Gary Johnson is a Republican. However, he has (at least in the past) been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian events, and is likely to have the support of many Libertarian and Constitution Party Activists. This was published in Liberty Maven by Marc Gallagher.
Those of us in Ron Paul withdrawal and excited at the prospect of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson running for President in 2012, received some good news today. According to Charles Frohman writing on the Gary Johnson 2012 Facebook group, Johnson is interested in running. Frohman writes:
I met with Gary for a couple hours at his new mansion in Taos, New Mexico, and got confirmation of his interest in running for the 2012 presidency. Like Dr. Paul, the former Governor is a big believer in vetoing unconstitutional laws, and doing everything to allow individuals to pursue their happiness in most any way. Progressives should like his tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and conservatives should like his high standards for govt efficiency and support for local innovative govt solutions.
I suppose it is a bit early to start planning the first Johnson Money Bomb, but this is great news for us Ron Paul liberty lovers looking for a candidate in 2012. There is a lot of time between now and 2012, but this certainly provides hope for the future. In the meantime there is much work to be done with the upcoming 2010 election year. As Wendell Phillips reminds us, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.
Until then, why not show your support for Johnson by joining the Gary Johnson 2012 Facebook group. As of this writing the group is up to 88 members. You can read more about my assessment of Gary Johnson here.
140 responses so far ↓
1 richardwinger // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Which political party??
2 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Republican, as I mentioned in the opening paragraph:
Gary Johnson is a Republican.
And then I explained why I think this belongs at IPR:
However, he has (at least in the past) been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian events, and is likely to have the support of many Libertarian and Constitution Party Activists.
3 johnlowell // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Where does Gary come down when it comes to
murdering unwanted children? And what would be his atttiude toward embryonic human life? Would he find the Josef Mengele model acceptable? You just never know how someone might vote after encouraging folks to get stoned.
Gary be able to see himself as a kind Josef Mengele retread? Since it seems he’d be unmoved watching the world evolve in front of him stoned,
4 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Some Constitution Party activisits, maybe, but he doesnt have much appeal to social conservatives. Despite being pro-life, he just doesnt do much to pander to social conservatives–who prolly wouldnt like him much anyway because of his drug stance. Still, I’ve seen a decent amount of interest from paleocons, so maybe im wrong.
I prolly should’ve broken this story back when I discovered it–it would’ve attracted significant attention to IPR,huh?
5 johnlowell // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:37 pm
6 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm
johnlowell,
Abortion is pretty confusing as it concerns Gary Johnson. He calls himself “pro-choice”,but consistently supported pro-life bills and issues when he was governor. The New Mexico Right to Life Committee called him “a warrior for the pro-life cause”.
Furthermore, Gov. Johnson does not encourage anyone to get stoned. In fact, he speaks against it anytime he mentions the War on Drugs. To cast anyone who is against the War on Drugs as some sort of pothead-dopefiend shows the capabilities of a mental-midgit. Dr. Ron Paul is also for complete legalization.
7 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:40 pm
after encouraging folks to get stoned.
eh?
8 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Since it seems he’d be unmoved watching the world evolve in front of him stoned,
Is there anything which you don’t think is good for people, yet would not have the government’s goons and guns go after?
9 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I prolly should’ve broken this story back when I discovered it–it would’ve attracted significant attention to IPR,huh?
I gave you plenty of lead time. At this point I figured if you were going to post it, you would have done so already.
10 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Yea, I wasnt going to. Thought maybe it was a conflict of interest? I dunno.
11 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sorry.
It’s up now though, so feel free to edit (or write another story later), or just add comments.
12 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Nah, i’ll just break more on the story later. And don’t say sorry,lol. I waited too long, my fault.
13 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:01 pm
It’s all good
14 johnlowell // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Trent,
While were on the subject of “mentalities”, when you have a chance as a government official to squelch the sale of destructive substances like heroin and let them pass you by, you do so with all the social sense of a psychopath. But that’s all too much of libertarianism anyway, isn’t it, Trent, a kind of sociopathology writ large? Oh, and please , spare us the positing of Ron Paul as the sine qua non of authentic humanity. As I’d mentioned to you once before, the man’s an unmitigated schmendrik. But we’ve been over that ground.
