Dear Chris,
On capital punishment being wrong you left out my part about
restitution and the convicted criminal being responsible for
restitution to the victim or their family. What are your thoughts
about making the convicted criminal liable for restitution?
Afterall, an executed person can not make a restitution to the
victim or their family.
On War - to paraphrase Clausewitz it is an extension of politics to
make a landgrab. When was the last time the USA had to be genuinely
concerned about an armed invasion? The War of 1812 with Britain was
the last time.
In our Vietnam War with North Vietnam it was not a concern. Although
there is one one thing which can be said about George Bush. When he
was with the Texas National Air Guard not one North Vietnamese
soldier made it ashore alive to invade Texas.
The Korean War of the 1950's was not a threat. Otherwise, war is
wrong and it is nothing more than an excuse for a landgrab. Or in
the case of Iraq an oilgrab. ( See Halliburton and Bechtel for more.)
Faith is something you have based on your personal belief value
system. You can not impose a faith based value system on another
person or a group of persons if they do not choose to VOLUNTARILY
adopt or adapt the precepts of that faith. This is why the abortion
debate bounces all over the place. And the debate will never be
settled until people stop trying to impose their ethic, moral and
religious beliefs on other people. And let people do things their
way so long as it does not impose their ehtic, morlas or religious
beliefs on another person or group of persons.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>I take keyboard in hand to attempt to submit a " true believer
>" Libertarian position on war, abortion and capital punishment.
I will
>try to be extremely brief leaving out numerous unsaid things.
Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Ratholes ahead...
>A genuine Libertarian would not believe in war. War ultimately
involves
>the involuntary taking of another persons property whether real
property
>or their life or their enjoyment of life.
I agree. However, if a nation is invaded, what are its options?
The
anarchists among us would say there should be no nation as such,
but the
people of a region may still come together to defend themselves.
So a
defensive war, at least, is justified.
Now what if we had intelligence that Canada was planning to invade
imminently? Is a preemptive strike justified? I think that's
what most of
the real debate over Iraq comes down to: was Iraq truly a threat?
I don't
trust Cheney farther than I can throw Rosie O'Donnell, so I don't
think so.
[There are those, as I mentioned before, that think that removing
another
nation's dictator is a good use of our armed forces. I feel
strongly that
that is not a libertarian position; American citizens certainly
can fight
for freedom anywhere in the world - or against it - but the US
government
should not be doing so.]
>A woman has the right to control her very personal property -
namely her
>body. Based on what her own personal situation is she is the only
person
>qualified to make any such decision. Absolutely no one has the
right to
>tell her how to take care of her own personal property. Any
religious
>arguments about life and taking a life are irrelevant and
immaterial. The
>use of such arguments would be the embodiment of the State
imposing a
>religious belief on a person or group of persons. This is
unconstitutional.
Speaking as a pro-choice Libertarian: what about the child's
rights? Until
we can settle the question of the humanity of a fetus, we can't
settle the
question of abortion rights based solely on libertarian
principles, as Dave
said. *If* the fetus is a human, then its rights must be weighed
against
the mother's; *if* the fetus is a growth in the woman until born,
then the
mother's rights are paramount. But the issue is precisely one of
faith.
Personally, I think technology will render this question moot as
time goes
on. We can already deliver a five-month-old fetus by Caesarian
and have it
survive, if healthy; establishing viability thresholds below which
the
fetus is not considered alive on its own would settle the debate
somewhat.
>Capital punishment is wrong.
Again, that's a moral argument, and doesn't necessarily proceed
from
libertarian principles. I have another line of thought: there may
be some
people who deserve to die for what they've done. But if I don't
trust the
government to say who can get married, I certainly don't trust it
to say
who must die.
~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From
Helen