The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Are you say you are personally liberal but respect the ideal of the democratic process even when it goes against your own views, or is that a suggestion that we as a country should toss out the democratic process and pick the liberal side in all (most) matters?

I may be missing something but you're question doesn't make any sense to me.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

I may be missing something but you're question doesn't make any sense to me.

Let me try again then....

To me it sounded like ISM is saying that in cases where the nation cannot agree, we should "err on the side of freedom and liberty"

The problem is, as a nation we never agree on anything. So I was just curious at what point (percentage wise) this idea kicks in.

For example not everyone believes we should have speed limits. Therefor as a nation we are undecided. Do you recommend removing all speed limits?

How about gun control? Drugs? Personal Property rights, public education, social security? Should we ditch all of this because some percentage of the population disagrees?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

You do realize you just said "let's agree to disagree and do it my way"?

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

Exactly! All thru history examples can be found of people excusing murder by de-humanizing the victim.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

And in this particular instance where it's the rights of American citizen women vs. those of non-citizen unborn fetusi ... I'd say the only Constitutional thing to do is to come down on the side of those who are American citizens.

The unborn are, by Constitutional definition, absolutely not citizens. You can argue all day long about whether they're alive, but they haven't been born.





BTW: There are precious few (if any) other examples where one's own liberty purports to harm another. Simply because there are no other examples where that "other" resides within your very own body.

So to ask what type of majority rules in such questions is a canard. One's liberty stops where harm to another begins. I suppose if there were American "Siamese" twins who wanted to poke each others eyes out, we might have a similar circumstance. Otherwise, abortion is unique.

[innerSpaceman]

Boy, you are really missing my point Moonliner. And I'm not going to restate it, since I already stated it as clearly as I can.

My apologies if that's not working for you, but you are way off base on expressing my opinion.



If those are your legitimate questions, great. But they have zero to do with my point.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

My apologies if that's not working for you, but you are way off base on expressing my opinion.

Well I guess that's good because they sounded down right weird to me.

So rather than my muddying things up by trying to generalize this issue to all points of law as I did earlier I'll keep the focus on Abortion.

Just for background, here is my view on the issue of abortion:

1. I hate it. It's a violent end to what could have been a beautiful child.
2. I am rabidly pro-choice. While I would hope no one would opt for an abortion I really don't want the Government deciding the issue. It should be a matter of personal responsibility.

Right now the majority has spoken and abortion is in most cases legal.

However the opposition has the right to free speech and I believe a duty to fight for what they believe is right on this or any other issue. The idea that one side or the other should give up and go home because they are in the minority (or on a side that you perceive as less liberal) at any given moment is unAmerican and that is what the position you stated sounded like to me. Give up and go home.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The idea that one side or the other should give up and go home because they are in the minority (or on a side that you perceive as less liberal) at any given moment is unAmerican and that is what the position you stated sounded like to me. Give up and go home.

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I wish they would. There's a huge difference.

I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there.

I'm advocating them figuring in a contest between what's Christian and what's American ... what's American should carry in America, and what's Christian should carry in the Vatican.


And I said I'm not expecting "them" to see that light. But I fully expect legislators and judges to adhere to that standard. As to those two groups of people, yes, I'm saying they SHOULD.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I wish they would. There's a huge difference.

Agreed. I just did not get that from your original post. You were all like "The American thing to do" etc.. etc...

So while I would stop short of calling those who views are different from mine unAmerican, I think I can agree with you I wish they would shut the F up and crawl back under their rocks.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there.

Playing devil's advocate here...

The problem is, they think that the other women are harming a 3rd party - the unborn child. Because the fundamental problem with the debate is that the two sides disagree on whether the baby is a third party with its own rights or not (in which case, the pregnant woman would be imposing her desires on the rights of the baby to do what it wants with its body... theoretically).

For me, I'll call a baby a person when it can survive outside the womb. It's not a perfect definition, but a working one. I don't think a perfect definition can be made. I mean, a fertilized egg, if brought outside the womb, does not become a human being. And a fetus at 8 1/2 months could be born that day and survive into adulthood. So we know the line is somewhere between the two. (Well, except for the fundies who think a fertilized egg is a baby.) But as to where the actual line between part of the mom's body or individual being actually is, that's much harder to say.

[Alex]

I'm still not really seeing the connection you are trying to draw but I'll stab at it.

Speed controls on community owned streets are not, to me, an abrogation of freedom and liberty for anybody, so there isn't a "more freedom" side of the argument. If they are saying I can't drive 150 miles per hour in my front yard, then yes I start to have issue.

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong. There is no magic percentage. If the minimal number necessary to amend the constitution decides it is illegal to be an atheist then I would be a criminal, I would acknowledge I'm a criminal, and I'd think they were wrong and oppose such efforts to pass it and depending on various factors perhaps decide that civil disobedience or outright revolt is warranted.

I also am what I term a "progressive libertarian." In many issues I don't think the government should be involved at all (such as drugs from your list; personal property rights in almost all cases). On other issues I think the government should be involved (such as public education). On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).