15 Dodge Landesman // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I think Gary Johnson sounds like a good idea. I think one of the reasons that Ron Paul didn’t sky rocket to a top tier candidate is because of his position as a lowly congressman. Many voters (including myself, though I would’ve voted for Paul over McCain or Obama if he ran) feel that a congressman is too much of a insignificant position to fill the presidency. But to have a governor would actually add the stamp of legitimacy that I think many liberty lovers are looking for.
16 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm
While were on the subject of “mentalitiesâ€, when you have a chance as a government official to squelch the sale of destructive substances like heroin and let them pass you by, you do so with all the social sense of a psychopath.
On the contrary, it takes a psychopath to try to squelch a substance - and it doesn’t work, either.
What next, are you going to have regime stormtroopers regulating people’s diets at gunpoint? Monitoring how much TV or recreational internet time you spend? Where does this shit end, exactly?
17 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm
johnlowell,
Wanting to regulate what someone places in their own body is pure idiocy. I dont want to tell someone they cant eat arsenic, they cant eat lead, they cant snort cocaine, cant drink alchohol, or can’t eat transfats.
18 Hugh Jass // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:55 pm
So, in a field with Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Jindal, and Johnson, do you think that Johnson has a good chance at getting the nomination?
19 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Who the fuck knows? If the election were held today I would say no, but the next four years could be very turbulent. How many people accurately predicted the timing of the fall of Soviet communism?
20 Galileo Galilei // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Gary Johnson spoke at the LPWI convention in April of 2002.
21 Gene Trosper // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Gary Johnson is the candidate that *just might* be able to bring together a significant portion of the radicals and pragmatists. It will be interesting to see if this story has any traction.
22 G.E. // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Not being pro-life will absolutely doom his candidacy. I will support him so long as he supports overturning or ignoring Roe, but he won’t get anywhere in a GOP primary if he in any way characterizes himself as “pro-choice” as it pertains to abortion.
Where does he stand on immigration?
23 johncjackson // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:29 pm
No Chance as a Republican, but the LP is his if he wants it. Otherwise it will just be another case of the Ron Paul blue balls.
24 G.E. // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm
johnlowel = central planning communist and idiot (although I repeat myself). Even if the war on drugs weren’t entirely immoral, the fact is it DOESN’T WORK. No one has the chance to “squelch” anything but freedom, you fucking pinko POS.
25 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:33 pm
GE,
I believe his stance on immigration is the same as Paul’s. Some of his stances have become more radical sense he left office,especially over the course of the Ron Paul campaign.
I’d bet that Johnson only characterized himself as “pro-choice” because he was in New Mexico, a 2-1 Democratic state, and he didnt want people to think he was allied with the Religious Right. But as I previously said, his record is consistently pro-life.
26 G.E. // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:36 pm
If his immigration stance is like Paul’s, I hope he won’t let people who don’t understand his stance mischaracterize it in TV and print ads.
27 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Everything i’ve read says Johnson has a very hands-on approach with his campaigns, as opposed to Ron Paul’s laid back stance.
However, I dont think Paul’s stance was mischaracterized. I think he made it seem “tough” in order to make himself more appealing to social conservatives. He tried to play the game a little, I think.
28 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Which reminds me, we need to have him answer some basic issue-stance questions.
29 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:41 pm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
30 richardwinger // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The war on drugs doesn’t work, and the war on abortion doesn’t work. Women must be persuaded not to have abortions. The best way to reduce abortion is to make all methods of birth control really, really easy to obtain; and for parents to do a good job of teaching their children that it is safe for the children to talk about sex with their parents.
If abortion were made illegal again, the internet would be available to pass on information on how to do a self-abortion. It would be like marijuana prohibition…people learn how to grow their own.
31 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Yep.
32 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:57 pm
richardwinger,
Women must be persuaded not to kill others? Since when?
