Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115709)	5/23/2005 5:09:29 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793818

It's amusing to see how classifying oneself politically [or ideologically, or whatever] creates such conundrums. None of us are pure libertarians since pure libertarians are more akin to anarchists than anything else. And anarchists don't own computers, they throw bombs. In the name of freedom. None of us are pure conservatives. Heck, we can't even agree on what a "conservative" is. None of us are pure liberals whether we use the current or the 19th century sense of the word. Except for the fact that I would substitute the word "label" for the word "slogan," I like the quote Maurice Winn shows in his profile: "Don't let a slogan do your thinking for you."

To: Lane3 who wrote (115709)	5/23/2005 5:39:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793818

Hah. Ain't no way you can be anti-choice and libertarian at the same time. You can be personally pro-life and libertarian but not anti-choice. This is about as basic as it gets, IMO. I disagree 100%. If abortion is murder (or technically killing morally equivalent to murder because its not actually illegal) than a libertarian could be against abortion being legal. Some are. The key question is basically does abortion equal murder. Libertarians can be for laws against murder even if such laws are restrictions imposed by the state. And while we're at it <g>, you can't be a strict constructionist and anti-choice, either. The constitution is quite clear about whose rights cannot be abridged, and it sure doesn't include embryos. The constitution would leave it to the states. I could accept that as proper and still be pro-life on the state level. Human rights are for lefties. And Europeans. Constitutional rights are for libertarians. So if the constitution was amended to remove the first amendment and than someone put you in prison for bad mouthing Bush or the next Democratic president, you would say that your rights had not been violated? Maybe you would (even while disagreeing with policy of arresting someone for political speech), but many libertarians would not. There is nothing un-libertarian, or even anti-strict constructionist about believing in human rights. Also see l4l.org theinterim.com Tim