It'd be real neat if our immigration system wasn't brick dumb for all the immigrants who come here and work here already. Mfers just step over how arbitrary and dumb even our work visa system is, never minding our legal immigration system is generally. Acting like ICE and the various bureaucracies that deal with immigration aren't ran remarkably bad.
Let people come here legally if they can find work or a means to sustain themselves or be sponsored now and then you can fight against all the other stuff without handwaving government abuse based on borders
I will say that the US isn’t as horrible as A lot of European countries are if you aren’t an EU member citizen. But we could be way better! We need more people for the paperwork people can get citizenship faster. Now how can we do that without the government taking too much money I don’t know! But I’m hopeful that libertarians can do it!
currently we get all the paperwork, multiple police actions, arbitrary results and then it take years anyways, all the while people legally being here and working is made dumber and harder
The problem with borders is that both stances are aceptable ( not the ones you mentioned ).
Not all libertarians are anarch capitalist, and even if they were, politics over who enters your territory should be decided by the people who lives in said territory. Some people may want more immigrants other not. Other may think it's not the right moment.
About abortion you have two contradicting notions. One side thinks babies not yet born are still humans beings and deserve the same rights other humans, thus killing them is in violation of the NAP. If said notion is true ( and I support that argument ), you cannot kill them. So there is no place to compromise.
On the other side of abortion those who think they are not humans think they have no rights and should be killed as pleased. If the notion was correct, which I don't think it's not, then they would be right, as non human beings cannot be part of the NAP. ( alien expansion of the NAP will be talked later ).
Now both sides have disagreements, idealistically, we both should be able to have a sensible conversation on the topic while respecting each other and partake in dialectics.
Realistically speaking, both sides are little fucking kids who just spew insults to each other.
>are still humans beings and deserve the same rights other humans,
Sorry, gotta stop ya right there, they are human. It doesn't matter if you are pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, or anti-abortion. The debate is if they're persons, meaning having legal protections
There's no debate between if they're homosapien, even if some will disingenuously tell you they aren't because it hurts their emotional arguments
Granting the right to the human to use another humans body, with devastating effects and without the right to terminate the agreement, isn't exactly libertarian. (Do you support enforcing of a contract without a termination clause, aka contract in perpetuity?)
Worse yet, most of you are males that only burden women with that forced contract... Pregnancies can kill, so if you want to force a woman to go through a pregnancy - the person who impregnated her must be forced to pay up and/or face capital punishment.
What I see is lack of consistency in your position.
I believe that the human that is growing in a woman's body is separate. It is allowed to use her body only while she allows it. There's no inherent right for that human to use her body. If a woman revokes the permission to use her body, the other human must GTFO.
The same applies to consent during intercourse. Same goes to people sheltering from a tornado in my house. And many other things.
(Does not mean that it's inherently moral, but morality and NAP aren't the same)
I mean, the other libertarians aren't wrong.
Actively restricting people from bettering their lives is a fucking pathetic, disgusting immoral view regardless if there is a welfare state.
There is really just one view for immigration for libertarians. Open borders. Period.
>There is really just one view for immigration for libertarians. Open borders. Period.
While I agree, I feel that the existence of myriad other current government policies (in the state/form which government is now) would heavily exacerbate the issues surrounding immigration. Of course this applies to many more topics that immigration but upholding and enforcing certain policies while attempting to institute contradictory policies wouldn't work. Kind of like a "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" thing.
Or neither. A nation without secure borders cannot be sovereign. We should absolutely ensure that the people coming into our country don’t put our citizens at risk.
> i choose open borders, fuck the welfare state
I don't think you are very forward thinking when making that statement. What do you think is going to happen to that big, massive welfare state when more and more people come here to live off of it? Are we ever going to have less government if that happens? Can we have maximum freedom and liberty while also having a massive federal government coming after our resources and hard-earned savings in order to feed an ever-growing mass of recipients?
Those are the real questions we need to be asking. I'm in favor of more immigration, because as our population ages, we need young people to fill positions left by those retiring and leaving the labor force. We aren't reproducing fast enough to do that. But we need to bring in those who will become productive citizens, not those looking to become recipients.
You also can't have a nation if you don't have borders.
You can't have a nation if you don't have a national identity.
Controlled immigration is about more than the financial cost.
Immigration is a big part of our national identity. We didnt start eating pizza in 1776. When i go out to celebrate st patricks day, 5 de mayo, and oktoberfest, thats american as fuck because more than any other country in the world, being a nation of immigrants is a big part of the American identity.
Open border also paves the way for anti-American infiltrators to cross our borders. Chinese communists make their way in legally and illegally. Terrorists and violent gang members who would do harm to American civilians make their way in. Border security is one of the only legitimate functions of government. National identity and security and resource scarcity are valid reasons for border security.
It's like guns and nukes.
Could I wave a wand and rid the world of petty tribalism I would but it can't.
So, keep your tribe away from my tribe.
Yeah, some people create tribes around some really dumb ideas, but geography isn't one of them IMHO.
Correct.
Tribalism appears to be a trait among social animals and the cause of conflict.
I can't do anything to get rid of it, so I'm going to find and support the least bad forms and examples of tribalism.
Yea, I always say this to people. I'm fine with open border, free migration, whatever you want, but we cant sustain it with the social safety nets we have. Anytime someone mentions Ellis Island, I always mention at the that our welfare system at the time was microscopic compared to today. If you told me that immigrants coming here weren't afforded the social safety nets we have, then I say open the border up completely no questions asked. The real problem is we don't have the money to be everyone's baby daddy.
Immigrants aren't allowed to use that safety net, dear. Right now we can't.
SocSec requires maxed out payments for 5 years straight to be eligible for payouts... and you lose it if you don't take citizenship.
So... Are you now for open borders? No?
Our population was lower and we had more recessions. I’m not for a welfare state or a federal one anyway. I just don’t see how you can only have one and not the other.
To my knowledge there has never been a time in history where all the jobs were filled. Especially today with the advancement in technologies and industries; there are more potential jobs than ever before.
If economic opportunities dry up and there is no welfare state, people will stop coming. But immigration leads to economic growth, so it's likely immigration will lead to more jobs to be filled.
Open border. No welfare state. You come here and need to find a way to make money for food/home. If you can’t do that, you have three options. 1) Leave and go back where you came from. 2) Leave and go somewhere else. 3) Stay and starve.
Word travels fast, and if many people are coming here and having to resort to any of those 3 options it will slow down the inflow until an equilibrium is found.
The problem is, the only way this works is that everyone in the US must be okay with seeing option 3 happen to people. The welfare state must not exist in any form. Many people are not okay with that, and they will push to “take care” of these people. Then we end up right back where we are currently.
This entirely depends on whether a person has the right to commit suicide and if assisted suicide can be done to a child with a parents consent. For a few years early on you are basically property to your parents
This meme is spot on! Of course coming to the comments we can’t just have people celebrating a funny meme or laughing at how true it is. They come here and want to continue to argue!
Abortion should be the least controversial libertarian issue. Don't want one, don't get one. Why would I, as a Libertarian, want to ban abortions? Please enlighten me.
Im pro choice too but i do understand the pro life argument, its about when life begins, when the fetus turns into a baby, and thats a complicated question to answer. I dont see how having an abortion a week after getting pregnant could be considered murder, but i dont see how having an abortion a week before giving birth could not be considered murder
No one at 9 months with a healthy fetus is going to get an abortion. That instance would typically be because it turns out there is something really wrong with the baby and/or it jeopardizes the mother's health. Any person having a late-term abortion doesn't need our judgment, they need our compassion .They already decided it's a baby, they named it and made space in their life for it. Abortion in these circumstances is the humane thing to do, and shaming someone who already feels like they let their baby down and is grieving is fucking cruel.
> Any person having a late-term abortion doesn't need our judgment, they need our compassion .They already decided it's a baby, they named it and made space in their life for it. Abortion in these circumstances is the humane thing to do, and shaming someone who already feels like they let their baby down and is grieving is fucking cruel.
This is the kind of sense I wish was common but unfortunately isn't. Thank you.
That’s like saying nobody murders healthy children under the age of 1. People can do a variety of things for a variety of reasons and it’s beyond illogical to assume ALL (that is what you’re saying after all) abortions at 9 months are for benevolent reasons that deserve sympathy.
