The piggish politics of fake libertarians

[Robo]

I consider them away to avoid people who post nothing but crap.

It’s one thing to ignore crap and another thing to pretend you have some kind of special power by threatening to ignore somebody especially when you have no fucking way to prove you’re ignoring anybody, and why should anybody give a flying fuck if you are?

You don't understand the constitution or support it. You support what you want it to say.

Easy for you to say but actually posting evidence of the accusation is a horse of a different color. I back most of my post with constitutional articles and amendments and so far nary a fucking peep from you in constitutional opposition.

On what basis does a libertarian or constitutionalist argue for these regulations on the qualification of the clinic or the associations of the doctor?

This basis. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution) What in the Texas abortion law is prohibited by the Constitution Of The United States or the Constitution Of Texas? Make your case!!!

These requirements are nothing more than a cynical attempt to burden abortion providers, as Cuccinelli (sp?) did in Virginia with strict enforcement of regulations dictating door widths.

Of course that’s nothing more than your opinion. Others may well opine that the State has the duty and authority to protect public safety even safety for women. And to disobey the law infringes on a woman’s right to be reasonably safe while getting an abortion and thereby even doorway measurements are valid if a women has to be sent to the hospital in an emergency on a stretcher.

It also requires an invasive ultrasound. On what basis does a libertarian or constitutionalist dictate treatments?[

Again, “public safety.” A State may well determine that a pre-abortion ultrasound is the safest way to protect the woman’s safety. Can you prove differently?

The regulations I mention do not have anything to do with that. Any one who supports them is nothing but a pos statist attempting to use regulatory powers of the state as an end around.

What about the 20 week regulation does that have anything to do with a right to life?

 

[Minister of Truth]

This thread is awesome.

 

[Timshel]

Easy for you to say but actually posting evidence of the accusation is a horse of a different color. I back most of my post with constitutional articles and amendments and so far nary a fucking peep from you in constitutional opposition.

This basis. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution) What in the Texas abortion law is prohibited by the Constitution Of The United States or the Constitution Of Texas? Make your case!!!

So, the same tenth amendment, that you previously and incorrectly claimed invalidated state laws prohibiting marijuana possession also allows states to prohibit and/or regulate abortion?

I will go with scotus, it violates a woman's right to privacy. The Texas law also violates the rights of the doctor forcing them to perform unnecessary procedures and maintain associations a requirement which serves no valid state interest.

Of course that’s nothing more than your opinion. Others may well opine that the State has the duty and authority to protect public safety even safety for women. And to disobey the law infringes on a woman’s right to be reasonably safe while getting an abortion and thereby even doorway measurements are valid if a women has to be sent to the hospital in an emergency on a stretcher.

Again, “public safety.” A State may well determine that a pre-abortion ultrasound is the safest way to protect the woman’s safety. Can you prove differently?

A woman has a right to safety requirements she has not sought out? You are full of shit. You are demonstrating a cynical abuse of individual rights arguments in support of more restrictions on the individual. You are doing exactly what the author of the article complained about.

If you argue out of one side of your mouth that it's the rights of the unborn and out of the other that it's about the mother's safety it becomes obvious you are not too concerned with either.

What about the 20 week regulation does that have anything to do with a right to life?

It's intent seems obvious and direct.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about late term abortion bans. If they allow for an exception in cases where there is a risk to the mother's health, then I don't have a problem with them other than they are probably unnecessary.

But my biggest objections to what the social conservatives are doing is the outright cowardice and deceitfulness of their tactics. If you want to try to ban abortions, okay, make your case and the voters can punish you at the polls. But by hiding their desire to limit abortions behind the lie that they are trying to make abortions safer (they are already far safer than childbirth) then they are proving that they are immoral cowards.

 

[tekkychick]

I still think abortions should be strictly a medical decision and we should have no laws around it except those, like any other medical procedure, that ensure the procedure is safe for the mother.

Obviously, I'm woefully outvoted in this country...

 

[Robo]

So, the same tenth amendment, that you previously and incorrectly claimed invalidated state laws prohibiting marijuana possession also allows states to prohibit and/or regulate abortion?

But I never, ever claimed that the “10th Amendment” invalidated any State right to prohibit marijuana. That of course to any rational folk would be the 4th Amendment which we’ll both agree also guarantees a woman’s privacy right to abortion as well as folks privacy right to keep and smoke pot. Then there’s the 9th Amendment that guarantees that folks have every right they choose to take for themselves as long as they don’t infringe on any right of other folks.

