By Tom Rhodes, Chairman LPF Platform Committee, 2/23/2015
Should America have special laws and programs for different groups based on race, gender or faith or should America have the same laws and rights for all Americans? Simple question and philosophically the answer is clear; America have the same laws and rights for all Americans. The sad fact is even in the leadership of the LP Americans want special rights and privileges for some men.
Our tax code is a prime example of different laws and rights for different men based on some group or other identification. Imagine tax code if it applied equally to everybody? Even maintaining the idiocy of the inequality of a progressive tax system. Imagine that everybody who made $30K paid the same taxes on that $30K. The biggest inequality is not based on how much that person earns, but on how much somebody else earns. If you make $30K and are single you’d end up paying around $5K in taxes, if you were married to somebody making $300K you’d end up paying at least $15K in taxes. Why does who you choose to be in a private relationship or not determine how you are taxed?
Should our tax law consider your sex and the voluntarily chosen profession of your spouse as a means of determining the tax you should pay? Obviously the answer should be no; if we believe in equality under the law. Now let’s get all emotional and really foul up your thinking. Should the widow of a man who died in battle overseas get a tax break? If you think so, why? Why does the widow of man who died at a construction site not deserve the same? Should the same tax break be granted to a widower? Why if it is a financial burden of a spouse dying from one means more deserving of a tax break than another means? Why should the sex of the surviving spouse grant special tax breaks? If taxes are such a heavy burden on military widows that they deserve special tax breaks, why is that same burden on others acceptable? Why shouldn’t the man whose wife dies in a car wreck not get the same tax break a military widow gets?
The answer is simple, equality under the law is a nice idea, but emotionally the reality of treating everybody equally is hard to accept. We want special people to get special privilege because it feels good, we don’t care about fair and equal. When asked “Should our tax law consider your sex and the voluntarily chosen profession of your spouse as a means of determining the tax you should pay?” rationally the answer is clear, your sex and the vocation of your spouse should not determine your taxes; but consider a woman whose husband died defending our country from terrorists, and you throw rational thinking right out the window. Emotionally you are willing to get rid of equality under the law, and grant special privileges to some people based on sex and the chosen profession of their spouse; if the sex is female, and the chosen profession is soldier. For many when it comes down to it, you don’t believe in equality.
The problem is that when we grant some special privilege for somebody special, you destroy the rule of law, and equality under the law. The unintended consequences of such thinking leads to tyranny. Always has always will. That kind of thinking eventually leads to, “that rich guy hires lots of people, we should not arrest him for that crime because those people will be out of work,” AKA “too big to fail.” Accepting and even promoting unequal treatment based on something “special” is generally exercising emotion over logic. It is however very effective, hence special interests, not equality under the law are the rule in Washington and Tallahassee.
The LPF Platform has a plank that effectively states the LPF’s position on all such laws, be they special privileges for military widows, or excessive taxes for being single, or marriage laws. It is principled, logical, and effective, and fair. This plank covers a huge variety of political and legal issues today.
LPF Platform Section I, paragraph 4: We support Equality under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Each person has the same inalienable rights. It is the States duty to protect those rights for each individual equally.
That plank is simply a modern recognition of what our forefathers stated in the Declaration of Independence, that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted …”
The LPF Position is that government exists to protect the natural rights of all men equally, and any law that grants unequal protection or privilege or punishment to anyone is wrong. The LPF position is also clear, we need government and instituted a government purposed to protecting the natural rights of all men equally. That purpose of course inevitably lead to the War Between the States but the idea was realized and continues to be realized. Equality under the law for all men without exception. It is as we abandon that idea of equal protection under the law and the rule of law that we watch the USA creep back to tyranny that was and is normal for most of history and all of mankind.
Footnote:This article is written in English, therefore when referring to people of undetermined sex the generic pronouns man, men, he, him, etc. are used because it is grammatically correct to do so when the sex is unspecified. If your offended, tough, get a life. Using grammatically correct English is not sexist, no matter how you “feel” about it.
If interviewed on TV about a fire a cop might say, “We don’t know who started the fire, but he will be held responsible.” It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.
