what do you identify as politically?

[Deleted]

That's mine.


I'm kinda like Ghandi lol

[bayushisan]

Right to life does not trump right to self determination/bodily autonomy. Nobody believes that, especially not Libertarians.

Otherwise, forced organ donations would be a thing; if you're a match, the government could force you to donate a kidney because the recipient's right to life supercedes your right to self determination/bodily autonomy. Obviously, that isn't true, because you're completely wrong.

And that's even if we concede the fetal personhood debate, which is a pretty freaking huge assumption.

Just to clarify the issue most libertarians I've run into are, in fact, against abortion on a personal level but believe the issue is one that should be left to the states to decide as the matter is not one that is a power directly given to federal government to decide on. All such issues fall to the states, and that's where the libertarian party differs from most. On this issue they have personal beliefs but if a state voted in favor of it then that's how the state voted and they'd live with it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

US Libertarians have always been pro-choice in the sense that they don't want the government regulating what people can and can't do. It's not "Well pro-choice means we can do what we want so we choose to outlaw abortion!" That's pretty asinine.

It wasn't until around 2008 when there was a large influx of embarrassed Republicans started falsely calling themselves Libertarians because Ron and Rand Paul spoke some pretty words about big government being bad. All of a sudden we have a large number of anti-LGBT, anti-choice, vulgar libertarians.

They can be easily identified when they spout all the usual conservative rhetoric and not an ounce of Libertarian belief, and then when called a conservative or Republican they will scoff and say "Hah, you think I'm a conservative/Republican, but I'm actually a Libertarian."

[Angella]

Just to clarify the issue most libertarians I've run into are, in fact, against abortion on a personal level but believe the issue is one that should be left to the states to decide as the matter is not one that is a power directly given to federal government to decide on. All such issues fall to the states, and that's where the libertarian party differs from most. On this issue they have personal beliefs but if a state voted in favor of it then that's how the state voted and they'd live with it.

Agreed. Although about 2/3 of them would push for pro-life legislation at the state level.

Also side note. A political party can indeed not take a position on a given issue. Happens all the time. Sometimes the membership is so divided on a particular issue that it makes sense for a party to not assume a position and allow members to decide for themselves. Such is the case with abortion and the Libertarian Party. But more pointedly parties do not set philosophies of their membership. Libertarians may have deeply seated beliefs about abortion one way or the other and still belong to the Libertarian Party. I'm not sure when it became standard practice to assume a political party represented all its members as has been done here with libertarians - small l - and the Libertarian Party, but such a move is asinine. Very few Republicans agree with all of the party platform. Similarly for Democrats. Or Greens. Or Social Democrats. Or w/e.

Libertarianism is a pretty old philosophy with quite a few different strains. People who call themselves libertarian may in fact be anarchists, minarchists, classic liberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists or any manner of other more constrained philosophy types. Trying to pigeonhole libertarians in the way that has been done here just shows a lack of experience and research. That or more nefarious/egoist intentions. Not entirely sure which.

[Nirawen]

Not much of a suprise to me, always considered myself a liberal lefty.

[Baconeggcheese]

In the grand scheme of things I'm lefty, but I hate to think of labels in general.

What makes the most sense in a progressive society doesn't always encompass one sides values for things, and I'd much rather think of myself as being objective rather than fighting for my side.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Which party is the "leave me the fuck alone unless I'm hurting someone other than myself" party???

Republicans and Democrats alike are war-mongering pieces of shit that waste money and resources trying to shove their ideals down the throats of others.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No, it's the political test being biased. Leftism is a completely marginal movement in the United States for a reason - there aren't a whole lot of leftists. The rest of your post is accurate but things like Political Compass are trash.

Bias questions? The wording on the questions is the very essence of political alignment and that kind of stuff is what goes on in politics. Didn't rate full libertarian? That's because pure libertarian on that test is essentially zero government anarchy. Even believing in laws and law enforcement will bump you up.

[Angella]

Which party is the "leave me the fuck alone unless I'm hurting someone other than myself" party???

Republicans and Democrats alike are war-mongering pieces of shit that waste money and resources trying to shove their ideals down the throats of others.

That would definitely make you a libertarian.

