Damage control: LP Spokesman Andrew Davis posts LP-CP comparison at LP.org

Presumably in response to Ron Paul’s endorsement of Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin — a reaction to the “Snubgate” fiasco that the LP claims wasn’t a big deal — Libertarian Party spokesman Andrew Davis has posted a blog at LP.org saying that the Constitution Party’s “raison d’etre is to essentially establish a ‘Christian’ nation.”

Davis, who was allegedly photographed a few years ago wearing a “God Made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve” t-shirt, then goes on to lecture the CP about “gay rights.”

However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.

The Constitution Party, in pursuit of their goal to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” takes a very different approach towards homosexuality than that of the Libertarian Party. The platform of the CP states that “the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” and “no government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”

The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.

Read the full text here.

83 thoughts on “Damage control: LP Spokesman Andrew Davis posts LP-CP comparison at LP.org

  1. G.E. Post author

    I think the CP’s view on marriage, though ugly, is clearly less statist than the LP’s.

    The LP’s brand of libertarianism is about equality and lifestyle, etc. It’s not about the proper role of government (NONE) and the interaction between human beings (no force). It really is Ed Clark’s “low-tax liberalism.”

  2. G.E. Post author

    How is the idea that the government not be involved in the marriage anything other than less statist than the LP’s “equality” view?

  3. paulie cannoli

    Any details on Davis’s alleged past of homophobia?

    Yes, he held up a “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” sign when he was a student at Clemson. Not exactly breaking news.

  4. paulie cannoli

    How is the idea that the government not be involved in the marriage anything other than less statist than the LP’s “equality” view?

    The CP thinks government should not be involved in marriage? I thought they are pro-marriage, anti-equality.

  5. G.E. Post author

    Not breaking news, but pretty relavent when the guy tries to lecture others on “gay rights.”

  6. ElfNinosMom

    I’ve still got the photo of Davis carrying that sign. It’s not breaking news, but as GE said it is indeed pertinent to this situation. Perhaps I will post it tomorrow, we’ll see. It depends on whether I have time to do it.

  7. darolew

    BTW, this is just a repost of something that was on the LP blog months ago, from the looks of it.

  8. darolew

    “BTW, this is just a repost of something that was on the LP blog months ago, from the looks of it.”

    After re-reading it, I am quite sure this is the exact same post they had up months ago. They just bumped it (updated the date) in response to the controversy.

  9. BrianHoltz

    Did Jason the recent-ex-Green write the remark carping about what Davis believed a few years ago? The freedom movement: only vestal virgins need apply.

    The LP on marriage: “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. ”

    The CP on marriage: “The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

    Jason/G.E. on marriage: “I think the CP’s view on marriage, though ugly, is clearly less statist than the LP’s.”

    LOL.

  10. paulie cannoli

    Brian,

    I agree with you, but why the fetish with GE’s real name? If he’d rather write under a pseudonym to protect his business interests, I don’t see the harm.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Holtz is right.

    Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

    The above is anti-statist. I was basing my statement off of the view of Outrights and George Phillies, and that I misread the CP platform on marriage. (I missed the “contrary” part).

    I take back that comment.

    As for my Green days: I was never a homophobe or a war monger, etc. I was bad on economics, and I’m now as anti-state on economics as possible.

  12. BrianHoltz

    I didn’t post his last name, just like I don’t post yours. If he wanted to be called Smartest Libertarian, would I have to call him that? My tolerance for pseudonymity is inversely proportional to how much it is used to evade responsibility for immaturity. He’s getting better in that regard, but he’s nowhere near your level yet. 🙂

  13. libertyinlaw

    Here’s the TRUTH:

    Chuck Baldwin is running for “President.” A Federal office. Though he is morally opposed to same-sex marriage, he is a strict Constitutionalist and believes, per the 10th Amendment that this issue belongs with the states.

    It is no secret that as Christian, Baldwin obviously believes that Marriage should be between one man and one woman. He does not support an amendement to the Constitution to this regard because he recognizes that Constitutionally, this issue is to be left to the states.

    As far as he would go is to support the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Which Ron Paul supports:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

    Marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states. This regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society.

    The Defense of Marriage Act used Congress’s “constitutional authority” to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be “forced” to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state.

    The other side of that coin is that if a state chooses to recognize same sex marriage, Baldwin admits there is nothing that he, as President or the Federal government in general is “Constitutionally” permitted to do about it.

    Proof that he supports DOMA:

    “I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.”

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351

    Proof that he is against a Constitutional Amendement:

    “If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t think that’s a necessary approach.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

    EVERYONE can get behind Chuck Baldwin because he will follow the Constitution. If we want to maintain liberty, prosperity and peace, we have to follow that document.