Showing posts with label Platform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Platform. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2015
Monday, February 9, 2015
Life and Death
By Tom Rhodes, 2/9/2015
Life and Death, the rationale for the LPF Platform being silent on abortion.
The idea and scientific reality of being alive is a binary, black and white, issue. Something is either alive or dead not in between. You can be dying, but you're not dead yet. Politics not science has changed the definition of life. It was assumed that if a cell is taking in nutrients, expelling waste, respirating, and when mature enough or as a result of some stimulus divides, that cell is alive not dead. Multicellular organisms are alive if as a whole they are doing the same. A multicellular organism dies, some of its organs and tissues may be alive for a while longer before that organ or tissue no longer takes in nutrients, resparates, expels waste, and responds to stimuli, hence organ donation is possible from a cadaver, but the multicellular organism as a life is dead.
Scientifically not theologically, for living multicellular organisms that are not asexual, life begins once an egg is fertilized. At that point there exists a new life with distinct DNA from its mother. The fertilized egg exhibits all the markers of life, takes in nutrients, respirates, expels waste, and responds to stimuli. At that early stage of life, the stimuli it responds to are chemical, it has not yet developed the sensory organs to detect light, pressure, sound, etc. that it will have when fully developed. But it is not dead, and meets, what were before Roe v. Wade, the scientific criteria to be called alive.
The DNA of a fertilized egg, has the plans and directions for that life to develop. It may or may not survive to die of old age; it may not develop to be able to sustain itself; it can die from any of a million different things that can interrupt it's life. But until and unless it stops taking in nutrients, expelling waste, respirating, and responding to stimuli, it is alive and not dead, regardless of where in its life cycle from fertilized egg to death.
Scientifically to determine species is easy, look at the DNA. If it’s a person, it will have human DNA, if it’s a dog it with have canine DNA consistent with the specific breed, etc. etc. etc. The scientific fact is that the life of a human starts at conception, goes through many stages and ends at death. Once an human egg is fertilized, it is a distinct person who is not dead, rather alive, until it dies of natural or artificial circumstances.
The only reason there is discussion and argument over abortion is because some people not only want to have the "right" to kill other people they don’t want to feel guilty over such murder. Murder by definition means to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance. Some people want to base the legality and feelings about murder on the value of that other living human based on that person not reaching some arbitrary stage of its natural life cycle. It’s barbaric to allow parents to murder their offspring regardless of what the current stage of their child’s life cycle.
The emotional impact of murdering another human is terrible. The idea is to lessen this emotional impact of abortion by declaring that a less developed person is not yet a life thus does not deserves the same protections as others. This is why the very definition of life and what it means to be alive has been changed. Not based on science but on emotional and political impact. Think about the rationale for the vast majority of abortions, "This life will be inconvenient and may not live in optimal circumstances so she should be killed before she costs me any more problems."
Libertarians are fond of the NAP, unless it’s inconvenient. Many libertarians are anti-abortion, but they tend to be not quite as loud as the pro-abortion crowd. They fall prey to the fallacious argument that a woman should be allowed to do with her body whatever she wants. Thinking a woman should be allowed to abort her pregnancy because it is her body. This position ignores the caveat that freedom to act as you please stops when it infringes upon the rights of another. It also ignores the elephant in the room. The new human has not committed any act of aggression against anybody, in fact she exists as the result of voluntary acts of another. The idea of abortion is the idea that you should not have to be accountable for the consequences risks you voluntarily take. Sex has many risks, including, STD’s, emotional trauma and the start of new life. Just like you can take a risk and drive too fast, you are not exempt from the consequences of that action; like not being able to make a curve and crashing. Life isn’t risk free, sex is an action with known consequences, just because you may not like the results doesn’t grant you the right to aggress against another.
What about rape? Answer is obvious but not palatable to many. Rape is a sexual assault. Like any assault it is a violation of the NAP, and as it should be, a violation of the law. Being assaulted, does that give you the right to murder you child? The rapist, not the child, is the aggressor and the one who should be held accountable; as in massive child support for life, to the mother or adoptive parents. Imagine half your earnings given to your victim for 22 years, plus the cost of medical services required as a result of your assault. That punishment would severely curtail rapists more than a couple years of being housed and fed in jail. The idea that because of one crime, murdering an innocent is legal and moral is not the hallmark of a civilized society.
Life and Death, knowing what each means, and how they relate to a civilized society is important. Whether based on science or theology, a large number of people (over half the country) believe life begins at conception. This includes a large number of Libertarians. There is no plank on abortion in the LPF Platform. The reason such a plank doesn’t exist is clear. Abortion violates the NAP, but a plank based on the scientific fact that the life cycle of a person begins at conception would ostracize a large number of libertarians who think with their emotions and cannot tolerate rationality overriding their emotional need to ameliorate suffering the consequences associated with the risks of exercising liberty. Having liberty and exercising freedom is dangerous, there are consequences to actions.
The Mission of the LPF Platform committee is to clearly present the ideas of liberty to which we as a party ascribe and expect to be held accountable. The goals of the LPF Platform committee are to develop the declaration of the LPF’s principles and aims consistent with libertarian ideas that help unify the party and clarify our direction.
Many Libertarians, just like Democrats and Republicans want the liberty and freedom to do what they want without any consequences. That is not libertarian thinking, but it is what we have to deal with. So for now the LPF Platform is silent on abortion and the LPF Platform committee will not consider any planks on the subject because such a plank would clearly violate both our mission and goals.
Life and Death, the rationale for the LPF Platform being silent on abortion.
The idea and scientific reality of being alive is a binary, black and white, issue. Something is either alive or dead not in between. You can be dying, but you're not dead yet. Politics not science has changed the definition of life. It was assumed that if a cell is taking in nutrients, expelling waste, respirating, and when mature enough or as a result of some stimulus divides, that cell is alive not dead. Multicellular organisms are alive if as a whole they are doing the same. A multicellular organism dies, some of its organs and tissues may be alive for a while longer before that organ or tissue no longer takes in nutrients, resparates, expels waste, and responds to stimuli, hence organ donation is possible from a cadaver, but the multicellular organism as a life is dead.
Scientifically not theologically, for living multicellular organisms that are not asexual, life begins once an egg is fertilized. At that point there exists a new life with distinct DNA from its mother. The fertilized egg exhibits all the markers of life, takes in nutrients, respirates, expels waste, and responds to stimuli. At that early stage of life, the stimuli it responds to are chemical, it has not yet developed the sensory organs to detect light, pressure, sound, etc. that it will have when fully developed. But it is not dead, and meets, what were before Roe v. Wade, the scientific criteria to be called alive.
The DNA of a fertilized egg, has the plans and directions for that life to develop. It may or may not survive to die of old age; it may not develop to be able to sustain itself; it can die from any of a million different things that can interrupt it's life. But until and unless it stops taking in nutrients, expelling waste, respirating, and responding to stimuli, it is alive and not dead, regardless of where in its life cycle from fertilized egg to death.
Scientifically to determine species is easy, look at the DNA. If it’s a person, it will have human DNA, if it’s a dog it with have canine DNA consistent with the specific breed, etc. etc. etc. The scientific fact is that the life of a human starts at conception, goes through many stages and ends at death. Once an human egg is fertilized, it is a distinct person who is not dead, rather alive, until it dies of natural or artificial circumstances.
The only reason there is discussion and argument over abortion is because some people not only want to have the "right" to kill other people they don’t want to feel guilty over such murder. Murder by definition means to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance. Some people want to base the legality and feelings about murder on the value of that other living human based on that person not reaching some arbitrary stage of its natural life cycle. It’s barbaric to allow parents to murder their offspring regardless of what the current stage of their child’s life cycle.
The emotional impact of murdering another human is terrible. The idea is to lessen this emotional impact of abortion by declaring that a less developed person is not yet a life thus does not deserves the same protections as others. This is why the very definition of life and what it means to be alive has been changed. Not based on science but on emotional and political impact. Think about the rationale for the vast majority of abortions, "This life will be inconvenient and may not live in optimal circumstances so she should be killed before she costs me any more problems."
Libertarians are fond of the NAP, unless it’s inconvenient. Many libertarians are anti-abortion, but they tend to be not quite as loud as the pro-abortion crowd. They fall prey to the fallacious argument that a woman should be allowed to do with her body whatever she wants. Thinking a woman should be allowed to abort her pregnancy because it is her body. This position ignores the caveat that freedom to act as you please stops when it infringes upon the rights of another. It also ignores the elephant in the room. The new human has not committed any act of aggression against anybody, in fact she exists as the result of voluntary acts of another. The idea of abortion is the idea that you should not have to be accountable for the consequences risks you voluntarily take. Sex has many risks, including, STD’s, emotional trauma and the start of new life. Just like you can take a risk and drive too fast, you are not exempt from the consequences of that action; like not being able to make a curve and crashing. Life isn’t risk free, sex is an action with known consequences, just because you may not like the results doesn’t grant you the right to aggress against another.
What about rape? Answer is obvious but not palatable to many. Rape is a sexual assault. Like any assault it is a violation of the NAP, and as it should be, a violation of the law. Being assaulted, does that give you the right to murder you child? The rapist, not the child, is the aggressor and the one who should be held accountable; as in massive child support for life, to the mother or adoptive parents. Imagine half your earnings given to your victim for 22 years, plus the cost of medical services required as a result of your assault. That punishment would severely curtail rapists more than a couple years of being housed and fed in jail. The idea that because of one crime, murdering an innocent is legal and moral is not the hallmark of a civilized society.
Life and Death, knowing what each means, and how they relate to a civilized society is important. Whether based on science or theology, a large number of people (over half the country) believe life begins at conception. This includes a large number of Libertarians. There is no plank on abortion in the LPF Platform. The reason such a plank doesn’t exist is clear. Abortion violates the NAP, but a plank based on the scientific fact that the life cycle of a person begins at conception would ostracize a large number of libertarians who think with their emotions and cannot tolerate rationality overriding their emotional need to ameliorate suffering the consequences associated with the risks of exercising liberty. Having liberty and exercising freedom is dangerous, there are consequences to actions.
The Mission of the LPF Platform committee is to clearly present the ideas of liberty to which we as a party ascribe and expect to be held accountable. The goals of the LPF Platform committee are to develop the declaration of the LPF’s principles and aims consistent with libertarian ideas that help unify the party and clarify our direction.
Many Libertarians, just like Democrats and Republicans want the liberty and freedom to do what they want without any consequences. That is not libertarian thinking, but it is what we have to deal with. So for now the LPF Platform is silent on abortion and the LPF Platform committee will not consider any planks on the subject because such a plank would clearly violate both our mission and goals.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Our Culture Hides Rape
By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2014
The latest finding from the CDC indicate that women rape men as often as men rape women. The so called “rape culture” is not a one way street. Feminism has dramatically skewed the rhetoric and is trivializing the heinous crime of rape.
I would never have thought this reasonable and rational article would have come from Time Magazine but it did. In an article titled CDC Rape Numbers are Misleading, Time notes the following:
Today’s feminist culture is trying to tell us that a girl getting drunk clubbing and regretting waking up, with a hangover, at a strange guy’s place, tired, naked and sore from a wild drunken tryst is just as much a rape as being drug off the street into a van, held down and forcibly penetrated and abused. The idea is that women are not responsible if they do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. Rather taking responsibility for their sobriety and actions, feminism dictates that the mere fact that a woman regrets the outcome of her actions is a valid reason for labeling the idiocy men and women do when drunk or high as some criminal crime against women. The female imperative of our feminized culture, concludes that that men being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication, is not the same thing. If women want equality, they why do they not note and condemn the fact that women are just as guilty of raping men instead of trying to claim our society is misogynistic? Or note that when it comes to rape, by the definition they impose, society is equal?
The Libertarian Party of Florida’s Platform simple states: We support Equality Under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Clearly feminism today is not compatible with the being a Libertarian. Why do Feminists have a problem with Equality Under the Law? Their influence has pushed our government to abandon equality under the law. Why do they, and our government want laws to apply differently to men than women? Why do they and our government count crimes differently if committed by a woman than a man? Why do they and our government want the burden of proof to be different based on the sex of the accuser and/or victim?
The Time article ends in a refreshing use of rational logic and reason, rightly concluding “studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly.”
The latest finding from the CDC indicate that women rape men as often as men rape women. The so called “rape culture” is not a one way street. Feminism has dramatically skewed the rhetoric and is trivializing the heinous crime of rape.
I would never have thought this reasonable and rational article would have come from Time Magazine but it did. In an article titled CDC Rape Numbers are Misleading, Time notes the following:
For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist "rape denial." However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, "rape culture" is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.
How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person - usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence."
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication - at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in
2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape - and why shouldn't it be? - then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
Today’s feminist culture is trying to tell us that a girl getting drunk clubbing and regretting waking up, with a hangover, at a strange guy’s place, tired, naked and sore from a wild drunken tryst is just as much a rape as being drug off the street into a van, held down and forcibly penetrated and abused. The idea is that women are not responsible if they do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. Rather taking responsibility for their sobriety and actions, feminism dictates that the mere fact that a woman regrets the outcome of her actions is a valid reason for labeling the idiocy men and women do when drunk or high as some criminal crime against women. The female imperative of our feminized culture, concludes that that men being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication, is not the same thing. If women want equality, they why do they not note and condemn the fact that women are just as guilty of raping men instead of trying to claim our society is misogynistic? Or note that when it comes to rape, by the definition they impose, society is equal?
The Libertarian Party of Florida’s Platform simple states: We support Equality Under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Clearly feminism today is not compatible with the being a Libertarian. Why do Feminists have a problem with Equality Under the Law? Their influence has pushed our government to abandon equality under the law. Why do they, and our government want laws to apply differently to men than women? Why do they and our government count crimes differently if committed by a woman than a man? Why do they and our government want the burden of proof to be different based on the sex of the accuser and/or victim?
The Time article ends in a refreshing use of rational logic and reason, rightly concluding “studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly.”
Monday, February 24, 2014
LP Platform – Abortion Plank
By Tom Rhodes, 2/25/2014
The veritable “Third Rail” is Abortion. The LP’s position on abortion is illogical, contradictory, unlibertarian, and divides and hurts the LP. The fact is the fastest way to start a argument and keep libertarians from working together on productive issues is to bring up abortion. Not even the Republicans and Democrats fight over abortion more than libertarians. The abortion plank of our platform should not be changed, it should be eliminated. The fact is good libertarians disagree on the issue of abortion, regardless of a person’s position on abortion they should be welcome in the Libertarian Party.
Libertarians as a whole are extremists, if they weren’t they’d be in the Republocrat or Demican party. Because we are extremists some fail to see what they think of as moderate position as being extreme. Consider the wording of the abortion plank in the LP Platform, which reads: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Many libertarians consider this to be a moderate non-confrontational position. Others see it as an extreme position that makes murder legal in some situations.
As libertarians we all believe that every human has the same rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The LP has adopted and accepted liberal anti-liberty vocabulary to justify its position. Because of this honest open debate on abortion does not happen. Adopting such language tat calls the termination of a fetus as “health care” targets those who don’t agree as being against “health care.”
Half the people, or more, rightly believe that pregnancy is not a disease but is the outcome of behavior initiated by people other than the unborn baby. Half the people, or more, believe life begins at conception. Half the people, or more, believe that the unborn are people. That means that half, or more, of the people believe the LP position is that there should be no laws restricting a woman from murdering her child prior to it reaching some arbitrary stage of its life.
The science is settled, at conception a unique person genetically distinct from its mother is created as a result of specific behavioral choices of the sire. It’s really simple, regardless of the stage of development, from one cell to birth, the cell(s) aren’t dead they are alive. All the arguing isn’t going to change the reality, and no-abortions are initiated on babies before their heart is beating. So talking about blastocysts and very early stages of development are meaningless, a diversion, and a lie meant to cover up the fact that abortion is the killing of a unique humans who are developmentally far too young to protect themselves. Just because politics resulted in changing definition of what is a life to justify abortions doesn’t make the unborn less than human. The definition of cellular life used to be pretty simple. If the cell(s) respirate, take in food, expel waste, divide, and respond to stimuli, it’s alive. If the DNA is human and the cells are alive it is a living human being – PERIOD!
What justifies the initiation of force against that human who has not and cannot initiate force against another? The abortion plank tells every Libertarian who for scientific or religious reasons believes life begins at conception to fuck off. We won’t suffer the consequences of our life choices, and libertarian principles be damned.
Saying that a woman’s body is her own is fine. She should be free to defend herself from others who have initiated aggression against her. If she is pregnant because of her voluntary actions, it is clear her baby did not initiate any aggression against her, but is there because of the woman’s choice. She does not have the right to kill the baby and cannot claim self-defense. If she is pregnant involuntarily because of aggression against her she has good cause to seek reparations and even punishment against the aggressor, not the innocent third party. The baby did not initiate any aggression against her. Murdering the baby because the mother was raped is killing an innocent bystander who initiated force against nobody, and is not justice.
Interesting how liberals, statists, and feminists, in just about everything from income to education, will use dissimilar outcomes based on race and other demographics to prove racism, sexism, etc. You are not allowed to use those same methods to look at abortions. Income inequality between white and black people is because of systemic racism, but overwhelming inequality between blacks and white babies being aborted is somehow not. Liberals and statists and feminists won’t say it out loud, but the history and actual application is clear. The reality is abortion is a eugenics program marketed to the dumb and minorities to convince them to voluntarily reduce their reproduction. Look at the raw numbers, compare them to education level, race and other demographics. Abortion is kept legal and marketed in a fashion designed to minimize populations of ”undesirables.” It's a sick fact, prove it to yourself. Look at where planned parenthood puts its clinics and compare that to the demographics.
Obviously I’m anti-abortion for a lot of reasons. In fact I’m not alone, a lot of Libertarians are anti-abortion. A lot of Republicans, who would be Libertarian if not for the abortion plank remain stuck in the statists Republican Party. The LP claims to believe “that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” of the abortion issue, yet boldly proclaims that view of one side should not be accepted. Obviously the LP doesn’t respect or tolerate the views of those who believe that the government was instituted to protect everybody’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if that person believes life begins at birth.
If the LP truly makes its platform plank “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” then it should have no position on abortion and welcome pro-life and pro-choice libertarians equally. Currently pro-life libertarians who believe that the government should protect the life of all people from aggression by others, even their mothers, are not welcome in the LP. The polls show that more than half the country is pro-life. Why do we have a plank that is so divisive, so easily demonstrated to violate the non-aggression principle, and clearly makes us unpalatable to more than half the country. Considering that the pro-choice crowd generally hates our fiscal planks, our platform pretty much excludes everybody.
Plank 1.4 of the LP Platform on abortion should be eliminated. If we must have an abortion plank why not a truly libertarian plank that reads: : “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, the LP will not drive a wedge between Its members and encourages each member to freely vote their conscience and actively work to achieve the political goal they think best protects liberty without condemnation.”
The veritable “Third Rail” is Abortion. The LP’s position on abortion is illogical, contradictory, unlibertarian, and divides and hurts the LP. The fact is the fastest way to start a argument and keep libertarians from working together on productive issues is to bring up abortion. Not even the Republicans and Democrats fight over abortion more than libertarians. The abortion plank of our platform should not be changed, it should be eliminated. The fact is good libertarians disagree on the issue of abortion, regardless of a person’s position on abortion they should be welcome in the Libertarian Party.
Libertarians as a whole are extremists, if they weren’t they’d be in the Republocrat or Demican party. Because we are extremists some fail to see what they think of as moderate position as being extreme. Consider the wording of the abortion plank in the LP Platform, which reads: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Many libertarians consider this to be a moderate non-confrontational position. Others see it as an extreme position that makes murder legal in some situations.