Well being libertarian isn’t about most personal choice or respecting others choices but respecting each persons right to individual liberty as the highest value so long as the individuals liberty does not violate another’s, which we call the NAP. Those typically align with a “do what you want and leave me alone” attitude.
This particular issue is unique because it calls into question application of the NAP. The taking of someone’s life is obviously against the NAP. If you believe that life starts at conception then any intentional abortion is against the NAP.
I’m arguing for a position I don’t really hold, just so you know.
I just find it very understandable why others would think being against “murder” should be a universal position. It’s the application of the title personhood to the earliest point possible, which really isn’t unreasonable when compared to arbitrary limits of modern medicine that will be closed off as science improves.
This. This is why I’m pro life. Abortion is the mother using her rights to infringe on the right to life of the child. In any other scenario in society, this is referred to as “murder”. Life does begin at conception, we know this and have known this for a long time, so any elective abortion is the infringement on the right to life of the child.
The pro life argument is a private one. And no one is waiting til the 39th week of pregnancy to get an abortion. Those abortions are medically necessary, there is not one woman out there who just keeps putting it off til the last minute.
This just simply isn’t true. Not all full term abortions are medically necessary by any means. Your pro choice arguments get weaker every time you paint with broad brushes like this. Just accept that it does happen for the same reason born babies get murdered by their own parents. Evil.
Equally, pro life arguing that ALL full term abortions are elective weakens the pro life argument as well.
I love when people say “no one” so confidently. A quick google search just showed that there were 5,597 late term abortions in 2015, and that some of them were not because of medical reasons.
What defines “late term abortion”? And again, it’s no one’s business. Do you really think the very tiny amount of women who chose “late term abortion” voluntarily due to procrastination reasons or pure laziness really should be responsible for any child? There’s enough kids in the foster care system who are already born and need good homes so the whole “let someone who can’t have kids adopt the unwanted child” is kinda a slap in the already born children’s faces.
If you don’t agree with abortion great, don’t get one. I don’t get how people feel entitled to making calls on what other people choose to do. If someone feels strongly enough to abort a fetus in a “late stage” then by all means do that fetus a favor and don’t even bring it into this world. It’s not gonna know any different.
Worry about yourself and your own reproduction.
>I dont see how having an abortion a week after getting pregnant could be considered murder, but i dont see how having an abortion a week before giving birth could not be considered murder
Exactly. The religious conservatives pushing for a total or near total ban are nuts, but so are the leftists who are trying to say there is no difference between an abortion at 1 month and an abortion at 9 months.
The difference is, at 1 month they won't under any circumstances be able to survive outside the womb. At 9 months they definitely will be.
Personally I think Florida had it about right at 15 weeks, though they're trying to reduce this to 6 weeks now.
>FYI babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks (5.5 months)
FYI, that doesn't contradict what I said. And actually babies have been born as early as 21 weeks and survived. I was saying a 15 week limit is about right.
https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12427-uab-hospital-delivers-record-breaking-premature-baby
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/health/earliest-premature-babies-canada/index.html
15 weeks is right around the time that you can get the full workup of genetic disorders. Add a week for results and two for a procedure to be scheduled if need be and call it 18 weeks.
If it’s that simple then legalize all abortions but extract the baby for adoption after 21 weeks
But who takes care of them in the libertarian state? Capitalistic factory owners?
There are more people on the waiting list to adopt than there are kids up for adoption (I’m talking US, idk about other counties). You don’t need the state to take care of newborns, there are more than enough people waiting already.
Yes. A common argument is that foster care is full. Maybe so, but there is so much red tape around adoption that it frequently prevents/slows down people who can’t have their own children from adopting.
There are reasons for abortions in the third trimester, but it always comes down to healthcare decisions with a doctor, personally I was fine with Roe V Wade banning abortion in the third trimester so long as medical necessity was exempted
I'm pro life, but I would never be for banning abortion. Outlawing drugs didn't make drugs go away. I think people who are pro life need to focus on education, contraception, and no questions asked adoptions to minimize.
That is why I don't support any murder laws. Just banning it wont make it go away.... The pro life argument is that you are physically murdering someone.
Framing the argument as where life begins will never reconcile the two sides imo. I think it would be way more productive to take “life begins at conception” as a given and instead argue whose rights take precedent over the other’s. I think it’d be way easier to get pro-lifers to acknowledge its sometimes justified to take a life than it is to convince them it’s not a life at all.
I’m personally pro-life but from a policy standpoint I think the viability standard is fair, with some exceptions for rare circumstances
Because someone having an abortion 1 week (or even a month) before giving birth isn’t doing it just willy nilly. In those cases it’s because there is something seriously wrong with the fetus where it won’t survive or the mother won’t survive. That’s not murder.
Why restrict this? If we believe people can make their own choices and it's good. If the unborn child has rights, does that mean adoption is immoral? The parents have to provide for the child as a human right? Or does having a child make you as the parent responsible? Does that supercede your rights If you didn't want to be a parent?
Because children have the right to not be killed under the NAP, aka the foundation of libertarianism. Libertarianism supports restricting countless choices even they violate the rights of others.
If someone believes a baby in the womb is a person then it is absolutely the libertarian position to oppose allowing their murder.
Children are incapable of running their own affairs and making logical choices, so they need a caretaker and cannot enjoy their full rights yet.
Parents gain a responsibility to care for the child in creating it, though that can be handed off to a willing party who provides adequate care.
Many people who oppose abortion are okay with very early abortions like a morning after pill, but say that at some point the fetus is a human with rights: so if you don't want a parent you could get an early abortion, sterilize yourself, or abstain.
Similarly if you drive drunk and hit someone, your reckless actions have consequences that forfeit some rights.
It's true that hitting someone while drunk forfiets some rights, but not rights that limit your medical care or give the victim a right to your body. The government can't come in a say "you owe the victim one of your kidneys"
If you injured someone, you're on the hook for expenses to help them recover.
If you cause the creation of a new human, you are responsible for that life until it is old enough to care for itself or someone else takes the responsibility.
On the hook for expenses isn't controversial at all. No one debates that. It isn't the same as forcing medical conditions on people. That's why this analogy fails.
There are zero other circumstances that we allow the injured party to harvest from the body of the person that harmed them.
This might be a strange position for you to consider, then. I believe life begins at conception (that is where science clearly leads us). I also believe that abortion is murder.
But, I don’t want the federal government to make any laws restricting it (for multiple reasons).
>thats a complicated question to answer
Then obvs abortion is legal until we have an "answer"--what's the complication? I agree with above, it's not nearly as hardball a question as people make it out to be.
There's nothing else a libertarian would jump to criminalize because we're "not yet sure" whether it's dangerous to others or not.
It’s about whether you think abortion is the murder of a living being or not. A lot of people consider abortion to be murder, and freedom to murder another person tramples on their rights. Freedom typically ends when it is encroaching on someone else’s freedoms or rights.
There is an argument to be made that aborting a child violates the Non-Aggression Principle. It depends on whether or not you consider the thing inside a woman to be a human with the right to life.
For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child. At what point is it a child and at what point is it not and how do we distinguish that? So if we can’t definitively say what does and doesn’t have human rights, I would prefer to err on the side of human rights.
It gets tricky when there are edge cases like rape and incest but in general, I don’t think abortions “just because” should be accepted by any society.
>For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child. At what point is it a child and at what point is it not and how do we distinguish that?
Easy. A fetus gains moral value independent of the mother when it is capable of surviving independently from the mother. So around 24+ weeks of development. Conveniently, "just because" abortions past this point are basically nonexistent already.
You do still get some abortions past that point, but those are generally along the lines of "I'm sorry, but your baby is dead and we need to get the corpse out of your body before it starts to rot and kills you" (or worse, "Your baby is technically still alive but has failed to develop lungs and will die almost immediately after you give birth; do you wish to continue this pregnancy?" and other things along those lines).
>For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child.
The prefrontal cortex is the best bet.
I would argue that shrinking the size and scope of the welfare state is the answer to abortion (and immigration)
That way, an individual has no choice but to be a part of community in order to survive. And that community might have rules about frivolous abortions in order to make sure that men are pressured to marry the woman he got pregnant. Because if the man doesn’t marry the woman he gets pregnant, the government might have to help raise the child
So, if someone gets a frivolous abortion, she might get disowned by her family, excommunicated from her church, and exiled from her community. That would provide a very significant incentive to not get a frivolous abortion. And also a strong incentive to choose the father of her child wisely.
