to be "conservative" and yet support "diversity"

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The basic problem with "Abortion is a states rights issue" is that it empowers the states to choose who is really human and granted rights. Surely you see how giving the states that power would be a problem.

Part of that is to get the pro-choicers as well as pro-lifers. Also, it's more likely to be successful than trying to ban abortion at the national level. It's an attempt to compromise on an issue where there's no middle ground.

[Strings]

Fistful Savalas speaks truth.

>Their stance is cowardly because they refuse to touch it. Whether an unborn baby is a human deserving protection or not is hardly an issue for the states. To test this hypothesis, ask a big L if they think whether or not blacks are human and deserving of legal protection is a states rights issue. They use a legitimate concept in an illegitimate way, to duck out of having to take a stand.<

My understanding is that they refuse to take a stance because you can argue either way, and someone is getting trampled. And, as was said above: there is NO middle ground in this one.

Or rather, there is. There's one side that's rabidly in support of outlawing every form of abortion for whatever reason. There's another side that thinks any woman should be able to abort at any time, just because she gets a wild hair. And hen there's the actual majority, which slaps their hands to their foreheads and proclaims "Not THIS again", and switches the channel.

The big "Ls" are trying to appeal to that third group.

[KD5NRH]

2. Their stance is cowardly because they refuse to touch it. Whether an unborn baby is a human deserving protection or not is hardly an issue for the states. To test this hypothesis, ask a big L if they think whether or not blacks are human and deserving of legal protection is a states rights issue. They use a legitimate concept in an illegitimate way, to duck out of having to take a stand.

Or maybe the party as a whole just doesn't care that much.  Tell me; which major party feels that the hot water tap belongs on the left, and which believes it should be on the right?

[De Selby]

I can see why the libertarians were for open borders - that was because of their commitment to free markets.

It is impossible to believe that the free market is always the best method of allocating resources, but then to believe in border restrictions.  That is because immigration rules artificially restrict and manage the supply of labor, which is a key resource in any market.

To believe in the free market is to believe in the free movement of labor according to supply and demand, not according to government mandates. 

[Balog]

I'm actually one of the "safe legal and rare" crowd, as there are certain exceedingly rare conditions where it is inevitable mother and child will die.

Regardless, to say it's just not important... Well, that's your opinion based on the idea that the unborn aren't human or deserving of protection. I think that belief is pretty much invalid on it's face, but this is hardly the time or place to hash that out.

Regardless, as long as the LP remains a fringe group (which seems likely) I don't really care what they think.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I can see why the libertarians were for open borders - that was because of their commitment to free markets.

It is impossible to believe that the free market is always the best method of allocating resources, but then to believe in border restrictions.  That is because immigration rules artificially restrict and manage the supply of labor, which is a key resource in any market.

To believe in the free market is to believe in the free movement of labor according to supply and demand, not according to government mandates. 

Law and order are also requisites for a functioning free market, which you can't have if your border and employment laws are being flaunted.  Even worse is the situation we find ourselves in now, where immigration laws are selectively enforced against certain segments of the population/market and ignored for certain others.

And let's not even get into the question of whether or not the markets we have now are free markets.  And let's not ponder the implications of trying to combine a welfare state, a free market, and open immigration.

I'm no fan of either the Libertarian Party or a sealed border, but even I have to point out that it's folly to say that free market ideals contradict a closed border.  There's a wee little bit more to the equation that what you say.

[MechAg94]

The best argument I've heard for pushing Abortion to the state level is to put the decision closer to the People rather than having the decision made by a bunch of D.C. bureaucrats or SC judges.  That is what happened decades ago and it is a still a hot issue today.  Put it back on the states and let the people in each state decide how they want things done.  IMO, our fed govt was set up to limit what is handles, not make every little problem a federal case.

The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point.  Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human.  The states really can't go anywhere but up from there. 

[MicroBalrog]

Regardless, as long as the LP remains a fringe group (which seems likely) I don't really care what they think.

