New Libertarian Joan d'Arc

Discussion
1

Leilani didn't like a statement made by the new Libertarian
'Joan of Arc'. The way I took her "excuse me?" was that of
either sarcasm, calling it an obviously incorrect or non-
supportable statement. Or maybe one of incredulity and
misunderstanding. Maybe even a combination of those things.

I get it. I liked what she said. I identified with it.
And, I think she was right. Spot on. Hit the nail on the head.
And, not only I think that way.

Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Most Americans still think we did the right thing.

Many French people think the same way, despite the stance
of their press and government. In fact, in France almost all
Libertarians feel that way.

I know that is the one rare point that I personally disagree
with most of the LPSF on. Yes, I too feel that was
necessary. My good friend, David Nolan, the founder of
the LP thinks I am wrong. Yet, he does not bring it up
when we talk every day. We focus on the big picture together.
We work on the Judge Gray candidacy together.

This too, is a case calling for that kind of approach.

Miss Sabine Herald agrees with us in principle, big picture
and on most issues. The point that she disagrees with you,
and I mean you in general, is only a small part of her overall
political being. And, her reasons for her position are good.

The 'self-defense' Libertarians have not demonized 'anti-war'
Libertarians. Why? For two very good reasons. First of all,
we feel you're coming from a very good and principled place
in arriving at your position. We're allies in the big picture and
don't feel this endangers either that alliance or our friendship.
Secondly, we feel that your position is a very important one.
Just like the legislative, judicial and executive branches act
as checks and balances on each other, so do your reasoned
voices moderate ours. We feel such courtesy should extend
both way.

Just because you don't agree with Miss Herald about one
issue... Let's support her in any way we can. Her battle
is far more uphill than ours and she's been amazingly
successful in a surprisingly short period of time.

In fact, not only ought we support her, but we might even
learn.

Bruce Cohen
WWW.GetBruce.Com

2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The 'self-defense' Libertarians have not demonized 'anti-war'
Libertarians.

This is not generally true. Most "self-defense"ers have not demonized
anti-war Ls, and most anti-war Ls have not demonized
"self-defense"ers. But for every anti-war Libertarian calling the Iraq
action supporters fascists or dupes, there is a supporter calling opponents
pro-dictator, America-hating, or anti-Semitic. And of course, both sides
call each other unlibertarian. S-:

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

3

Gee, what am I, since I am in favor of self-defense
and I am anti-war?

Dave Barker

>The 'self-defense' Libertarians have not demonized
'anti-war'
>Libertarians.

This is not generally true. Most "self-defense"ers
have not demonized
anti-war Ls, and most anti-war Ls have not demonized

"self-defense"ers. But for every anti-war
Libertarian calling the Iraq
action supporters fascists or dupes, there is a
supporter calling opponents
pro-dictator, America-hating, or anti-Semitic. And
of course, both sides
call each other unlibertarian. S-:

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with
politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George
Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52
F825 AFEC 58DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBP7kSI6xS+CWv7FjaEQLw2gCgpcMdvkkf68H5/PRv4lmWfURqX5IAn0OI

4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gee, what am I, since I am in favor of self-defense
and I am anti-war?

I used Bruce's terminology initially, but I think it's more accurate to
talk in terms of supporters and opponents of the Iraq action.

Many of the supporters believe that the action is legitimate self-defense,
or at least they did at the outset. Others believe that liberating another
nation from a dictator is a good use of our armed forces.

Some of the Iraq action opponents are pacifists, but I think most of them
just don't believe there was a compelling reason to invade.

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

5

I was all set to respond vehemently, and decided to pass.
Leilani
Postscript: For anyone that is interested, my course was accepted, so now I shift gears into the teacher/researcher/grad student mode.
Leilani

"Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gee, what am I, since I am in favor of self-defense
and I am anti-war?

I used Bruce's terminology initially, but I think it's more accurate to
talk in terms of supporters and opponents of the Iraq action.

Many of the supporters believe that the action is legitimate self-defense,
or at least they did at the outset. Others believe that liberating another
nation from a dictator is a good use of our armed forces.

Some of the Iraq action opponents are pacifists, but I think most of them
just don't believe there was a compelling reason to invade.

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

6

Many French people think the same way, despite the stance
of their press and government.

