LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Luna Amore]

They should be burdened because that's the result of their choices. If you don't like the results, make better choices.

And ideally, I'd rather there not be abortions to begin with.

Realistically, though, it's a horrible thing to suggest people should be forced to care for another human being for decades simply because they had sex, particularly when doing so would just lead to a net suffering among the people involved, one way or another.

This also implies that poor people can in no way get out of their situation which is pretty silly.

Poor people can get out of poverty, but those who do are the exception, not the rule. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be three billion people living in poverty worldwide.

You don't know what life it will bring, you just know it will bring life. Ending it because it's the wrong time is a general fluffing of responsibility and, given the stakes, evil.

It's a far lesser evil to knowingly bringing life to a world where you know it will suffer, endure pain and misery and hardships for perhaps years or decades, either from genetic diseases or disabilities or from an already impoverished living condition that hasn't even factored in a fully-dependent human being to the equation yet.

Where's the line for you then? Because this is the part that gets glazed over. It is a life. You can argue week counts all you want, but no matter where you draw the line there is an ethical issue. Ok, it's not a life until 20 weeks. So why allow an abortion at 19 and a half weeks? In a few days it'll be 'a life' if you do nothing so even with that line you are actively ending what will become a life. Why should anyone have the right to end a life because it's inconvenient to them?

Can I end my daughter's life if my life takes a horrible turn and will be full of challenges and hardships due to her existence? Is that OK? I'd be sparing her hardship as she's absolutely still dependent on me.

Should we be waging an actual war on poverty based on your description of their quality of life? If it's better to end a life that may have hardships, then it must clearly be better to end a life that is already mired in hardships by your reasoning, no?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I am. It's not my issue you believe there should be a decades-long consequence to committing to simple human nature.

Speaking of that, isn't that quite a bit hypocritical coming from a libertarian such as yourself, seeing as how your ideology is supposedly for championing for individual liberty?

My basis for morality is the NAP. Abortion, in my opinion, violates the NAP. Freedom in the libertarian sense is not freedom from consequence.
For example, why should someone be burdened with a lifetime of difficulty for getting into a car accident, even if they caused it by drinking or speeding? It would only be a single instance, after all.

>the basis for morality is the NAP as defined by Ayn Rand
>but I'm totes a Catholic though

[Torrocca]

So they weren't right-libertarians. Odd, seeing as Rothbard, the founding father of right-libertarianism, redefined the word "libertarian" during Rand's lifetime.



And what about the rest?

Rothbard... like I said, anarchists and hippies.

Rothbard's the same guy who went on record as to say, "calling us AnCaps 'Anarchists' is ahistorical," to paraphrase.

The other reasons are listed in Luna's source. Personally, outside of rape, incest, or health, I find them monstrous.

And that's your choice to feel such things.

And ideally, I'd rather there not be abortions to begin with.

Realistically, though, it's a horrible thing to suggest people should be forced to care for another human being for decades simply because they had sex, particularly when doing so would just lead to a net suffering among the people involved, one way or another.



Poor people can get out of poverty, but those who do are the exception, not the rule. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be three billion people living in poverty worldwide.



It's a far lesser evil to knowingly bringing life to a world where you know it will suffer, endure pain and misery and hardships for perhaps years or decades, either from genetic diseases or disabilities or from an already impoverished living condition that hasn't even factored in a fully-dependent human being to the equation yet.

Where's the line for you then? Because this is the part that gets glazed over. It is a life. You can argue week counts all you want, but no matter where you draw the line there is an ethical issue. Ok, it's not a life until 20 weeks. So why allow an abortion at 19 and a half weeks? In a few days it'll be 'a life' if you do nothing so even with that line you are actively ending what will become a life. Why should anyone have the right to end a life because it's inconvenient to them?

I'm not saying it being a mere inconvenience should be cause for just wantonly murdering a baby in the womb, that's absurd. An inconvenience would be a well-off, middle-class couple being surprised by their first child. An impoverished couple, or an impoverished single woman, or a couple/individual with a fairly insane history of genetic issues is dealing with far more than a mere inconvenience to their life when a pregnancy comes along.

Like I said, I'd much prefer we take to addressing/eradicating the root causes of this issue, than just flat-out allowing abortions to be universally acceptable. HOWEVER, because we currently aren't (or, rather, can't, in our current society-wide socioeconomic situation) address these issues as efficiently and completely as we possibly could, then allowing measures to at least alleviate some woes from being added to those stresses is what we should do, until we can solve the root causes of said stresses as best as we possibly can.

Can I end my daughter's life if my life takes a horrible turn and will be full of challenges and hardships due to her existence? Is that OK? I'd be sparing her hardship as she's absolutely still dependent on me.

She's already born, so no.

Should we be waging an actual war on poverty based on your description of their quality of life? If it's better to end a life that may have hardships, then it must clearly be better to end a life that is already mired in hardships by your reasoning, no?

Yes, we should actually wage a war on poverty, just not in the way you describe. We should wage it as such that the half of humanity currently impoverished is completely and permanently lifted out of said poverty.

[Northern Davincia]

My basis for morality is the NAP. Abortion, in my opinion, violates the NAP. Freedom in the libertarian sense is not freedom from consequence.
For example, why should someone be burdened with a lifetime of difficulty for getting into a car accident, even if they caused it by drinking or speeding? It would only be a single instance, after all.