Are all methods of birth control not already really,really easy to obtain? Condoms and birth-control are pretty cheap. Are you suggesting that the government should artificially depress their prices? Those who committed self-abortions would be just as guilty as all others who kill people.
Richard, equating abortion to drugs is insulting. Abortion as a libertarian issue doesnt come down to what is MORAL. It comes down to property rights, what is life, and sexual contracts.
33 richardwinger // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
No, birth control devices are not easily obtained, if one is a shy and ignorant 14 year old who is afraid to talk to her parents. The Netherlands has a far lower rate of abortion than all South American countries, despite the fact that abortion is legal in Netherlands (along with plenty of easily-obtained birth control devices and information), and it is strictly illegal in South America.
34 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Women must be persuaded not to kill others? Since when?
An overwhelming majority must first be convinced that abortion equals killing someone, otherwise trying to stop it through government will be no more effective than prohibition. And if/when there is a social concensus that it is in fact murder, government will not be the only - or best - means of combating it.
35 Eternaverse // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” - Ayn Rand
“Abolition of a woman’s right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. “- Edward Abbey
36 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Compulsory maternity? Someone forced that woman to have sex?
Sex is a contract whereby it is explicitly understood that pregnancy can result. It is that woman (and some man’s) fault that the being is in existence to begin with. She invited that “parasite” or “danger to her life”. Similar to if I invited GE into my house and he said, “Ohk, but my kids might drop by. Like a 1% chance.” I agree that if they drop by, I’m going to lock them in.
Then, by pure happenstance, his kids do drop by. Then I lock them all in and ask them to leave. Naturally, they cant leave because they’re locked in–as was already agreed upon. Then, I cut their brains open with scissors and rend them limb-from-limb in an attempt to get these PARASITES to vacate my personal property. Personal property I invited them onto.
37 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:40 pm
How about rape?
If you make an exception for rape, what does the woman have to do to prove she was raped if she says she was?
If you don’t, doesn’t that make the argument in 36 moot?
And, supposing you are correct: refer back to comment 34.
38 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Rape negates any contractual obligations. In this case the child, though, is still not initiating force. It is, just like the mother, a victim. In the event a woman has been raped AND her life is threatened, that is a VERY grey area.
As long as we’re talking about extenuating circumstances. In both the cases of infants and pre-born humans, both infer a positive obligation on the “parents”. Why is one a parasite and the other not? Do “parents” have a right to leave their parasitic infants out in the woods if they so choose?
39 Spence // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Oh here we go. Another pro-life/pro-choice debate. Anyway, it’s funny you guys post this NOW, since it’s been up for a few days over at RPF: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=167129&page=5
I think he would be a tremendous improvement over Ron Paul, (in practical terms, not idealistically, relax) even if he kinda borders on egomania. At least it’s a subtle, relatable egomania- not senior senility like Gravel or the “crap your pants, ain’t got time to bleed” attitude of Ventura.
If he intends to do something though, he needs to start getting on the radar now to raise his profile. Otherwise, he’ll be shuffled into the bottom-tier and it won’t matter what he does, he’ll be blacklisted in much the same way Ron Paul is… then again, I carry the confidence that he can convey the message without scaring so many people off.
One caveat though: As the people over at RPF have discussed, his “pro-drug” stance will come back to bite him in the ass unless we can find ways to mitigate it now…
40 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm
The “abortion rights” that so many libertarian advocates try to stand behind are really just a libertine right to be free of consequences. They have sex, create a human life, and then want to be free of the consequences that are sometimes associated with those actions. No personal responsibility here, no libertarianism.
41 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“If he intends to do something though, he needs to start getting on the radar now to raise his profile.”
We’re trying to get him to CPAC ‘09 and the Mises Circle in Houston in Feb.
42 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48 pm
His “pro-drug” stance is courageous and will do alot to endear him to the younger generation, the Ron Paulers, and the middle-aged folks that lived through the 60s and 70s.
43 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:49 pm
As long as we’re talking about extenuating circumstances. In both the cases of infants and pre-born humans, both infer a positive obligation on the “parentsâ€. Why is one a parasite and the other not? Do “parents†have a right to leave their parasitic infants out in the woods if they so choose?