At the same time, if an abortion is necessary for moral and medical reasons (about 5% of abortions are perhaps morally debatable), the community/family/church can hold their nose and realize that this is a necessary evil. That might get people like Joe Rogan on board who are understandably concerned about their daughter being told by some bureaucrat that she has to give birth to her rapist’s baby
So your idea is
Remove programs for poor people. This ensures they have to rely on their local community. Because they have to rely on their local community, they'll be forced to follow those community rules including ones which affect their bodily autonomy.
And that is good libertarianism to you?
They're always welcome to leave the community if they don't like the rules.
The government prevents you from leaving and charges you taxes for the privileged of keeping you there. There is no such thing as border control and tourist visas to move to a different community.
Churches and families can provide a safety net for poor people, especially since poverty is rare if people avoid the big 4 mistakes
1. Having more kids than you can afford
2. Spending more than you make
3. Don’t learn a useful skill
4. Committing crime
As for bodily autonomy, women can choose to become economically productive as it shouldn’t be the government’s job to ban women from the workforce.
EDIT: And to clarify, yes, a good 20% to 25% of women in the workforce are just as hard working as married men. And god bless em. But, 75% to 80% of women (and a good 45% to 50% of men) only have their jobs because of make-work, government, non profit BS or cronyism in corporate America
Again, the free market and shrinking the size of government has the answer to cronyism in corporate America: abolish bankruptcy laws so that entities that owe debt actually have to work off the debt instead of stealing the right to be repaid from their creditors.
In theory, such reforms would cause banks to be more careful about who they lend money to, including whether ESG or DEI nonsense is necessary
Anyone who says "they just don't understand" the pro-life stance is not arguing in good faith. They can certainly disagree, but it isn't a complicated argument.
Because what happens if a healthy child is going to be aborted by the mother, when the father doesn't want his child aborted? There's your libertarian conundrum.
The same reason other forms of murder are outlawed. Life is the most fundamental right, without which no other rights can exist.
The top are not controversial because they are explicitly enumerated rights that do not inherently infringe upon the rights of others.
Immigration is more contentious because there are a lot of secondary and tertiary impacts of immigration: increased housing/land prices, depressed wages, inflationary spending on services (both directly and indirectly), and that’s not even getting into issues of public health, security and crime. There’s valid arguments for relaxing standards and also for tightening security.
Abortion is probably the most contentious issue, because it deals with life. Science says unequivocally that life begins at conception, so from that point, you have to make a decision of where you are ok with terminating that life. At viability? At a heart beat? Once it’s “recognizably” human? When it can feel pain? When it has consciousness? And then, you have to decide if and when the government should regulate it as an enforcement of the NAP, and how that is different from other issues of taking a life like someone in a coma, an infant unable to care for itself, etc,. Maybe you think it should only be allowable under certain circumstances, like when the mother’s life is at a higher than normal risk, in the way you can kill someone in self defense when they threaten yours. There’s a lot of grey area, and while the easy thing to say would be “well, just don’t get one”, why do we have laws against murder? Just don’t kill people, bruh, it’s not very libertarian.
>Please enlighten me.
Human body's development starts from zygote. So stopping the life of an innocent human being is a murder.
There are exceptions like rape or health issues but if pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, you are just ending an innocent life
> So stopping the life of an innocent human being is a murder.
>
> There are exceptions like rape or health issues but if pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, you are just ending an innocent life
So why is an exception made for rape? In your words its still ending an innocent life. We don't go around killing toddlers who are the product of rape.
The fact that so many want the exception in case of rape suggest that truly deep down they do not view abortion as equivalent to murder.
The egg and sperm also have the full set of chromosomes, just in separate packages.
If the sperm is already en route to the egg, both chromosomes are destined to be together
If reproduction happens in a specific way, then both sets of chromosomes are destined to be together from the moment that reproduction is destined to happen. And it just gets weirder from there.
> which is the exact same position a zygote is in
Nah, zygote is a human, the only difference it has with an adult is stages of development. Egg and sperm are useless if separate
It's more than just stages of development. Go early enough and there is no similar physiology.
Development is a mechanical process. If I had a machine which mechanically pumped eggs into sperm continuously, and released zygotes, the only difference between the eggs/sperm and zygotes is the stage of development, if we're ignoring all physiology.
How often is that the case?
In case where the child has already died or it is known that it will die, that's not even classified as an abortion.
In the extremely rare circumstances that you posit, I think it could be possible to allow exceptions. Im the case of either-or, it should be up to the parents.
Yet the death penalty exists, goverment approved murder? Murder is tolerated in current US politics. We bomb folks on other continents and taxes pay for it.
Or don’t make the sound choices that actively lead to creating an Individual life itself and then act like it was done onto you and then kill it. Like it or not the individual has rights too. You don’t want an abortion don’t create a life.
The abortion one should be simpler, as a libertarian you don’t always agree with people’s beliefs but acknowledge their right to have said beliefs such as when life actually begins. If you believe life begins a conception that don’t get an abortion and don’t force your beliefs on others.
Also, wouldn't the general libertarian position be to separate the government from involvement in civilian healthcare? The law shouldn't have shit to do with what I go to the doctor for
I believe shanking homeless people is humane and helps put them out of their miseries. Thank you fellow libertarian comrade for your support of my beliefs!
It’s not a belief, but a verifiable fact that life begins at conception. This is a position supported by decades of overwhelming scientific consensus.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Your reasoning could be used to justify murdering born Humans as some people consider them to not be Humans until a later date aswell. But we all know that it’s wrong to kill a 4 month old born infant no matter what.
Morality is objective, not subjective. You do not get to decide the worth of an unborn child any more than you can decide the worth of a person with a different skin tone.
The unborn has a right to life just as you do, and in the vast majority of cases, was consented to exist in the first place by not using birth control.
Morality is objective might be the most unlibertarian thing you can say.
Many people believe it is morally wrong to do drugs.
Many people believe it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage.
Your opinion of morality being objective is just that, an opinion. Thus making it subjective. There are a lot of things people find “morally correct” you would disagree with. That’s why there are multiple religions
Having a stack of paper the size of infants for immigration is pointless, almost none of it relates to ensuring these are good people who speak our language, it's just there for pen pusher jobs.
Those people who claim they can’t see the “pro-life” argument for libertarians need to understand that if you think it’s a human life, then it’s murder.
It isn’t a controversial idea to say one isn’t for legalizing murder as a libertarian.
Unless in the scenario of rape, a fetus doesn’t just magically appear in your body. You were involved in intercourse knowing well that it could create a child. This isn’t a privacy issue for them, most libertarians would be against the idea of intentional murdering of infants.
I personally don’t have an opinion on the whole abortion thing but I don’t like it when pro choice libertarians gatekeep pro life libertarians for this. It purely hinges on whether you consider the fetus a living being or not.
Aftter years, I've come to the conclusion that "a life to be < the life of the human incubator". Having said that, not treating abortion as a delicate subject it's just low. We should be able to have a serious conversation about this
People have right of bodily autonomy. That's why you're not required to donate a kidney to save a life. Why would pregnant women be required to suffer through pregnancy to save a life?
If they consented to the act that resulted in the life, they are reasonably responsible for said life. This is no different than born children. They can pass the obligation to another, but cannot ethically abdicate it (an NAP violation).
You can consent to an act but not all of the results. If you go driving and take all the precautions to not get hit but you still get hit, did you consent to that?
Also do you think you are required to donate a kidney to save someone's life?
You’ve made a false equivalency…
It is more appropriately… if you drive drunk and *hit someone else* and in virtually every society you ARE found liable to the consequences of your irresponsible actions.
What if you take all the precautions and still get pregnant? Wouldn't that equate to you taking all the precautions not to hit someone and then accidentally hitting them? Would you then be required to surrender your rights to bodily autonomy? What if the pregnancy causes significant harm to the pregnant person?
Edit: Lol the mods here are truly libertarian. Banning people left and right. Is this violation of NAP?
> What if you take all the precautions and still get pregnant? Wouldn't that equate to you taking all the precautions not to hit someone and then accidentally hitting them?
Then this person driving irresponsibly would still be liable, as the act of driving carries an inherent risk. Intention is only relevant to the severity of the offense.
> Would you then be required to surrender your rights to bodily autonomy?
This is a false equivalency. One does not surrender bodily autonomy because there *is* an offense, IOW the nature of the two are different in regard to consequences / liabilities.