    We can’t elect people simply because they share our social views. We have to ask ourselves if they will follow the Constitution. If they won’t, the will not contribute to the security of our liberty, they will contribute to its destruction.

  14. BrianHoltz

    Damn, since he took back his comment while I was composing, I have to take back mine. He’s approaching Cannolian levels of maturity as we speak. 🙂

  15. G.E. Post author

    libertyinlaw is generally right in comment #26.

    However, Baldwin is against free trade (unlike Ron Paul), and that is a federal issue. I think Baldwin’s take on immigration is much different (and poorly framed, economically — see my interview with him) too, but we can leave that alone for now.

  16. richardwinger

    Although I am not able at this instant to quote from the Constitution Party platform on abortion, I seem to remember that Constitution Party 2004 presidential candidate Michael Peroutka said he would use the armed force of the federal government to stop all legal abortion. He believes that all abortion throughout the nation is automatically illegal because of the 14th amendment. I think Howard Phillips, the party’s founder and presidential candidate in all elections before 2004, also believed this. Also Howard Phillips seemed to support the ideas of Rushdoony, who wrote several books extolling theocracy. Phillips kindly gave me the Rushdoony books, which he would not have done if he didn’t accept Rushdoony’s ideas.

  17. svf

    Any details on Davis’s alleged past of homophobia?

    Much more relevant is Chuck Baldwin’s confirmed homophobic past and present, I would think…

    http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin396.htm

    It’s kinda sad to see Ron Paul getting in bed with these CP types. I mean, with an overt endorsement. These were always the regrettable and ugly aspects of the “rEVOLution” coalition that I always told myself were the exception rather than the rule. Now Ron Paul has shown us that his true colors are not so much “libertarian” as they are “paleo-Christo-conservative” after all.

    I want my money back. And he can have his damn book back too. bah.

  18. Gene Trosper

    I have long argued that people can sincerely change their viewpoints and principles over time.

    G.E. has clearly changed his principles from his days as a statist cheeleader in the Green and Democratic parties. rather than castiage him for his statist past, we should welcome him and accept his change of heart.

    If Andrew Davis once held up an anti-gay sign at Clemson, then I am fine with it if he has sincerely changed his viewpoint on GLBT issues.

    Many people who have joined the LP once held some distasteful views. Big deal. Nothing ever remains the same anyway.

  19. Trent Hill

    “Although I am not able at this instant to quote from the Constitution Party platform on abortion, I seem to remember that Constitution Party 2004 presidential candidate Michael Peroutka said he would use the armed force of the federal government to stop all legal abortion. He believes that all abortion throughout the nation is automatically illegal because of the 14th amendment. I think Howard Phillips, the party’s founder and presidential candidate in all elections before 2004, also believed this.”

    Chuck Baldwin has never said anything like this. Also–what is your fixation with the abortion issue Richard? You seem to be just as fixated on it as Howard Phillips,except backwards. In the end, NONE of these candidates are going to ANYTHING about ANY issue.

  20. richardwinger

    Abortion is so important to Chuck Baldwin that he voted to expel the Nevada affiliate from the Constitution Party, just because the Nevada party was believed to be lead by people who — in their hearts — weren’t absolute zealots about abortion. Baldwin’s vote to expel Nevada is the main reason why the outgoing state chair in California worked to keep Baldwin off the ballot in California. Disputes about abortion are why Michael Peroutka left the party after the 2004 election (although Peroutka thought Baldwin is too soft on abortion because when the majority voted not to expel Nevada, Baldwin accepted the outcome). Disputes over abortion permeate the Constitution Party.

  21. paulie cannoli

    Well, they believe it’s mass murder.

    If you believed a mass murder of over a million innocent people a year is taking place in this country, wouldn’t that be the number one issue?

    I’m surprised, with all the people who believe this, that there aren’t more anti-abortion terrorists.

  22. Trent Hill

    Richard speaks mostly from ignorance—I was on the ground during these conflicts and im sorry but, this just isnt totally correct,although certainly some of it is. For the record, Iv resigned the CP–so I wont go defending them, but some objective facts would be great. The CP is full of pro-life zealots in the same way that Richard is a pro-choice zealot. As a libertarian constitutionalist, I’d err on the side of life and dont blame anyone for “zealously” protecting innocent life.
    Chuck Baldwin voted to expel the Nevada Party because he promised the Ohio delegation that he would. He did so through clenched teeth and is generally reviled by that crowd because he, afterwards, tried to mend the conflict.
    The main reason Ed Noonan worked to keep Baldwin off the ballot in California was NOT the Nevada vote, which Ed did not discover as useful propoganda until long after his original opposition to Baldwin. I was in the discussion lists, phone conferences, and meetings when all of this was discussed and am speaking from primary knowledge.
    The description of Peroutka and why he is left is accurate.