I will go with scotus, it violates a woman's right to privacy.

So do I!!!!! However I suspect that States have a right to make a determination as to when a life is a life worthy of State protection. After 20 weeks in the womb seems reasonable to me. How about you?

The Texas law also violates the rights of the doctor forcing them to perform unnecessary procedures and maintain associations a requirement which serves no valid state interest.

So you’re a medical professional that can prove those accusations, right?

A woman has a right to safety requirements she has not sought out? You are full of shit. You are demonstrating a cynical abuse of individual rights arguments in support of more restrictions on the individual. You are doing exactly what the author of the article complained about.

Oh! So you and your author are what? Claiming that States have no right to regulate medical facilities and the operations thereof? That’s not libertarianism where I come from, that’s fucking Anarchy. You must be unaware of the fucking Philadelphia abortion butcher shop that actually murdered full term children and even killed one women because State regulations were ignored by both the butcher shop and the government.

If you argue out of one side of your mouth that it's the rights of the unborn and out of the other that it's about the mother's safety it becomes obvious you are not too concerned with either.

Actually I’m arguing from the Constitution which you have yet to dispute with any accuracy. I argue that States have a right to regulate abortions and the places where they are performed.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about late term abortion bans. If they allow for an exception in cases where there is a risk to the mother's health, then I don't have a problem with them other than they are probably unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Or at some point “murder?” I believe in a woman’s right to privacy. I also believe in the right of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. I also believe that at some point a pregnancy is life to be protected. I also believe that if a woman can’t make a decision to abort within 20 weeks, she's not worthy to make that decision for the other life she and her mate are now responsible for.

But my biggest objections to what the social conservatives are doing is the outright cowardice and deceitfulness of their tactics. If you want to try to ban abortions, okay, make your case and the voters can punish you at the polls. But by hiding their desire to limit abortions behind the lie that they are trying to make abortions safer (they are already far safer than childbirth) then they are proving that they are immoral cowards.

Politicians are notorious underhanded crooked bastards, so what else isn’t new?

Personally I think the likes of the Philadelphia butcher shop you seem to want to defend is the very reason we’re now seeing these State laws coming about. Maybe some of your contempt is misplaced, huh?

 

[I'm Watermark]

Allow me to pollute your thread with some libertarian politics.

The, as desh aptly puts it, Austrian school far from respecting individual liberty. Privatizatin deprives individuals of the abilty to control their income - and a cccorporate media is effective at blocking out dissent. the result is a heavily anti-democratic, and thusly anti-individuality, societal form

 

[Minister of Truth]

Privatization gives individuals more power over their belongings.

 

[cawacko]

libertarianism is a sham

Why do you believe that? (You of course don't have to answer that but you say over and over Libertarians suck, the Austrian school of economics is the short bus yet never explain why you think that.)

 

[Robo]

Why do you believe that? (You of course don't have to answer that but you say over and over Libertarians suck, the Austrian school of economics is the short bus yet never explain why you think that.)

The racist moron hasn’t the ability to think rationally. She’s a racist bullshitter. She has the mentality of tree bark.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Privatization gives individuals more power over their belongings.

Yes, it gives it to some. Bur for the vast majority of people, it depives them of power over both their time and social contributions.

And should we not work towards universal individual freedoms, not merely those of what Veblen called the "leisure class"?

 

[Timshel]

So you’re a medical professional that can prove those accusations, right?

If they were medically necessary then the doctor would do them without a law. They do procedures now that are not medically necessary just to avoid liability.

Oh! So you and your author are what? Claiming that States have no right to regulate medical facilities and the operations thereof? That’s not libertarianism where I come from, that’s fucking Anarchy. You must be unaware of the fucking Philadelphia abortion butcher shop that actually murdered full term children and even killed one women because State regulations were ignored by both the butcher shop and the government.

Where you come from, there is a different form of libertarianism?

So because someone violates existing regulation that is a reason to create more regulations? Sounds like the argument to pass more gun laws because someone was in illegal possession of a gun.

Actually I’m arguing from the Constitution which you have yet to dispute with any accuracy. I argue that States have a right to regulate abortions and the places where they are performed.

Not in order to interfere with the right to an abortion. The regulations are clearly not intended to improve safety and do not.

Politicians are notorious underhanded crooked bastards, so what else isn’t new?

And clearly so are you.

Personally I think the likes of the Philadelphia butcher shop you seem to want to defend is the very reason we’re now seeing these State laws coming about. Maybe some of your contempt is misplaced, huh?

