(January 21, 2012 at 10:16 am)Tiberius Wrote: No, it would be the enforcement of property rights through government. It boils down to this: if you own and/or control a property, then you have the last say on who gets to use this property.
Property rights. That would be the abortion angle here, yes? The mother owns her body; therefore, she has the final say over it. And the government should enforce her rights over her own body, yes? As a libertarian, should not that be your stance as well? Defending the mother's right to do with her own body whatever she wills? "Nobody has the right to interfere with what restrictions someone puts on their own property," after all.
(January 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Should unborn children have rights? It depends on what the majority of people think.
What about the opinion of the minority? Too bad for them, is it?
I will throw in my lot with unalienable rights, republican form of government, and moral arguments—so that women can be allowed to vote, for example, regardless of what the majority happens think.
(January 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Okay, so now you have thrown an anti-racism activist in jail.
No, he has thrown a property vandal in jail. The person's anti-racism activism was irrelevant to why he was thrown in jail.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