    You are right that disputes over abortion permeate the CP. In the same way, disputes over immigration, war, abortion, anarchism, etc permeate the LP.

    As for being “obsessed” over abortion. These people believe abortion is murder of innocent life,wether that murder is intentional or unknowing. You can argue the premise of that, but to say they are “obsessed” is pretty rediculous(TM)–of course they are, its murder in their minds. You would be “obsessed” if you tohught it was murder too.
    But, you claim that that human has no rights and is therefor disposable.

  23. Steve LaBianca

    BrianHoltz // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:21 am

    Did Jason the recent-ex-Green write the remark carping about what Davis believed a few years ago?

    I guess in Holtz’s opinion, it is genuine that Barr has become a libertarian, but G.E. is still a “Green”.

    I have spoken with and read things written by both Barr and G.E.

    With kind words for Jesse Helms, and support for neo-con ideas, I believe that G.E.’s conversion to libertarianism is genuine, and Barr’s is phony.

  24. richardwinger

    I am not an authority on this matter, but I have read many times in reputable publications, that between one-fourth and one-third of all human zygotes die naturally instead of developing into babies. If people really believed that it is a tragedy for a fertilized human egg to die, then one would expect there to be a crash course of research into saving these fertilized eggs. But no one ever expresses any concern at all.

    Furthermore, it seems obvious that a newly fertilized egg does not have a soul at the moment of conception, because at the moment of conception, it isn’t even yet clear how many human beings that fertilized egg will turn into. It’s several days before the final determination is made as to whether it will become twins.

    Also, I perceive most anti-abortion zealots to be hypocritical, because the best way to prevent abortion is to make it really, really easy for people to have easy access to all methods of birth control. Some countries like Netherlands have far lower rates of abortion than the U.S., because sex education and all forms of birth control are so much more prevalent in the Netherlands than in the U.S.

  25. Fred Church Ortiz

    If people really believed that it is a tragedy for a fertilized human egg to die, then one would expect there to be a crash course of research into saving these fertilized eggs. But no one ever expresses any concern at all.

    You’ve acknowledged before that many or most women with such early miscarriages don’t even know they’re pregnant until after the fact. How would this even be feasible in light of that? Apparently, there’s no market for treatments people don’t know they’re eligible for.

    Furthermore, it seems obvious that a newly fertilized egg does not have a soul at the moment of conception, because at the moment of conception, it isn’t even yet clear how many human beings that fertilized egg will turn into. It’s several days before the final determination is made as to whether it will become twins.

    The functions and nature of the soul are as likely to conform to your preconceptions as they are to anyone’s. Why couldn’t a soul split, or a new one form with a split?

    Also, I perceive most anti-abortion zealots to be hypocritical, because the best way to prevent abortion is to make it really, really easy for people to have easy access to all methods of birth control. Some countries like Netherlands have far lower rates of abortion than the U.S., because sex education and all forms of birth control are so much more prevalent in the Netherlands than in the U.S.

    I tend to agree, though several girls in my old HS class still got pregnant, despite free condoms by the handful and countless hours of classes and assemblies. I guess public education is just doomed by its own nature.

  26. G.E. Post author

    1. Richard sent me via snail-mail a newspaper artcle detailing the horrors of back-alley abortion. Needless to say, the article didn’t go into the horrors of “legal” abortion — namely that two-pound human beings have their limbs torn from their bodies and are made to bleed to death inside their mother’s wombs, and then are thrown in a dumpster with the trash. Richard, your fetish for abortion is troubling. Google “abortion” and click IMAGES. For most people, this is enough to put them on the pro-life path.

    2. Peroutka is a liberal, just like most of the CP. The 14th amendment was never ratified, and for someone to use that as a basis for invading states for ANY reason, particularly when one is a member of the “League of the South,” is absolutely disgusting.

  27. G.E. Post author

    Richard doesn’t get that what happens naturally and what happens as a result of force are two entirely different things.

    Millions of aged human beings die in their sleep. By Richard’s “logic,” this means it should be legal to murder old people.

    Then again, maybe that is what he believes. Most radical abortionists and eugenicists who worship death.

  28. G.E. Post author

    I’m sure Andrew Davis is not homophobic, btw, or I’m at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But come on, people: For a guy to rip another party for its homophobia, as the official spokesman of the LP, who just a few years ago was a flaming homophobe himself, is too rich.

