Agh, I had to check and saw there was a response...and I like you Barry....okay, I guess you guys can have fun with it at least for a while:
And Mandark now, I don't like the wording on any of it...I concede because I'm not really too confrontational, I don't mean it personally and I'd rather it not be because of that. Maybe I'm projecting. I take your posts in good faith. It's one reason I asked here before about columnists (and then asked on GAF to compare for fun) and why I even engage in being a dope. I do hold most of you in good faith even though we clearly disagree on most everything.
Personally I couldn't imagine it even being a contest between the moral weight of a fetus and an actual person, unless you're looking at it with such reverence for life that the lives of all animals and the more clever plants are inviolate. But chacun a son gout.
I don't know if this answers, and I know I'm not perfect at it, but I do prefer to use as much of the animal as possible. I save bones for stock and stuff. I eat gizzards, etc. It's nowhere near perfect, but I want to minimize outsourcing my killing anyway. I hope they use it if I don't.
And I guess logical position sways towards favoring the woman but emotion drags in the other direction, and it's why I pull the cop-out and leave it to the states. It's like gay marriage in that I think or least hope we will solve it culturally more than have to legislate. (Although I may prefer one position.) Even if it does take time. I know that's different, same as I think interracial marriage or slavery is different. But abortion is an instance where I am conflicted and hope we can solve it in some manner rather than the others in which I hope people came come to the right decision. For example I think Plan B is a good advance, I'd rather "stop" it as quick as possible than try to legislate when life begins. I guess I hope we can "science" this out. Even though that makes me sound like a fucking idiot by trying to pass the buck on an issue that I'd rather try to avoid deciding for everyone on.
Especially since I don't have a womb last I checked.
/incoherent ramblings
Okay, time for Ask a Libertarian!
If you think that actual libertarians are ~1% of the population, what are the implications of that? Beyond the usual strategy conundrums (third party vs. co-opting GOP vs. ad hoc coalitions, blah blah). Is there some fundamental aspect of libertarianism that prevents it from from ever winning enough public support to be implemented, or is there some confluence of social/economic/cultural factors that could change? Are you guys ever gonna win?
I'm asking this because to a certain degree, I think it's fair for people to say "presume there was political will for my program" when they propose something untested or radical. Cause otherwise anything new gets shut down with "but people have always eaten people!" But eventually, you do need public support and acceptance to carry out any kind of political change.
In this case, you're talking about revamping the entire political system, so I think the question of how to get and sustain support is rather an important one. Beyond that, we're talking about a philosophy that, in many of its forms, puts a large emphasis on the ability of individuals to make decisions in their own best interest, yet these individuals keep voting for collectivism. I'm vaguely aware of some public choice models that square the circle by showing how voting doesn't produce results reflecting what people "really" want as a market would, but is that stuff legit or is it just apologetics?
Well, I'm beyond a cynic. Road to Serfdom isn't a warning to me, it's basically a declaration.
And this does come off really fucking dark. But I guess I've long been resigned to it. I really don't try to convince anyone, maybe make a slight dent to make someone think about something.
I don't think voting represents the market. There's no real cost to voting. Not saying there should be, but if you go to the store and buy something there's repercussions. In voting. I was one of four people to vote for Gary Johnson in my precinct. We had to write him in. If Romney won Michigan would it matter. If he won our precinct. There was only ever one winner. Either at the state or national, etc. Everyone else can go fuck themselves, voting against or not.
I mean if you could "buy" anything and "pay" nothing is it a market? Obvious quotes at the end*.
At a further level I guess if pressed I would never imagine liberalism wins. We aren't far enough past feudalism. We want a king and nobles still.
I suppose if anything all I want to introduce into any discussion is skepticism if I can.
If this post doesn't sound like some nutjob I don't know what does.
The answer is essentially: no, it's not what they want in the political "market". But it's not about winning short-term. Mises, Hayek and Freidman and even Ron Paul have had an effect. That's not nothing.
I think public choice works, I can't really accept another way. I don't want to be that asshole on the internet who talks about his poli sci shit but public choice is the one that makes the most sense to me. And I know people see it as a critique and wrong but I don't just imagine it as the obvious thing. Why wouldn't someone act mostly within it? I also have history background which is like double confirmation for me so maybe that might be it.
I'm rambling or something.
Actually, looking up, at Mises and Hayek and Freidman. It kinda clarifies my position on everything. "The Pretense of Knowledge." It's what they all argued and it's probably why I'm a libertarian or anarchist. I can't just accept you have the divine right to inherently rule over others. No matter if you claim you'll bring benefits to the masses.
And yes, I'm exaggerating there to illustrate.
I don't buy the "science" behind "policy." I don't think monopolies are best. Especially those established by force. The idea that someone can grab some aggregate stats (OR LESS) and guide life is insane to me (and mildly hilarious, ask AWESOME-O) and we aren't even into the moral quandaries.
I went far far far far outside your question, but you guys can probably pick at it for a while.
To add onto this though, I think life is and will get better. Through technology. I think even as the state continues to ratchet down on us we keep resisting and will keep resisting and developing new ways to communicate and interact and frustrate the state. And that's part of why I don't think we need it anymore even if we did. We have capabilities now that are far beyond any human, we can do things that would make us gods sorta. We don't need lawyers holed up in one location writing shit down to decide how we should live. We can be more powerful through Tea Parties or Occupy or whatever was going on with Chick-Fil-A or thwarting American Idol winners or posting on The Bore or not buying WiiU's or who knows. I guess I can't grasp why people want the state to inflict one size fits all rules, regulations and life on them when we have someone like Gabe over there with his big bushy beard. And when Gabe gets in bed with the state, why do we pick the state instead of picking neither?
I'm starting to ramble again so I guess I'll just leave it here for you guys.
*
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Maybe I'll just stick these down here as well to hopefully illustrate part of where I'm coming from on most everything?
Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed. Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as “grants of exclusive privilege” by the government. It was now simply redefined as “big business” or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed by big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing “big business monopoly” on the free market. In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of “opposing monopoly,” as well as promoting the general welfare and national security. Once again, it was railroad monopoly that paved the way.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
Not that I agree with everything from these three men, or even everything in these quotes, but these are three decent quotes to explain my worldview I suppose. I came back to toss this in because the upper parts of this post weren't dumb enough it should have some more appeal to authority in it!
TL;DR: libertarianism and liberalism are dead in our lifetimes.