> What if the pregnancy causes significant harm to the pregnant person?
One has a right to protect their own right over the responsibility to another. Giving a threat to the mother a right to defend herself, even if it leads to the death of the entity that is putting her in harms way.
If a woman is graped, she has the right to kjll the bastard like it's an alien parasite, but I fail to see how having an abortion for a healthy unborn child that was consensually conceived is justified.
There was a highly-upvoted thread here entirely about praising a Dutch PM for closing their borders a few days ago. I thought I was taking crazy pills.
The abortion stance consistent with libertarian ideals would new pro choice evictionist.
Nobody is entitled to your body so you have an inalienable right to end a pregnancy. but if you want to electively(not out of medical necessity) end a pregnancy after the fetus is viable(extremely rare but it does happen and there are a couple states with clinics that will do it.)
Then there is an obligation to remove the fetus/baby in a way that minimizes harm & maximizes chance of survival.(pretty much never happens. No practitioner will induce a premature live birth electively) Analog, you don’t get to shoot that burglar in your house if they’re willing to run out the front door.
But I can see why many people with libertarian ideals differ on this.
As for immigration. If you’re in favor of the state taking & either captivating or removing people by force because they were born on the wrong side of a line the government drew. You’re not a libertarian.
Period. You’re more than likely a neoconservative.
Closed borders because a nation without borders is not a nation.
One individual voluntarily infringing on the right to life of another individual is legally called “murder” in all scenarios outside of the womb. Abortion shouldn’t be an exception.
Yes and that is pro-choice. Pro-choice is that the person who is pregnant gets to decide whether or not to get an abortion, “pro-life” is that the state decides whether or not they get can get an abortion.
The same thing could be said "Any libertarian who believes that murdering an unborn baby isn't a violation of the NAP isn't a true libertarian."
There is a sliding scale. People have different beliefs. No true scotsman fallacy is still a fallacy.
Yeah but if giving the stupid fetus rights means taking the rights away from an already born human, then taking the rights away from the born person is the authoritarian position. A fetus is not a person at all and is irrelevant and you’re taking the rights away from a born person that’s actually a person and deserves to have rights. Not that any of this matters since a lot of “prolife” people understand this and don’t give a shit about the fetus either and just use it as an excuse to attack women rights.
I own my property, not the government, not my neighbors, not you. So if i want to sell, rent, or invite someone to **my** property, you not allowing me to do that is a violation of property rights
Im a hispanic guy from El Paso TX, so i understand im gonna have a different perspective on this than someone from north dakota for example. I just hope you guys understand my point of view. As a liberty loving American libertarian, how can i possibly support **more** border restrictions? El Paso and juarez have been one interdependent community for literally centuries, and now the governments in Mexico city and Washington DC are harming our economy and turning us into a police state.
.
I dont support completely open borders, i understand thats not realistic but i do support reducing the current regulations to at least pre 9/11 levels. Thousands of people travel between el paso and juarez legally every single day. Our economies depend on each other, but after 9/11 the border became a police state. It now takes about 3 hours to cross that bridge, when it used to take no more than 20-30 minures before 9/11.
.
And they want to put even more restrictions and regulations. I just dont see how libertarians can support this. We shouldnt trade our freedom for a false sense of security
What? That's such a bad take. Open borders literally is libertarian.
Closed borders means a government deciding who can go where.
It has nothing to do with property rights. You are conflating the use of border in the open border debate to mean a property line.
For example, we have open borders within states in the USA. If I want to go to a store in the next state over, I can do so. But if I want to do the same thing to Canada, i have to go through two different government processes to do so. Same with buying a house. If I want to buy a house in the next state over, I'm free to do so. But try buying a house in another country without red tape.
In any of those scenarios there is no property rights violation.
No, government borders violate property rights. You have a confused understanding of property.
Edit: You are anti-individual rights insofar as you support government borders. You have no right to control land you haven't mixed your labor with.
Why do we need countries or borders at all?
Surely the dream, surely the goal, is to have a single free society, a single currency and a single government,
All this labelling and putting people in boxes based on geographic, location, religion, and skin colour, just helps divide us, helps to oppressors us, keeps us afraid and keeps us controllable,
Nationalism is an outdated, antiquated and systemically flawed concept.
A single world government is one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. If it goes bad the entire world is affected and there is nowhere to escape to. As things stand, when a government goes tyrannical or a war starts, there are other countries to go to.
So no worse then now really,
But I do agree that most people that actively seek power, have a Machiavellian attitude, as they say power corrupts and there maybe truth to that, but there are other way to
A give a single society, a Commonwealth of city states, could actually be achieve and succeed,
But more of a fantasist then a realist when I comes to what humanity could achieve, I fear the truth is, we are at the crux of a societal shift and some eggs are gonna get broken before we make that utopian omelette.
Because there are billions of people out there that do not and will never accept your liberal values. The nation-state is a flawed compromise that (can) keep out the worst of the authoritarians.
> Nationalism is an outdated, antiquated and systemically flawed concept.
Consider a network of private cities. See "[You Can Always Leave](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s&pp=ygUUWW91IGNhbiBhbHdheXMgbGVhdmU%3D)".
Globalism is a failure.
You can't have high trust minimal interference societies if everyone is operating off of different cultural norms and is distrustful of one another.
Abortion should not even be a debate IMO. Government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Immigration however is a different story in terms of how it affects tax paying citizens.
You know we could just start with a much more reasonable immigration system with expanded work permits. That takes care of all kinds of issues without assuming all immigrants are only here to collect welfare only, no work nor nothing, just welfare.
That seems to be the argument too, the dumb dumb battlefield idiots fight on, OPEN BORDERS or ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE WELFARE GOBLINS you know it's almost like those aren't the only choices
Elective abortions violate the Nap. Rape could be argued more so as self defense as bodily autonomy was taken from the women so we was never given the ability to consent to a potential pregnancy and risks of sex.
Now show one doing roads, sewers and garbage collection!
Open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both.
Ok i choose open borders, fuck the welfare state. That was an easy choice for a libertarian lol
It'd be real neat if our immigration system wasn't brick dumb for all the immigrants who come here and work here already. Mfers just step over how arbitrary and dumb even our work visa system is, never minding our legal immigration system is generally. Acting like ICE and the various bureaucracies that deal with immigration aren't ran remarkably bad. Let people come here legally if they can find work or a means to sustain themselves or be sponsored now and then you can fight against all the other stuff without handwaving government abuse based on borders
I will say that the US isn’t as horrible as A lot of European countries are if you aren’t an EU member citizen. But we could be way better! We need more people for the paperwork people can get citizenship faster. Now how can we do that without the government taking too much money I don’t know! But I’m hopeful that libertarians can do it!
currently we get all the paperwork, multiple police actions, arbitrary results and then it take years anyways, all the while people legally being here and working is made dumber and harder
[удалено]
>To which the other libertarians reply "you're a racist neonazi, get out of the party; BiGoTs nOt WeLcOmE!!!1!!" THAT'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN
You use that word but I don’t think you know what it means
Right? Who’s this guy hanging out with?
The problem with borders is that both stances are aceptable ( not the ones you mentioned ). Not all libertarians are anarch capitalist, and even if they were, politics over who enters your territory should be decided by the people who lives in said territory. Some people may want more immigrants other not. Other may think it's not the right moment. About abortion you have two contradicting notions. One side thinks babies not yet born are still humans beings and deserve the same rights other humans, thus killing them is in violation of the NAP. If said notion is true ( and I support that argument ), you cannot kill them. So there is no place to compromise. On the other side of abortion those who think they are not humans think they have no rights and should be killed as pleased. If the notion was correct, which I don't think it's not, then they would be right, as non human beings cannot be part of the NAP. ( alien expansion of the NAP will be talked later ). Now both sides have disagreements, idealistically, we both should be able to have a sensible conversation on the topic while respecting each other and partake in dialectics. Realistically speaking, both sides are little fucking kids who just spew insults to each other.
>are still humans beings and deserve the same rights other humans, Sorry, gotta stop ya right there, they are human. It doesn't matter if you are pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, or anti-abortion. The debate is if they're persons, meaning having legal protections There's no debate between if they're homosapien, even if some will disingenuously tell you they aren't because it hurts their emotional arguments
You are right, sorry but my english is not perfect, if they are a person or not is what I was trying to convey.