"Many" in the sense that even 2% would be a million people, but the polls I've heard of show massive opposition to the war in every non US country, including Britain. I seem to recall 80-85% in France.

In fact, in France almost all
Libertarians feel that way.

I'm on the Swedish libertarian mailing list, and it's funny how people there were strongly for the war, while US libertarians were mostly against it. I think it's partly because of our tendency to Fight The Power. In Sweden The Power is against the war. Here it is for it. Not very principled, but it's hard to join cause with people you despise.

Another not very principled reason is of course that they don't have to bear any of the costs of the war, financial or otherwise.

The lesson I take home from that is that people's "principled" stance often is anything but, and that may well include my-, as well as yourself.

7

--- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
<snip>

Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
lp would do better to take no position on. Like
abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
libertarianism to answer all of the world's
problems(?).

Just a thought.

David

8

Dear David;

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.

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.

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.

Capital punishment is wrong. If the person who committed the crime is executed then that person is unable to provide restitution to the victim. Restitution for wrongs committed against another person or their property is a Libertarian hallmark. In that a person must accept personal responsibility for their wrongdoings and make restitution. A dead person can do no such thing.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:
--- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
<snip>

Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
lp would do better to take no position on. Like
abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
libertarianism to answer all of the world's
problems(?).

Just a thought.

David

9

-----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
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

10

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

11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

I think restitution is a good approach to criminal infraction.

I think *deserving* to die is a moral judgment, a punishment, and so I'm
opposed to the government implementing it.

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?

There's a good case to be made that if the US hadn't been involved in WWII,
that it would have come to us. Indeed, Hawai`i was attacked.

Now, it's also true that if we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there may not
have been a WWII, and we may have been able to prevent Pearl Harbor if FDR
hadn't wanted us in the war, but I don't think the threat of invasion can
be completely discounted.

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

12

Dear Chris;

The Japanese attack on the US was in part brought about the FDR
getting an embargo on oil to Japan. The Japan of yesterday is the
same as the Japan of today - totally dependent on imported oil. And
part of the Japanese invasion plans for SE Asia involved securing
oilfields and the searoutes for oil back to Japan.

This was their downfall. The US Navy used submarines to concentrate
on sinking Japanese freighters and oiltankers. This cut off their
oil supply and in part led to their downfall.

If Hitler hadn't been so full of himself he would not have declared
war on the US and the course of history may have dramatically
changed. However, like most heads of state he let it go to his head.

See George Bush for a head of state who acts like this somewhat
apocryphal tale of Hitler. A German citizen bumped into Hitler on
the campaign trail and the good German citizen asked Hitler, " What
did someone do? Take a dump between your ears and forget to flush? "

So does George Bush act like this? Make your own determination.

Go Niners In Green Bay.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>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.

I think restitution is a good approach to criminal infraction.

I think *deserving* to die is a moral judgment, a punishment, and

so I'm

opposed to the government implementing it.

>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?

There's a good case to be made that if the US hadn't been involved

in WWII,

that it would have come to us. Indeed, Hawai`i was attacked.

Now, it's also true that if we hadn't gotten involved in WWI,

there may not

have been a WWII, and we may have been able to prevent Pearl

Harbor if FDR

hadn't wanted us in the war, but I don't think the threat of

invasion can

be completely discounted.

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From

Helen

13

Ron,

  It seems to me these issues are not so clear cut. Take war, which you say a genuine libertarian wouldn't believe in. Isn't revolution a form of war (e.g. "the Revolutionary War")? And isn't it libertarian to believe that people have the right to rise up in revolution against tyranny? Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et. al., weren't libertarian?

  On abortion: Roughly half of fetuses are female. If there is a philosophical principle that exempts these "women" from the right to control their own bodies, you haven't named it here. Does living inside someone else make you their slave, and do you become free when you leave, but only if you leave voluntarily? Do children born in assisted births then have fewer rights?

  Capital punishment is most frequently used in cases of murder. One can't provide restitution to a murder victim, since the person is dead. If you think restitution is owed to those who suffer emotionally (i.e. the friends or family of the victim deserve to be compensated for their grief), that raises questions about whether other kinds of emotional suffering (such as that caused by "hate speech") ought to be similarly compensated.

