Comments on: Is Social Conservatism more popular than Fiscal Conservatism?

By: Frank Knotts

Frank Knotts — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:14:47 +0000

Tyler Nixon says, “The Constitution is NOT a grant of liberty, it is a statement that government exists to protect innate liberty that is the God-given right of every human being.”
Tyler , I am drawn to the part about protecting the innate liberty that is the God-given right of every human being.
So Tyler, tell me my friend, who gets to decide what is and isn’t a human being ? You ? Some doctor ? Some politician ?
You say that I am over reaching in my attempt to protect the life of the child, I would say you are over reaching in an attempt to seem as if you are protecting individual liberties. It’s just that you are very selective in who’s liberties you choose to protect.
To make your argument you devalue the life of the child by creating a faulse line in the sand of when life actually begins.
By convincing yourself that the child isn’t actually a child it allows you to make theoretical arguments based on your belief of what is or isn’t in the Constitution.
Tyler , I am not sure of your age , but concider the fact that if a society is willing to devalue life at its earliest stage, what is to stop it from doing the same thing at the other end.
What if our society decides that a non-productive octogenarian can no longer actually be concidered “LIFE”. Will you stand by and argue that their children have a right to abort their lives because the old people have become a burden and an expense in their lives?
Would you stand by as millions of seniors were taken to centers where they would have their brains sucked out with a vacuum, or to have surgical scissors shoved into the base of their brains ? Or maybe you would prefer a more “HUMANE” death for the old folks, like a chemical abortion of their lives ?
This is going to seem harse so let me say that I say this in general and am not directing it at you specifically Tyler. It seems that for many who argue a woman’s right to choose abortion and who do so at the expense of the child’s life, that they are more interested in the woman’s rights because she can vote .
You are correct when you say that government should protect all of its citizens. For myself this includes those citizens who are not rich , who have no real political clout and who cannot speak for themselves. The same as we would not sanction euthanasia of the mentally handi-capped , we should not endorse the euthanasia of babies in the womb.
It is our resposibilty as thinking human beings to protect those who cannot protect themselves, we are not a herd that just continues on when one of our own falls behind. We cannot turn a blind eye on the genocide that abortion has become in this nation and around the world.

By: Tyler Nixon

Tyler Nixon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:22:42 +0000

Well said, David. But none of that applies to abortion.

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:44:10 +0000

There is no right to violate another’s fundamental rights such as the right to life. That is the entire purpose of government’s foundation. It was to provide for collective security to prevent the strong from preying on the weak. Otherwise no other rights matter.

By: Tyler Nixon

Tyler Nixon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:17:05 +0000

Anarchy? Drugs? Abortion? Murder? “What have you”?

Righto, Frank. Please elaborate further on the “what have you” part of your statement you so blithely throw out there to complete your ridiculous reduction of libertarianism.

I have no doubt every tyrant in history, as prelude to subjugating and controlling others, has wholly shared your sentiment, toward the object of their tyranny, that “this whole _______________ thing has become just a bunch of people who want to do as they please, whether it be _________________ “.

Libertarianism at core is about freedom as the exercise of individual liberty to PEACABLY do (yes, horror!) as you please, without using force or fraud upon others.

Why do you so hate freedom, Frank, that you want it to exist only on your terms?

The Constitution is NOT a grant of liberty, it is a statement that government exists to protect innate liberty that is the God-given right of every human being. It is horribly clear that you fundamentally misunderstand what the Constitution is all about.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan

By: Frank Knotts

Frank Knotts — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:08:55 +0000

I would ask the same question as h did in post # 29.
This whole thing now revolves around a woman’s right to do what she wishes with her body. So prostitution should be legal,and we should just ignore the facts that prostitution spreads diseases and breaks up marriages and families.
People should be allowed to sell their organs on a free market or better yet why can’t a woman sell her fetus for scientific experiments ? I mean as long as she is aboting just a mass of tissues, why not allow her to make a buck along the way?
This is going to be off topic, but this libertarian thing has become just a bunch of people who want to do as they please, whether it be abortion, drugs or what have you. So they cloak what amounts to anarchy in the Constitution.
And so I ask my libertarian friends, show me in the Constitution where murder is sanctioned .

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:34:35 +0000

with all due respect, Frank is right. The only difference between you and a fetus is time. There is no difference in inherent rights. Your right to control your own body ends when it takes my right to live especially when you choose to engage in human reproductive acts.

By: h.

h. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:31:25 +0000

Perry, should all “moral judgements” be left to the individual ?

By: Perry

Perry — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:11:27 +0000

That said, I am in complete agreement with you on your pro-life view on abortion, and your view regarding a woman’s right to choose, which you articulated very well. The “moral judgment” to which Frank refers must be left up to the woman, a point that Frank will probably never understand, as he continuously positions himself as the absolute moral decider.

Frank, you can preach all you want, and that’s fine. But you have no business telling a woman unequivocally what she can and cannot do with her body. That is off-limits to you!

By: Perry

Perry — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:47:19 +0000

Tyler, noman’s question is pretty clear in #23. So far, you have managed to duck it.

Libertarian ideals sound robust until one attempts to reduce them to practice, which is where some modifications become necessary.

By: Tyler Nixon

Tyler Nixon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:00:48 +0000

Frankly, I don’t even understand your question, from how you phrased it…