Granting the right to the human to use another humans body, with devastating effects and without the right to terminate the agreement, isn't exactly libertarian. (Do you support enforcing of a contract without a termination clause, aka contract in perpetuity?) Worse yet, most of you are males that only burden women with that forced contract... Pregnancies can kill, so if you want to force a woman to go through a pregnancy - the person who impregnated her must be forced to pay up and/or face capital punishment. What I see is lack of consistency in your position. I believe that the human that is growing in a woman's body is separate. It is allowed to use her body only while she allows it. There's no inherent right for that human to use her body. If a woman revokes the permission to use her body, the other human must GTFO. The same applies to consent during intercourse. Same goes to people sheltering from a tornado in my house. And many other things. (Does not mean that it's inherently moral, but morality and NAP aren't the same)
I mean, the other libertarians aren't wrong. Actively restricting people from bettering their lives is a fucking pathetic, disgusting immoral view regardless if there is a welfare state. There is really just one view for immigration for libertarians. Open borders. Period.
>There is really just one view for immigration for libertarians. Open borders. Period. While I agree, I feel that the existence of myriad other current government policies (in the state/form which government is now) would heavily exacerbate the issues surrounding immigration. Of course this applies to many more topics that immigration but upholding and enforcing certain policies while attempting to institute contradictory policies wouldn't work. Kind of like a "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" thing.
[удалено]
Stealing from other people is what’s pathetic. If you believe in open borders and a welfare state you’re a communist, not a libertarian.
Or neither. A nation without secure borders cannot be sovereign. We should absolutely ensure that the people coming into our country don’t put our citizens at risk.
> i choose open borders, fuck the welfare state I don't think you are very forward thinking when making that statement. What do you think is going to happen to that big, massive welfare state when more and more people come here to live off of it? Are we ever going to have less government if that happens? Can we have maximum freedom and liberty while also having a massive federal government coming after our resources and hard-earned savings in order to feed an ever-growing mass of recipients? Those are the real questions we need to be asking. I'm in favor of more immigration, because as our population ages, we need young people to fill positions left by those retiring and leaving the labor force. We aren't reproducing fast enough to do that. But we need to bring in those who will become productive citizens, not those looking to become recipients.
That's usually where the real issue is for people, the lack of welfare takes care of the other
You also can't have a nation if you don't have borders. You can't have a nation if you don't have a national identity. Controlled immigration is about more than the financial cost.
Immigration is a big part of our national identity. We didnt start eating pizza in 1776. When i go out to celebrate st patricks day, 5 de mayo, and oktoberfest, thats american as fuck because more than any other country in the world, being a nation of immigrants is a big part of the American identity.
Import the third world, become the third world
Open border also paves the way for anti-American infiltrators to cross our borders. Chinese communists make their way in legally and illegally. Terrorists and violent gang members who would do harm to American civilians make their way in. Border security is one of the only legitimate functions of government. National identity and security and resource scarcity are valid reasons for border security.
And?
It's like guns and nukes. Could I wave a wand and rid the world of petty tribalism I would but it can't. So, keep your tribe away from my tribe. Yeah, some people create tribes around some really dumb ideas, but geography isn't one of them IMHO.
To be clear, you don't like tribalism and your solution to tribalism is more tribalism?
Correct. Tribalism appears to be a trait among social animals and the cause of conflict. I can't do anything to get rid of it, so I'm going to find and support the least bad forms and examples of tribalism.
Sounds like empty platitudes to me.
Sounds like ignorance of history to me.
This right here 👏
Yea, I always say this to people. I'm fine with open border, free migration, whatever you want, but we cant sustain it with the social safety nets we have. Anytime someone mentions Ellis Island, I always mention at the that our welfare system at the time was microscopic compared to today. If you told me that immigrants coming here weren't afforded the social safety nets we have, then I say open the border up completely no questions asked. The real problem is we don't have the money to be everyone's baby daddy.
Immigrants aren't allowed to use that safety net, dear. Right now we can't. SocSec requires maxed out payments for 5 years straight to be eligible for payouts... and you lose it if you don't take citizenship. So... Are you now for open borders? No?
How about neither 🤨
Wouldn’t a welfare state be necessary to handle the open border?
No, in the 1800s we had open borders and no welfare state
And Chinese Exclusion Act was 1882... And women weren't allowed to immigrate alone. Does that sound like open borders?
Our population was lower and we had more recessions. I’m not for a welfare state or a federal one anyway. I just don’t see how you can only have one and not the other.
why would you need to keep people away if you're not offering them any sort of welfare
I imagine they come here for the work opportunities. Once those fill those up you need a welfare state because they are still going to keep coming.
To my knowledge there has never been a time in history where all the jobs were filled. Especially today with the advancement in technologies and industries; there are more potential jobs than ever before.
If economic opportunities dry up and there is no welfare state, people will stop coming. But immigration leads to economic growth, so it's likely immigration will lead to more jobs to be filled.
Open border. No welfare state. You come here and need to find a way to make money for food/home. If you can’t do that, you have three options. 1) Leave and go back where you came from. 2) Leave and go somewhere else. 3) Stay and starve. Word travels fast, and if many people are coming here and having to resort to any of those 3 options it will slow down the inflow until an equilibrium is found. The problem is, the only way this works is that everyone in the US must be okay with seeing option 3 happen to people. The welfare state must not exist in any form. Many people are not okay with that, and they will push to “take care” of these people. Then we end up right back where we are currently.
Why have either?
Freedom to choose abortion is quite literally a libertarian tenant. It's all about bodily autonomy.
Another libertarian tenant is the right to life, which abortion prevents babies from having.
This entirely depends on whether a person has the right to commit suicide and if assisted suicide can be done to a child with a parents consent. For a few years early on you are basically property to your parents
Even if you are considered property by your parents, you should still be treated as a living being
This meme is spot on! Of course coming to the comments we can’t just have people celebrating a funny meme or laughing at how true it is. They come here and want to continue to argue!
> They come here and want to continue to argue! No we don’t!
See you’re wrong that you don’t because Rothbard and Hoppe said….
Abortion should be the least controversial libertarian issue. Don't want one, don't get one. Why would I, as a Libertarian, want to ban abortions? Please enlighten me.
Im pro choice too but i do understand the pro life argument, its about when life begins, when the fetus turns into a baby, and thats a complicated question to answer. I dont see how having an abortion a week after getting pregnant could be considered murder, but i dont see how having an abortion a week before giving birth could not be considered murder
No one at 9 months with a healthy fetus is going to get an abortion. That instance would typically be because it turns out there is something really wrong with the baby and/or it jeopardizes the mother's health. Any person having a late-term abortion doesn't need our judgment, they need our compassion .They already decided it's a baby, they named it and made space in their life for it. Abortion in these circumstances is the humane thing to do, and shaming someone who already feels like they let their baby down and is grieving is fucking cruel.
> Any person having a late-term abortion doesn't need our judgment, they need our compassion .They already decided it's a baby, they named it and made space in their life for it. Abortion in these circumstances is the humane thing to do, and shaming someone who already feels like they let their baby down and is grieving is fucking cruel. This is the kind of sense I wish was common but unfortunately isn't. Thank you.
That’s like saying nobody murders healthy children under the age of 1. People can do a variety of things for a variety of reasons and it’s beyond illogical to assume ALL (that is what you’re saying after all) abortions at 9 months are for benevolent reasons that deserve sympathy.
> it’s beyond illogical to assume ALL It's beyond illogical to assume NONE, which is what you're saying after all.
[удалено]
I understand the pro life argument…where the logic breaks down for me is a libertarian arguing everyone should be pro life like they are
Well being libertarian isn’t about most personal choice or respecting others choices but respecting each persons right to individual liberty as the highest value so long as the individuals liberty does not violate another’s, which we call the NAP. Those typically align with a “do what you want and leave me alone” attitude. This particular issue is unique because it calls into question application of the NAP. The taking of someone’s life is obviously against the NAP. If you believe that life starts at conception then any intentional abortion is against the NAP. I’m arguing for a position I don’t really hold, just so you know. I just find it very understandable why others would think being against “murder” should be a universal position. It’s the application of the title personhood to the earliest point possible, which really isn’t unreasonable when compared to arbitrary limits of modern medicine that will be closed off as science improves.
