2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
The question was how far. Like close, far, etc? And do you think todays candidates represent the policy positions of those parties
I don't think we share enough context to have a conversation. Not close. Rs are authoritarian with policies influenced by Christianity who seem determined to destroy all public programs like social security and the postal service.
I'm not sure how effective switching to EVs will be with regard environmental conservation, but it's certainly a conservative policy. Maybe an example of progressive conservatism?
I'm not sure how effective switching to EVs will be with regard environmental conservation, but it's certainly a conservative policy. Maybe an example of progressive conservatism?
Man conservatism means wanting to keep thing as they are. Being in favour of any radical change about anything in society is the literal opposite of conservatism.
environmental conservation can be conservative when it is, say, about keeping the balance of fauna and flora in check and working to fix unbalances and so on. Can't be about asking *any* significant change to household behaviours though.
I'm not sure how effective switching to EVs will be with regard environmental conservation, but it's certainly a conservative policy. Maybe an example of progressive conservatism?
Right-wing minarchists?
A lot of these people who call themselves the American Libertarian Party (who aren't actually libertarians, but call themselves that) hate abortion and drugs and aren't even LGBTQ+-friendly oppose government involvement in women's bodies, the choice of drug use, and marriage.
Culturally, they're a mix of libertines and cultural conservatives, united on economic issues and the general role of the state. But the cultural conservatives do exist in this faction.
Right-wing minarchists?
A lot of these people who call themselves the American Libertarian Party (who aren't actually libertarians, but call themselves that) hate abortion and drugs and aren't even LGBTQ+-friendly oppose government involvement in women's bodies, the choice of drug use, and marriage.
Culturally, they're a mix of libertines and cultural conservatives, united on economic issues and the general role of the state. But the cultural
You are a bit confused. While there is certainly a split among libertarians about abortion (but it isn't about body rights, rather about when the fetus becomes a life worth protecting under Non Aggression Principle), there isn't any about drugs, complete legalization of production and sale of drugs (all substances actually) is 1010 libertarianism and shared by approx all libertarians.
LGBTQ+ is as for abortion, only about minors. There is no split, no complicated issue, for adults, being free to do what they want with their body (ofc with absolutely no public money ever involved though), and all discussion is about minors, when NAP applies and you need third party decision because the individual isn't capable of decide by himself.
If instead you are thinking about societal obligations toward "lgbtq+", they don't exist in general under libertarianism for anyone, no one can be forced to comply with your preferences in general, and libertarianism posits a full unalienable right to discriminate for private actors, so i don't understand why that looks anti-libertarian to you.
No owe is owned anything unless a contract is signed toward that, rights are strictly only negatives (things other can't do to you, never things other have to give you) and so on.
You are a bit confused. While there is certainly a split among libertarians about abortion (but it isn't about body rights, rather about when the fetus becomes a life worth protecting under Non Aggression Principle), there isn't any about drugs, complete legalization of production and sale of drugs (all substances actually) is 1010 libertarianism and shared by approx all libertarians.
LGBTQ+ is as for abortion, only about minors. There is no
The NAP is rooted in self-ownership.
"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. Thls includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers." -- Murray Rothbard, "The Ethics of Liberty", p. 98
"Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body." -- Murray Rothbard, "For a New LIberty", p. 131
"Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and
I tend to agree in part with rothbard but that is irrelevant, as libertarians don't do the ipse dixit. There is no libertarian bible, there is no superior authority to refer to, the concept itself is inimical to libertarianism.
The parasite part is arguable because the parasite didn't choose to become one, rather exists only because of your choices.
And you are fully responsible for the consequences of your choices in libertarianism.
At most the parasite argument can work to claim that libertarians should always accept abortion in case of rape (and I agree with that).
But it's not parasite if you put that there by your own volition
The NAP is rooted in self-ownership.
"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. Thls includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely
It's not an unwanted invader if the mother wasn't raped, rather a tenant, and you signed the contract when you had voluntary sex
It's not an unwanted invader if the mother wasn't raped, rather a tenant, and you signed the contract when you had voluntary sex
If it's murder if the sex is voluntary, it's murder if the woman was raped.
If it isn't murder, why the hell is this even a discussion?
You're gonna have to pick a lane on this.
If it's murder if the sex is voluntary, it's murder if the woman was raped.
If it isn't murder, why the hell is this even a discussion?
You're gonna have to pick a lane on this.
It's not about murder rather illegitimate occupation of private body parts.
Because under libertarianism you can murder occupants of your property and it's fully moral
I have difficulty considering a cell without a conscious or a brain as equal as a human being.
I think a human is smarter and worth more then a brainless cell .
But since many maga have barely half a brain I understand their reticence about abortion :p
I have difficulty considering a cell without a conscious or a brain as equal as a human being.
I think a human is smarter and worth more then a brainless cell .
But since many maga have barely half a brain I understand their reticence about abortion :p
A majority of republican voters agree with first trimester abortion
It's not about murder rather illegitimate occupation of private body parts.
Because under libertarianism you can murder occupants of your property and it's fully moral
So a cell without a brain has as much value as a full grown human and a human life has less value then a property .
That’s great .
That pretty much why I’m not sure your pov should be retain to correctly evaluating human life worth ….
Especially when its a property/terrain that could be worth only couple thousand dollars…
So a cell without a brain has as much value as a full grown human and a human life has less value then a property .
That’s great .
That pretty much why I’m not sure your pov should be retain to correctly evaluating human life worth ….
Especially when its a property/terrain that could be worth only couple thousand dollars…
Read again.
Can you follow what actually happens?
Kansas voted 56 to 41 for Trump v Biden in 2020.
Kansas voted 59 to 41 in 2022 against a complex proposition that basically claimed there is absolutely no (state) constitutional right to abortion in any case and it's all up to the legislature
Can you follow what actually happens?
Kansas voted 56 to 41 for Trump v Biden in 2020.
Kansas voted 59 to 41 in 2022 against a complex proposition that basically claimed there is absolutely no (state) constitutional right to abortion in any case and it's all up to the legislature
Rino aren’t represent only in 1 state .
Will see how it goes in couple of months .
Killing in the act of self-defense is literally not murder.
It's not semantics. There are existential ramifications for what's justifiable and what isn't. What is passable and what's worthy for restoration/retribution.
Murder is explicitly an unlawful homicide, according to Barron's.
It's not semantics. There are existential ramifications for what's justifiable and what isn't. What is passable and what's worthy for restoration/retribution.
Murder is explicitly an unlawful homicide, according to Barron's.
Yes .
Still an homicide .
Semantic .
If a state with capital punishment execute someone it still a « murder/homicide » even tho it’s been judged to « deserve » it through legal means .
