Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[Forty Two]

Here's a new one, people refusing to label somebody a facist who is owning it.

LOL, oftentimes, folks decide what you "really mean" even though you say the exact opposite...

[pErvinalia]

He used to be a libertarian. And there's not a lot difference between right libertarianism and fascism. Just look at Seth, for example.

[Forty Two]

I suspect Drewish has become mentally ill since he was last posting here. Or taken to trolling in a big way.

...there's also some really fucking detestable human beings who would be better off jumping off a bridge than continuing to blight the planet with their existence.

[pErvinalia]

Predictable. Yawn.

[Forty Two]

Considering how much harm and loss of value fascists have caused in the last century, I guess, "off with them to the extermination facilities" would be a good idea, no? It's certainly going to cause a lot of benefit for society.

Agreed, if we include other collectivist political movements, like communism/Marxist socialism. Off with them, and we'd have a much quieter, politer, more reasonable society, as most of the "activists" who make the news burning shit down would be one....

[Forty Two]

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

Your assessment on what is a 'meaningful contribution' is arbitrary and holds no more weight than my assessment that libertarians and conservatives don't contribute in a meaningful way. And then you double down the stupid by throwing another arbitrary value judgement on top - that 'not meaningfully contributing' marks someone as worthy of death. It's hard to know what to say in response to something so utterly psychopathic.

So what if it's arbitrary? In each of your arguments, your views are just as arbitrary. Name a position you've taken on any argument that is non-arbitrary? Arbitrary: based on personal choice or whim, rather than on any reason or system.

So, do you claim that there are positions on issue people take which are not based on personal choice or whim, rather than on reason or a system?

The reason I ask is that you've poo-pooed, regularly, the Enlightenment notions of rights and the role of government - Lockean arguments - JS Mill - that sort of thing - on other threads. You've poo-pooed the idea of natural rights, etc. So, when classical liberals base their views on the foundational underpinnings of the Enlightenment for the "reason or system" on which they base their views, you just hand-wave that away as if it's just picked out thin air - arbitrary personal choice.

So, here you criticize Drewish for his arbitrary personal choice. Is there any argument on this issue that is not an arbitrary personal choice? Is your view on this issue not arbitrary, too?

And, if so, why would his view be of less value than yours?

And, if it isn't of less value, then what's wrong with his view, other than it being in disagreement with your own arbitrary view?

[Brian Peacock]

The matter can be framed in terms of the following question.

Do women have dominion over their own bodies, and if not to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over a women's bodies?

A better framing is "do people have dominion over their own bodies, and if not, to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over people's bodies?" And, what exactly does it mean to have dominion over one's own body?

A fair point, but the specificity of the question reflects that this issue specifically effects women (I'll deal with that later). I'd hoped to avoid quibbling over meaning with regards to the term 'dominion' here as well. Having dominion over one's body is not a rare, novel or complicated idea, it just means having ownership and control of our physical selves: "I belong to me", as the old song goes. Nonetheless...

Using the argument that has been advanced by some on other threads - the concept of individual rights, such as freedom of speech or a right to have dominion over one's own body, is meaningless, and relies on some fake or invented theory of natural rights. Under that argument, the dominion over our bodies is nothing different than other regulations, such as safety laws concerning drugs and medical devices, or automobiles, etc. We have a democratic society which makes laws based on what the majority wants, with elected representatives doing the lawmaking subject to elections and such.

So, under that theory - typically advanced by our continental European members and one or two Ozzies - the answer to the question would be "people have dominion over their own bodies to the extent allowed by the democratic process, and the State through its laws and the democratic process decides what dominion the individual and the society/state have over individuals' bodies." Where the state says you can't ingest a substance based on democratic processes, then you lose that dominion over your own body. Where the state says you can't get an abortion, then you lose that dominion, too.

A libertarian will generally see the state and the government's role as limited and subject to the will of the people in its initial creation, and there will be areas into which such authorities may not stray. There are a number of philosophical theories underpinning this point of view, but the would all include something akin to a property ownership over one's own body and thus a limitation on the state dominion over individuals' bodies being to protect that property interest. Same thing with another area, like free speech, where most libertarian theories involve some iteration of the fact that we own what's in our heads and our thoughts, thus having no permissible restriction on our freedom of thought. And, we own our words as we speak them, with each individual having the same right to express whatever is in their own head. The limitation put on that is some iteration of actual harm to other people (such as injurious falsehoods, defamation, nuisance, and the like).

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

Let me fill in this 'dominion' matter with a bit of context setting. By example, a slavemaster has dominion over others in as much as they have the ownership and control that comes from possessing others as property - and here let's not get bogged down in what slavery is eh(?), that's not the point. The point is that slaves are not free to make choices for themselves about matters which are pertinent to their lives: they are owned and controlled by others; others have dominion over them.

