Difference between Libertarian and Objectivist?
Posted by JoshA95 12 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
What is the difference (if any) between Libertarians and Objectivists besides that one is a political party and the other is not? I've been wondering this for a while.
I think you missed my point. Infants can't live on their own either. If their needs aren't catered to - feeding, changing diapers, nurturing - they die too - it just takes a couple of days rather than a couple of hours. That's what they do in Illinois when an abortion fails (thanks to Obama when he was a State Senator there). What I was pointing out was that it is a false line to differentiate between in the womb and not if the true measure of "personhood" is self-sufficiency.
"the rights of the mother should be paramount but after, they must be balanced between the two."
Is there such a thing as a dependent right as you are implying? Can a person only have a right if someone else agrees? That seems to me to be a very dangerous stance to take, as you are basically arguing that life is granted based on authoritative whim - not that it is an inherent right in the first place. I can't agree with such an argument, as it undermines the entire notion of a right in the first place.
And I am the same way about voting: though I really like many of the Libertarian candidates, today's voting is much more about trying to keep the Dems out of office than trying to get the best candidate in. I hate not being able to vote my conscience. It's the lesser of two weevils conundrum. :(
Your argument that that extends to entities up to the point where they are fully independent doesn't hold water on a moral level, for that would permit infanticide which is abhorrent.
There is a point, unknown to any human, between let's say the 3rd month and 6th month, where that entity becomes a human being deserving of it's own independent rights to liberty. Prior to that time (up to the 3rd month), the rights of the mother should be paramount but after, they must be balanced between the two. This is, granted, an arbitrary time with deference given to earlier to protect the child's rights as much as possible while accommodating the rights of the mother. Any other answer is neither practical nor defensible from a moral view that takes into account both beings rights.
That said, if the choice is a moderate R vs. a D (who anymore are all collectivists), or a Libertarian who might espouse my philosophy but has not a snowballs chance of winning, I'm going to go R. At least that way, things don't move as fast. If/when we can get enough people to wake up to the need to return to true liberty, I'm right there with you. However, what I see happening is an ever increasingly rapid slide into serfdom under collectivists of all stripes.
I will not willingly march into bondage.
AR made a nice story about a "safe place" where those who didn't believe in collectivism could congregate. But it was nothing more than a story telling device. Such cannot exist. And with all due respect to our friend in Argentina, I don't see that as an option.
I think the real thing you have to get back to is that having sex results in children. When you take on the liberty of sex, you also take on the responsibility of any offspring that is a result. Period. If you aren't ready for that kind of life-changing commitment, you aren't ready for sex either.
Compare Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain with Ted Cruz, Mike Simpson, and Mike Lee and you can see distinct differences in voting - thus the distinction between a Moderate Republican and a Conservative Republican. How many times do they vote for big government, gun control, etc? I stand by my observation.
Just because one is a Republican, one doesn't always support everyone with an R. And note that I didn't say either Rush or Ann were moderates like those they criticize, only that they are always talking about advancing the Republican Party, whereas others like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck are more issue/value-driven.
But in any case I agree with your second point and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I will however disagree with your first point and respectfully decline further discussion of the subject.
There are better ways to protect IP than the government.
Scientists at CERN recently claim with
high certainty that they have found the
Higgs boson that gives mass to matter,
which is necessary for gravity to work.
I'm open to that idea.
The groups who got those laws passed in Russia and Uganda are actually based in the U.S. They are American missionaries from fundamentalist extremist churches who go to foreign countries and spread their hate and infect the political leaders. Watch the trailer for "God Loves Uganda." Sure, maybe some of the hate came naturally from the country's own population, but American hate groups have fanned the flames. To claim that we cannot influence the laws of other countries and that we have no power to stop international atrocities is simply blind.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Load more comments...