ExRx.net

(The misnomer is that some modern people interpret "separation between church and state" as an abolishing of any religious activity within any government institution. That's not what it meant - but I think you understand the difference.)

This has nothing to do with me, I only disagreed when you said Ron Paul was not libertarian . Not only does he still seem libertarian, it wasn't that long ago he was the leader of the Libertarian Party. Still seems silly to say he's not libertarian. If you disagree so strongly, go get into a wikipedia war trying to remove that wording from his page. :)

Clear cut? Wow, if there was ever an issue wrought with moral dilemmas it's that one. Am I correct in guessing that you mean the position in favor of more social rights is the pro-abortion-legalization position?

Joining the Libertarian party just makes you a member of the party. You do not have to hold any certain positions to just be a member of any party. He did that because he is more conservative and less authoritarian than republicans. He is way more authoritarian than most libertarians are. He only joined the party because they are equally conservative.

You are now confusing abortion itself, with the libertarian stance. The libertarian stance on it is clear cut, even though the issue itself is not. Conflating seems to be a major problem for you.

There is also no such thing as "pro-abortion", that is a straw man. There is nobody going around like "yea lets kill some babies!!". That is the same reason I NEVER refer to pro-life as "anti-choice", because that is a bit of a straw man also. Of course pro-life is quite a euphemistic moniker. Pro-criminalization is probably more accurate.

Libertarians of all types are against creating black markets, period. No criminalization of abortion, guns, drugs, or anything else that would create a big black market. That is by definition. Libertarianism is all about personal liberties. Of course the Libertarian party is on the far right version of this. However this defines ALL libertarians, whether they be right, centrist, left, of socialist.

If someone is for any of that stuff, it puts them somewhere near the middle of the authoritarian-anarchy scale. This is by definition. I think what you don't understand is that being conservative does NOT make someone a libertarian.

Here is a good example test. It's not 100% accurate, but it will get you in the ball park of where you are. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It measured me close to the lower left corner, left libertarian. I think I measured just a little more liberal than I actually am, but it's not too far off.

That's a pretty cool test Ironman. I don't know how accurate it is, but it pegged me pretty close I think - mid way to the right but not quite far enough down. I see myself as a borderline anarchist.

So Ron Paul was a indisputably a Libertarian, but you think not libertarian enough to truly warrant it? Ok, shrug...

If you'll read my post carefully you'll note I didn't say "pro-abortion" but "pro-abortion-legalization". That's clearly not at all the same thing.

Criminalizing a good, like "drugs" or "guns" is not even remotely similar to criminalizing an action that you take against someone else like "theft" or "harassment" or "abortion."

You are confusing being a libertarian with joining the libertarian party. You could be an authoritarian communist and join the party if you want to. There is no litmus test. It does not make you a libertarian, your stance on issues makes you a libertarian.

Ah, so you did. Pro-legalization is ok, or keeping it legal is even more accurate.

Abortion does not compare to theft and harassment. This show your lack of understanding. The abortion black market was a terrible thing. The desperation of some women led to taking some serious risks. It is extremely naive to think you can make a problem go away by banning it. It is even more naive to think it won't cause lots of problems.

The only way to reduce elective abortions is with education and contraceptives for everyone. This would make elective abortion extremely rare. Continuing advances in medical science help reduce the need for medically necessary abortions as well as miscarriages.

I always thought you more of a conservative, that's interesting. So you're actually in the lower left of the typical libertarian range. I used to be close to that. I was bordering on anarchy, but most of the way to the right.

Now I'm not quite bordering on anarchy, although I'm not too far from the border. I'm also most of the way to the left now. It did the opposite thing with me. It put on the boarder of anarchy, but I'm really not. It also put me on the boarder of socialism, but I'm not quite that far to the left. It's still pretty close though.

I find people fv(k around too much hahah. There are more things you can do in a relationship, with less consequences

I've never claimed to be a conservative (okay maybe before I understood what conservatism was). If you go back to some of my posts you will see that I'm all about personal accountability, limited government and freedom to do what you want up to the point to where it infringes on the liberty of another person.

Oh I see. That is indeed the standard philosophy of the libertarian right. So we would be in near 100% agreement on half of the issues.

He's certainly more libertarian than most of Washington - you're setting the bar pretty high.

