Well done Warren Entsch.
Well done Warren Entsch.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Today we have learned that the libertarian love of #freedom of speech doesn't extend to saying a libertarian is obsessed with homosexuality.
This is why libertarians are, invariably, hypocritical ****s of the highest order.
Libertarians are usually just a few standard drinks away from being out and out right wing extremist dickheads
President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
R.I.P. Fardin & Craig
A few?! #cadburydrinkers in my experience.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 07-01-2014 at 09:23 PM.
I don't understand how that type of pseudo-libertarian can justify their denial of homosexuality, alternative family structures or abortion while apparently advocating for the freedom of people to do what they want. It's ridiculous that 'freedom' is now the political buzzword to justify their agenda, while being completely ignored when they dislike another person's choice - "you have the freedom to choose what you do with your life, as long as it is the choice I want".
****s me to no end.
Things are so quiet and serene
- Winner of the 2011 and 2012 CricketWeb AFL tipping competition
- Winner of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 CricketWeb NRL tipping competition
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
Some great amazon comments on the book '...rails against everything since the enlightenment'
Even amongst politicians, Bernardi's certainty of his point of view and imperviousness to any dissent is a rarity. Not above doing absolutely anything for a vote either. Models himself on Howard, I'm led to believe.
The media don't like that they are not being pandered to; Rudd-style
So they are not reporting that the boats have actually stopped
And I'll no doubt be opening a can of worms but while I certainly agree with your overall point, slipping abortion in there is a bit weird IMO. Most libertarians who oppose it (and probably most pseudo-libertarians, hell probably most opponents to it in general) do so because they think it's murder, and if it is then it violates the non-aggression principle of libertarianism. It differs greatly from ridiculous and hypocritical pseudo-libertarian opposition to homosexuality and alternative family structures for that reason. Libertarianism isn't about unlimited freedom because it's a impossibility due to conflicts such as this; I suppose you could say it's about finding the greatest level of freedom obtainable. As far as murder goes, freedom to live always trumps to freedom to kill, so your position on abortion depends not on your position on the "freedom scale" but almost purely on whether you think it's killing or not. Of course if it's not killing then the freedom to do what you like with your own body clearly trumps the freedom to impose your religious or moral views on someone else, but you do have to arrive to that conclusion first before it becomes so straight-forward.
I'm personally a bit on the fence with it in general so my position is pretty much "it's not clear cut enough for the government to try and legislate on right now, let people make up their own mind individually" but if you did have an opinion that aligned more with it "it's murder" then you'd absolutely be within your rights as a libertarian to try and prevent it. You'd not be curtailing freedom in that situation as much as prioritising more vital freedoms over less vital ones and adhering to key concepts of libertarianism.
Yeah, I agree with you entirely on that - and as such I tend to try and stay out of the abortion debate as much as possible. I think it's pretty fair to say, however, that the 'pro-choice' side of the debate frames it almost exclusively as a freedom issue, and the 'pro-life' side frames it exclusively as a murder/violence issue. I've fallen into the trap there of considering it as a freedom issue only because of the context of my argument, which simplifies what is a very nuanced issue. In saying that though, that's not the point I'm making. Just a very imperfect example.
Yeah, this. Wrote a uni essay more-or-less on this type of topic, and ultimately it comes out as trying to balance different freedoms - freedom of speech has to be balanced against the freedom to walk down the street without being racially abused. But in the case of, say, the freedom to have consensual gay *** in private, there's no counter freedom to be balanced against whatsoever. Trying to argue that people shouldn't have that freedom is really, really strange if the person in question really is a libertarian.Libertarianism isn't about unlimited freedom because it's a impossibility due to conflicts such as this; I suppose you could say it's about finding the greatest level of freedom obtainable
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)