So you basically don't care what "fringe groups" think?

[LadySmith]

So you basically don't care what "fringe groups" think?

^^^
Oh crap, I sense another attempt at sparking a bickerfest coming on.

Balog, please ignore the above question as you've already made yourself clear in relation to this topic.

Micro, stop trying to pick thread drift fights with Balog and go clean up your room.     

[Strings]

I am SERIOUSLY starting to wonder if one of them doesn't have a crush on the other. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were married...

[Balog]

I am SERIOUSLY starting to wonder if one of them doesn't have a crush on the other. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were married...

I'm just trying to make you jealous.

Seriously though, I remember when Micro was a hardline socialist on THR. Admittedly he's probably swung to far the other way, but he has demonstrated that most rare ability; to evaluate one's beliefs logically and change them. So I keep hoping that arguing with him might actually bear fruit.

[MicroBalrog]

Hey, I never was a hardline socialist. Hardline socialists don't believe in RKBA. It's opposed to the socialist line. I believe. At least to the welfare-statist line.

I'm also not a hardline libertarian, for the obvious reason that I've never found a platform I've agreed on on everything.

Of the topics outlined here I'm actually in agreement with Balog re: open borders.

The real issues, however, are issues of philosophy, morality, and so forth. I've become a libertarian rather than a socialist by realizing that libertarianism is more in fitting with my views on those items, and abandoning my belief in moral subjectivism (or rather, formulating a belief in objective morality).

[Strings]

See? Isn't it cute how they flirt? 

[De Selby]

Law and order are also requisites for a functioning free market, which you can't have if your border and employment laws are being flaunted.  Even worse is the situation we find ourselves in now, where immigration laws are selectively enforced against certain segments of the population/market and ignored for certain others.

And let's not even get into the question of whether or not the markets we have now are free markets.  And let's not ponder the implications of trying to combine a welfare state, a free market, and open immigration.

I'm no fan of either the Libertarian Party or a sealed border, but even I have to point out that it's folly to say that free market ideals contradict a closed border.  There's a wee little bit more to the equation that what you say.

Yeah, and if you abolish the anti-market border and immigration laws, they won't be flaunted - that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Your argument would be the same with price controls - those are laws too, and flouting them by charging market rates is breaking the law too.  Does that mean that obeying price controls is consistent with a free market, because "law and order" are necessary for the free market to exist?

The fact is, immigration rules mean that the government forbids you from choosing to whom you will give your money, and to whom you will offer your private property.  That is the very definition of government interference in the marketplace.

If you own a factory, the government demands that you only hire people licensed to work there by the government.  If you own a home, the government demands that you only make that property available to people licensed by the government. 

That is the sum total of immigration restriction: it means you need a license from the government to participate in the economy.  Hard to imagine a more clear cut restriction on the market there...

[MechAg94]

Are you talking about US immigration laws or European? 

That is the sum total of immigration restriction: it means you need a license from the government to participate in the economy.  Hard to imagine a more clear cut restriction on the market there...

But that is in large part because we don't enforce our immigration laws either on people or on corporations.  We allow illegal immigrants to stay here as second class citizens instead of enforcing the laws or changing them.  That frustrates not only them, but the rest of us who want clear cut rules/laws that are actually followed and enforced.  It also falls in line with the idea that free markets need consistent rules of law that are enforced equally.

[Balog]

Open borders make a mockery of both national security and national sovreignity. And you are correct in that all laws are, by definition, an infringement. So what? Prohibitions on fraud are infringements of the market, prohibitions on dumping radioactive waste into lakes is an infringement of the market etc etc. Some infringement is necessary.

[De Selby]

Are you talking about US immigration laws or European? 
But that is in large part because we don't enforce our immigration laws either on people or on corporations.  We allow illegal immigrants to stay here as second class citizens instead of enforcing the laws or changing them.  That frustrates not only them, but the rest of us who want clear cut rules/laws that are actually followed and enforced.  It also falls in line with the idea that free markets need consistent rules of law that are enforced equally.