[Austilias]

Generally Conservative, both economically and socially. Conservative in the traditional sense, that is; Traditionalist might even be a more accurate term. I identified as a Paleoconservative for a while, but have had mixed feelings about Libertarianism lately; particularly from an economic point of view.

[satimy]

US Libertarians have always been pro-choice in the sense that they don't want the government regulating what people can and can't do. It's not "Well pro-choice means we can do what we want so we choose to outlaw abortion!" That's pretty asinine.

It wasn't until around 2008 when there was a large influx of embarrassed Republicans started falsely calling themselves Libertarians because Ron and Rand Paul spoke some pretty words about big government being bad. All of a sudden we have a large number of anti-LGBT, anti-choice, vulgar libertarians.

Libertarians support the NAP, and depending on how you view abortion it can or won't be a violation of the NAP. Your other claim is false too, as libertarians don't believe in government intervention if the NAP isn't breached.

[Adhemar]

I didn't attach value statements to either the left or the right side of the axis.

No, of course not. "Freedom" and "equality" on one side, "stratification" and "status quo" on the other side. Those are completely neutral terms, and I'm sure everyone on the right side of the would say they are supporting a caste system (as opposed, to, saying they support equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes). It's definitely clear that you make no judgements whatsoever. Keep fightin' the good fight, Endus!

As for the classification, that's straight-up historical fact; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2...right_politics

18th century definitions of terms are obviously the best.

Prove that abortion isn't murder?

"Murder" is the term for an unlawful killing.

Abortions, however, are legal, and thus can't be murder.

That's pretty darned simple.

Circular logic. The hypothetical "objectively, factually wrong" person you were arguing with never claimed abortion was a violation of existing law. They claimed it was identical in practice or effect to murder and therefore SHOULD be a violation of law. The entire point of these four sentences was to side-step the question, and you know it very well.

I'm not dealing with the rest, because the goal wasn't to derail the thread into debating abortion. But you're being belligerent for no good reason, and you're off on a great many simple facts, like the above.

You're not dealing with the rest because there are no good objective answers for them and you'd have to bare your own first principles to critique to do it. You came into a thread asking for people's personal political affiliations to tell people they were wrong about what it means to be what they say they are. I call THAT derailing. You brought abortion and gay marriage into this thread, not anyone else.

That's the official platform. It's explicitly and overtly pro-choice. There's no room in there for denying coverage to women through government enforcement, which is what a pro-life platform would entail. How is that in any way "pigeonholing inappropriately"? I'm citing the party's platform, from the party's website, in the party's own words.

First, you're ignoring the intentionally included loophole ("that people can hold good-faith views on all sides") which means you can accept the Libertarian Party platform while disagreeing with their stance on the subject. And second, you're still assigning the values of one organization to anyone who defines themselves as libertarian, which has already been pointed out as over-reaching. The platform you cite admits there is debate, but you insist it's a settled matter of philosophy, anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Libertarians support the NAP, and depending on how you view abortion it can or won't be a violation of the NAP. Your other claim is false too, as libertarians don't believe in government intervention if the NAP isn't breached.

Exactly. If you believe a fetus qualifies for personhood, then the non-aggression principle MUST apply and you would NOT be libertarian to permit elective abortion. Assuming this position, a case could be made under libertarian principles to permit abortion when the mother's life is at risk (as an act of self defense), when the pregnancy was caused by rape (as the responsibility for that person would belong to the rapist and not the mother) or at various stages of pregnancy, depending on when you accept the fetus to have become a person.

So basically, whether or not you are libertarian has no bearing on your philosophical position on abortion.

[Deleted]

Which party is the "leave me the fuck alone unless I'm hurting someone other than myself" party???

Republicans and Democrats alike are war-mongering pieces of shit that waste money and resources trying to shove their ideals down the throats of others.

So true! Or actually I don't mind others talking about their ideals till the "but we need your donat..". Thats where I slam the door in their face.

[Wells]

Progressive pragmatism myself.

[Grummgug]

im pretty much a crawl-over-broken-glass right wing voter trying to get the democrats out of office at all levels. IF i believed the mainstream press claims, i couldnt help but be a liberal but the mainstream press is chock full of lies and false assertions that promote the democrat party, and any time someone speaks out against the party machine, they get labelled racist, sexist or crazy.

an exame is health care. the republicans would actually give everyone cheap quality health care. but the democrat party machine controls the press and they LIE and try to assert they will take away health care. the democrats will DESTROY health care with their ideas to fatten their own pockets, and when their crazy ideas fail they will just blame the republicans. its sickens me to my stomach.