  Please note that I don't necessarily agree with all of the above arguments, I'm just pointing out that the issues are complicated.

Yours in liberty,
              <<< Starchild >>>

Dear David;

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.

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.

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.

Capital punishment is wrong. If the person who committed the crime is executed then that person is unable to provide restitution to the victim. Restitution for wrongs committed against another person or their property is a Libertarian hallmark. In that a person must accept personal responsibility for their wrongdoings and make restitution. A dead person can do no such thing.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:

--- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
<snip>
> Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
> the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
lp would do better to take no position on. Like
abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
libertarianism to answer all of the world's
problems(?).

Just a thought.

David

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Yahoo Mail

<image.tiff>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

<image.tiff>

14

Ron,

I think the point that Chris was making about "faith" was not one of
religious faith, but rather that it's hard to find scientific proof
one way or the other that a fetus is a human being. Just as slave
owners used to bleat that a two-legged animal with a large brain and
opposable thumbs was still just an animal if it had dark skin, some
pro-choicers like to say that a 40-week-old mass of tissue with a
large brain and opposable thumbs is still just a mass of tissue if
it's not yet completely outside the birth canal. Sadly, people still
debate both issues (e.g., the book "The Bell Curve" making it onto
the bestseller lists), but that doesn't mean I don't "know" that one
side is right and one side is wrong. There was no scientific
breakthrough that made me "know" for sure that I'm picking the right
side of the debate in either case, so, like Chris, the closest term I
can come up with to describe this "knowledge" is simply "faith." And
I'm about as agnostic a person as you'll ever find.

Rob

- -----Original Message-----

15

Dear Starchild;

On a revolutionary war and rising up against tyranny like the
Founding Fathers. They were in part revolting against the tyranny of
taxes. To that point we should also be looking at rising up in a New
Revolutionary War against the Tyranny of Taxes and Taxation Without
Representation.

Perhaps it is time for California to secede from the Union and the
onerous federal taxes. And declare all taxes illegal in the new
Golden Bear nation of California.

How about a new free-trade tax-free nation of California?

Abortion is a hot point topic with several divergent views. But the
basis for all of the state enacted laws was religion. And this was
the imposition of a religious belief on all people whether or not
they wanted the choice. This is what my main contention is. And it
still should be up to the woman bearing the child to have the right
of choice. She is the one who is facing the risks of child-
bearing.

Capital punishment is so larded with politics it needs to be
abolished. You have the US Attorney General ordering his local
attorney general to demand the death penalty even if the local
attorney general had decided not to request a death penalty. You
have local DA's cherry picking murder cases to request the death
penalty. You have DA's witholding material evidence, fabricating
evidence and supborning witnesses. You have people on death row
exonerated by the dozens. You have court assigned defenders who have
never tried a capital crime case. Go to what is refered to as LWOP.
Life without parole. Be done with capital crimes and all the
politics involved.

On restitution. The basis for this goes back to days of yore in the
villages of lore. Originally it was an eye for an eye. Then mankind
evolved into a higher thinking animal? Then the precept developed of
restitution to the aggrieved victims family and became a form of
common law. Today this common law has not been enacted to any
degree. Although, in the case of the OJ Simpson murder case the
victims family were able to get some restitution in civil court.

Could restitution be used for hate speech? In a manner it has. An
anti-abortionist was hit with a civil claim for his activities at a
family planning center. Could this be used againt the KKK for their
avtivities? Forms of restitution have gone against them. Enacting a
restitution law could be done. So long as Free Speech rights were
not infringed upon.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Ron,

  It seems to me these issues are not so clear cut. Take war,

which you

say a genuine libertarian wouldn't believe in. Isn't revolution a

form

of war (e.g. "the Revolutionary War")? And isn't it libertarian to
believe that people have the right to rise up in revolution

against

tyranny? Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson, George

Washington,

et. al., weren't libertarian?

  On abortion: Roughly half of fetuses are female. If there is

a

philosophical principle that exempts these "women" from the right

to

control their own bodies, you haven't named it here. Does living

inside

someone else make you their slave, and do you become free when you
leave, but only if you leave voluntarily? Do children born in

assisted

births then have fewer rights?

  Capital punishment is most frequently used in cases of

murder. One

can't provide restitution to a murder victim, since the person is

dead.

