Pro-Abortion Gary Johnson to Seek Republican 2012 Nomination

[TMC]

A true libertarian perspective:

Not a pro choice libertarian, but if a libertarian is true to his beliefs he should be against any federal laws that should be left to the states.

This is a hallmark of stauch Federalism, not libertarianism, IMO. Libertarians don’t to limit government involvement in people’s lives at all levels, not just at the federal level.

 

[bbarrick8383]

This is a hallmark of stauch Federalism, not libertarianism, IMO. Libertarians don’t to limit government involvement in people’s lives at all levels, not just at the federal level.

The constitution is a libertarian document.

cato-at-liberty.org/why-do-libertarians-care-about-federalism/

 

[Abyssinia]

IMO there is only ONE thing Republicans have going for them that I even remotely like—their anti-abortion stance. If that isn’t even there, I REALLY wouldn’t vote Republican (not like nowdays with their anti-middle class anti-medicare anti-social security anti-union anti-everything that doesn’t help the weatlhy agenda I would vote for these elitists anyway! )

It is odd that you think the Republican party is for the elites when it is a fact that the highest income per capita states have majority Democrat Senates and Democrat Houses while the states with the lowest per capita income have majority Republican Senates and Republican Houses.

 

[estesbob]

Barry Goldwater was also for the rights of homosexuals. Libertarianism is pro choice, pro euthanasia, pro same sex marriage. Many conservatives don’t want to deal with that.

Not when he ran for Presdeint and not until long after he had retired from Public Life. And I have never ran into a conservative who had a problem dealing with his views after he retired. most of us chalked them up to the influence of his young trophy wife who seemd to be his main concnern his waning years.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Not when he ran for Presdeint and not until long after he had retired from Public Life. And I have never ran into a conservative who had a problem dealing with his views after he retired. most of us chalked them up to the influence of his young trophy wife who seemd to be his main concnern his waning years.

Maybe you should ask Goldwater’s gay grandson.

"“He’s pretty secure in feeling that discriminating against gays is constitutionally wrong,” says Goldwater’s gay grandson, Ty Ross, a Scottsdale, Ariz., artisan who says he is close to his grandfather (whom he calls “Paka”) and has even brought boyfriends to meet him. "

 

[ishii]

Not when he ran for Presdeint and not until long after he had retired from Public Life. And I have never ran into a conservative who had a problem dealing with his views after he retired. most of us chalked them up to the influence of his young trophy wife who seemd to be his main concnern his waning years.

I am not sure that abortion rights was even an issue in the 1964 campaign. Also, Goldwater’s first wife was a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona in 1937 and according to an article I found “(Barry Goldwater and his wife) remained active in the organization throughout his senate career.” His votes against federal abortion funding could be attributed to his libertarian conservatism more than a serious opposition to abortion rights. In 1983 he voted against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe V Wade. His first wife died in 1985 so it wasn’t a trophy wife which influenced him on abortion.

Ishii

claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp

 

[Raskolnikov]

The constitution is a libertarian document.

cato-at-liberty.org/why-do-libertarians-care-about-federalism/

Pro-choice libertarians are just as opposed to overturning Roe v WAde as pro-choice liberals, because thery’re pro-choice for the same reason: they think women have a right to abort and to inhibit it on any level, state or federal, is unconstitional. A pro-choice libertarian wouldn’t want to leave it up to the states anymore than he would want states to be allowed to outlaw free speech. Liberals are typically social libertarians, and so usually agree with them on most social issues.

The constitution was a liberal document, in the classical sense. There were no Keynesians or social democrats back then, so liberalism as we know it today didn’t exist. Nor did conservatism.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Pro-choice libertarians are just as opposed to overturning Roe v WAde as pro-choice liberals, because thery’re pro-choice for the same reason: they think women have a right to abort and to inhibit it on any level, state or federal, is unconstitional. A pro-choice libertarian wouldn’t want to leave it up to the states anymore than he would want states to be allowed to outlaw free speech. Liberals are typically social libertarians, and so usually agree with them on most social issues.

The constitution was a liberal document, in the classical sense. There were no Keynesians or social democrats back then, so liberalism as we know it today didn’t exist. Nor did conservatism.

I disagree, in such a way that I do not understand how a pro choice libertarian could support Roe V. Wade. As a matter of fact, the term pro choice libertarian seems like an oxymoron to me anyway.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court announced itself unable to answer “the difficult question of when life begins.” It should have given the benefit of its uncertainty to life. Instead, it arbitrarily ruled that to be a person legally, we must be born.

In effect, Roe trashed the ethical principle of equal unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence – and imposed a two-tiered legal policy on human beings that defines a superior class as persons with rights and an inferior class that does not count. Such a double standard is not only unlibertarian, it puts all of us on a slippery slope. Yet to this day, the Court is unwilling to confront either philosophy or correct human embryology.

Our unalienable rights are pre-political. As Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said on C-Span: “We don’t need the Ninth Amendment or the Constitution to have rights; we have rights by virtue of the fact we are human beings.” I agree. The Declaration of Independence holds that everyone is created – not born – equal and “endowed by their Creator” – not the government – with certain unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights.

Strossen and the ACLU favor legal abortion, so on a later occasion I asked her, “If having rights is pre-legal, then why not also our personhood, from which our rights flow?” Usually a font of information, this time she only noted that we disagree. At another time, she admitted to me that the ACLU had no prepared response to the charge that abortion is homicide.

In order for a libertarian to be pro choice, he has to mentally convince himself that our inalienable rights come from the government once we are born. That before we are born but after we are created these rights do not exist but are given to us the minute we exit the womb. Which, infants have survived abortion only to be denied these rights as if this were the case.

Also, one can draw very close comparisons to today’s constitutional conservatives/libertarians to the classical liberals of the 1700’s.

 

[bellasbane]

Also, one can draw very close comparisons to today’s constitutional conservatives/libertarians to the classical liberals of the 1700’s.

Do you mean the ones who declared that people of African descent are both property and only three fifths of a person? I don’t see how that supports your argument.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Do you mean the ones who declared that people of African descent are both property and only three fifths of a person? I don’t see how that supports your argument.

When you cherry pick what you want from history it may not.

But those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written and wanted to see it enforced as it was written and not how people wished to interpret it are much closer to politicians like Ron Paul than they ever will be to Barack Obama.

 

[bellasbane]

When you cherry pick what you want from history it may not.

But those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written and wanted to see it enforced as it was written and not how people wished to interpret it are much closer to politicians like Ron Paul than they ever will be to Barack Obama.

It was James Madison who proposed the three-fifths compromise. He also wrote the constitution. This not cherry picking from history. This is pointing out that “those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written” were perfectly willing to accept different degrees of humanity for what they perceived to be the “greater good”.

I’m not saying your views are wrong. I just don’t think it helps to invoke “those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written” to support your argument. Those men were perfectly willing to declare a whole class of people as not fully human. We need to move beyond the world view of 18th century white men.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It was James Madison who proposed the three-fifths compromise. He also wrote the constitution. This not cherry picking from history. This is pointing out that “those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written” were perfectly willing to accept different degrees of humanity for what they perceived to be the “greater good”.

I never said that today’s conservative/libertarian philosophies were identical to those of James Madison’s and those who wrote the constitution. You cherry picked a piece of history that has nothing to do with our modern day society.

I’m not saying your views are wrong. I just don’t think it helps to invoke “those who wrote and fully understood the constitution as it was written” to support your argument. Those men were perfectly willing to declare a whole class of people as not fully human. We need to move beyond the world view of 18th century white men.

I’m fine with moving beyond their world view, but not as far beyond it as the liberals would like to move. I believe they were dead on in keeping the federal government in restraints and we have severely screwed it all up.

 

[bellasbane]

I’m fine with moving beyond their world view, but not as far beyond it as the liberals would like to move. I believe they were dead on in keeping the federal government in restraints and we have severely screwed it all up.

I can agree with that, but I don’t think its fair to put all the blame on the liberals.

 

[SalesianSDB]

I consider myself a libertarian Republican. Ever since I read Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto I’ve considered myself a libertarian. While the Republican Party has quite a few libertarian leaning Republicans, not many are running for President. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two I could think of. When it comes down to it, I pretty much agree with Dr. Ron Paul on pretty much every issue, and I agree with Gov. Johnson on every issue except abortion.

Dr. Paul back in 2009 submitted a bill to Congress which never left committee called the “We the People Act” which says (if I remember correctly) that the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to get into abortion and would strip the Supreme Court from hearing abortion cases, which would overturn Roe v. Wade and give states the option of legalizing or banning abortion. If abortion is made a state issue, more conservative states will ban abortion and the pro-life groups could concentrate on states where it is legal and try to get it banned. Working on a state by state case seems easier than one blanket nation-wide campaign to end abortion because it’s local and you could concentrate on where you need to concentrate. And hopefully along the way, people will change their hearts and minds when they see how good the states that banned abortion are doing.

I agree with the posts that say that libertarianism should be a pro-life movement since the child has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The way I see it, libertarianism is pursue your goals and live your life as you see fit without government intervention as long as you don’t harm another. Abortion would count as harming another, therefore, un-libertarian.

While I like Dr. Paul, I think his age could ultimately hurt him as he is older than Sen. McCain and back in 2008, McCain’s age was an issue for some. Also, some of his ideas are very ideological and haven’t been tried, and some of his views (some economic views of his especially) are a little too complex for the average American to understand. And while I like Johnson, the abortion issue is a big one. He may have a better chance than Dr. Paul though. But I don’t think he would be able to win a debate against President Obama.

One factor that I’m looking for in 2012 is who can beat President Obama in a debate. Many people think Speaker Gingrich could, I think so, but his private life could hurt him. I really don’t like how on TBN he said his love of country drove him to cheat on his wife. It would be hard for him to get around that. In a debate against Gov. Romney, all the President has to say is, “Thank you, Governor, for your Massachusetts healthcare bill, it helped us in framing our version of the bill.” I really doubt Gov. Johnson would be able to defeat Obama in a debate. Dr. Paul I think could. Donald Trump, possibly, if he just stops talking about the birth certificate (that’s the only reason why I can’t support him). Lastly, the one person I do think could hold his own in a debate against President Obama and win is Herman Cain. Have you heard the man speak? That’s why so far he’s the only one I am really enthusiastic for.

I’m enthusiastic for Herman Cain, waiting to see how Ron Paul does this time around, and interested to see how Gov. Johnson does, but why must he support abortion???

Here is the Libertarian for Life website explaining why pro-life should be a libertarian stance:
l4l.org/