  29. paulie cannoli

    I guess in Holtz’s opinion, it is genuine that Barr has become a libertarian, but G.E. is still a “Green”.

    No, Brian pointed out that GE was statist on some issue around the same time as Andrew Davis was statist on others, so why dump on Davis for that particular reason.

  30. paulie cannoli

    I’m sure Andrew Davis is not homophobic, btw, or I’m at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But come on, people: For a guy to rip another party for its homophobia, as the official spokesman of the LP, who just a few years ago was a flaming homophobe himself, is too rich.

  31. Nf7mate

    “Peroutka is a liberal, just like most of the CP.”

    Wow. I’ve never heard Peroutka called a liberal before. That sounds pretty ridiculous.

  32. richardwinger

    I believe that abortion is always undesirable. I am open to being persuaded that it should be made illegal after there is an entity with a functioning brain. Before there is a brain, I don’t believe there is anyone “there” yet.

    I don’t know if G.E. is a vegetarian or not. If he is not, I would try to persuade him that he should be, if he is horrified by violent killing. I don’t believe there is an absolute difference between human beings and certain other relatively intelligent mammals. Generally, no healthy living creature wants to die, and certainly no living creature wants to be killed so another creature can eat it. I don’t perceive there to be any suffering when a fertilized human egg is killed, but I do believe there is considerable suffering when cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs are slaughtered. Same goes for fish and birds, too.

  33. Steve LaBianca

    libertyinlaw // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:36 am

    As far as he would go is to support the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Which Ron Paul supports:

    However, has anyone seen Ron Paul’s interview with John Stossel, where Stossel asked Paul if he thought gays ought to be able to marry – his response-

    “Sure”

    Later in the interview, Paul states that it is improper to support liberty by picking and choosing only those items which one is personally comfortable with . . liberty is for everyone, and ought to be embraced in all aspects.

  34. G.E. Post author

    paulie — I’m not dumping on Davis. I’m pointing out a relavent fact. Is the LP ready for primetime or not? Because if the Democratic Party had a spokesman in a similar situation, it would be newsworthy to point that fact out. And unlike Davis, I’m open with my past. I mention it in every single public act I’ve ever made as a libertarian spokesman.

    Richard – How many fat vegetarians do you know? Animals are property. Libertarianism is not a philosophy dealing with how we should treat them. It is a philosophy that says initiation of force against human beings is WRONG.

    Nf7mate – Anyone who believes the 14th amendment is legitimate is a liberal (modern not classical) by definition. From what I can tell, many (NOT ALL) CPers are just wannabe dictators not much better than Dems/Repubs. Then again, this goes for the LP too.

  35. G.E. Post author

    If you were the LP spokesman, would you rip into any parties for positions you held a few years ago?

    Yes, and I would point out the position I had, where appropriate, and why I changed my view, which I have and do.

  36. Steve LaBianca

    Mr. Winger, are you saying you support “animal rights”?

    This statement “Generally, no healthy living creature wants to die, and certainly no living creature wants to be killed” is ludicrous on it’s face.

    A dog wants little more than food, petting and to chase a stick (maybe procreating as well).

    Does a cat have any “understanding” of dying? Does Fido contemplate how his children will get survive after he’s “gone”?

    Or maybe Bambi realizes that if the hunter gets a good shot at her and gets killed, she won’t be able to take that longed after trip to that great deer resort she’s been hearing about?!?

    Let’s be real Richard.

  37. richardwinger

    The vast majority of animals in this world are not anyone’s property. And slavery still exists in this world, so there are still human beings that are property, in the realistic sense even if not in the legal sense.

    After I read about certain gorillas that have learned sign language, I don’t know how to believe that there is any absolute distinction between human beings and all other living creatures. My reference to G.E. and vegetarianism is because he keeps talking about ripping and slashing bodies.

  38. G.E. Post author

    All animals SHOULD be property. The fact that we have statism and socialism is one of the reasons that animal populations become endangered.

    Richard is revealing the immorality of his creed here — putting human beings on the same level as animals. This is the eugenicist death cult creed.

    I know it’s politically incorrect to challenge the ballot-access God, but what kind of libertarian makes arguments for animal rights and supports the initiation of force on the basis that people die anyway?

  39. richardwinger

    I have never used the term “animal rights” and I have never said humans are on the same level as animals. Read what I said. I am against suffering. I believe that animals feel just as much pain when someone tears their flesh, as when something tears our flesh. I believe that animals get the same amount of satisfaction by eating when they had been quite hungry, as we get. I believe animals get the same orgasmic pleasure during sex, that we get.