Good question. One answer is that in the case of an infant, someone else can immediately take care of it. But I’ll grant that is not always necessarily true.
The real answer is because society has a concensus that infanticide is murder. There is no such consent around abortion. Trying to legislate it is putting the cart before the horse.
44 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“An overwhelming majority must first be convinced that abortion equals killing someone, otherwise trying to stop it through government will be no more effective than prohibition”
This is hogwash. Whether or not the majority of society thinks it is murder is irrelevant. The majority of society didnt think killing “niggers” was murder in the 1800’s, but it still should’ve been illegal.
45 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Anyway, it’s funny you guys post this NOW, since it’s been up for a few days over at RPF:
See above. I was going to let Trent have first crack at it, since he is personally involved. But as of the time I posted it, I figured too long had gone by without us writing something about it.
46 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“There is no such consent around abortion.”
This has no bearing on whether it is murder or not. Killing an infant is unconscionable–as is killing any human,unborn included.
47 Eternaverse // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Something only has rights if it is an independent being that can live without the direct support of another being; until it is born a fetus is part of its mother there for it has no rights of its own. Would you consider an egg or sperm cell to be alive and deserving of rights?
48 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Eternaverse,
So if it can be c-sectioned out, it has rights? It attains rights by passing through the vagina? Seems like voodoo magic to me.
Also, infants cannot live without direct support of another being. Hell, some 4 year olds probably couldnt live without the direct support of another being. None of these beings have rights? It is ohk to shove scissors in these beings’ heads?
49 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Why would you care if a stranger has an abortion? It’s not your genetic mass. Mind your own business.
50 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm
The majority of society didnt think killing “niggers†was murder in the 1800’s, but it still should’ve been illegal.
I don’t know that a “majority” of society thought that, but if they did, legislation was not the first step in correctly dealing with it.
51 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“Why would you care if a stranger has an abortion? It’s not your genetic mass. ”
Why would you care if a southern farmer kills his “nigger”?
See how base this arguement is?
52 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I don’t care.
53 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
paulie,
You are an anarchist, if I remember correctly–so you dont believe legislation should EVER be used to solve ANY issue.
But even in anarchist theory, aggressing on another is a crime that is punishable.
54 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“I don’t care.”
Point proven. Libertines, not libertarians.
55 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I have to care about strangers in order to be a libertarian? Feelings has nothing to do with libertarianism.
56 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:06 pm
We should have a Libertine Party though.
57 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Libertarian,
Not caring if your supposedly libertarian system allows people to be killed without any reprecusions—that is not libertarian. It really isnt even libertine, it isnt any system at all. It isnt even anarchism—it’s a system where rights do not exist.
58 Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:10 pm
http://kob.com/article/stories/S659466.shtml?cat=516
Gov. Johnson says he wont make comments on his possible presidential race publicly until after January when Obama is inaugerated.
59 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:10 pm
There is no such thing as a “libertine system” (is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
60 Eternaverse // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:14 pm
A thing is alive when it can perform all basic life functions for its self; once it is alive it has rights. If a fetus at 8 months can survive without being connected to its mother it is alive, if it cannot it is not alive. As to when something is alive I don’t know because I am not a scientist or a doctor.
61 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:16 pm
And, your point is? Who cares about what you think when the question remains, what are you going to do about it?
62 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I would care if it were my child. But strangers, why? Sounds like socialism to me.
63 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:19 pm
And how would anti-abortion laws help? It would just go to the underground, like drugs.
64 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:20 pm
There is no such thing as a “libertine system†(is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
Fail.
65 Eternaverse // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It’s not Libertarian Joseph’s job to make sure other people have their rights protected. He has no moral obligation to anyone but himself. Believing anything else is altruistism, which is just believing in socialist morals.
66 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Paulie, you’re ignorant of what voluntaryism is. Gotcha
It appears that you fail, buddy
67 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:25 pm
No. Look it up, I won’t do your homework.