>the basis for morality is the NAP as defined by Ayn Rand
>but I'm totes a Catholic though

I might be a Paul Ryan clone.

[Genivaria]

Would Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine fit on the reading suggestions?

[New West Leas Oros]

Hello everyone. It’s me. Oros. If you couldn’t tell, I faced the wrath of deat. I come here to ask what I should do moving forward. I’m open to suggestions and support.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Hello everyone. It’s me. Oros. If you couldn’t tell, I faced the wrath of deat. I come here to ask what I should do moving forward. I’m open to suggestions and support.

Hi Oros, why'd you get DEAT'd?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Ayn Rand also very literally hated right-libertarians with a burning passion, so this is pretty ironic.



DNA testing, an assessment of socioeconomic conditions, etc. It's not that hard to come to the conclusion that being in poverty or being put through a lifetime of suffering from an inherited disease is about the worst situation a child can be in, especially if the parent(s) of a newborn literally do not have the resources or capacity to care for their newborn baby.

Right-libertarians in Rand's day were anarchists and hippies.
From the available data, only 40% of abortions are carried out for financial reasons.

Right-libertarian hippies? Sign me up!

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You rearrange some of the wording, and you might just get your wish.

To add on to my point I made in the second civil war thread once the war ends the U.S is inevitably going to be faced with a choice. An interim government will either survive, and reform to ensure the mistakes that lead to the second civil war don't happen again or it won't. More likely the interim government after a few decades of unstable democracy will fragment with an authoritarian or reactionary rump state in the "heartland" taking the charge. In such a scenario I could totally see a very radical interpretation of religion charging up the population of the rump U.S, and being used in coordination with the state.

It's my favorite of the "US government collapses" scenarios.

Your favourite? Unstable, authoritarian theocracy is your favourite? Blimey, I'd hate to see your least favourite.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Thought: An authoritarian socialist movement seizing power in the US after some economic collapse, its state communist ideology wrapped in religious, militaristic, and nationalistic rhetoric. A Worker's Party or something that celebrates the uniquely American beginnings of the labor movement or the incredible strength and ingenuity of the American people.

Tbh seems like the most likely kind to make waves in the US.

I'd say libertarian syndicalism would be the kind of socialism most likely to take jold in the US, but I can see how Stalinism would fit very well with the American dream. Oh wait, no I can't.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

Well yeah. One's tantamount to genocide, while the other is a choice made by an individual regarding her body, which doesn't effect any other living (yet) being.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The one good thing that Marx did was admit that capitalism is a step above feudalism.

You're ignoring everything else Marx talked about and his contributions that ain't specifically about Communism.

For example: Conflict Theory in sociology and Dialectal Materialism.

"The one good thing." Conflict theory and dialectical materialism are both reductive, antipositivist. plainly false pieces of pseudosocialscience.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

This. Loads of Socialists seem to believe that all of society is xcmpletely evil amd must be ruthlessly destroysd by any means necessary.

Libertarian capitalism tends to destroy society to, by reducing everything to money and profit.

Incorrect.

[Xadufell]

To quote my man Agent Mike Toreno.
"There's Communism in Ohio"

All the more reason to nuke Chicago

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"Being a communitarian doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe in some mushy ideal of humanity." Very true. In fact, I'd say that being a communitarian necessarily means that that one doesn't have an even peripherally accurate idea of what humanity is.

There are different versions of communitarianism.

And all of them are trash.

[Torrocca]

Libertarian capitalism tends to destroy society to, by reducing everything to money and profit.

Incorrect.

I mean, maybe if you had fully democratic capitalism (as in, democratized companies), then no. That's the only way I'd really consider agreeing to right-wing Libertarianism.

[Bienenhalde]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

Yes...it almost seems as if they care more about enabling individual self-indulgence than they do about the general good of society.

[Torrocca]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

Yes...it almost seems as if they care more about enabling individual self-indulgence than they do about the general good of society.

Entirely incorrect but whatever.

[Genivaria]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

That does not seem accurate.

[Genivaria]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

Yes...it almost seems as if they care more about enabling individual self-indulgence than they do about the general good of society.

That's what happens when you operate with strawmans.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

Yes...it almost seems as if they care more about enabling individual self-indulgence than they do about the general good of society.

Individual self-indulgence and the good of society are one in the same.

[New yugoslavaia]

So...what do you think of the idea of a world where it's one society and one government and no religion. My uncle was just telling me that idea. Sound interesting, and It would help global unity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I find it interesting how the Left is only against eugenics if it's a centralized effort, but if it's individual women deciding to kill their unborn children with disabilities, suddenly that's a noble and brave thing.

That does not seem accurate.

I don't know, since it only took that post to get people here to start writing justifications for eugenics.

[Torrocca]

That does not seem accurate.

I don't know, since it only took that post to get people here to start writing justifications for eugenics.

I like how you've completely dismissed any arguments I made as simply justifications for eugenics.

Amazing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't know, since it only took that post to get people here to start writing justifications for eugenics.

I like how you've completely dismissed any arguments I made as simply justifications for eugenics.

Amazing.

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.