Fuck off! You are the only one who brought him up and I have not "seemed" to mention him much less defend anyone.

It has nothing to do with the new laws or the transvaginal ultrasound. As you already noted he was out of regulation.

 

[/MSG/]

Desh you've been told to stay on topic so many times its not even funny. Discuss the OP or start your own thread.

 

[leaningright]

Lol ... This thread is a classic example of how to ignore someone without actually putting them on IA. I have no comment other than that. Do please carry on.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yes, it gives it to some. Bur for the vast majority of people, it depives them of power over both their time and social contributions.

And should we not work towards universal individual freedoms, not merely those of what Veblen called the "leisure class"?

No, we really shouldn't. The primary purpose of government is to protect life and liberty, and then to protect our personal property. Now, we can still champion an effective, progressive government that offers quality services and champions the health, contracts, and conditions of the average citizen (such as laborers and low-income service providers).

 

[Annie]

Baxter is basically arguing that tea party types who say they are for limited government and less government spending aren't libertarians based on social issues and specifically the abortion law attempting to be passed in Texas. The only issue I see is tea party types (as a whole, it could be different for some individuals) have never claimed to be libertarians. I would say they definitely share some economic beliefs but overall they aren't one and the same.

Yep, labeling folks 'neo-cons' 'tea party types' and 'libs' really is just a way to attack those that someone disagrees with. Truth to tell, none of these groups are pure in the way the opposition would like to paint them.

Within any political group, there are members that could easily fall within other existing groups. Some folks that claim to be 'conservatives' are truly very far left. Same is true for those that claim to be 'liberal,' except on 'this' and 'this' and 'this.'

 

[Robo]

If they were medically necessary then the doctor would do them without a law. They do procedures now that are not medically necessary just to avoid liability.

So you propose that a “true” libertarian should oppose all “liability” laws?

And of course you’re gonna present your medical credentials, right?

Where you come from, there is a different form of libertarianism?

I think that ideological and party labels are all pretty much alike. They seldom ever and probably never pigeonhole anybody into a perfect ideological slot. Even libertarians have their pro-life folks and some are even pro-Military-Industrial-Complex. The thing most respectable about libertarians is the fact that they’re independent thinkers impossible to be collectively brainwashed. The Libertarian Party is a joke and an oxymoron. Libertarianism is “individualism” political parties are collectivism. Libertarian collectivism is like herding cats.

So because someone violates existing regulation that is a reason to create more regulations? Sounds like the argument to pass more gun laws because someone was in illegal possession of a gun.

But that’s not what I said. The Texas regulations are debatable at best. I simply argue that the STATE of Texas has a state right to regulate abortion as long as they don’t violate the national Constitution.

Federal and State gun laws often violate the Second Amendment.

Not in order to interfere with the right to an abortion. The regulations are clearly not intended to improve safety and do not.

I’m aware that’s your opinion but I’ll say it again, the STATE of Texas has a state right to regulate abortion as long as they don’t violate the national Constitution.

Fuck off! You are the only one who brought him up and I have not "seemed" to mention him much less defend anyone.

It has nothing to do with the new laws or the transvaginal ultrasound. As you already noted he was out of regulation.

He wasn’t just violating regulations, he was inspiring abortion opponents to regulate the hell out of abortion. You didn’t mention him because he didn’t have anything positive to offer your argument. On the contrary his actions are opposing evidence to your argument. Because of him you’re now only left with 2 choices. You either successfully change the political ideological make up of Texas government and replace the regulators with those who will repeal the regulations you oppose, or you manage to get into court and prove the regulations are unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

But not to worry, governments are mostly incompetent and like Pennsylvania Texas likely won’t bother much enforcing the regulations anyhow.

 

[evince]

you people really have no idea how to craft a coalition of consensus.



your all my way or the highway nutters.


You always have to have a faction to hate to feel valid.


Its the mindframe of your people.

the world revolves around finding others to hate so you can feel good in comparison.


hate makes a poor master

 

[Robo]

you people really have no idea how to craft a coalition of consensus.



your all my way or the highway nutters.


You always have to have a faction to hate to feel valid.