68 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Voluntaryism is about voluntary social interaction. How does legislating abortion fall into that category? hmmmm? dumbass
69 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:33 pm
You are an anarchist, if I remember correctly–so you dont believe legislation should EVER be used to solve ANY issue.
But even in anarchist theory, aggressing on another is a crime that is punishable.
Correct. However, in anarchism you have to carry out a cost/benefit/risk calculation as to what extent something is worth fighting over. Social concensus to create a punishable situation is then important, otherwise you will be in a state of constant war, which makes commerce and civilized life impossible. Therefore, you’ll have to learn to pick your battles.
Since war is not a good way to live, and is bad for (non-war) business, peaceful solutions have to be found. Persuasion, not force. When the persuasion has by and large succeeded, (non-monopoly) security forces and courts can mete out punishment. Until then, you only invite war by trying.
However, I also acknowledge that monopoly government exists for the time being, and seems unlikely to go away immediately.
Thus, what do we do in the meantime? I don’t believe the institution of government is the best way of solving any social problem, but I have less objection to it trying to solve problems where there is a clear aggressor and a clear victim. Until that concensus exists, government is an especially bad way of trying to establish it or solving any problem.
Afterwards, it’s still bad, but less so.
70 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:34 pm
You’re no anarchist, Paulie.
“Social concensus to create a punishable situation is then important, otherwise you will be in a state of constant war, which makes commerce and civilized life impossible.”
In other words, you support direct democracy. Oh man
71 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Voluntaryism is about voluntary social interaction.
Previously, you defined it as libertinism. Look up both words.
dumbass
Yes, you are. But it’s creepy when you talk to yourself in public like that.
72 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:35 pm
In other words, you support direct democracy.
Fail again. I support no such thing.
73 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I never defined libertarianism as that. Libertarianism isn’t even ancap. You’re a fool.
74 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:37 pm
You said you support “social consensus,” that’s direct democracy. If most peple want abortion illegal, you think it should be illegal, yes? Yeah, you are.
75 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Comment 59.
76 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I was talking about “libertinism,” not libertarianism. Get some glasses
77 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm
75 @ 73
78 Eternaverse // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I retract my perverse defense of Libertarian Joseph. I didn’t realize he had such flawed logic.
79 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:43 pm
LJ defined libertinism and voluntaryism as being the same thing in comment 59.
That definition was incorrect.
Who needs glasses again?
I already have mine, and they work just fine, thanks.
80 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I never did that, you fool. I wasn’t taling about libertinism, I asked Trent if there was even such a thing as a “libertine system,” you’re a god damn moron, Paulie.
81 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:46 pm
You said you support “social consensus,†that’s direct democracy.
Noper. Two different things.
If most peple want abortion illegal, you think it should be illegal, yes?
When did I say that? If overwhelming majority of people come to believe it is murder, neither government nor you and a few friends will be
able to effectively protect abortionists. “Should” has very little to do with it.
Yeah, you are.
Wasting my time on you? True.
82 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Maybe I have chemical weapons? There is not necessarily strength in numbers.
83 paulie cannoli // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:48 pm
LOL @ LJ
Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:10 pm
There is no such thing as a “libertine system†(is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
Oh and …
you’re a god damn moron, Paulie.
When you’re right, you’re right. If I wasn’t a moron, it wouldn’t have taken me this long to put you on the ignore list.
Oh well, better late than never.
84 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I don’t care what you do, dickhead.
85 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 pm
1. I never gave definition for libertinism.
That “Yes, there is” was for Trent saying that what I was describing was “no system.” I wasn’t talking about libertinism.
2. You’e an asshole, Paulie. Go suck Gravel’s cock and support direct democracy with his fat, socialist ass.
My definition of libertinism: the free market without natural rights.
Not voluntaryism
86 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:01 am
87 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:01 am
Why? Because I’m a true idealist? Is that why I’m a troll? You support direct democracy, stop hiding that fact.