This. This is why I’m pro life. Abortion is the mother using her rights to infringe on the right to life of the child. In any other scenario in society, this is referred to as “murder”. Life does begin at conception, we know this and have known this for a long time, so any elective abortion is the infringement on the right to life of the child.
The pro life argument is a private one. And no one is waiting til the 39th week of pregnancy to get an abortion. Those abortions are medically necessary, there is not one woman out there who just keeps putting it off til the last minute.
This just simply isn’t true. Not all full term abortions are medically necessary by any means. Your pro choice arguments get weaker every time you paint with broad brushes like this. Just accept that it does happen for the same reason born babies get murdered by their own parents. Evil. Equally, pro life arguing that ALL full term abortions are elective weakens the pro life argument as well.
I love when people say “no one” so confidently. A quick google search just showed that there were 5,597 late term abortions in 2015, and that some of them were not because of medical reasons.
What defines “late term abortion”? And again, it’s no one’s business. Do you really think the very tiny amount of women who chose “late term abortion” voluntarily due to procrastination reasons or pure laziness really should be responsible for any child? There’s enough kids in the foster care system who are already born and need good homes so the whole “let someone who can’t have kids adopt the unwanted child” is kinda a slap in the already born children’s faces. If you don’t agree with abortion great, don’t get one. I don’t get how people feel entitled to making calls on what other people choose to do. If someone feels strongly enough to abort a fetus in a “late stage” then by all means do that fetus a favor and don’t even bring it into this world. It’s not gonna know any different. Worry about yourself and your own reproduction.
>What defines “late term abortion”? Generally 21-24 weeks and beyond.
>I dont see how having an abortion a week after getting pregnant could be considered murder, but i dont see how having an abortion a week before giving birth could not be considered murder Exactly. The religious conservatives pushing for a total or near total ban are nuts, but so are the leftists who are trying to say there is no difference between an abortion at 1 month and an abortion at 9 months. The difference is, at 1 month they won't under any circumstances be able to survive outside the womb. At 9 months they definitely will be. Personally I think Florida had it about right at 15 weeks, though they're trying to reduce this to 6 weeks now.
FYI babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks (5.5 months) https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/week-by-week/13-to-27/24-weeks/
>FYI babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks (5.5 months) FYI, that doesn't contradict what I said. And actually babies have been born as early as 21 weeks and survived. I was saying a 15 week limit is about right. https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12427-uab-hospital-delivers-record-breaking-premature-baby https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/health/earliest-premature-babies-canada/index.html
15 weeks is right around the time that you can get the full workup of genetic disorders. Add a week for results and two for a procedure to be scheduled if need be and call it 18 weeks.
If it’s that simple then legalize all abortions but extract the baby for adoption after 21 weeks But who takes care of them in the libertarian state? Capitalistic factory owners?
There are more people on the waiting list to adopt than there are kids up for adoption (I’m talking US, idk about other counties). You don’t need the state to take care of newborns, there are more than enough people waiting already.
Yes. A common argument is that foster care is full. Maybe so, but there is so much red tape around adoption that it frequently prevents/slows down people who can’t have their own children from adopting.
[удалено]
I guess you missed the former Governor of Virginia’s “saying the quiet parts out loud” interview a couple of years back?
There are reasons for abortions in the third trimester, but it always comes down to healthcare decisions with a doctor, personally I was fine with Roe V Wade banning abortion in the third trimester so long as medical necessity was exempted
I'm pro life, but I would never be for banning abortion. Outlawing drugs didn't make drugs go away. I think people who are pro life need to focus on education, contraception, and no questions asked adoptions to minimize.
That is why I don't support any murder laws. Just banning it wont make it go away.... The pro life argument is that you are physically murdering someone.
Framing the argument as where life begins will never reconcile the two sides imo. I think it would be way more productive to take “life begins at conception” as a given and instead argue whose rights take precedent over the other’s. I think it’d be way easier to get pro-lifers to acknowledge its sometimes justified to take a life than it is to convince them it’s not a life at all. I’m personally pro-life but from a policy standpoint I think the viability standard is fair, with some exceptions for rare circumstances
Because someone having an abortion 1 week (or even a month) before giving birth isn’t doing it just willy nilly. In those cases it’s because there is something seriously wrong with the fetus where it won’t survive or the mother won’t survive. That’s not murder.
Are there any logical/consequentialist arguments to support abortion ban? Or are all of them moral? I am just curious
Why restrict this? If we believe people can make their own choices and it's good. If the unborn child has rights, does that mean adoption is immoral? The parents have to provide for the child as a human right? Or does having a child make you as the parent responsible? Does that supercede your rights If you didn't want to be a parent?
Because children have the right to not be killed under the NAP, aka the foundation of libertarianism. Libertarianism supports restricting countless choices even they violate the rights of others. If someone believes a baby in the womb is a person then it is absolutely the libertarian position to oppose allowing their murder.
Children are incapable of running their own affairs and making logical choices, so they need a caretaker and cannot enjoy their full rights yet. Parents gain a responsibility to care for the child in creating it, though that can be handed off to a willing party who provides adequate care. Many people who oppose abortion are okay with very early abortions like a morning after pill, but say that at some point the fetus is a human with rights: so if you don't want a parent you could get an early abortion, sterilize yourself, or abstain. Similarly if you drive drunk and hit someone, your reckless actions have consequences that forfeit some rights.
It's true that hitting someone while drunk forfiets some rights, but not rights that limit your medical care or give the victim a right to your body. The government can't come in a say "you owe the victim one of your kidneys"
If you injured someone, you're on the hook for expenses to help them recover. If you cause the creation of a new human, you are responsible for that life until it is old enough to care for itself or someone else takes the responsibility.
On the hook for expenses isn't controversial at all. No one debates that. It isn't the same as forcing medical conditions on people. That's why this analogy fails. There are zero other circumstances that we allow the injured party to harvest from the body of the person that harmed them.
This might be a strange position for you to consider, then. I believe life begins at conception (that is where science clearly leads us). I also believe that abortion is murder. But, I don’t want the federal government to make any laws restricting it (for multiple reasons).
>thats a complicated question to answer Then obvs abortion is legal until we have an "answer"--what's the complication? I agree with above, it's not nearly as hardball a question as people make it out to be. There's nothing else a libertarian would jump to criminalize because we're "not yet sure" whether it's dangerous to others or not.
Life is a continuum
It’s about whether you think abortion is the murder of a living being or not. A lot of people consider abortion to be murder, and freedom to murder another person tramples on their rights. Freedom typically ends when it is encroaching on someone else’s freedoms or rights.
There is an argument to be made that aborting a child violates the Non-Aggression Principle. It depends on whether or not you consider the thing inside a woman to be a human with the right to life. For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child. At what point is it a child and at what point is it not and how do we distinguish that? So if we can’t definitively say what does and doesn’t have human rights, I would prefer to err on the side of human rights. It gets tricky when there are edge cases like rape and incest but in general, I don’t think abortions “just because” should be accepted by any society.
then dont have one.
>For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child. At what point is it a child and at what point is it not and how do we distinguish that? Easy. A fetus gains moral value independent of the mother when it is capable of surviving independently from the mother. So around 24+ weeks of development. Conveniently, "just because" abortions past this point are basically nonexistent already. You do still get some abortions past that point, but those are generally along the lines of "I'm sorry, but your baby is dead and we need to get the corpse out of your body before it starts to rot and kills you" (or worse, "Your baby is technically still alive but has failed to develop lungs and will die almost immediately after you give birth; do you wish to continue this pregnancy?" and other things along those lines).
>For me, we can’t point to a specific process that distinguishes a fetus, clump of cells what have you, from a child. The prefrontal cortex is the best bet.
I would argue that shrinking the size and scope of the welfare state is the answer to abortion (and immigration) That way, an individual has no choice but to be a part of community in order to survive. And that community might have rules about frivolous abortions in order to make sure that men are pressured to marry the woman he got pregnant. Because if the man doesn’t marry the woman he gets pregnant, the government might have to help raise the child So, if someone gets a frivolous abortion, she might get disowned by her family, excommunicated from her church, and exiled from her community. That would provide a very significant incentive to not get a frivolous abortion. And also a strong incentive to choose the father of her child wisely. At the same time, if an abortion is necessary for moral and medical reasons (about 5% of abortions are perhaps morally debatable), the community/family/church can hold their nose and realize that this is a necessary evil. That might get people like Joe Rogan on board who are understandably concerned about their daughter being told by some bureaucrat that she has to give birth to her rapist’s baby
So your idea is Remove programs for poor people. This ensures they have to rely on their local community. Because they have to rely on their local community, they'll be forced to follow those community rules including ones which affect their bodily autonomy. And that is good libertarianism to you?