So, with reference to that and in the context of the topic at hand, to have dominion over one's body is to have ownership and control of one's body and to be free to make choices oneself about matters which pertain to one's own body and which, therefore, are matters pertinent to our lives. OK?

Those who advocate abortion affirm the idea that women have dominion over their bodies, in as much as women are free to make choices for themselves about an important matter which is pertinent to their bodies and their lives. Of course, there are limits to this freedom - legal limits, which for the purposes of this discussion it is important to acknowledge, and which we should accept and take as read, and in so doing avoid becoming bogged down in further discussions about what freedom actually is, it's extent, and/or the differences between a freedom and a licence, a right and a law, etc.

Similarly, those who stand against abortion affirm not just the idea that women do not have dominion over their own bodies but also the idea that the ownership and control of women's bodies should or does fall to some other party, in as much as women are not free to make a choice for themselves about an important matter which is pertinent to their bodies and their lives but also that others (whoever that may be) are/should be charged to make those decisions on women's behalf. This external ownership and control of women's bodies, and thus of their lives, applies to all women whether pregnant of not, for while choices about abortion are necessarily constrained to those who are pregnant only women become pregnant, and so this is not about a general idea or principle that applies to everyone but one which is pertinent, relevant, and specific to women.

While I accept that this issue has some general relevance in terms of raising accompanying ideas about the extent to which we all own or possess ourselves the answer to the question will not be found by exploring that generality alone. I would grant that there are general principles which can be applied to all, but suggest that this matter cannot be adequately fathomed within such a general context because, as I've said, it is a matter which particularly and specifically pertains to and effects women,

So...

Do women have dominion over their own bodies?

If they do then the matter falls to discussing the extent to which women might exercise their ownership and control of their bodes and make choices on their own behalf for and by themselves. If they do not then the discussion falls to who or what party takes possession or ownership of the bodies of women (pregnant or otherwise) and to what extent that party controls women and might exercise choices on any woman's behalf about what they may or may not do for, by and with themselves.

[pErvinalia]

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

Your assessment on what is a 'meaningful contribution' is arbitrary and holds no more weight than my assessment that libertarians and conservatives don't contribute in a meaningful way. And then you double down the stupid by throwing another arbitrary value judgement on top - that 'not meaningfully contributing' marks someone as worthy of death. It's hard to know what to say in response to something so utterly psychopathic.

So what if it's arbitrary?

It means there's no reasoning behind it.

In each of your arguments, your views are just as arbitrary. Name a position you've taken on any argument that is non-arbitrary? Arbitrary: based on personal choice or whim, rather than on any reason or system.

I base all my arguments on reason. You are confusing your "arguments" with mine.

So, do you claim that there are positions on issue people take which are not based on personal choice or whim, rather than on reason or a system?

The reason I ask is that you've poo-pooed, regularly, the Enlightenment notions of rights and the role of government - Lockean arguments - JS Mill - that sort of thing - on other threads.

Bullshit. This is just more of your false dichotomy bollocks. You either support the exact same notions of liberty as I do, or you are a tree bearded communist.

You've poo-pooed the idea of natural rights, etc.

Of course I have, because it's nonsensical.

So, when classical liberals base their views on the foundational underpinnings of the Enlightenment for the "reason or system" on which they base their views, you just hand-wave that away as if it's just picked out thin air - arbitrary personal choice.

Bullshit. Provide evidence of this bollocks.

So, here you criticize Drewish for his arbitrary personal choice. Is there any argument on this issue that is not an arbitrary personal choice? Is your view on this issue not arbitrary, too?

Do you need remedial reading lessons? I just pointed out that my rhetorical argument is just as arbitrary (i.e. valueless) as Drew's is.

And, if so, why would his view be of less value than yours?

Seriously, is English your 17th language??

And, if it isn't of less value, then what's wrong with his view, other than it being in disagreement with your own arbitrary view?

Um, it's arbitrary. Like I just stated. It can be dismissed as easily as it was created.

[Brian Peacock]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

I understand you basic thrust: there's some dead wood in society and a bit of judicious coppicing would create room for the rest to flourish. Still, if the measure by which we determine who is to be felled for the good of all is the meaningfulness of their contribution to society then perhaps you can move beyond the declarative to discussing what a 'meaningful contribution to society' might look like - we don't want to go round lopping off the wrong branches now do we? As an in to that, I specifically asked you what would keep you and your family from falling out of that 'meaningful contributors' category - and I framed it that way because those who advocate this kind of social pruning always assume it will only apply to others and never to themselves. How do you and yours 'meaningfully contribute' to society? We need to know, and quickly, because that sound you hear is the woodsman sharpening his axe.

[Forty Two]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was "where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights..."

