Thursday, November 02, 2006

Libertarian Principles re- Abortion:

Bill (Libertarian candidate) says: Libertarians are divided on abortion. Some view it as the woman’s choice. Others focus on the obligation of government to protect and defend the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property. I consider life to begin at conception and am against abortion.

This is NOT the right question, or maybe you gave an ambiguous answer. This misses the issue. The question is,
a) should the government be given the power to stand between a woman and her physician? and
b) furthermore, should the government be given the power to create new laws to criminalize a voluntary contract btw a woman and her physician? and
c) even more serious, should the government be granted the power to establish a new bureaucracy of Vaginal Forensics, to obtain criminal evidence inside the private vagina of EVERY woman.

How about this:
Vaginal Inspection for Pregnancy Enforcement Regime - VIPER.

Put VIPER under Homeland Security, so Michael Chertoff can order the inspection of any suspect vagina, or maybe stick his head in there himself.

Every pregnant woman is a potential murderer.
Every woman is potentially pregnant.
Every woman is a suspect. Every man is a suspected accomplice. This is like the "War on Drugs", raised to new levels of surrealism.
Doesn't there need to be evidence of a crime? Not anymore. Suspicion is good enough for arrest, internment, forced inspection.

This would install a bizarre, medieval, massive police state bureaucracy to clamp down on freedom in general, and treat ALL women like criminals -- and many men as their accomplices -- kinda like the West accuses Muslim countries of treating their women (and some men) like serfs. This system will have to file murder charges on millions of mothers and hear murder cases, and apply sentences. This would turn America into they type of country in which most babies, upon having reached the age of reason, would WISH they had been aborted.

(What happens when a young woman caught shoplifting earrings -- or baby formula -- is offered a deal to 'snitch' on another woman who may have had an abortion? What happens when harsh abortion laws are used for revenge, or general purpose harassment and imprisonment "we found some residue", like drug laws are now?)

In order to protect the Right of every Fetus to Life, Liberty, and Property, as you may desire, the vagina of EVERY woman of child-bearing age must therefore become "semi-public" property, insofar as the State's law enforcement mechanism is concerned. (The libertarian viewpoint on marriage and relationships is that Marriage should be separate from State. Why are we so insistent on making ourselves or our fellow citizens into government serfs?)

Is a woman's body protected by the Fourth Amendment, and other elements of the Bill of Rights, or NOT? Are private parts private property or public property? Is the woman property of the State while pregnant, AND the unborn fetus property of the State until it's born? Are all children property of the State? If everyone is State property, why not go all the way Communist or Nazi?

Have you read that article on Abortion Prohibition in El Salvador, how it is applied in practice? It was a power grab by elites from church and govt, some kind of battle of wills and votes. Wealthy women just fly to Miami. Poor women get strapped down and handcuffed, for the 'rubber gloves and flashlight' inspection by Authorities, for evidence of vaginal rips. Guilty women get 10 - 30 years.

IRONY ALARM: El Salvador is a country that has been plagued with government Death Squads, backed by the CIA, trained by the School of Americas, which have tortured, terrified, and murdered tens of thousands of men, women, and children, yet it is "100% pro-life".
This is not that ironic. Many pro-life people strongly believe in murder, so long as they can choose who is deserving of death and who is deserving of life.
I joked before about the Death Penalty for women who abort, just to be ironic and take it to it's logical conclusion, but there's people who believe in that!

However horrendous Abortion may be, I cannot imagine ANY way in which LAW ENFORCEMENT will not be a gruesome power grab, and even with the best of intentions create the worst results.

Gross violations of inalienable Rights must be a part of enforcement. I cannot imagine ANY law which will not then become a wider gaping hole through which control freaks will demand to drive a bigger truck until all human rights and dignity are gone, which will give the government a precedent and license to invade the bodies of ALL people, as they see fit.

For example, if some Democrats passed a law on Healthy Eating Initiative, and claimed that this would require public health officials to inspect the colon and feces of every man, woman, and especially children, the government could use the pregnancy/abortion laws as a precedent against any Fourth Amendment protection from mandatory colon inspection.
Spread 'em!! And line up for more bran and roughage.

If the State can inspect any woman's pussy, it can certainly inspect everyone's asshole. How could you object? It's for the good of the whole of 'society'.

Isn't the whole point of Libertarianism the near elimination of dangerous government, to whatever degree possible? Isn't the private sector -- churches, advertising, counseling, advocacy groups -- isn't advocacy and persuasion the proper channel for the fight to reduce or eliminate abortions, rather than force of law?

The analogy is unconstitutional drug laws "for the good of society" (i.e. Socialism/Fascism) which now contends that the government has the right to gather evidence inside your home, your pockets, your trunk, or (in some cases) your bloodstream.

I came to this site after some time with Murray Rothbard's info and Lew Rockwell, etc., as well as Michael Badnarik.

I'm sorry, I would vote AGAINST you, Bill. Giving up the welfare state also means giving up the warfare state, giving up the corporate welfare state, AND ending the nanny state.

Not because I think Abortion, per se, is the most important issue (I'm male, but it is fundamental), but because anyone claiming to be libertarian who cannot grasp the principle of the clear difference between coercive force of govt vs. private persuasion, esp. on a sensitive matter such as pregnancy/abortion (but 'gets it' when it comes to social subsidies taken by coercion of taxes), and who cannot grasp how the practice of State intervention on a murder investigation inside a woman's vagina must radically differ from routine State intervention on a murder investigation in a parking lot or home, someone with such fuzzy attitudes on libertarian principles does not deserve a vote from me.

(I'm not arguing that philosophically abortion is not "murder", although it is a philosophical gray area in some ways. I'm arguing that while criminalization could be enforceable, enforcement would create a nightmare for the American people and for the human race. If you think the EPA is a problem, as do most Libertarians, you should consider what the Pregnancy Enforcement Agency will look like, or VIPER.)

I'm looking for the Libertarian who says "I hate drugs, I hate gambling, I hate abortion, and yet I refuse to criminalize any of it because it's anti-freedom, a waste of money and effort to enforce, and counterproductive to the actual goal."

I'm looking for the Libertarian who recognizes that while according to principle there should be MINIMAL regulation of "business" or commerce between any two or more persons, combined with strong TORT advocated by Rothbard, that a Corporation defined by State Law and created by State Charter, falls under State regulation precisely because of the 'hierarchy of creation' which places corporations under Individual Humans and under the Legislature which defines what they are and grants them "birth" (literal term).

On business matters, I'm looking for a Libertarian who is pro-business but anti-Corporate Personhood, and against any other legal fictions which go against the spirit and/or the letter of the Constitution.

I'm not so strict that I think that no divergence from the original Constitution is valid --- IF we the People choose to grant the government these privileges in the proper manner --- OR perhaps if they can squeeze something in without too much of a stretch, but they have exceeded that tremendously, creating pages and pages and pages of laws which are really unjust and which they have no right to enforce.

Any divergence from the Constitution is a serious and weighty matter which must be carefully considered by an educated electorate. The fact that encroachment of Constitutional limits has been undertaken frivilously for a long time, this may be the root cause of most of the problems in America and worldwide.


Post a Comment

<< Home