If you think restitution is owed to those who suffer emotionally

(i.e.

the friends or family of the victim deserve to be compensated for

their

grief), that raises questions about whether other kinds of

emotional

suffering (such as that caused by "hate speech") ought to be

similarly

compensated.

  Please note that I don't necessarily agree with all of the

above

arguments, I'm just pointing out that the issues are complicated.

Yours in liberty,
              <<<

Starchild >>>

> Dear David;
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Capital punishment is wrong. If the person who committed the

crime is

> executed then that person is unable to provide restitution to

the

> victim. Restitution for wrongs committed against another person

or

> their property is a Libertarian hallmark. In that a person must

accept

> personal responsibility for their wrongdoings and make

restitution. A

> dead person can do no such thing.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> David Rhodes <dfrhodes@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@c...> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
> > the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.
>
> Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
> lp would do better to take no position on. Like
> abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
> be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
> principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
> cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
> libertarianism to answer all of the world's
> problems(?).
>
> Just a thought.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> Yahoo Mail
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
<image.tiff>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

16

Dear David:
I thank you for expressing my thoughts and positions on these subjects.
Leilani

Ronald Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
Dear David;

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.

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.

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.

Capital punishment is wrong. If the person who committed the crime is executed then that person is unable to provide restitution to the victim. Restitution for wrongs committed against another person or their property is a Libertarian hallmark. In that a person must accept personal responsibility for their wrongdoings and make restitution. A dead person can do no such thing.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:
--- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
<snip>

Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
lp would do better to take no position on. Like
abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
libertarianism to answer all of the world's
problems(?).

Just a thought.

David

17

I would like to add to the capital punishment issue; I believe that the death penalty is worng because if it is wrong for me to murder you, then it is wrong for the state to murder me for murdering you. If the state imposes the same act upon me that I committed, then who murders the state? And then, who murders them? And so on, ad infinitum. As for war, I believe that if there is a clear case of invasion, the country involved should mobilize to fight off the invaders. To go to another country, and decide arbitrarily that we will over-throw their government, is wrong. As far as I am concerned, there is no proof that Iraq staged the terrorist attacks. And I am against terrorism, no matter whom the perpetrators may be. I believe that England should release Ireland, since it is blatantly obvious that this is their wish, but I re-iterate, I do not believe in terrorism.

Leilani

Leilani Wright <plantagenetregina1157@...> wrote:
Dear David:
I thank you for expressing my thoughts and positions on these subjects.
Leilani

Ronald Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
Dear David;

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.

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.

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.

Capital punishment is wrong. If the person who committed the crime is executed then that person is unable to provide restitution to the victim. Restitution for wrongs committed against another person or their property is a Libertarian hallmark. In that a person must accept personal responsibility for their wrongdoings and make restitution. A dead person can do no such thing.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:
--- Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
<snip>

Many Libertarians, estimated to be around 45% of
the LP membership, supported the action in Iraq.

Seems to me like this is one of those topics that the
lp would do better to take no position on. Like
abortion and capital punishment, there doesn't seem to
be any way to objectively determine a solid moral
principle, from an lp perspective at least. Not as a
cop out, but maybe we shouldn't try to attempt to use
libertarianism to answer all of the world's
problems(?).

Just a thought.

David

18

tradergroupe wrote:

Abortion is a hot point topic with several divergent views. But the basis for all of the state enacted laws was religion. And this was the imposition of a religious belief on all people whether or not they wanted the choice. This is what my main contention is. And it still should be up to the woman bearing the child to have the right of choice. She is the one who is facing the risks of child-
bearing.

I wish to interject.

First, let's establish some basis. Why should religion be seperate from government? I think that the answer is pretty close to what you state. You imply the answer (to avoid) "the imposition of a religious belief on all people whether or not they wanted the choice." I'll slightly reword that to: to avoid the imposition of rules on all people based upon a belief regardless of their stance on said belief.

Next, look at your statement "it should still be up to the woman bearing the child to have the right of choice." Is this statement itself a religious (or ideological) belief? Yes. It stems from beliefs of self-ownership, property rights, and individualism. Is then law based upon this belief also the imposition of rules based upon a belief on all people regardless of their stance on said belief? Yes, I think it is.

