Comment: I don't know what I am looking at

(See in situ)


I don't know what I am looking at

but I agree. (what is that in quotes?)

There are 5 main divides, and they shouldn't be.

Theist vs atheist
Pro Israel vs anti-Israeli government
Pro life vs pro choice
Minarchist (unsure who will build the roads) vs anarchist (Austrian)
Respectable hat vs tin foil hat

Except for abortion these are quibbles. It doesn't matter if you think there's some thing the government could possibly do well, or you think there is nothing, or if you think Israel is a pernicious political influence or if you think Israel is the perpetual underdog, or if you think freedom comes from God and can be supported by the bible or if you think the yearning for liberty is inherent to man.

We all want less government than we have. We all know from history that governments use ruses to propagandize for war or domestic oppression, so whether any particular recent ruse is a conspiracy or not isn't that important. We all agree we should cut foreign aid. If, on the path to cutting it all some want to cut it less for Israel so what? Can you be a 'true' libertarian if you don't believe in god or can you be a 'true' libertarian if you do? I see them both with my eyes. I've talked to both. Is Tom woods not a true Libertarian because he's an Catholic? Is Walter Block not a true libertarian because he's atheist? Of course they both are.

Only one of these is even remotely important enough to split us, abortion, simply due to the fact if you think abortion is murder it's hard to get past it. For me : I do think it's murder but I don't want the state to have power of life or death for something this important. It's a tricky philosophical issue. If monopoly law precludes the mother from aborting then it's slavery for her. In the case of rape it's clear. In the case of consensual sex it's less clear but then you can ask the question, can you voluntarily make yourself a slave?

Under free law I would feel far more comfortable with what sanctions might be imposed against abortion. But so long as we have monopoly law I want them out of the question.

Still, even this question should not divide us. It does not lend itself to simple answers. And we can all I agree, I hope, that at a minimum Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional decision. If it's murder, abortion is a criminal matter. Ultimately the Constitution does not give the US government any authority in criminal matters. Criminal matters are the purview of the states. While not as good as free law, 50 monopoly laws competing is a hell of a lot better than one central, unconsitutional decision.

When we say that someone can't be libertarian if they don't agree on one of these issues, we are trying to use that as a bludgeon to get the other person to agree based on something other than the merit of the argument. This is fallacious, but probably more importantly, it doesn't work. So when we use this tactic we are doing harm without any benefit.

Last note. If you are new to libertarianism, and come in guns blazing, understand you are talking to some people that have thought a lot about these things and if you think you have all the answers and want to proclaim them, you're gonna embarrass yourself. By the same token, veterans should really try to be nice and not assume everyone who pops up pontificating how they will save the movement is just a troll. Be nice, don't embarrass them needlessly just because you can. This can be a make or break moment for someone.