88 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:02 am
The best way to reduce murder and theft for their to be a strong, free-market economy; strong families and private institutions, etc. — these things are more effective than laws… But that does NOT mean that it should be legal for me to kill you or steal from you, Richard. Small people have rights, too.
Marijuana is a drug that does not harm to anyone except possibly the person ingesting it. Abortion is the internal butchering of a small human being. One is a victimless non-crime, the other is one of the most barbaric actions a person can engage in. There is simply NO comparison between the two.
89 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:05 am
Poor girl. She clearly deserves the special right to murder the byproduct of her lack of self-respect.
And a much higher instance of socialism.
If abortion is not bad, then who cares if rates are high or low? If it is bad, then why? Because it’s murder? No amount of murder is tolerable.
90 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:08 am
I mostly agree with this. I’m not for banning abortion on a national scale or even so much in my state — I’m for abolishing the nation and the state that make abortion artificially legal.
91 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:10 am
I mostly agree with this. I’m not for banning abortion on a national scale or even so much in my state — I’m for abolishing the nation and the state that make abortion artificially legal.
Then we agree. But I was addressing Trent.
92 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:18 am
While the unborn child is still innocent, the woman has no contractual obligation to the child if she did not consent to sex — and thus the child is “trespassing” (even though he was placed there not of his own will). I think abortion is within the woman’s rights in this extremely rare case.
Here’s how I view this would work in a free society: A woman is allegedly raped. She informs the proper authorities (i.e. a private defense organization) immediately — no waiting six months or even six hours (unless there are extraordinary circumstances). She needs to name or at least describe her attacker, etc. The PDO will then decide whether they believe her and are willing to take the risk — because a private, pro-life interest group could bring charges against them and the woman and the abortionist (who would probably be indemnified by the PDO’s approval). Otherwise, the woman would need to sue for the “right” of abortion — which would be covered by her PDO insurance, of course. The woman would also receive damages from her PDO, which would then have every reason to apprehend the perpetrator and make him pay restitution.
Here is my hardcore feminist view on rape: If the woman decides it was rape, it was rape. If men don’t like this then they shouldn’t fuck outside of committed relationships or where a contract is present.
93 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:21 am
I know. I didn’t think you guys were having a private conversation since it was taking place in the comments below a blog entry.
94 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:25 am
Here is my hardcore feminist view on rape: If the woman decides it was rape, it was rape.
I’d be in trouble. I, for one real life example, had a woman use the the threat of a false rape allegation to coerce me into letting her get away with stealing. And it worked. I let her get away with it rather than deal with a rape trial.
If men don’t like this then they shouldn’t fuck outside of committed relationships or where a contract is present.
Committed relationships are no guarantee against false rape claims. The threat of false rape claims should not coerce people into not having sex outside of committed relationships.
A contract can be signed at gunpoint. If it wasn’t, the woman can later say it was. And what a shitty mood killer, anyway. Fucking contracts?
95 Trent Hill // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:25 am
GE is spot on.
96 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:25 am
I didn’t think you guys were having a private conversation since it was taking place in the comments below a blog entry.
We’re not. You are certainly welcome to participate.
97 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:27 am
haha, I was just f’ing around, paul.
98 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:33 am
Agreed, and the #1 thing pro-lifers who actually care about human life (and aren’t just “pro-life” because they’re anti-sex) should do is MAKE THE CASE that abortion is murder. It is not a tough case to make.
Should we have waited until there was a greater consensus to abolish slavery and mandatory segregation?
99 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 am
No and your logic is faulty. A sperm cell left on its own will not become a human baby, nor will an egg. It no more has rights than a ball of earwax.
But once a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall, it is a human being. Unlike a sperm cell or a shaving of dead skin, it will grow and mature into what everyone would recognize as a human with rights. There is simply no logical place to draw a line other than conception and implantation. If you accept that a baby can be murdered at 2 months and 29 days gestation, then why not 3 months and 1 day? And if then, why not 1 second before emerging from the vagina? And if then, why not up until the age of 1 or 10 or 100?
100 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 am
Should we have waited until there was a greater consensus to abolish slavery and mandatory segregation?
