Originally posted by Darth Executor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines
This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.
Forum Rules: Here
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Abortion and the Libertarian Conscience
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostTo not follow the NA principle is to aggress against one or more, yes?The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
-
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.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostNo 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.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostOK, 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?
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.The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
-
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.The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostI 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.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostDon'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.
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!The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostI 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI'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.Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1 Corinthians 16:13
"...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
-Ben Witherington III
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raphael View PostExcept 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 themThe State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment