical way of looking at the situation.

If we are honest - brutally honest - with ourselves, we understand that precious little actually separates man from the animal kingdom of his descent. All religions, all codified forms of morality hitherto have done little but attempt to obscure this basic fact; they therefore are dishonest, abstracting man from nature as they do in the service of power. They ought therefore be confronted and destroyed.

So you advocate the legalization of the murder of people or you believe people who kill animals for food or sell for food deserve to go to jail. In the latter, you would also believe that animals that kill for foo also deserve to go to jail. After all, if they are similar to us, they should receive the same punishment/ rehabilitation.

[Scam of God]

As far as pro-life and libertarianism go, again I say that one cannot really be libertarian - on a philosophical level - and pro-life.

From a mere propertarian perspective, as I've said before, the body is the primordial form of property: I own it as soon as I am disgorged from the womb; it is mine; no man can use it, because they cannot inhabit it (and there is no such thing as a soul, or, consequently, possession). But all things within the body are mine, from my blood and gall to any parasites I may carry.

From a deeper perspective, as an egoist, I doubt the sincerity of all arguments "from morality", where morality is vague and utterly abstracted from the sensual world.

Then again, I don't really think that Christianity (or theism in general) and libertarianism are compatible, either.

You own yourself, once you exist. It doesn't matter, if you haven't been born, yet.

You aren't thinking like a libertarian. You are thinking with emotion.

Um, wrong.  The fact that something exists doesn't give it a right to live.  Flies exist, but I kill them because they bother me.  A tapeworm exists, but I have the right to extinguish its life if it is taking proper nutrients from me.  I also have a right to kill a dog if it bites me, even though it provides me a service by giving me companion.  I have the right to limit myself from the harm of others.  Abortions provide the access for me to make the mature decision whether a fetus should or shouldn't live.

The fetus is human, not a tapeworm or a dog.

That's a stupidly metaphysical way of looking at the situation.

If we are honest - brutally honest - with ourselves, we understand that precious little actually separates man from the animal kingdom of his descent. All religions, all codified forms of morality hitherto have done little but attempt to obscure this basic fact; they therefore are dishonest, abstracting man from nature as they do in the service of power. They ought therefore be confronted and destroyed.

So you advocate the legalization of the murder of people

Murder is already legalized in the service of the State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? I don't believe animals who kill for food should go to jail. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? I don't think humans who kill for food should go to jail.

[Zarn]

I am talking about outside the service of the state.

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

[Scam of God]

I am talking about outside the service of the state.

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

Do tell. How am I a hypocrite? By all means, enlighten me.

[Zarn]

I am talking about outside the service of the state.

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

Do tell. How am I a hypocrite? By all means, enlighten me.

If you don't favor the murder of someone you recognize as human after birth (outside of the state), then you should not favor the murder of someone prior to birth. You just recognized the fetus as human, as you should. It does after all, have the required DNA.

[Scam of God]

I am talking about outside the service of the state.

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

Do tell. How am I a hypocrite? By all means, enlighten me.

If you don't favor the murder of someone you recognize as human after birth (outside of the state), then you should not favor the murder of someone prior to birth. You just recognized the fetus as human, as you should. It does after all, have the required DNA.

And it has neither the required sentience nor the required independence from the mother to be legitimately human. Bzzt, wrong, try again.

[Zarn]

I am talking about outside the service of the state.

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

Do tell. How am I a hypocrite? By all means, enlighten me.

If you don't favor the murder of someone you recognize as human after birth (outside of the state), then you should not favor the murder of someone prior to birth. You just recognized the fetus as human, as you should. It does after all, have the required DNA.

And it has neither the required sentience nor the required independence from the mother to be legitimately human. Bzzt, wrong, try again.

You already admitted it was human.

[rebeltarian]

Some Christian Conservatives are trying to hi-jack the libertarian platform.  I've noticed on this site that some people think anti-gay and anti-abortion policies are libertarian.  They also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are libertarians.  Its completely ridiculous. 

I am a pro-life, libertarian Christian.  I consider my belief that an unborn person has rights to be in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-interventionism/isolationism.  By 'aborting' an unborn person, you are commiting a violent act of intervention, kinda like invading another country.  I say, let other countries be and let unborn people be.  Live and let live.