Neither was abolished properly, as you well know.
The best solution for slavery would have been to let the south secede and stop enforcing fugitive slave laws. It would have ended quickly and bloodlessly, to the extent slavery in fact ended.
Segregation falls into two categories: that created by government, and that created by voluntary institutions.
I think removing government as much as possible, at all levels, would have done a much better job of ending unfair discrimination than federally mandated desegregation has done.
And it wouldn’t have had nearly as many unfortunate side effects.
I will not claim, or pretend, that the struggle would or could have been easy, either the way it happened, or the way I wish it had.
101 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49 am
I agree, but that’s a cop-out. Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable” with abolishing slavery to do it?
102 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:59 am
Let’s look at a similar situation today. Some people believe that animals should have rights, that they should not be owned by people. What should they do about this belief? Should they act in a vigilante fashion, or seek control of government to force their opinion on others? How effective would either be when most people do not agree with them?
I think they should act with persuasion. Stage boycotts, demonstrations, sit-ins. Maybe some, who feel it is important enough to sacrifice their own life or freedom, should take direct action - but not under any illusion that it will be likely to be free of consequences.
If, and only if, they create a broad concensus that animals have something like human rights, can they attempt to enforce those rights in anything like an effective fashion.
103 JimDavidson // Nov 14, 2008 at 1:24 am
There is a technological solution to the abortion controversy. It ceases to be a controversy when the woman can stop being pregnant and the child can continue to live. Artificial wombs and transplant technology are coming. They’d be here now were it not for gov’t.
104 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 1:24 am
Exactly.
105 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 1:32 am
How can I answer this question without tapping into my belief that animals DO NOT have rights? However, if I DID believe that animals had rights, then I would support vigilante action — just as I support vigilante action to free slaves.
106 G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 1:34 am
Jim’s point is an interesting one. It will show that the pro-life/pro-choice debate is largely a smokescreen for other things. For when this technology arrives, 99% of the pro-life people will oppose it as unnatural, and a good majority of the radical pro-fetal murder crowd will still claim the RIGHT to murder their unborn child — even if it isn’t necessary. After all, it its just HER body and the fetus has no rights, then why shouldn’t she be able to choose abortion instead of the new technology?
However, paulie: You still haven’t answered this — Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable†with abolishing slavery to do it?
107 paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 2:03 am
I support vigilante action to free slaves.
So do I. But we both know that such vigilante action would be treated as a crime until most people come to agree, by broad concensus, that slavery is a rights violation and/or economically untenable. There’s no way around the struggle having been a struggle.
You still haven’t answered this — Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable†with abolishing slavery to do it?
I did answer it. It wasn’t a very good answer, but I’m trying. I don’t have a good answer, and I’m not convinced anyone else does, either.
Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining what I mean:
It all depends on what you mean by “the South”.
Either with government monopoly or without, you have to reach a critical mass of popular support, or your attempted reform will fail.
A ruthless enough minority can force a majority to toe their line - but only through universal slavery, which is non-sustainable.
I’m sorry, but I don’t have a magic wand to rid the world of all injustice, and I don’t think anyone else does either. When societies come into stages of conflict over where rights properly exist, they have to struggle to come to a resolution of that conflict. That struggle can be managed better or worse. I think coercive monopoly government falls under the heading of worse.
108 JimDavidson // Nov 14, 2008 at 2:10 am
I think the South had a large number of economic reasons for fighting against the north, including a tariff that deliberately funded the entire government on their backs. It is also the case that the South fought for a constitutionally limited republic, while the north fought for a unitary central state.
Slavery is abhorrent in all its forms. However, ready or not, manumission of slaves did not require a war. The other countries of the world managed quite ably in ending slavery without fighting destructive wars.
Ultimately, the South decided that the war wasn’t about slavery, and the north did, too. The Confederate congress voted to end slavery and the north continued the war.
With regard to technology to end the abortion controversy, I believe that many women who believe that abortion should not be illegal also do not like the idea of killing the unborn child. One of the things this technology could do is end the role of government in the controversy. Which would be nice, though unexpected.