[Theinquisition]

No, of course not. "Freedom" and "equality" on one side, "stratification" and "status quo" on the other side. Those are completely neutral terms, and I'm sure everyone on the right side of the would say they are supporting a caste system (as opposed, to, saying they support equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes). It's definitely clear that you make no judgements whatsoever. Keep fightin' the good fight, Endus!


18th century definitions of terms are obviously the best.


Circular logic. The hypothetical "objectively, factually wrong" person you were arguing with never claimed abortion was a violation of existing law. They claimed it was identical in practice or effect to murder and therefore SHOULD be a violation of law. The entire point of these four sentences was to side-step the question, and you know it very well.


You're not dealing with the rest because there are no good objective answers for them and you'd have to bare your own first principles to critique to do it. You came into a thread asking for people's personal political affiliations to tell people they were wrong about what it means to be what they say they are. I call THAT derailing. You brought abortion and gay marriage into this thread, not anyone else.


First, you're ignoring the intentionally included loophole ("that people can hold good-faith views on all sides") which means you can accept the Libertarian Party platform while disagreeing with their stance on the subject. And second, you're still assigning the values of one organization to anyone who defines themselves as libertarian, which has already been pointed out as over-reaching. The platform you cite admits there is debate, but you insist it's a settled matter of philosophy, anyway.

- - - Updated - - -


Exactly. If you believe a fetus qualifies for personhood, then the non-aggression principle MUST apply and you would NOT be libertarian to permit elective abortion. Assuming this position, a case could be made under libertarian principles to permit abortion when the mother's life is at risk (as an act of self defense), when the pregnancy was caused by rape (as the responsibility for that person would belong to the rapist and not the mother) or at various stages of pregnancy, depending on when you accept the fetus to have become a person.

So basically, whether or not you are libertarian has no bearing on your philosophical position on abortion.

It's good to see Endus get scooped and served. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but so many people are wiling to kiss the ass of a moderator (especially one that they agree with politically) that no one gives him a proper debate, kudos.

[Wells]

Circular logic. The hypothetical "objectively, factually wrong" person you were arguing with never claimed abortion was a violation of existing law. They claimed it was identical in practice or effect to murder and therefore SHOULD be a violation of law. The entire point of these four sentences was to side-step the question, and you know it very well.

That's not even vaguely circular. Murder is illegal premeditated homicide. Abortion is legal.

- - - Updated - - -

No, of course not. "Freedom" and "equality" on one side, "stratification" and "status quo" on the other side. Those are completely neutral terms, and I'm sure everyone on the right side of the would say they are supporting a caste system (as opposed, to, saying they support equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes). It's definitely clear that you make no judgements whatsoever. Keep fightin' the good fight, Endus!

This isn't what the axis is at all. Its equality vs stratification. If you see that as pitting one side as the bad guy you aren't thinking it through.

[Deleted]

an exame is health care. the republicans would actually give everyone cheap quality health care. but the democrat party machine controls the press and they LIE and try to assert they will take away health care. the democrats will DESTROY health care with their ideas to fatten their own pockets, and when their crazy ideas fail they will just blame the republicans. its sickens me to my stomach.

If it's true, I think it's pretty great. If Obamacare keeps failing and keeps it's negative rep, people are going to hate the idea and stand against any attempts to make it happen in the future as well.

[Wells]

If you believe a fetus qualifies for personhood, then the non-aggression principle MUST apply and you would NOT be libertarian to permit elective abortion.

If the fetus is a person the NAP says its using the woman's body without her permission and she can remove it.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's true, I think it's pretty great. If Obamacare keeps failing and keeps it's negative rep, people are going to hate the idea and stand against any attempts to make it happen in the future as well.

In what way is it failing?

[Theinquisition]

If the fetus is a person the NAP says its using the woman's body without her permission and she can remove it.

- - - Updated - - -



In what way is it failing?

IDK wells, if they performed an action in a manner to give birth to a fetus I would say they granted permission in a way.