Abortion and Libertarianism II

In my last post I argue that a person can believe in libertarian principles and still reach a pro-life policy position because of the factual question of whether the unborn child (or fetus) should be recognized as a person with rights to freedom.

Actually, it's not so much a factual question as ethical one. We know that the unborn are alive, we just don't know (or we don't agree) that they should be entitled to the same rights as other humans.

Writing the other post, I thought of one attractive pro-choice libertarian argument: we know that we should maximize the freedom of adult women, however, the rights of the unborn are debatable. Faced with this ambiguity, it makes sense for Libertarians to be pro-choice because restricting abortion necessarily restricts the freedom of pregnant women, but only potentially denies the rights to the unborn.

Of course, some if not most people will decide the question of whether the unborn have rights resolutely one way of the other. Once a person resolves that the unborn is human and entitled to the rights of all other people, then libertarian principles can just as easily lead ( actually I think they compel) that person to become pro-life.

Furthermore, a libertarian who cannot resolve the issue of whether or when the unborn are entitled to rights, should recognize that, the restricting a pregnant woman's right to abortion is only a slight reduction of freedom, while abortion is total denial of rights to the unborn. Thus, a fence-sitting libertarian must lean very heavily in the direction of no rights for the unborn before he can use that ambiguity as a justification to hold pro-choice views.

Libertarianism and Abortion

I find myself becoming more libertarian. Libertarians are frequently described as a hodge-podge of liberal and conservative values: they are generally thought of as liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. Foreign policy issues seem to split libertarians roughtly in half.

That's not a very good description of libertarianism. Instead, the fundamental principles guiding libertarianism is that individual freedom should be maxamized. libertarians are, in fact, classic liberals, in the Lockean sense of the word "liberal."

I generally agree with the premise of libertarianism and most of the policies that flow from the premise. and yet there are still some issues where libertarians and I have divergent policy preferences. As part of my new blog I thought I would explore these issues, and whether the policy preference of most libertarians follows from libertarian principles. Then, I'll comment on why or why not I agree with the libertarian policy preference. Either that, or I'll just write whatever pops into my head.

Let's start with abortion. Abortion is one issue where I part ways with most libertarians, who seem to favor abortion. Because they favor maximizing individual freedom, they believe in allowing adult women to do what they want with their bodies, including having an abortion. The premise is that what is aborted is part of a woman's body.

Of course, the maximization of freedom requires limiting some individual freedom to maximize everyones freedom. For example, I can punch the air all I want, but I am not fee to punch your nose, because that would impinge on your freedom. So we have to curtain some behaviors in order to maximize overall freedom.

While abortion then, increases a woman's freedom to do as she wishes with her body, it also decreases the freedom of the baby inside the woman to basically zero. In this case the fist of "abortion" is punching the "nose" of the unborn.

Of course, that anaylsis, assumes that the fetus growing inside the pregnant woman is a child. That's a factual premise that I'm sure pro-choice libertarians would take issue with. But whatever the factual truth, the principles of libertarianism do not require libertarians to be pro-choice.

Rep. Ryan Mopping Up

This video's been making the rounds:



It prompted a couple of thoughts:

1. Are Katrina vander Huevel and that first guy the hosts of this show? Katrina vander Huevel is, of course, an editor at the Nation, so obviously she is liberal. The other guy seems pretty liberal too. I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I thought the point of having two hosts of a debate show was to get two different perspectives.
2. It's good to a see a sharp informed congressman. It's usually so very painful to listen to Congressmen speak.
3. How is health care equal to health insurance? You can, in fact, buy health care without insurance. I know; I've done it.
   
4. I really like How Ryan calls out vander Heuvel on her inconsistency. "Competition is at the heart of America," she says, but then she favors "single payer" government healthcare with no competition. Complete the sylogism: the heart of America is competition. vander Heuvel opposes competition. vander Heuvel _____________________ America.
   

Milton Friedman

I've probably watched this video 3 or 4 times. The product of Milton Friedman's giant brain is mesmerizing.

Statements in Tension?

Obama on Wednesday:

[Time Magazine] Can I ask you, if you go to the polling, which I'm sure you never do, but if you ever did —
[Obama] No, actually, on this — I will confess: I don't spend a lot of time looking at my polls. I do look at the polling on health care, partly because I think that there is a terrific case to be made to the American public. But it is — this is complicated, it's difficult.

Obama Today:

President Obama has framed the health-care debate in Washington as a campaign against insurance companies whose irresponsible actions, he repeatedly says, must be reined in to control costs and improve patient care. . . .

The message is no accident, as the president's chief pollster made clear in a rare public speech last month. Joel Benenson told the Economic Club of Canada that extensive polling revealed to the White House what many there had guessed: People hate insurance companies.[Emphasis added].

When I started this post, I thought I'd caught Obama in a contradiction. Where as only two days ago Obama said he didn't look at his polls extensively, two days later his polling guys are bragging about how much they rely on the polls.

But now that I've read the first statement a couple times, I actually have no idea what it means. What is he confessing? I thought he was admitting he didn't look at the polls. Or is he confessing he does look at the polls, but not a lot? or is he saying he doesn't look at polls a lot in general, but he does look at the health care polls a lot? I have no idea what this means.

Total Transparency

Obama promised to have the most transparent administraction ever. Now some people are crying foul because Obama refuses to release his long form birth certificate--including some people who firmly believe Obama was born in the U.S.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/07/that-was-easy.html

I wonder, though, if refusing to release the record isn't just a cleaver way to raise the profile of the birthers. They could be useful straw men.

