Abortion and the Libertarian Conscience

[Truthseeker]

Yes. And no, you don't need to follow it to be a Christian. I don't (I find it repulsive, actually, but that's probably for another thread).

To not follow the NA principle is to aggress against one or more, yes?

[Darth Xena]

To not follow the NA principle is to aggress against one or more, yes?

I asked him not to continue this here, so please don't drag it here. I have no interest in DE's anti-libertarian spleen.

[Cerebrum123]

I asked him not to continue this here, so please don't drag it here. I have no interest in DE's anti-libertarian spleen.

Looks like DE doesn't want to discuss it here either.

[Darth Xena]

He usually is cool about it when people tell him to scram.

[Truthseeker]

The Second Greatest commandment in the New Testament is, Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do not want to be aggressed against, presume your neighbor does not want you to aggress against him, either. May I not conclude that the argument just above now essentially is the NA principle? Right and proper Christian living would naturally include avoiding violating the NA principle whenever it is applicable, among other sins. (Possibly there are improbable cases in which Christians should violate the NAP, though I suspect there is no such case.)

[Darth Xena]

who are you talking to?

[robrecht]

No because the community is individuals and individuals are the only ones with rights. The individuals then are encouraged to go and help the community. Since it is not forced help, I actually find that libertarian political theory focuses more healthily on the community than any other view. There is no such "thing" as community in the sense of rights, and since libertarian political theory deals with rights, it can only focus on the individual. When rights-bearing individuals get together and cooperate that would be the community, but it is always the individuals in view. In the type of libertarian society envisioned, one must have an extraordinary level of cooperative actions with others, without the nanny state, so the community in that sense gets much much greater attention than in any other view. So I would answer unequivocally no to your question.

I was only saying the word community is equivocal and we were using it in two different permutations. I was using it in the piece as a word for "custom" or "group understanding" rather than a collection of individuals.

OK, I understand. Makes sense. But is it practical? Do you have examples of long-standing voluntary communities that have achieved these communal ideals without eventually resorting to governmental force and degradation?

[Darth Xena]

OK, I understand. Makes sense. But is it practical? Do you have examples of long-standing voluntary communities that have achieved these communal ideals without eventually resorting to governmental force and degradation?

My concern is with the ethics/morality of the position, and no, do not have at hand any instances of it (though I have heard some examples, I have not researched them myself). But until relatively recent history there were people who would say slavery was impossible to eradicate, or that we must have monarchs. This article tends to explain my view on the practicality:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/...ibertarianism/

If humans can cooperatively live for the overall benefit of all at any time, without violating rights (and of course this has happened on small scales) it can happen on a large scale. I think various Christian communities and the Christian ethic is a good model.

[Truthseeker]

But is it practical?

Are you assuming that the State can make the world better than the world that would exist without the State?

[Darth Xena]

I give up.

This is not a thread to argue for libertarianism. (I can't believe I just said that). Robrecht and I went on a bit of a rabbit trail because he needed to understand my presuppositions to understand the article. But this thread is about the article.

[robrecht]

I give up.

This is not a thread to argue for libertarianism. (I can't believe I just said that). Robrecht and I went on a bit of a rabbit trail because he needed to understand my presuppositions to understand the article. But this thread is about the article.

Don't give up! I appreciate not only your efforts to educate me, but much more so your voice in support of the unborn in your own political context.

[Darth Xena]

Don't give up! I appreciate not only your efforts to educate me, but much more so your voice in support of the unborn in your own political context.

Robrecth I didn't mean with you... I meant with truth seeker who seems to just go off on some pre-programmed libertarian track that doesn't take into account anything that has been said.

For instance his question to me if I understand the NAP? Holy cow! I wrote an article on IPR about the LP, while being Social Chair of the LPCO and use the NAP in the article! This means he didn't even try to bother.

Of course I understand the NAP! It is the premise of my article!

[Truthseeker]

I meant with truth seeker who seems to just go off on some pre-programmed libertarian track that doesn't take into account anything that has been said.

For instance his question to me if I understand the NAP? Holy cow! I wrote an article on IPR about the LP, while being Social Chair of the LPCO and use the NAP in the article! This means he didn't even try to bother.

Of course I understand the NAP! It is the premise of my article!

I'm sorry, I was not smart then. Or not thinking clearly.

I generally was reacting to others' posts, especially DE's first post here.

I think I did show that the opinions of so-called Christians may be OK to show or discuss here, whether or not they explicitly declare themselves libertarians.

[Raphael]

I'm sorry, I was not smart then. Or not thinking clearly.

I generally was reacting to others' posts, especially DE's first post here.

I think I did show that the opinions of so-called Christians may be OK to show or discuss here, whether or not they explicitly declare themselves libertarians.

Except this is the Pro-Life section, not Civics or Christianity 201. If you want to discuss Christianity and Libertarianism then start a thread on one of them

[Darth Xena]

Except this is the Pro-Life section, not Civics or Christianity 201. If you want to discuss Christianity and Libertarianism then start a thread on one of them

Thank you. My article didn't make any theological point at all... it was a political post on pro-life related issues. (obviously I am a Christian, but that is not relevant in an editorial piece to try to persuade the Libertarian Party members)