Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Gim]

Cost ineffective. Make them work as slaves to pay for their crimes is a better alternative.

Works great on most people I would imagine, although I would argue that this should not necessarily apply to everyone. Such as the case of a determined repeat offender, who has escaped the labor camps more then once to be involved in their crimes, whatever they may be.

That is why they should be incarcerated for a longer period of time.

[Irona]

Well that's the debate...

If the patient were killing themselves, I'd have less of an issue. Otherwise I can't bring myself to say euthanasia is acceptable.

Doctors who object wouldn't be forced to carry it out, it seems to me choosing to violate the Hippocratic Oath should be the choice of the Doctor. The state shouldn't force doctors to violate their oaths but at the same time it shouldn't prevent doctors from interpreting the oath as they want or even breaking it in this situation.

[Edding]

Then, what should replace capital punishment? Lifetime prison sentence?

I've always thought that, in a libertarian society, people who simply cannot respect life and property should be made "outlaws" and cast out. In other words, they'd be exiled.

Potentially, this could be a tattoo or RFID implant that could alert citizens not to associate or do business, and police to chase them off, and they'd be banished to the unsettled regions. This could be a life sentence, or with the programmable RFID chips, a number of years. I imagine it will be very effective at reforming career criminals/murderers, seeing as they'd not enjoy having to spend years with their own kind, and would much prefer civilization.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Sorry if this is a dead horse that I'm kicking, but what is the difference between soft and hard libertarianism?

[Community Values]

Sorry if this is a dead horse that I'm kicking, but what is the difference between soft and hard libertarianism?

One doesn't always think that the free market is the answer, and may be more for civil liberties than economic liberties. An example would be like, Rand Paul, who doesn't think that roads should be privatized.

Hard libertarianism is basically P U R E I D E O L O G Y, where a lot of stuff is legal, almost everything is privatized, and so on.

I might be wrong on Hard Libertarianism though. Although I think Austin Petersen is a good example of hard libertarianism, or minarchism.

[Elwher]

Then, what should replace capital punishment? Lifetime prison sentence?

I've always thought that, in a libertarian society, people who simply cannot respect life and property should be made "outlaws" and cast out. In other words, they'd be exiled.

Potentially, this could be a tattoo or RFID implant that could alert citizens not to associate or do business, and police to chase them off, and they'd be banished to the unsettled regions. This could be a life sentence, or with the programmable RFID chips, a number of years. I imagine it will be very effective at reforming career criminals/murderers, seeing as they'd not enjoy having to spend years with their own kind, and would much prefer civilization.

Another method of the same idea was in Robert Heinlein's Coventry.

[Bressen]

What's the general libertarian consensus on abortion? I know in America the national consensus is usually a near equal split, with differences only appearing within the 1-2% points and with those differences on a constant fluctuation - sometimes pro-life is ahead, sometimes pro-choice is ahead. However, this only looks at the overall consensus of Americans regardless of their political views, so I'm curious to know what the ideology advocating for civil liberties the most thinks on this issue.


EDIT: Personally, I'm pro-life.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pro-choice all the way, bodily autonomy and all.

[Northern Davincia]

Sorry if this is a dead horse that I'm kicking, but what is the difference between soft and hard libertarianism?

Blood flow.

[Great Minarchistan]

Sorry if this is a dead horse that I'm kicking, but what is the difference between soft and hard libertarianism?

Blood flow.

I legit chuckled.

[Elwher]

What's the general libertarian consensus on abortion? I know in America the national consensus is usually a near equal split, with differences only appearing within the 1-2% points and with those differences on a constant fluctuation - sometimes pro-life is ahead, sometimes pro-choice is ahead. However, this only looks at the overall consensus of Americans regardless of their political views, so I'm curious to know what the ideology advocating for civil liberties the most thinks on this issue.


EDIT: Personally, I'm pro-life.

Pro-Life - If you're not alive. no other rights matter.

[The Liberated Territories]

A mixture of principle and practicality.

Principle: if you don't trust the state with your wallet (tax dollars), why trust them with the ability to determine life and death itself? Such a power can be easily abused, such as in Victorian Era England where you got the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread.

Practicality: As it turns out, the death penalty is expensive to administer, is very slow, and is actually rarely administered. What is what Bastiat would call the unseen — such as the legal fees behind putting a guilty man to death — adds much more to the original cost of simply administering the death penalty.

I do like giving criminals the choice to kill themselves. In fact, I think such a right should be extended to all people in a reasonable mindset, regardless if they broke the law or not.

As to the Principle argument, there is some merit to it but the same claim can be made against giving the state any prosecutorial powers at all. If you do not trust them with your wallet, why trust them to determine liberty?

As to the Practicality discussion, that is a function of the modern death penalty to be sure. Go back a hundred years and sentence was passed one day and carried out the next, with an inexpensive rope or bullet, or a reusable ax or guillotine.

1.) Obviously we don't, which is why a libertarian prefers self regulated constitutional government, or none at all.

2.) And yet who would trust the mob with the rope or bullet to carry out justice that is not a contravention of individual rights? Inexpensive, yes, but hardly satisfactory if you care about justice. I believe we've moved beyond the sort of justice that condemned individuals if they ran afoul of the masses.

What's the general libertarian consensus on abortion? I know in America the national consensus is usually a near equal split, with differences only appearing within the 1-2% points and with those differences on a constant fluctuation - sometimes pro-life is ahead, sometimes pro-choice is ahead. However, this only looks at the overall consensus of Americans regardless of their political views, so I'm curious to know what the ideology advocating for civil liberties the most thinks on this issue.


EDIT: Personally, I'm pro-life.

Out of practicality, I am pro-life, but I adhere to a philosophy known as "evictionism," which is sort of a compromise on the issue.

Evictionism states the following:

1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.
2. The rights of all fetuses are equal.
3. Therefore, the only right choice would be evicting the fetus. Killing it would be wrong.

As advances in technology continue it may be possible to evict the fetus from the womb without killing it, thereby satisfying pro-choice and pro-life proponents.

[Edding]

What's the general libertarian consensus on abortion? I know in America the national consensus is usually a near equal split, with differences only appearing within the 1-2% points and with those differences on a constant fluctuation - sometimes pro-life is ahead, sometimes pro-choice is ahead. However, this only looks at the overall consensus of Americans regardless of their political views, so I'm curious to know what the ideology advocating for civil liberties the most thinks on this issue.


EDIT: Personally, I'm pro-life.

If the fetus is there as an unintended consequence of a consensual act, then there is no trespass on the part of the fetus. It is a possibility that can be reasonably expected as a result, especially if the necessary preventative measures were not taken.

Additionally, the fetus cannot not leave without dying, making its remaining where it is a matter of necessity. The legal equivalence of this is a man stranded, by no fault of his own, in the wilderness breaking into a hunting cabin to get provisions and contact help.

[Jelmatt]

If the patient were killing themselves, I'd have less of an issue. Otherwise I can't bring myself to say euthanasia is acceptable.

Euthanasia is not the patients killing themselves? I thought the patients were the ones making the decision 90% of the time.

Voluntary euthanasia isn't exactly equivalent to suicide. Voluntary euthanasia is where the patient asks to be killed instead of actually killing themselves. So while in voluntary euthanasia the patient makes the decision, the doctor has to actually do the deed, hence Northern Davincia's opposition to it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Euthanasia is not the patients killing themselves? I thought the patients were the ones making the decision 90% of the time.

Voluntary euthanasia isn't exactly equivalent to suicide. Voluntary euthanasia is where the patient asks to be killed instead of actually killing themselves. So while in voluntary euthanasia the patient makes the decision, the doctor has to actually do the deed, hence Northern Davincia's opposition to it.

This however is odd, because the law convicts people for helping others commit suicide as it stands. But suddenly if they get a license from the state, they can partake in this act?

[Nordengrund]

Then, what should replace capital punishment? Lifetime prison sentence?

I've always thought that, in a libertarian society, people who simply cannot respect life and property should be made "outlaws" and cast out. In other words, they'd be exiled.

Potentially, this could be a tattoo or RFID implant that could alert citizens not to associate or do business, and police to chase them off, and they'd be banished to the unsettled regions. This could be a life sentence, or with the programmable RFID chips, a number of years. I imagine it will be very effective at reforming career criminals/murderers, seeing as they'd not enjoy having to spend years with their own kind, and would much prefer civilization.

That sounds like a good idea, except for the tattoo part. What if the criminal reforms, would society accept him back? After all, he still has the mark identifying him as an outcast, so that tattoo pretty much ruins the rest of their life.

[Irona]

If your going to use the state to ban things like euthanasia or abortion then your not really a libertarian. Free personal choice over issues as important as those are fundamental.

[Sezraha]

If your going to use the state to ban things like euthanasia or abortion then your not really a libertarian. Free personal choice over issues as important as those are fundamental.

completely agreed.

[Gim]

Euthanasia is not the patients killing themselves? I thought the patients were the ones making the decision 90% of the time.

Voluntary euthanasia isn't exactly equivalent to suicide. Voluntary euthanasia is where the patient asks to be killed instead of actually killing themselves. So while in voluntary euthanasia the patient makes the decision, the doctor has to actually do the deed, hence Northern Davincia's opposition to it.

Well, the choice comes from the person himself or herself. Doctors don't make decisions for them.

[Goodclark]

If your going to use the state to ban things like euthanasia or abortion then your not really a libertarian. Free personal choice over issues as important as those are fundamental.

Couldn't you argue that abortion is a violation of the NAP? Not saying it is, just trying to play devil's advocate.

[Gim]

If your going to use the state to ban things like euthanasia or abortion then your not really a libertarian. Free personal choice over issues as important as those are fundamental.

Couldn't you argue that abortion is a violation of the NAP? Not saying it is, just trying to play devil's advocate.

NAP?

[Goodclark]

Couldn't you argue that abortion is a violation of the NAP? Not saying it is, just trying to play devil's advocate.

NAP?

Non-aggression principle. It's the main tenet of libertarian thought. Here's the definition: "is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism."

Couldn't you argue that having an abortion is a violation of an individual's right to life?

[Gim]

NAP?

Non-aggression principle. It's the main tenet of libertarian thought. Here's the definition: "is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism."

Couldn't you argue that having an abortion is a violation of an individual's right to life?

It's violent self-defense of the woman against nature. I say that's valid.

[Goodclark]

Non-aggression principle. It's the main tenet of libertarian thought. Here's the definition: "is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism."

Couldn't you argue that having an abortion is a violation of an individual's right to life?

It's violent self-defense of the woman against nature. I say that's valid.

Self defense against nature? Do you mind explaining what you mean by that?

[Dusmal]

i can question any amount or lack of, respect i fucking like.

I can poke fun at you for any mild hypocrisy, as much as I fucking like(!).

Yes, in fact reading some of the threads from 2014 about libertarianism, on this forum, got me interested in libertarianism. Specifically Nozick, though I never actually got to reading anything he wrote beyond stuff on the internet.

Cut it out with the language. It's inappropriate and discourteous.