Abortion is certainly more similar to theft (an action one party does to another party without the consent of the latter) than it is to drugs (a good).

I don't disagree that black markets are usually problematic. However there's already a black market for murder-for-hire and trading in car-jacked auto parts. That doesn't make it an argument for legalizing murder and theft. Ie, avoiding a black market is not a sufficient benefit in and of itself to do something in the name of personal liberty.

(If you're assuming that I'm in favor of criminalizing abortion, please note I haven't advocated that.)

Your first point makes no sense. Libertarian is an objective political position. It is not relative. Just because everyone else on the right is more authoritarian does not matter. There are of course some liberal democrats and 1 independent who are less authoritarian than Ron Paul.

I didn't set the bar. The bar is what it is. It's based on what the word means.

That is not what abortion is. You are conflating zygotes, embryos, and earlier stage fetuses with fully developed people. What about the woman and her rights over her own body? the topic was Ron Paul though, so this is getting off topic. I have no desire to discuss abortion or anything else biology related with you, because you have demonstrated many times that you have very little understanding of the subject. You just parrot the propaganda you hear.

Murder and car jacking are not black markets. They are not things most people want to do. So there is little market for it. You obviously have no understanding of what a black market is.

Sure it's a political position, and most people consider him to be it - he's certainly an advocate of personal liberty as the dictionary definition requires, and he was an actual leader of the Libertarian Party not that long ago.

There is a black market for murder-for-hire. It is a thing that people want to do. Maybe not "most" people, but that's irrelevant since most people don't have abortions either, and you claimed abortion fit the criteria for a black market, and I would agree it does.

Rest assured I have studied biology extensively. I always do my best to refrain from insulting the knowledge of others (certainly without cause), so you should return the favor. (If I can offer some constructive criticism, you have a bad habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when met with perceived disagreement.)

In any case, I'm not arguing for the criminalization of abortion, and I'm certainly not conflating anything. There are two chief parties in an abortion, the parent and the child. That doesn't mean they are equal parties. It's an incredibly difficult issue, but I think I would agree with the principles of current Supreme Court precedent that the rights of the child grow over time as the child grows and that neither the right of the mother nor the child are absolute throughout.

No I get frustrated when people say things with authority when they don't know the subject. A disagreement is one thing, being out of touch with reality or simply ignorant of it is different. It's the same reason I refuse to debate creationists anymore. I am not a science tutor for one, and you can't make up for a large knowledge gap on a forum for 2.


It boils down to this, you think X is true because Fox news said so. I know it's not, however I can't just explain it to you. There are hours and hours worth of prerequisite knowledge. This explains why you believed it in the first place.

What we should do about a certain problem is something you have a disagreement about. Someone insisting a word means something it doesn't because they feel like believing that is just ridiculous. Or someone insisting their position on a certain issue is right simply because they are mistaken about something they should have learned in high school. It is also annoying when you have to point out over and over again that someone lumps things into 2 categories and then uses everything in any given category interchangeably.

For example being illegal is not the criteria for being a black market. The relationship goes one way but not the other.


I can see that reality is trumped by what you want to believe. So by asserting those things you are technically just saying that's what you believe. In that case all I can do is just agree that you believe those things.

Putting aside the ad hominem rant, are you disagreeing with my statement that there is a black market for murder-for-hire?

If it wasn't obvious, I pointed out what an incredibly morally difficult issue abortion is because it is not easily nailed down to a certain spot on the totalitarian-anarchy line. Hence using it as a litmus test for exclusion from the libertarian label would be a bit extreme.

It's not ad hominem if it is regarding the way you lay out your arguments and what is wrong with it. Name calling, character attacks, etc are ad hominem. Pointing out the problems with how you construct arguments, is related to the argument. I think it was more of an ad nauseum rant anyway.

There are people who hire hit men. Think about how prevalent that is. Now think about the prevalence of drugs. Now, try to imagine what happens when you ban something a large chunk of society does versus a tiny minority. What sort of problem might you have with the big category,but not the small one? Think about the size difference in the consumer base. Now hopefully you have an idea of what a black market is. I know this seems strange, but I think if the answers come from your own mind, you will be more likely to understand.

As for the last bit...... That just isn't the way it works. If you don't understand by now, I really don't care.