So Libertarians are doing the same thing as religious people are -- attempting to inflict their will, their ideology, onto the public. What makes us better than them, our superior ideology? Ideologies are not innate to the universe, they are chosen by our minds. Libertarians are obsessed with drawing super hard distinctions, very rigid boxes to classify things within. The fact is, the universe provides no natural absolute distinctions, but only relative ones and fuzzy ones. Ask a buddhist. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Whenever you say "baby" there is a baby. If you say "blob of cells" then there is a blob of cells. Be aware that we are making the distinctions in our minds. The universe did not clarify it for us, it left it fuzzy. The only way for something to be absolutely distinguished by nature and not by our personal choice about the matter is for that thing to be seperate from and non-interacting with the universe. Such a thing could never be detected. [As a homework exercise, apply this reasoning to the concept of distinguishing your personal "soul" from the rest of the universe.]

-Mike
(pop-buddhist?)

19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So Libertarians are doing the same thing as religious people are --
attempting to inflict their will, their ideology, onto the public. What
makes us better than them, our superior ideology?

Being able to answer that question is one reason I am a Libertarian.

The Libertarian ideology involves allowing others to practice their
ideologies within voluntary sub-communities. A commune, fundamentalist
Christian compound, or fundamentalist Islamic settlement are all possible
within a Libertarian jurisdiction. Each of the other three, however, would
prohibit both a free society and the competition.

Compulsion. We're agin' it.

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

20

Dear Mike;

A somewhat facetious tongue in cheek reply to the universe provides no absolute distinctions and there being only fuzzy distinctions. I truly believe there is an absolute distinction in the universe between air and no air. Have you ever tried to breathe water? There is an absolute universal distinction between gravity and no gravity. If not humans wouldn't be here and neither would planet Earth.

As far as things being fuzzy let's take dust bunnies. The household gods way of saying clean under your bed and couches. There are some absolute distinctions in the universe afterall and they aren't always so fuzzy like dust bunnies.

As far as Libertarians trying to inflict their ideological will on the vast masses - why not? With our superior Libertarian intellect it should be a snap. And since when did Libertarians have a personal soul to distinguish from the rest of the Universe? Libertarians are the Soul of the Universe and God would recognize this if She would only put her mind to it.

Yours In Free Thinking Spatial Hyperspace or is it Spazzy Hyperspace

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Mike Dilger <mike@...> wrote:

tradergroupe wrote:

Abortion is a hot point topic with several divergent views. But the
basis for all of the state enacted laws was religion. And this was
the imposition of a religious belief on all people whether or not
they wanted the choice. This is what my main contention is. And it
still should be up to the woman bearing the child to have the right
of choice. She is the one who is facing the risks of child-
bearing.

I wish to interject.

First, let's establish some basis. Why should religion be seperate from
government? I think that the answer is pretty close to what you state.
You imply the answer (to avoid) "the imposition of a religious belief on
all people whether or not they wanted the choice." I'll slightly reword
that to: to avoid the imposition of rules on all people based upon a
belief regardless of their stance on said belief.

Next, look at your statement "it should still be up to the woman bearing
the child to have the right of choice." Is this statement itself a
religious (or ideological) belief? Yes. It stems from beliefs of
self-ownership, property rights, and individualism. Is then law based
upon this belief also the imposition of rules based upon a belief on all
people regardless of their stance on said belief? Yes, I think it is.

So Libertarians are doing the same thing as religious people are --
attempting to inflict their will, their ideology, onto the public. What
makes us better than them, our superior ideology? Ideologies are not
innate to the universe, they are chosen by our minds. Libertarians are
obsessed with drawing super hard distinctions, very rigid boxes to
classify things within. The fact is, the universe provides no natural
absolute distinctions, but only relative ones and fuzzy ones. Ask a
buddhist. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Whenever you
say "baby" there is a baby. If you say "blob of cells" then there is a
blob of cells. Be aware that we are making the distinctions in our
minds. The universe did not clarify it for us, it left it fuzzy. The
only way for something to be absolutely distinguished by nature and not
by our personal choice about the matter is for that thing to be seperate
from and non-interacting with the universe. Such a thing could never be
detected. [As a homework exercise, apply this reasoning to the concept
of distinguishing your personal "soul" from the rest of the universe.]

-Mike
(pop-buddhist?)

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.