    I have a friend who has a pet cockatiel (small bird in a cage). Recently the cockatiel got one of its wings wedged painfully between the cage side and the water container. He screamed as loud as any human ever screams. He exhibited extreme suffering and shock and alarm. After his wing was freed, he lay on his back for 30 minutes and hissed. I believe the misery he was feeling was indistinguishable from the kind of misery humans feel when undergoing extreme physical trauma.

  40. Michael Seebeck

    This statement “Generally, no healthy living creature wants to die, and certainly no living creature wants to be killed” is ludicrous on it’s face.

    It certainly is.

    While my heart hound was on her last days, dying from metasized cancer, we knew it was her time when she gave me what dog owners call, “That Look”. It’s basically a look that says, “I can’t handle this pain and suffering any more, it’s time to go to the Bridge.” Hardest thing to do was to put her to sleep that day, because we loved her so much, and she gave us so much love back. She entered the vet on her own power, on all 3 legs, with dignity, and she died with her head in my lap. Yes, she was not healthy at the end, but her mind was as sharp as it ever was.

    As for the abortion side, I said this once, and I stand by it:

    May 14, 2008

    This is to all Libertarians (and everyone else who wonders where the LP stands on the issue):

    Anybody who knows anything about human biology will be able to explain the biological differences between a zygote, fetus, and baby. When those scientific terms get blurred, distorted, and falsely rewritten is usually when emotional and theological responses and reactions get involved. Hence the abortion debate and all of its connotations and emotional high-stress. That’s not denigrating anyone, folks, just telling it like it is.

    Me, personally, as a father of two kids, and having had to go through the personal hell and grief of burying one of them, I can appreciate the emotion on both sides, which boils down to whether one thinks personally a zygote/fetus/baby is wanted or desired, or in some cases, can survive.

    The ultimate question of when does a group of cells become that which we call a human life, with the human, constitutional, and civil rights that come with that life? Answers will vary, and it boils down to when we *think* it happens, since we really don’t know.

    Some say when all the building blocks are present, some say when “it” (for lack of any better term) exhibits human physical characteristics, some say when “it” exhibits human behaviors, some say at the point of survivability outside the mother. Others say (and I agree) that it’s when the spirit or soul enters the body, in the same way that death is when it leaves. When that happens is anybody’s guess. I’ll guess the quickening.

    The government has no real idea. So it chose a temporal point, birth, as an arbitrary answer for its one-size-fits-all legal purposes of protecting rights and regulating behaviors (not commenting on the legitimacy of that, just that it is done). The whole political debate is over that arbitrary answer and whether it should be changed to earlier than the birth point.

    Governments, for better or worse, use temporal points like birth and other ages. That’s not going to change anytime soon, at least not until Doc Brown shows up in his steam engine.

    Personally, to answer the question I asked three paragraphs above, I think it’s some combination of the exhibiting of human characteristics, human behaviors, and survivability. And that varies from case to case. One size doesn’t fit all (which is where government generally fails!).

    In my (and my wife’s) case, we lost a son at 38 weeks in utero. Two weeks from delivery. Kicking up a storm and then just stopped. Heart stopped beating, nobody knows why, but it did. Did he have all of the building blocks? Yes. Did he exhibit human physical characteristics? Since I held his body after the induced labor (and bawled my eyes out, I’m not ashamed to admit), I can say emphatically “Hell, yeah!” Did he exhibit human behaviors? Ask my wife about her sore ribs from the soccer games he was playing in there. To me, when I placed my hand on her belly and felt that kicking, it was utterly mind-blowing. At that point in the pregnancy, it was real to me, not just my wife getting big in the belly. So, yeah, he did AFAIC. Was he survivable outside the mother? At that point I would say yes, and had the OB not blown off an ultrasound (which might have caught something) he very well could have. We’ll never know, but considering that he was two weeks to term, and our second son was born nine days from term, and he’s just fine , most likely the answer is yes.

    Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah, the point is that to us, Will was biologically and legally a fetus, but emotionally to his parents a baby and our child. We wanted him, we were ready for him (sort of , but at the time we were just naïve enough to think that), and his loss broke our hearts. Others may not feel that way when they lose theirs, either by choice or not. But with abortion, it all comes back to it being a personal choice and dealing with the consequences and aftereffects of that choice. As Libertarians, we cannot deny the parent the right to deal with that if they so choose. We agree that government should stay out of the abortion action, either by regulation or payment.

    So, yes, the LP should stay neutral on abortion while acknowledging that government should not be involved in an oh-so personal and emotional decision. That puts the emphasis back on individual rights and responsibilities, while respecting the law as it now stands. Should the law change, then that can be dealt with, but for now, neutrality is the best answer, since the LP focus deals with government policy and law, and while the emotion behind it is there, it should not be the driving force in the issue.

