NationStates Jolt Archive

No, this is not a thread on abortion.

As a libertarian, I have an enormous problem with people who say, "You're not pro-choice, you're pro-(whatever)." The thing that really gets me is when "people" is me. I have a tendency to say that a person doing heroin (for example) is "none of my business" instead of the accurate characterization of my position is that it's "none of the government's business." On the contrary, I think that doing heroin is a terrible thing, and would never do it myself, nor would I raise my kids to think that it was OK. I just think that people have the right to do it to themselves. This goes for a host of issues from gay marriage, hate speech, worker safety, wages, simple stupidity, and other issues that a person may take a "pro-choice" position on. But the characterization that I see other people and occasionally myself is that I don't care about those things.

Opinions?

Sure--the world is full of shit I personally dislike but I wouldn't dream of making most of it illegal or telling someone else they can't do it. I mean, take health clubs for instance. I think they're an abomination. But people can join them all they like--no sweat off my balls. And jogging--that's insane. But that doesn't mean I'd like to make it illegal to sweat and get red in the face in the park. ;)

Yeah people are just too simplistic when they catagorize things

Not wanting to outlaw something does not equal condoning it

Absolutely! I share the same boat as you, I am pro-freedoms. There are several things I really dislike from some special interest group and drug use. However, I see blocking them causes us to become the very things we dispise. I figure let everyone do as they wish so long as they aren't steping on others in thier acts.

You very definitely can be.

Of course you can. Pro choice is equivilant to not caring if other people do it or not, as long as they have the choice.

I think so, yes. Just because I think something is unethical that doesn't neccassarily mean that I want the government to ban it. Sometimes it just isn't their place to tell us we can or can't do something but that still doesn't mean it should be done. Do you understand what I'm trying to saying? It's more a question of what is and isn't the govenrments business, than it is what is and isn't ethical. Does that make any sense?

About the heroin thing: Should society pay for an addicts criminal behavior when they assault people to get money for their drugs, or when they die on the streets and need ambulances to pick them up?

About the heroin thing: Should society pay for an addicts criminal behavior when they assault people to get money for their drugs, or when they die on the streets and need ambulances to pick them up?

Society spends a lot more paying for enforcement against people who aren't hurting anyone else. And part of the expese of the drug is that it is illegal. If it were legal, it would be a lot cheaper.

I consider myself very much pro-choice on politics.

The ballot-list would not be complete ( for a democracy ) without some communists and racists running for office.
But having said that, I'd hate to see 'em actually getting elected.

About the heroin thing: Should society pay for an addicts criminal behavior when they assault people to get money for their drugs, or when they die on the streets and need ambulances to pick them up?
Why not let people do it, but put a tax on it to pay for the health care they will inevitably need. We do the same thing already with cigarettes because of the damage it does to your body and gas because of the damage it does to the environment. It's called internalizing externalities.

No, this is not a thread on abortion.

As a libertarian, I have an enormous problem with people who say, "You're not pro-choice, you're pro-(whatever)." The thing that really gets me is when "people" is me. I have a tendency to say that a person doing heroin (for example) is "none of my business" instead of the accurate characterization of my position is that it's "none of the government's business." On the contrary, I think that doing heroin is a terrible thing, and would never do it myself, nor would I raise my kids to think that it was OK. I just think that people have the right to do it to themselves. This goes for a host of issues from gay marriage, hate speech, worker safety, wages, simple stupidity, and other issues that a person may take a "pro-choice" position on. But the characterization that I see other people and occasionally myself is that I don't care about those things.

Opinions?



I agree. I have said many times that it doesn't really matter what I think about some things. There are things that I don't like, don't want to happen, ect., but they aren't really "government issues".

it's difficult for me to articulate, but you did so quite nicely. so I agree.

Sooo preaching to the converted then huh!?!?

Yep some things though you have to simply stand up and say that my friend is wrong huh!

"Can you hate the thing you're pro-choice about?"

Being non-ideological ( or even anti-ideological ), I choose my positions based on whatever works, or whatever makes sense to me at the time. I despise drugs and have also found that they contribute to a general degradation of society; I am thus definitly not pro-choice about them. I feel much the same way about euthenasia, although a pretty good argument can be made for allowing a terminally-ill person with no hope of recovery to self-terminate. Although I'm personally averse to abortion, I realize that there's no viable practical alternative to placing the right to decide where it belongs: on the person who is pregnant, so I suppose I'm pro-choice.

I'm more inclined to consider the impact of individual actions upon society or community than most libertarians, yet I am an advocate of a lightly controlled, free-market economy.

Go figure. :)

Absolutely.

In terms of political debate in general, Western society has gotten itself into two problems. The first is this idea that by acting moralisticly, you show your credibility on issues (like that arse-with-ears Cameron taking dogs across a glacier to show that he is in touch with environmental issues, rather than crafting a real environmental policy, and putting that before the electorate). The second (related to the first) is the idea that all of your personal opinions on particular issues are directly translatable to your opinions on the path of public policy.

They are related because of this crazy notion that "the personal is political". It isn't, the personal is purely personal. The political is purely political, and the twiain need never meet.

I think the taking of heroin is a highly destructive act. I think it degrades an individual into a drug addled zombie. I would never employ anyone who took heroin, nor would I have any sort of professional dealings with a junkie. I would not get myself into a serious relationship with one. I will never take it.

I am also implaccably opposed to drug prohibition, and the war on drugs. My personal consideration is against them. My political consideration stems from my belief in personal liberty, firstly your body is your own. If you wish to destroy it, go right ahead. Secondly, the War on Drugs is being used to increase government intrusion into our lives. I can't make a large cash deposit in a bank without the government acting as though I am probably involved in illegal drugs. We are subjected to random searches, without any cause, never mind a warrant signed by a judge. Sometimes these searches are accompanied by harassment by animals. We have increased surveillence on the innocent. The government takes more of our wealth to fund its war, wealth which could have done something good and useful in the private sector.

All of these intrusions into our freedoms are made worse by a single fact ...


It has been an utter failure.

As a socially liberal person I am against the very core foundations that groups like the neo nazis stand for, yet when my town tried to outlaw a parade I assisted in the legal defense to allow it.

I abhore everything they say, but above all else I defend their right to say it.

Well, as long as I'm not doing any of the things I hate, and the people I'm close to aren't affected by it, big whoop. If we are affected by it, if everybody is affected by it, then maybe the government should step in. Here I'm thinking about smoking. Smoking affects your health and it affects the health of everybody within a fairly large radius. At the very least it should be illegal to smoke in a house with children...this should be a child protective services issue.

Gay marriage affects nobody's health, and don't give me crap about AIDs. Anybody can get AIDs, and gay marriage has nothing to do with it.

In answer to the topic title, yes. Most pro-choice individuals I know strongly loathe abortion, yet also believe that it is a woman's right to choose, so they opt to put their personal feelings aside and not impose their morality on others.