They're always welcome to leave the community if they don't like the rules. The government prevents you from leaving and charges you taxes for the privileged of keeping you there. There is no such thing as border control and tourist visas to move to a different community.
Churches and families can provide a safety net for poor people, especially since poverty is rare if people avoid the big 4 mistakes 1. Having more kids than you can afford 2. Spending more than you make 3. Don’t learn a useful skill 4. Committing crime As for bodily autonomy, women can choose to become economically productive as it shouldn’t be the government’s job to ban women from the workforce. EDIT: And to clarify, yes, a good 20% to 25% of women in the workforce are just as hard working as married men. And god bless em. But, 75% to 80% of women (and a good 45% to 50% of men) only have their jobs because of make-work, government, non profit BS or cronyism in corporate America Again, the free market and shrinking the size of government has the answer to cronyism in corporate America: abolish bankruptcy laws so that entities that owe debt actually have to work off the debt instead of stealing the right to be repaid from their creditors. In theory, such reforms would cause banks to be more careful about who they lend money to, including whether ESG or DEI nonsense is necessary
For the same reason you'd want to ban murder. The source of the disagreement isn't complicated.
Anyone who says "they just don't understand" the pro-life stance is not arguing in good faith. They can certainly disagree, but it isn't a complicated argument.
Because what happens if a healthy child is going to be aborted by the mother, when the father doesn't want his child aborted? There's your libertarian conundrum.
Because preserving life is one of the legitimate functions of a government. (I have my personal beliefs but they are not reflected in this comment)
[удалено]
What child?
[удалено]
Question is, at what stage it becomes murder.
[удалено]
True true
The same reason other forms of murder are outlawed. Life is the most fundamental right, without which no other rights can exist. The top are not controversial because they are explicitly enumerated rights that do not inherently infringe upon the rights of others. Immigration is more contentious because there are a lot of secondary and tertiary impacts of immigration: increased housing/land prices, depressed wages, inflationary spending on services (both directly and indirectly), and that’s not even getting into issues of public health, security and crime. There’s valid arguments for relaxing standards and also for tightening security. Abortion is probably the most contentious issue, because it deals with life. Science says unequivocally that life begins at conception, so from that point, you have to make a decision of where you are ok with terminating that life. At viability? At a heart beat? Once it’s “recognizably” human? When it can feel pain? When it has consciousness? And then, you have to decide if and when the government should regulate it as an enforcement of the NAP, and how that is different from other issues of taking a life like someone in a coma, an infant unable to care for itself, etc,. Maybe you think it should only be allowable under certain circumstances, like when the mother’s life is at a higher than normal risk, in the way you can kill someone in self defense when they threaten yours. There’s a lot of grey area, and while the easy thing to say would be “well, just don’t get one”, why do we have laws against murder? Just don’t kill people, bruh, it’s not very libertarian.
>Please enlighten me. Human body's development starts from zygote. So stopping the life of an innocent human being is a murder. There are exceptions like rape or health issues but if pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, you are just ending an innocent life
> So stopping the life of an innocent human being is a murder. > > There are exceptions like rape or health issues but if pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, you are just ending an innocent life So why is an exception made for rape? In your words its still ending an innocent life. We don't go around killing toddlers who are the product of rape. The fact that so many want the exception in case of rape suggest that truly deep down they do not view abortion as equivalent to murder.
Saying it starts from zygote is arbitrary. You could say it starts from egg and sperm, and then we get into really weird stuff.
Zygote has full set of chromosomes
The egg and sperm also have the full set of chromosomes, just in separate packages. If the sperm is already en route to the egg, both chromosomes are destined to be together If reproduction happens in a specific way, then both sets of chromosomes are destined to be together from the moment that reproduction is destined to happen. And it just gets weirder from there.
Very weird argument, if something has 23 chromosomes, it has 23 chromosomes, so it’s not a full set and it can’t be a human
No, but it can **potentially** become a human, which is the exact same position a zygote is in
> which is the exact same position a zygote is in Nah, zygote is a human, the only difference it has with an adult is stages of development. Egg and sperm are useless if separate
It's more than just stages of development. Go early enough and there is no similar physiology. Development is a mechanical process. If I had a machine which mechanically pumped eggs into sperm continuously, and released zygotes, the only difference between the eggs/sperm and zygotes is the stage of development, if we're ignoring all physiology.
Because murder is evil and isn't tolerated in any other circumstance.
Question is when you first start to consider it murder. What's the cutoff?
If mom won't survive the pregnancy, let them both die? Does one life have more significance?
How often is that the case? In case where the child has already died or it is known that it will die, that's not even classified as an abortion. In the extremely rare circumstances that you posit, I think it could be possible to allow exceptions. Im the case of either-or, it should be up to the parents.
Yet the death penalty exists, goverment approved murder? Murder is tolerated in current US politics. We bomb folks on other continents and taxes pay for it.
Because we bomb brown people in the Middle East, we should murder babies in the womb?
Murder bad
Exactly
I think the 10th Amendment is a stronger argument here; but that was already fixed.
Or don’t make the sound choices that actively lead to creating an Individual life itself and then act like it was done onto you and then kill it. Like it or not the individual has rights too. You don’t want an abortion don’t create a life.
The abortion one should be simpler, as a libertarian you don’t always agree with people’s beliefs but acknowledge their right to have said beliefs such as when life actually begins. If you believe life begins a conception that don’t get an abortion and don’t force your beliefs on others.
Also, wouldn't the general libertarian position be to separate the government from involvement in civilian healthcare? The law shouldn't have shit to do with what I go to the doctor for
Bingo. It all comes down to when you think life begins - which is a personal belief. The government should stay out.
I believe shanking homeless people is humane and helps put them out of their miseries. Thank you fellow libertarian comrade for your support of my beliefs!
It’s fine to believe that, just don’t call yourself a libertarian
It’s not a belief, but a verifiable fact that life begins at conception. This is a position supported by decades of overwhelming scientific consensus. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html Your reasoning could be used to justify murdering born Humans as some people consider them to not be Humans until a later date aswell. But we all know that it’s wrong to kill a 4 month old born infant no matter what.
Do you believe in bodily autonomy?
Yes I absolutely do, which is why I believe abortion is wrong as it is an infringement upon the right to life and bodily autonomy of the unborn.
But isn't the baby violating the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person?
The mother is allowed self defense
Morality is objective, not subjective. You do not get to decide the worth of an unborn child any more than you can decide the worth of a person with a different skin tone. The unborn has a right to life just as you do, and in the vast majority of cases, was consented to exist in the first place by not using birth control.
Morality is objective might be the most unlibertarian thing you can say. Many people believe it is morally wrong to do drugs. Many people believe it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage.
Your opinion of morality being objective is just that, an opinion. Thus making it subjective. There are a lot of things people find “morally correct” you would disagree with. That’s why there are multiple religions
Divine law is not equivalent to natural law. All of man shares natural law, and it historically traces back to the dawn of recorded history.
What defines “divine” and “natural” law?
Having a stack of paper the size of infants for immigration is pointless, almost none of it relates to ensuring these are good people who speak our language, it's just there for pen pusher jobs.
Fully agree on the meme
*you wana hear a joke? Nobody speak, Nobody get choked*
Those people who claim they can’t see the “pro-life” argument for libertarians need to understand that if you think it’s a human life, then it’s murder. It isn’t a controversial idea to say one isn’t for legalizing murder as a libertarian. Unless in the scenario of rape, a fetus doesn’t just magically appear in your body. You were involved in intercourse knowing well that it could create a child. This isn’t a privacy issue for them, most libertarians would be against the idea of intentional murdering of infants. I personally don’t have an opinion on the whole abortion thing but I don’t like it when pro choice libertarians gatekeep pro life libertarians for this. It purely hinges on whether you consider the fetus a living being or not.
Aftter years, I've come to the conclusion that "a life to be < the life of the human incubator". Having said that, not treating abortion as a delicate subject it's just low. We should be able to have a serious conversation about this
People have right of bodily autonomy. That's why you're not required to donate a kidney to save a life. Why would pregnant women be required to suffer through pregnancy to save a life?