    The issue of when a human life begins will not be resolved here or anytime soon, and neutrality on the issue acknowledges that as well. Frankly, until a human spirit or soul, or whatever one wants to call that essence that makes the sum of the parts a whole, however it happens, that thing that makes us what we call “human” instead of a mass of cells working in unison by biological accident, until that can be empirically detected and measured, we will never know.

  41. inDglass

    I rarely hear people criticize Chuck Baldwin directly. They go after the party and its platform, not the candidate. With Barr it seems to be the opposite.

    Baldwin’s allegiance appears to be to the Constitution, while Barr’s appears to be to Republican voters. I’ll take the former.

  42. Steve LaBianca

    Richard, I am still wondering about the “want” aspect of dying you discuss.

    Do you believe that animals, even mammals have some cognitive “want” to not die? To the extent that mammals (excluding humans) “think”, does this “thinking” include value judgments, and “wanting” to live?

    I don’t believe that they do. I believe that the animal kingdom is equipped with “instinct” to survive. Humans are endowed with cognition and reason to flourish.

  43. G.E. Post author

    Human life = Human life. You can rationalize its willful destruction if you want to, but that’s what it is: a rationalization of legalized murder.

  44. libertyinlaw

    Steve LaBianca,

    You are completely missing the point. The issue of marriage in regard to this Presidential election has nothing to do with whether a candidate supports same sex marriage or is morally opposed to it.

    The issue is what can legally be done about it on the FEDERAL level – constitutionally. The answer is NADA except to define what states must be “forced” to accept ala the full faith and credit clause.

    The end.

    Chuck Baldwin is a Constitutionalist as is Ron Paul. No matter what his personal feelings he has allegiance for the authority of that document. Therefore, same-sex marriage couples, unless they themselves support some sort of extra-constitutional solution to their perceived inequality, can get behind Baldwin with a clear conscience.

  45. Steve LaBianca

    inDglass // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    I rarely hear people criticize Chuck Baldwin directly. They go after the party and its platform, not the candidate. With Barr it seems to be the opposite.

    I’ll say here and now . . . the LP Platform is a shell of what is used to be, and it is definitely watered down. It is the product of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, with an attempt to devise a platform which is “direction oriented”, and not principle oriented. Thus we have verbiage reflecting “lower taxes”, “less regulation”, “more liberty”.

    A real libertarian platform would emphasize “eliminating taxes”, a “laissez faire” stance of government toward the economic sphere (not simply reducing regulation) and a principled stand toward non-coercion, and not minimizing it.

    This “direction oriented” platform is watered down so non-libertarians like Barr and W.A.R. can run on it! THIS is why you don’t hear about the LP platform. Barr is the epitome of a watered down (i.e. non) libertarianism.

  46. Steve LaBianca

    libertyinlaw // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Steve LaBianca,

    You are completely missing the point.

    I’m not missing the point. I am quite well aware of the provisions of DOMA which make it so that one state doesn’t have to abide by the marriage laws of another. I don’t have a problem with that.

    I was simply making the point that even though Ron Paul supports the concept of states determining their own “marriage” laws, Paul has been chastised for supporting DOMA, and is (wrongly) criticized for being against gay “marriage”.

  47. richardwinger

    To G.E. , a question. You say “human life = human life”. Would that include Neanderthals?

  48. G.E. Post author

    Being against “suffering” is something separate from libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy dealing with how people should deal with other people — non-aggressively. Animals are property, period, and they’re better off as such.

    Richard has equated the in utero dismemberment of a near-born baby with the suffering of a pet bird.

    He has made the argument that blacks were once considered property, like animals, and that gorillas know sign language — which means nothing RE: libertarianism which holds involuntary servitude to be wrong (it is initiating force against a human being) and animals to be property.

    He has said that since many fertilized eggs die naturally, it’s okay to aggressively destroy them…. Many aged people die naturally too.

    I don’t think Richard is a eugenicist. Maybe he is, though.. Are you, Richard? I’m not making the accusation, I’m asking.

    But regardless, he’s exhibiting a lot of anti-human eugenicist thinking here. Eugenicists view blacks as subhuman and want to exterminate them (just like Richard champions the cause of aborting babies). Planned Parenthood, for example, has a racist history — it was founded by a Nazi eugenicist, Margret Sanger, who is still celebrated by the “pro-choice” movement.

    Many eugenicists worship nature, and thus they do put animals ABOVE human beings. People, they say, are pollution.

    Libertarianism holds that human beings are supreme and have the unalienable right to be free from aggression. It takes no stance on how we should treat animals, other than that they (like everything else other than humans) are property.