Starting Over

Welcome to my latest blog.

This is the third time I've started a blog. I usually post faithfully for a few months, but then give up blogging for one reason or another. The two big reasons are that no one reads the blog and I start to feel like my posts are just a recapitulation of what others have already said.

And yet I'm going to start one more blog. Here is my plan to stay interest in this blog. First, this time I'm going to try and cast a wider net and blog about more than politics. I plan on blogging about religion and the law. Maybe I'll blog about culture, tv and movies too. Basically I'll blog about whatever I want.

Second, I'm thinking about inviting others to blog here too. Not sure who that will be. If you are reading this it might be you.

Third, I'm going to try and embrace the past. The more time passes, the more I find I'm embarrassed by my old blog posts and I don't want to think about them. The easy way to do that is to stop blogging. But I've decided there's no need to be embarrassed. With this blog I've incorporated all my old blog posts from my previous blogs. I know I've changed my mind about a few things in those old blog posts, but I think most of them hold up ok, and if they don't represent my current opinion at least they show my evolution.

Despite these changes, some things will stay the same. This blog is still mostly going be about ideas and debate; it's not a diary. To the exent that something autobiographical triggers an idea, then I might share it. However, this will not be a blog about what I had for lunch.

So, here goes attempt No. 3. If you're reading this, I invite you to join the conversation.

Iran's Peaceful Weapon's Program

It appears that Iran has a long-range missile launch cite. But, don't be alarmed. I'm sure these missile cites will be used to peacefully produce energy.

Barack Hussein Obama

I just read a blog where the Obama is called BHO. My first though was his initials are almost HBO. My second thought. if you leave out the H--which you might not want to do because you always want to remind readers that his middle name is Hussein--his initials are BO. The comic posibilities are endless.

Compromise

I dislike McCain as much as the next conservative, and I've been seriously considering voting for the Democrat candidate for president. On the other hand, I don't think we conservatives should commit to vote against McCain just yet. Instead conservatives should create a short, reasonable list of our most important conservative demands. If McCain promises to meet those demands then conservatives should back him wholeheartedly. If he refuses, then McCain has indicated he will continue to put his thumb in the eye of conservatives, we should refuse to vote for him, or we may even vote for the Democratic candidate.

Here is my list.

1. Promise to veto any immigration bill that is not enforcement only. Promise to wait a least two years after an enforcement-only bill is passed before signing any sort of amnesty bill.
2. Choose Romney or Thompson as his VP. (Huckabee is a deal-killer).
3. Apologize for smearing Romney (this is more of a personal thing.)
4. Apologize for criticizing Alito.
5. Name 3 to 5 candidates for the Supreme Court and make a promise to choose from that pool of candidates if there is a vacancy. (Putting Michael McConnell at the top of that list would go a long way).
6. Promise to keep Gitmo open.
7. Stop insulting capitalism.

You could rearrange the list some, but these are the things that come to my mind. Of course, 1, 2 and 5 are the most important.

McCain-Kerry

I'm sorry, but contrary to what some talking heads think, it is significant that Kerry-McCain was considered a feasible ticket, regardless of who approached whom. Even if Kerry approached McCain, the real issue is that Kerry thought he could approach McCain with the VP spot, and that he thought McCain may well accept. It is a big deal when a party nominates a candidate who looks like he could abandon that party at any second, even if it wasn't the candidate's original idea.

Romney's Problem

Lots of conservatives have complained that Romney was not aggressive enough in the debates. I too wish that Romney was more aggressive in taking on McCain. I think part of Romney's problem is that, while he's running for president, he is simultaneously representing the Mormon religion to people who may never have had any prior contact with Mormons. Those people, as Mitt is fully aware, are going to form an opinion of Mormonism based on whether or not they like him. If he is too negative, or too cantankerous, he leaves a bad impression of Mormons. (What would you think if John McCain was the only Mormon you'd ever met?) But I agree that Mitt has been too controlled.

Religion in the South

I know Democrats are always saying that people in the south are racist bigots. I've been to the south a number of times and my family lived there for two years, and I just never really thought that to be true. There is still a lot of racial tension in the south, but for the most part, I think southern whites would support a black conservative--assuming he was a viable candidate--over a white liberal.

Now it looks like a large number of southerners are bigots, not about race, but about religion. Huckabee is doing very well in the south, not because he is conservative but because he is non-Mormon/anti-Mormon. The amount of southern hostility to Mormons is quite depressing, especially since this is mostly a one way street. Utah Mormons overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004, giving him his highest margin of victory in any state. In contrast, Evangelicals prefer liberals to Mormons.

I think we are witnessing the end of the Republican Party and even marginally conservative governance.

Ugggh

What a disappointment the Iowa caucuses have been. Generally speaking Democrats are the ones that are supposed to believe in identity politics and Republicans are supposed to believe in principles. Iowa seems to prove just the opposite.

Democrats have selected Barack, even though 99% of voters are white, rejecting the I-vote-for-the-person-whose-like-me approach. Evangelical Republicans, on the other hand, voted for the evangelical even though he is not a conservative, precisely because he was the most like them.

On August 1, six days after the "skulls on their head in sector" meeting, the Army concluded its investigation. Two days later, a public affairs officer announced that Beauchamp's piece had been "refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false." The Army didn't announce this to The New York Times or even The Weekly Standard, let alone in a public report. It first gave the story of Beauchamp's supposed fraudulence to a former porn actor turned blogger named Matt Sanchez.

This is from an account of the Beachamp fiasco written by Franky Foer, editor of The New Republic and former nose picker.