Yeah, but consistent enforcement of laws that restrict the market does not lead to a free market.  By that reasoning socialism could be a free market, as long as its rules are consistent and enforceable.

Forcing people to get special permission from the government before they can choose to enter into a mutually agreeable economic relationship is the antithesis of the free market.  But that's exactly what US and European immigration laws both do.  So, to reiterate the point, I can see why libertarians were opposed to it - that's the only intellectually consistent stance you can take if you favor free markets.

If you believe in immigration controls, you do not believe in free markets, at least to the degree that the employer/employee relationship is a feature of the marketplace.

[De Selby]

Open borders make a mockery of both national security and national sovreignity. And you are correct in that all laws are, by definition, an infringement. So what? Prohibitions on fraud are infringements of the market, prohibitions on dumping radioactive waste into lakes is an infringement of the market etc etc. Some infringement is necessary.

Fine if those are your beliefs - they're just clearly inconsistent with free market principles, which is why free-market ideologues (like the old libertarian party) were for open borders.

The argument you cited is how socialist countries justify regulating everything, btw: if food isn't affordable, people will starve, if banks take too much risk, people will have no work, etc etc. 

[Balog]

All society and governance is based on the idea that some regulation, some infringement, is necessary. The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.

[Balog]

Additionally, your line of argumentation is critically flawed in that it presumes the primary effect of control of immigration is fiscal.

When the .gov locls someone up for armed robbery, they've removed him from the workforce and infringed on free markets. However, saying that punishing criminals is anathema to the free market is just silly.

[De Selby]

Additionally, your line of argumentation is critically flawed in that it presumes the primary effect of control of immigration is fiscal.

When the .gov locls someone up for armed robbery, they've removed him from the workforce and infringed on free markets. However, saying that punishing criminals is anathema to the free market is just silly.

Yeah, but what's the crime with immigration?  Working or occupying space without a government license.

That's why its primary effect is control of the marketplace.  Immigration laws tell you, for the most part, with whom  you can and cannot do business, full stop.  That is the extent of the crime involved in violating an immigration rule. 

A wealth redistribution tax is enforced by criminal laws in many cases too.  And enforcement means punishing criminals, ie, those who violated the "take from the rich, give to the poor" laws.  Simply claiming that a law involves crimes does not address the issue, even a little bit.

[Balog]

The crime is entering the country illegally. The purpose for which the person is trying to enter the country is irrelevant.

Note, I do not say no one should be able to come in. I simply say the fed.gov should be able to control it, so Mexico stops using us as the overflow valve on their prisons.

Also, you are ignoring my point. All laws by their very nature restrict the free market. You are arguing an anarchist point of view. I further submit your continued arguing for a view which as far as I can tell you don't actually hold is simply evidence that you use APS as a means of playing devil's advocate to train your lawyerly rhetoric, and I demand compensation for helping you polish your bs'ing skills.

[longeyes]

The "free market" is a concept that evolved inside of a specific culture at a specific time and has spread to a limited sphere.  It's obvious that most of the world never believed in it and still doesn't.  The free market implies shared notions of honest and open dealing, reliable contractual agreements, latitude of action, and an absence of consanguinity as the social glue.  It is supra-tribal.

The essence of this nation is not "the free market" but individual political liberty and the "private property" that we must protect most militantly is our personal province of speech, ideas, physical integrity, and mobility, with private property being only the material outward expression of that but not its essence.

What some here fail to recognize is that technology is ideology, and the new ideology of easy access via transportation and telecommunications is attempting to rewrite and overthrow more fundamental predicates of personal liberty.

[Perd Hapley]

The sovereign nation-state, with citizenship and borders, is of a piece with modernity.  To call for open borders is to turn one's back on progress, and toward the cosmopolitanism of medieval times. 

[MicroBalrog]

You're assuming progress is teleological.