    Would human life include Neanderthals?

    Would it include space aliens? I don’t know. Those are dilemmas for the future and the past but not for the present.

  49. richardwinger

    Nothing that you claim I said, did I say. You seem like a very intelligent person but a person who is lousy at actually reading and understanding what he is reading. You’re starting to remind me of O’Reilly. Furthermore, why don’t you answer my question about neanderthals?

  50. G.E. Post author

    I did answer the question about Neanderthals (“I don’t know and it doesn’t matter”), and you did say what I said you said.

    What did I say you said that you didn’t?

    You said:

    one-third of all human zygotes die naturally instead of developing into babies. If people really believed that it is a tragedy for a fertilized human egg to die

    I said: “He has said that since many fertilized eggs die naturally, it’s okay to aggressively destroy them”

    You said:

    Recently the cockatiel got one of its wings wedged painfully between the cage side and the water container. He screamed as loud as any human ever screams. … I am against suffering. I believe that animals feel just as much pain when someone tears their flesh, as when something tears our flesh.

    I said: “Richard has equated the in utero dismemberment of a near-born baby with the suffering of a pet bird.”

    You said:

    The vast majority of animals in this world are not anyone’s property. And slavery still exists in this world, so there are still human beings that are property … I read about certain gorillas that have learned sign language, I don’t know how to believe that there is any absolute distinction between human beings and all other living creatures.

    I said: “He has made the argument that blacks were once considered property, like animals, and that gorillas know sign language ”

    So really, Richard? You want to deny you said those thing?

    You’re starting to remind me of O’Reilly

    You’re starting to remind me of a eugenicist.

  51. richardwinger

    I didn’t mention blacks. Most people held in slavery today are from Bangladesh or the Phillipines. I didn’t mention eugenicists, or anything relating to that subject. You still haven’t answered the question about neanderthals. It relates to my earlier point about gorillas who learned sign language. You didn’t respond to that, either. Saying “human life=human life” is not an argument, not an analysis, it just says “shut up”. I don’t think there is an absolute line to be drawn between humans and all other animals, and I want to draw you out about that. You say you are an atheist so presumably you believe in evolution. So if you believe in evolution, and yet you believe there is an absolute distinction between humans and all other life, it seems to me that is contradictory. I thought the neanderthal question would be a way to carry on the dialogue. Dialogue can be a very good way to test one’s ideas, get new ideas, and it can be enjoyable. There is no reason for any hostility just because people disagree, but you are sarcastic and seem more like a propagandist than someone who is interested in dialogue.

  52. G.E. Post author

    I’m not being hostile or sarcastic and I’m not spreading “propaganda.”

    Wow. What a technicality. You mentioned slavery, and I said “blacks” (because, as you know, Africans were kidnapped and brought to America in a very unlibertarian way). Like most, I think of slavery in American terms, so I made a mistake in that regard. It doesn’t matter. People are not property and you cannot legitimately initiate force against people. Is that being “hostile,” “sarcastic” or “propagandizing”?

    You haven’t mentioned eugenics but you definitely have mentioned things “related to the subject.” 1) Abortion. 2) Equating humans with animals. No intended hostility, sarcasm, or propaganda in that paragraph, either.

    Belief in “evolution” (difficult to define, btw) does not mean that you can’t definitively distinguish what is human. Apes are not human beings, Richard. That is a biological fact. I have answered the question twice already about Neanderthals: I don’t know. Maybe they meet the test, just as some alien life form could. But inhabiting the earth today we have human beings, and everything else which exists FOR human beings.

    I did not say “shut up” nor intend to convey that sentiment. It’s just that simple. Aggression against a human being is wrong. But we don’t have to get abstract — just take my advice and Google “abortion” and click Images. I feel really bad for your friend’s pet bird and I think animal cruelty is disgusting. But once you set your eyes and a mutilated baby corpse, I think you can see why the defenders of innocent life are so emphatic about it. And it need not have anything to do with cockatiels, gorillas, Neanderthals, or bogeymen in the sky.

  53. RedPhillips

    I know for a fact that Peroutka does not believe the 14th Amendment to be valid. He does not base his opposition to abortion at the federal level on the 14th Amendment. He bases it on personhood.

  54. Steve LaBianca

    richardwinger // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm
    why don’t you answer my question about neanderthals?

    Wikipedia states that “The term “human”, in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo . . .”. Though I’m not sure if Neanderthal man was a Homo Sapien or Homo Erectus, apparently it didn’t matter.

