PDA

View Full Version : Life, Right to Die, Capital Punishment and War




Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist
05-31-2015, 12:57 PM
Knowing that there is a an abundant spectrum within the life and death dichotomization in the libertarian movement, I would be interested to see how much it varies on the RP forums and it doesn't matter whether you are atheist/agnostic/theist and personally socially liberal or culturally conservative.

Abortion

The "pro-choice" and "pro-life" dichotomization is an exceedingly contentious and intricate issue amongst libertarians (particularly on RP forums) despite our strident desire to minimize the role of the state's coercive nanny statist endeavors. Both of the official Libertarian parties in the US and the UK are exponents of the notion that the government should have no involvement with the matter whilst simultaneously expressing adamant opposition to government subsidizations of abortion through welfare programmes like the National Health Service (NHS) (UK's universal health care system) and Planned Parenthood (US). The pro-choice positions from "Pro-Choice Libertarians" and the Association of Libertarian Feminists (Individualist feminism) can be ascribed from thinkers like Ayn Rand who believe that the unborn embryo is part of a woman's property and has no intrinsic rights as they are triumphed by the sole discretion of the mother. Some libertarians like Gary Johnson, who is a beltway type, are completely pro-choice but favor criminalizing later term abortions and favors a statist mandate of parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Many conservative libertarians (with the notable exception of the ancap Murray Rothbard, the progenitor of the libertarian movement) believe that abortion constitutes as formulation of positive liberty that acts as an infringement of the non aggression axiom because the initiative act of aborting fetuses is pugnacious and should be equivocated as slavery; subsequently, they support moderate government intervention (not all of them do like Lew Rockwell rather arbitrarily) into determining it's legality and their methodological reasons how and why for vary numerically. Some believe the legality threshold should be limited to 12 weeks and only for cases of rape, incest and problem's with mother's health, others like Judge Andrew Napolitano do not support any federal or constitutional amendments prohibiting it and instead leave the issue up to the states; whereas others even believe it should be completely illegal in all cases (even in cases of rape, incest and problems with the fetuses health). As a Austro-minarchist who opposes most state's rights, my view is that abortion liberalization (on demand) is none other than collective group think and it should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, problems with the fetuses and/or woman's health and extreme financial instability. What's more repellent is that selective gendercide I would like to point out is still very much legal in the United Kingdom.


Euthanasia (including assisted suicide)

​The right to die in my opinion (despite myself being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty) should be an unrestricted individual right and it should completely legal by voluntary association. Clinics and doctors should uphold the right to whether they want to refuse patients to assist in their arbitrary free will to die for any reason. Libertarians who uphold consistent pro-life stances like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell (despite his anarcho-capitalism) are personally opposed to it; whereas Julie Borowski, who is opposed to abortion for non-biblical philosophical reasons is not.

Capital Punishment

I personally believe controversially that the death penalty (regardless whether its by lethal injection or electric chair) is a morally justifiable form of deterrent for acts of rape, murder, serial killing, child molestation, treason (including terrorism), and serious and repeated acts of animal abuse. Anyone who commits these repugnant acts should have all of their individual rights shredded forever and thus lose their inherent will to live with no appeals. But the question is, is it economically viable in a country which divides it's sovereignty with the federal government through constituent political entities? Many libertarians nevertheless believe it's a strong and fiscally imprudent (this can be minimized by abolishing the appeals) exertion of compliance and has no place in a free society; that said, while I sympathize with these argumentations, the death penalty would be legal for those reasons previously mentioned in my country if I was the prime minister (providing less wealth redistribution is needed by abolishing the appeals process and the unmeritocratic "Incentives and Earned Privileges" (IEP) scheme which is completely responsible for the "holiday camp" phenomenon in British prisons in order to enhance fiscal prudence as such).


War

There is little controversy over the issue of war as many libertarians such as myself are fervent non-interventionists and believe that the state should never engage in war unless they are attacked on their territorial soil; however, a preponderantly extinct and pragmatic fragmentation of libertarianism, often referred to as neo-libertarianism, combines an oxymoronic juxtaposition of individual rights, constitutionalism, free markets and the incorporation of incrementalism and neoconservative interventionist ideals. Many self-proclaimed "libertarian leaning" republicans probably best fit this categorical bilge.