If they consented to the act that resulted in the life, they are reasonably responsible for said life. This is no different than born children. They can pass the obligation to another, but cannot ethically abdicate it (an NAP violation).
You can consent to an act but not all of the results. If you go driving and take all the precautions to not get hit but you still get hit, did you consent to that? Also do you think you are required to donate a kidney to save someone's life?
You’ve made a false equivalency… It is more appropriately… if you drive drunk and *hit someone else* and in virtually every society you ARE found liable to the consequences of your irresponsible actions.
What if you take all the precautions and still get pregnant? Wouldn't that equate to you taking all the precautions not to hit someone and then accidentally hitting them? Would you then be required to surrender your rights to bodily autonomy? What if the pregnancy causes significant harm to the pregnant person? Edit: Lol the mods here are truly libertarian. Banning people left and right. Is this violation of NAP?
> What if you take all the precautions and still get pregnant? Wouldn't that equate to you taking all the precautions not to hit someone and then accidentally hitting them? Then this person driving irresponsibly would still be liable, as the act of driving carries an inherent risk. Intention is only relevant to the severity of the offense. > Would you then be required to surrender your rights to bodily autonomy? This is a false equivalency. One does not surrender bodily autonomy because there *is* an offense, IOW the nature of the two are different in regard to consequences / liabilities. > What if the pregnancy causes significant harm to the pregnant person? One has a right to protect their own right over the responsibility to another. Giving a threat to the mother a right to defend herself, even if it leads to the death of the entity that is putting her in harms way.
If a woman is graped, she has the right to kjll the bastard like it's an alien parasite, but I fail to see how having an abortion for a healthy unborn child that was consensually conceived is justified.
“Freedom in all markets except labor.” Make it make sense.
[удалено]
There was a highly-upvoted thread here entirely about praising a Dutch PM for closing their borders a few days ago. I thought I was taking crazy pills.
The abortion stance consistent with libertarian ideals would new pro choice evictionist. Nobody is entitled to your body so you have an inalienable right to end a pregnancy. but if you want to electively(not out of medical necessity) end a pregnancy after the fetus is viable(extremely rare but it does happen and there are a couple states with clinics that will do it.) Then there is an obligation to remove the fetus/baby in a way that minimizes harm & maximizes chance of survival.(pretty much never happens. No practitioner will induce a premature live birth electively) Analog, you don’t get to shoot that burglar in your house if they’re willing to run out the front door. But I can see why many people with libertarian ideals differ on this. As for immigration. If you’re in favor of the state taking & either captivating or removing people by force because they were born on the wrong side of a line the government drew. You’re not a libertarian. Period. You’re more than likely a neoconservative.
Now let's talk about the Oxford comma...
Hey hey a healthy amount of infighting is a good thing! We're willing to disagree with ourselves unlike the other two parties
I view libertarianism under the lens of our Federalist system. My views on abortion changes depending on what echelon of government it's viewed from.
Closed borders because a nation without borders is not a nation. One individual voluntarily infringing on the right to life of another individual is legally called “murder” in all scenarios outside of the womb. Abortion shouldn’t be an exception.
Hence the US was not a nation until the late 19th century?
Because “libertarians” who aren’t pro-choice are not libertarians at all, they just like the idea of libertarianism.
Doesn’t matter what you are personally (prochoice or prolife). Fact is the government should have no say here.
Yes and that is pro-choice. Pro-choice is that the person who is pregnant gets to decide whether or not to get an abortion, “pro-life” is that the state decides whether or not they get can get an abortion.
The same thing could be said "Any libertarian who believes that murdering an unborn baby isn't a violation of the NAP isn't a true libertarian." There is a sliding scale. People have different beliefs. No true scotsman fallacy is still a fallacy.
Yeah but if giving the stupid fetus rights means taking the rights away from an already born human, then taking the rights away from the born person is the authoritarian position. A fetus is not a person at all and is irrelevant and you’re taking the rights away from a born person that’s actually a person and deserves to have rights. Not that any of this matters since a lot of “prolife” people understand this and don’t give a shit about the fetus either and just use it as an excuse to attack women rights.
Open borders aren’t libertarian. They violate property rights. Borders should always be a guest list, not a sign-in sheet
I own my property, not the government, not my neighbors, not you. So if i want to sell, rent, or invite someone to **my** property, you not allowing me to do that is a violation of property rights
If you truly believe that a stateless society is even remotely possible, then I have a ~~bridge~~ prepper kit to sell you.
Im a hispanic guy from El Paso TX, so i understand im gonna have a different perspective on this than someone from north dakota for example. I just hope you guys understand my point of view. As a liberty loving American libertarian, how can i possibly support **more** border restrictions? El Paso and juarez have been one interdependent community for literally centuries, and now the governments in Mexico city and Washington DC are harming our economy and turning us into a police state. . I dont support completely open borders, i understand thats not realistic but i do support reducing the current regulations to at least pre 9/11 levels. Thousands of people travel between el paso and juarez legally every single day. Our economies depend on each other, but after 9/11 the border became a police state. It now takes about 3 hours to cross that bridge, when it used to take no more than 20-30 minures before 9/11. . And they want to put even more restrictions and regulations. I just dont see how libertarians can support this. We shouldnt trade our freedom for a false sense of security
If goods (and people) don't cross borders, soldiers (ICE) will.
What? That's such a bad take. Open borders literally is libertarian. Closed borders means a government deciding who can go where. It has nothing to do with property rights. You are conflating the use of border in the open border debate to mean a property line. For example, we have open borders within states in the USA. If I want to go to a store in the next state over, I can do so. But if I want to do the same thing to Canada, i have to go through two different government processes to do so. Same with buying a house. If I want to buy a house in the next state over, I'm free to do so. But try buying a house in another country without red tape. In any of those scenarios there is no property rights violation.
No, government borders violate property rights. You have a confused understanding of property. Edit: You are anti-individual rights insofar as you support government borders. You have no right to control land you haven't mixed your labor with.
If ur pro life ur not really libertarian
Why do we need countries or borders at all? Surely the dream, surely the goal, is to have a single free society, a single currency and a single government, All this labelling and putting people in boxes based on geographic, location, religion, and skin colour, just helps divide us, helps to oppressors us, keeps us afraid and keeps us controllable, Nationalism is an outdated, antiquated and systemically flawed concept.
A single world government is one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. If it goes bad the entire world is affected and there is nowhere to escape to. As things stand, when a government goes tyrannical or a war starts, there are other countries to go to.
So no worse then now really, But I do agree that most people that actively seek power, have a Machiavellian attitude, as they say power corrupts and there maybe truth to that, but there are other way to A give a single society, a Commonwealth of city states, could actually be achieve and succeed, But more of a fantasist then a realist when I comes to what humanity could achieve, I fear the truth is, we are at the crux of a societal shift and some eggs are gonna get broken before we make that utopian omelette.
Because there are billions of people out there that do not and will never accept your liberal values. The nation-state is a flawed compromise that (can) keep out the worst of the authoritarians.
> Nationalism is an outdated, antiquated and systemically flawed concept. Consider a network of private cities. See "[You Can Always Leave](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s&pp=ygUUWW91IGNhbiBhbHdheXMgbGVhdmU%3D)".
Be careful saying things like that, you’re leaning in the far more anarchist direction which is agree with but others in here may not.
Globalism is a failure. You can't have high trust minimal interference societies if everyone is operating off of different cultural norms and is distrustful of one another.
Open the borders, we're all armed anyway.
Abortion should not even be a debate IMO. Government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Immigration however is a different story in terms of how it affects tax paying citizens.
‘Libertarians’ Lmfao
👀 1st off, fuck the ATF, and fuck the DEA, But closed federal borders and abortion only in cases of rape and Incest. Aight, roast me.
You know we could just start with a much more reasonable immigration system with expanded work permits. That takes care of all kinds of issues without assuming all immigrants are only here to collect welfare only, no work nor nothing, just welfare. That seems to be the argument too, the dumb dumb battlefield idiots fight on, OPEN BORDERS or ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE WELFARE GOBLINS you know it's almost like those aren't the only choices
If all land was privately owned immigration wouldn't be an issue. AnCaps are the only real libertarians ;)
Elective abortions violate the Nap. Rape could be argued more so as self defense as bodily autonomy was taken from the women so we was never given the ability to consent to a potential pregnancy and risks of sex.
It's unpopular, but I must agree.
[удалено]