Its the mindframe of your people.

the world revolves around finding others to hate so you can feel good in comparison.


hate makes a poor master

Whatever Ding-Bat!!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...tics-of-fake-libertarians/Content?oid=4670594

The Tea Party lie about "smaller government" and "personal responsibility" is most apparent in how its adherents approach the issue of women's rights. The true libertarian realizes that whatever one's personal opinion about a certain behavior may be, as long as that behavior does not directly threaten another person's well-being, there is no reason to legislate against it. This is why libertarians love the idea of legalizing drugs (a victimless crime, they say) and prostitution (a slightly less victimless crime). But the fake libertarian cannot walk that line all the way toward a woman's right to an abortion. These proto-theocrats are subjugating the very real lives and concerns of human beings to the potential lives they aim to "save," and they are doing so in a number of ways that are reprehensible.


The Texas Senate, despite a successful filibuster against a bill that would close 80 percent of the women's health clinics in that state, ultimately passed that much-maligned piece of legislation. Meanwhile in North Carolina — a state where Republicans are in control for the first time in a century — anti-abortion measures were tacked on to a motorcycle safety bill at the last moment in an effort to sneak them past the public. Ironically, the N.C. General Assembly's first attempt at this method of outlawing abortion came attached to an anti-Sharia Law bill. Imagine that, outlawing one set of religious beliefs in order to enforce another.


Other states have passed measures encouraging doctors to lie to patients or requiring forced transvaginal probes of women seeking abortions. Freedom and personal liberty, indeed.


These men — and they are mostly men after all — are perfectly willing to condemn women who are beneath their consideration as persons (just as the Founding Fathers apparently intended) to nine months of carrying a child who may be a product of rape or who may have insurmountable odds of survival upon birth. Assuming there is no person to adopt the child after birth, these same men then remove every single social program designed to help these women care for their children. For these libertarians in name only, a woman doesn't have the right to decide to have a child nor to receive help after she is forced to give birth. They only desire to impose their will upon women, as though they were nothing more than human chattel.


True libertarians must realize that the decision to carry another human life to term and then care for it for the next two decades is an intimately personal one and cannot, and should not, be legislated by other people. The false libertarian hides behind a series of false notions of "liberty" to enact a far more puritanical system of laws than what already exists in this country with the aim of subjugating all but a select minority of people to economic, social, cultural, and political exclusion and marginalization.

Oh my you are brave. No greater group of armchair warriors in the world exists than Libertarians. You should be afraid!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the funny thing is ?

the libertarians are all about the Austrian school of economics.

that is the short bus school.

Libertarianism is a silly half cult for young angry men

the right is getting really desperate.

Their historically failed ideas have hit the wall.

Nothing left to offer

libertarianism is jam packed with historically failed ideas.


defend them if you think they are vailid

little red squares are not an adequate defense of your historically failed ideas

the Austrian school of economics is a joke in the economics field.

why do you choose losing fringe ideas?

little red squares?


Ill have to remember that is all the libertarians are capable of providing to defend their historically failed ideas

Austrian school adherents are no very adultlike

Why does the economics field consider the austrian school inadequate?

You don't even know do you?


because you accepted a pile of shit as your go to experts instead of real economics thoery

you refuse to face the invalidity which is the very basis of your own ideas.

WHY?????

Because as smart as you are you are mired in a half cult

lots of little red squares but no real defense of your failed ideas.

why?

because even you know there is not real intellectual defense of them

Nope Im trying to get you to defend what you claim we should take seriously.

You can not .

proving you are in a half cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school


this is the basis of all libertarianism.

its your founding ideas.

why do you refuse to discuss it?

because you are in a half cult

where and when have these ideas been employed and worked as claimed?

he is avoiding any questioning of his historically failed ideas and the flawed theories of libertarianism.

Why people cling to ideas they cant defend is beyond me

every one knows it is.

Its the exact opposite of the libertrian ideas.


what difference does it make if people don't adhere rigidly to a historically failed set of ideas?

defending the indefensable by saying but these guys are not strictly adhearing to our failed ideas is pretty silly

making it up as they go along is just what the rest of the economic field think of the Austrian school

little red squares.


is that the material that libertarianism's house is built with?

Proff B


could you take a break from just red squaring just long enough to defend your historically failed ideas with some proof they woold work?

both factions are fools

hes an Austrian school guy so right there is a flaw

another red square?

still no facts?


gee your losing bad here

libertarianism is a sham

Not only are many Libertarian ideas on government proven failures they have proven wholey impotent at implementing them. That's libertarians major flaw. Not the fact that they have a few good ideas overwhelmed by a large number of incredibly bad ideas but the fact that they are cluelessly impotent at getting anything done. I mean if they could actually get off their asses and accomplish something more people would probably listen to them other than young clueless armchair internet warriors but they never do nothing so no one really pays any attention to them.