As libertarians we all believe that every human has the same rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The LP has adopted and accepted liberal anti-liberty vocabulary to justify its position. Because of this honest open debate on abortion does not happen. Adopting such language tat calls the termination of a fetus as “health care” targets those who don’t agree as being against “health care.”
Half the people, or more, rightly believe that pregnancy is not a disease but is the outcome of behavior initiated by people other than the unborn baby. Half the people, or more, believe life begins at conception. Half the people, or more, believe that the unborn are people. That means that half, or more, of the people believe the LP position is that there should be no laws restricting a woman from murdering her child prior to it reaching some arbitrary stage of its life.
The science is settled, at conception a unique person genetically distinct from its mother is created as a result of specific behavioral choices of the sire. It’s really simple, regardless of the stage of development, from one cell to birth, the cell(s) aren’t dead they are alive. All the arguing isn’t going to change the reality, and no-abortions are initiated on babies before their heart is beating. So talking about blastocysts and very early stages of development are meaningless, a diversion, and a lie meant to cover up the fact that abortion is the killing of a unique humans who are developmentally far too young to protect themselves. Just because politics resulted in changing definition of what is a life to justify abortions doesn’t make the unborn less than human. The definition of cellular life used to be pretty simple. If the cell(s) respirate, take in food, expel waste, divide, and respond to stimuli, it’s alive. If the DNA is human and the cells are alive it is a living human being – PERIOD!
What justifies the initiation of force against that human who has not and cannot initiate force against another? The abortion plank tells every Libertarian who for scientific or religious reasons believes life begins at conception to fuck off. We won’t suffer the consequences of our life choices, and libertarian principles be damned.
Saying that a woman’s body is her own is fine. She should be free to defend herself from others who have initiated aggression against her. If she is pregnant because of her voluntary actions, it is clear her baby did not initiate any aggression against her, but is there because of the woman’s choice. She does not have the right to kill the baby and cannot claim self-defense. If she is pregnant involuntarily because of aggression against her she has good cause to seek reparations and even punishment against the aggressor, not the innocent third party. The baby did not initiate any aggression against her. Murdering the baby because the mother was raped is killing an innocent bystander who initiated force against nobody, and is not justice.
Interesting how liberals, statists, and feminists, in just about everything from income to education, will use dissimilar outcomes based on race and other demographics to prove racism, sexism, etc. You are not allowed to use those same methods to look at abortions. Income inequality between white and black people is because of systemic racism, but overwhelming inequality between blacks and white babies being aborted is somehow not. Liberals and statists and feminists won’t say it out loud, but the history and actual application is clear. The reality is abortion is a eugenics program marketed to the dumb and minorities to convince them to voluntarily reduce their reproduction. Look at the raw numbers, compare them to education level, race and other demographics. Abortion is kept legal and marketed in a fashion designed to minimize populations of ”undesirables.” It's a sick fact, prove it to yourself. Look at where planned parenthood puts its clinics and compare that to the demographics.
Obviously I’m anti-abortion for a lot of reasons. In fact I’m not alone, a lot of Libertarians are anti-abortion. A lot of Republicans, who would be Libertarian if not for the abortion plank remain stuck in the statists Republican Party. The LP claims to believe “that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” of the abortion issue, yet boldly proclaims that view of one side should not be accepted. Obviously the LP doesn’t respect or tolerate the views of those who believe that the government was instituted to protect everybody’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if that person believes life begins at birth.
If the LP truly makes its platform plank “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” then it should have no position on abortion and welcome pro-life and pro-choice libertarians equally. Currently pro-life libertarians who believe that the government should protect the life of all people from aggression by others, even their mothers, are not welcome in the LP. The polls show that more than half the country is pro-life. Why do we have a plank that is so divisive, so easily demonstrated to violate the non-aggression principle, and clearly makes us unpalatable to more than half the country. Considering that the pro-choice crowd generally hates our fiscal planks, our platform pretty much excludes everybody.
Plank 1.4 of the LP Platform on abortion should be eliminated. If we must have an abortion plank why not a truly libertarian plank that reads: : “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, the LP will not drive a wedge between Its members and encourages each member to freely vote their conscience and actively work to achieve the political goal they think best protects liberty without condemnation.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