[Scam of God]

Some Christian Conservatives are trying to hi-jack the libertarian platform.  I've noticed on this site that some people think anti-gay and anti-abortion policies are libertarian.  They also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are libertarians.  Its completely ridiculous. 

I am a pro-life, libertarian Christian.  I consider my belief that an unborn person has rights to be in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-interventionism/isolationism.  By 'aborting' an unborn person, you are commiting a violent act of intervention, kinda like invading another country.  I say, let other countries be and let unborn people be.  Live and let live.

And by preventing a mother from disposing of her property, the State is committing a violent act of intervention.

[Scam of God]

Some Christian Conservatives are trying to hi-jack the libertarian platform.  I've noticed on this site that some people think anti-gay and anti-abortion policies are libertarian.  They also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are libertarians.  Its completely ridiculous. 

I am a pro-life, libertarian Christian.  I consider my belief that an unborn person has rights to be in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-interventionism/isolationism.  By 'aborting' an unborn person, you are commiting a violent act of intervention, kinda like invading another country.  I say, let other countries be and let unborn people be.  Live and let live.

And by preventing a mother from disposing of her property, the State is committing a violent act of intervention.

But it isn't her property!  Jesus, how dumb can you liberal retards be?

"Liberal"? I'm not the one denying the fundamental right of property.

[rebeltarian]

Some Christian Conservatives are trying to hi-jack the libertarian platform.  I've noticed on this site that some people think anti-gay and anti-abortion policies are libertarian.  They also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are libertarians.  Its completely ridiculous. 

I am a pro-life, libertarian Christian.  I consider my belief that an unborn person has rights to be in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-interventionism/isolationism.  By 'aborting' an unborn person, you are commiting a violent act of intervention, kinda like invading another country.  I say, let other countries be and let unborn people be.  Live and let live.

And by preventing a mother from disposing of her property, the State is committing a violent act of intervention.

But can a living human entity with a heartbeat, albeit dependent upon it's mother, be someone's "property"?  If so, you could take the definition of "dependency" a step further and also argue that one cannot be a libertarian if they oppose slavery.  And how is preventing someone from having an abortion a "violent act of intervention"?  Is preventing someone from putting a gun to your head and shooting you a "violent act of intervention"?

[Scam of God]

Some Christian Conservatives are trying to hi-jack the libertarian platform.  I've noticed on this site that some people think anti-gay and anti-abortion policies are libertarian.  They also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are libertarians.  Its completely ridiculous. 

I am a pro-life, libertarian Christian.  I consider my belief that an unborn person has rights to be in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-interventionism/isolationism.  By 'aborting' an unborn person, you are commiting a violent act of intervention, kinda like invading another country.  I say, let other countries be and let unborn people be.  Live and let live.

And by preventing a mother from disposing of her property, the State is committing a violent act of intervention.

But can a living human entity with a heartbeat, albeit dependent upon it's mother, be someone's "property"?  If so, you could take the definition of "dependency" a step further and also argue that one cannot be a libertarian if they oppose slavery.  And how is preventing someone from having an abortion a "violent act of intervention"?  Is preventing someone from putting a gun to your head and shooting you a "violent act of intervention"?

1. A fetus is not a human, for the same reason that a comatose individual is not human: "humanity" implies possessorship, which implies independence enough to possess. Just as a comatose patient is given over to their next-of-kin or executor, the fetus remains in the possession of the mother so long as it is entirely dependent upon her for care.

2. Human slaves are fully sentient and capable of independence and, consequently, possession. An unviable fetus is not. But that's a nice slippery slope you've got - too bad you're the one sliding down it.

3. Because it's intervening in an individual's personal life using the blunt force of the State to impose another person's moral system onto them.

4. The difference between myself and a fetus is that I don't require an umbilical cord to feed.

[Scam of God]

To people like Einzige, restricting abortion is one of the greatest criminal acts of the State, because that means the State is endorsing life, and more specifically, reproduction.  There is nothing that anti-life types like Einzige desire more than the elimination of the human race.

Really? But I'm not a Christian; I don't look forward to a fiery Armageddon.