So, (a) do you acknowledge the existence of something called "individual rights," and if so, what is an individual right?
And, (b) what's your basis for that? Thin air? Arbitrary? Or, do you have a philosophical or rational basis for it?
And, (c) what is the individual right of dominion over one's own body, if any?

[Forty Two]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

Also, I presented no dichotomy. You did. I merely stated that I wasn't sure where a person gets the idea that one has "dominion over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else," where that person does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights.

Now, if you have a basis for individual rights, then you're not that person I was referring to. So, that's why I asked you just now to clarify what your basis for individual rights is.

If you have some other source for a concept of "dominion over one's own body" that does not stem from an idea of individual rights, then just explain where you get it from.

There's no "dichotomy" here, as I have not said that you either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. You said that. I said nothing remotely of the kind.

[pErvinalia]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was "where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights..."

So, (a) do you acknowledge the existence of something called "individual rights," and if so, what is an individual right?
And, (b) what's your basis for that? Thin air? Arbitrary? Or, do you have a philosophical or rational basis for it?
And, (c) what is the individual right of dominion over one's own body, if any?

If you actually read what other people write, you wouldn't have to keep asking the same shit every 3-4 months. So, no, I won't be addressing this stuff again. And you were replying to Brian there, suggesting that he "does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights". Any evidence for this view of yours?

[pErvinalia]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

Also, I presented no dichotomy. You did. I merely stated that I wasn't sure where a person gets the idea that one has "dominion over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else," where that person does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights.

Now, if you have a basis for individual rights, then you're not that person I was referring to. So, that's why I asked you just now to clarify what your basis for individual rights is.

If you have some other source for a concept of "dominion over one's own body" that does not stem from an idea of individual rights, then just explain where you get it from.

There's no "dichotomy" here, as I have not said that you either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. You said that. I said nothing remotely of the kind.

But that's exactly what your rhetoric is aimed at conveying. You do this regularly. I don't think any of the lefties posting here now are socialists, let alone authoritarian socialists. We all believe in the enlightenment principles and individual rights to varying degrees. Yet you continue to try and paint a false dichotomy where you are the one with the one true philosophy and the rest of us are either socialists, on the way to become socialists, or just useful idiots. The is your whole raison d'être here. Find anything to argue about then spend thousands of words trying to argue that black is white. You don't show any interest in understanding anyone else's views, other than just enough that you can find something to cause a dichotomy that you exploit for your own purposes.

[Forty Two]

He used to be a libertarian. And there's not a lot difference between right libertarianism and fascism. Just look at Seth, for example.

There is a world of difference between libertarianism and fascism.

Fascism is a collectivist ideology which is founded upon racial or ethnic groupings, and a subjugation of the individual to the state, and is also to be related to corporatism, where there is a marriage between the State and large corporations (state controls transportation, power, and other major industries through state control of corporate entities). Fascism opposes free market capitalism. It supports private property, but only insofar as it involves service to the State, which is inherently anti-libertarian.

The idea that Right Libertarianism is similar to fascism is ridiculous. Right libertarianism refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate negative rights, and natural law. Right libertarians are grounded in the natural rights of humans, involving fundamental "negative rights" into which government/the state may not tread. This is not a feature of fascism at all. Fascism does not have an area where individuals are free from government control. Fascism is about service to the State, and right libertarianism does not involve any obligation to serve the state. Right libertarianism includes some extremes - like anarcho-capitalist (which is as far from fascist as you can get, though - since fascism opposes capitalism and especially anarchic or absolutely free capitalism and the abolition of the state -- how in the world can a philosophy advocating abolition of the state be fascist?). But, it also includes things like "minarchist liberalism" which allows for a State, but suggests that it should be engaged in a smaller area - a minimum - of functions, and the individuals should be given freedom outside of those areas to the maximum degree. Minarchism is the "night watchman" theory of libertarianism or classical liberalism - a limited government, which is non-intrusive into daily lives, just out there to protect property and safety, etc. -- how in the world is that fascistic in the least?
\

[Forty Two]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was "where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights..."

So, (a) do you acknowledge the existence of something called "individual rights," and if so, what is an individual right?
And, (b) what's your basis for that? Thin air? Arbitrary? Or, do you have a philosophical or rational basis for it?
And, (c) what is the individual right of dominion over one's own body, if any?

If you actually read what other people write, you wouldn't have to keep asking the same shit every 3-4 months. So, no, I won't be addressing this stuff again. And you were replying to Brian there, suggesting that he "does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights". Any evidence for this view of yours?

LOL - typical of you.

The questions I posed are easy to answer. Answer them or don't. But, I'm not going through this again, answering your questions and getting no answers to mine. Answer. I'll answer your questions once you've done that.