Comments | talk_politics: It isn't all about property...

inibo in talk_politics

It isn't all about property...

Jul 17, 2009 22:21

(Well, actually it is, but we won't go there.)

On a previous thread I was said to be an exemplar of the libertarian obsession with property rights, my property rights in particular. Maybe, maybe not, but let's pretend it's not all about property for a bit. I'd like to quote one of my favorite bloggers, Will Grigg. This particular piece is about ( Read more... )

progressivism, libertarianism

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. squidb0i July 18 2009, 07:04:32 UTC

If it ever became a valid threat to the greater good to breed excessively, it should be regulated because the act in question is then an infringement on the rights of others - the rights of all versus the right of the individual to procreate as s/he sees fit.

And what of those who have proven themselves to be unfit parents?

Do as you like, so long as you harm no other.

In the absence of such factors though, yes, such a thing would be an infringement of the individuals right to self ownership at the very least.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. star_white July 18 2009, 07:16:05 UTC

Oh no! you used the term "the greater good".

We all know how libertarians feel about that concept.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. pseudofire July 18 2009, 07:21:56 UTC

I think it's extremely problematic to say that the mere existence of another person/people is in itself an infringement upon the rights of others.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. squidb0i July 18 2009, 07:32:26 UTC

That's one of the dumbest strawmen I've seen since they banned me from Conservatism: I didn't say 'the mere existence'. Read it again. Look for the part that's bolded.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. gunslnger July 18 2009, 07:30:16 UTC

If you want to put it that way, it is for the greater good that everyone's property rights, including self-ownership, must be respected above all else.

As I stated. squidb0i July 18 2009, 07:37:03 UTC

In my reply.
Yep. There.

But if a situation occurred where further breeding became a direct threat to others (limited resources, etc) , the group would be entirely within their rights to defend themselves by pre-empting that individual right for the duration of the crisis.

Or, more plausible, if someone had proven themselves unfit (molestation, neglect, abuse, etc), proven themselves to be someone that will harm any child produced and left in their care, it is up to the group to remove existing child from the individuals custody, and ensure that the individual does not create any more innocents to harm. Happens all the time.

So I now have two un-assailable situations in which the right to reproduce can and should be removed and that removal enforced according to your own rules.

Now what?

Re: As I stated. gunslnger July 18 2009, 17:24:32 UTC

But if a situation occurred where further breeding became a direct threat to others (limited resources, etc)

Impossible to happen. It is always an indirect threat. Claiming that it is a direct threat is more of a threat to society.

proven themselves to be someone that will harm any child produced and left in their care, it is up to the group to remove existing child from the individuals custody, and ensure that the individual does not create any more innocents to harm.

It's not within the rights of the group to do that preemptively.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview. mrbogey July 19 2009, 00:19:32 UTC

'And what of those who have proven themselves to be unfit parents? '

Like black folks, right?

No, dipshit, like people that physically/sexually/mentally abuse children. squidb0i July 19 2009, 00:28:58 UTC

But you know that's what I mean.
You're just being a douche.

Re: No, dipshit, like people that physically/sexually/mentally abuse children. mrbogey July 19 2009, 01:43:12 UTC

Ohhh...you mean Muslims then. Right? Because I think it'd be awesome to create a power so great and so easy to be abused with such disastrous results.

ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE squidb0i July 19 2009, 18:33:41 UTC

*yawn*

Get a new argument.

Re: ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE mrbogey July 19 2009, 20:05:55 UTC

Learn rhetoric.

Re: ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE squidb0i July 19 2009, 20:15:37 UTC

Translation:
I, Mr. Bogey, as usual, have nothing.

Re: ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE mrbogey July 19 2009, 20:56:28 UTC

You're advocating the forced sterilization of humans and eugenics and I'm the one that needs to build credibility?

ZOMG STRAWMAN squidb0i July 19 2009, 21:10:45 UTC

I am advocating no such thing.

I'm saying that there are a few situations when the greater good might require the restriction of the reproductive rights of individuals. One I provided was far fetched, but the other happens daily.

Can't you just have a proper discussion without resorting to sad little tricks? It's embarassing to watch.

Re: ZOMG STRAWMAN jerseycajun July 20 2009, 23:33:27 UTC

You could try defining the form of what restricting reproductive rights meant to you in such extraordinary circumstances. (When you leave gaping generalities in your argument open to interpretation you've got nobody but yourself to blame when people insert their own - and up until you mentioned contraception to me much later, your entire thesis revolved around "regulating it")

You mentioned contraception but just left it at that. What kind of policy involving contraception would you advocate?

Back to all threads