    I believe that “human life” as noted by G.E. in anything other than prehistoric Earth, means “current” humans. I’m certain that even the most developed “human” prior to modern man, “Cro-Magnon” man is extinct. Thus, Neanderthal (extinct) is a moot point.

  55. Steve LaBianca

    Actually, I should modify what I said. It ssems that Cro-Magnon man, according to Wikipedia “lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago”. However, there is very little distinction between Cro-Magnon and “modern” man. Wikipedia actually goes as far as to say that “Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.” . . . and that “Cro-Magnons must have come into contact with the Neanderthals, and are often credited with causing the latter’s extinction”. There is no mention of the “extinction” of Cro-Magnon.

  56. richardwinger

    Because Barr just won his Louisiana lawsuit, I will just blow everyone a kiss and let this below-the-fold thread carry on.

  57. Steve LaBianca

    This thread is dead, unless Mr. Winger wants to continue his diatribe about animals feeling pain, which would, what, provide assertion that animals have rights?

    My understanding, from reading about and speaking with animal rights activists and believers, it is the pleasure/pain” ability of animals which asserts them rights.

    Does Mr. Winger wish to comment on this? If not, then this thread is truly dead.

  58. G.E. Post author

    Because Barr just won his Louisiana lawsuit, I will just blow everyone a kiss and let this below-the-fold thread carry on.

    The above is not an argument, not an analysis, it just says “shut up.”

  59. millerpolitics

    This is the second that this comparison has been posted on the Libertarian website. Now that Paul has endorsed Baldwin, it looks like Barr’s opinion of Baldwin not being a real player in the election may have changed.

  60. darolew

    FYI, Rothbard on abortion:

    This brings us to the more complex case of abortion. For the libertarian, the “Catholic” case against abortion, even if finally rejected as invalid, cannot be dismissed out of hand. For the essence of that case–not really “Catholic” at all in a theological sense–is that abortion destroys a human life and is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned. More than that, if abortion is truly murder, then the Catholic–or any other person who shares this view–cannot just shrug his shoulders and say that “Catholic” views should not be imposed upon non-Catholics. Murder is not an expression of religious preference; not sect, in the name of “freedom of religion,” can or should get away with committing murder with the plea that its religion so commands. The vital question then becomes: Should abortion be considered murder?

    Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being–i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

    The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even if the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

    That’s from For a New Liberty, pages 107-108.

    All this bickering about whether a few clumps of cells counts as a “life” is beside the point. Any talk about “souls” is also wasted (souls don’t exist anyway — no one has them, including you and me). Even if fetuses are alive, women still have the right to abortions.

  61. G.E. Post author

    I believe Rothbard later reformed his evil views on this subject.

    The act of consensual sex creates a relationship of agency between the parents and the child. The idea that a woman (or Bob Barr) can pay to have her baby dismembered and scraped from her body when she invited it there in the first place is wrong. By this evil logic, I woman can give a live birth to a child and leave it for dead. Yes, I know this is what some sickening anti-life libertarians do believe.

  62. darolew

    “I believe Rothbard later reformed his evil views on this subject.”

    Would you know where he said that?

    “The act of consensual sex creates a relationship of agency between the parents and the child.”

    Consensual sex is consensual sex — it has no other meaning. No agency or contracts are created by it.

    “The idea that a woman (or Bob Barr) can pay to have her baby dismembered and scraped from her body when she invited it there in the first place is wrong.”

    Invitation does not void property rights. If I invite a house guest into my home, I still have the right to throw him out any time. If he refuses to leave, I have the right to defend my property.

    “By this evil logic, I woman can give a live birth to a child and leave it for dead. Yes, I know this is what some sickening anti-life libertarians do believe.”

    While distasteful and immoral, leaving a child for dead does not constitute an initiation of force. Any action to force a parent to care for a child, however, would indeed be initiation of force.

  63. G.E. Post author

    I believe parents voluntarily enter into a contract of agency via conception.

    A “moral” philosophy that permits infanticide is evil. I distinguish my libertarianism from whatever that is.

  64. darolew

    “I believe parents voluntarily enter into a contract of agency via conception.”

    On what basis?

    “A “moral” philosophy that permits infanticide is evil. I distinguish my libertarianism from whatever that is.”

    Killing an infant is a crime and should be treated as one. Letting an infant die is not the same thing.

  65. G.E. Post author

    darolew – On the basis of biology. Taking a child to the desert and leaving it in the sand IS the same as killing it.

    This is not going to be productive. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    paulie – No consent, no obligation. The baby is still innocent, but the woman can legitimately abort the pregnancy as a defensive measure. Obviously, that would be the case to save her life. HOWEVER, I am very skeptical about either case, particularly the latter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *