Murray Sabrin, New Jersey's Libertarian Gubernatorial
candidate apparently supports anti-abortion laws according to the
Sunday Oct. 26th, 1997 San Francisco Chronicle. How could this happen?
Kissing up to Conservatives will not work! It is time to send a clear
message to Sabrin and his ilk that the LP is not a stomping ground for
disgruntled liberals OR conservatives. All support for Sabrin should
be stopped by true Libertarians immediately!
Howard R. Olson, MA
Ive known liberal catholics to be pro-life.
Ive known conservative republicans to be pro-choice.
Ive known atheists to be pro-life.
Ive also known good "L"ibertarians to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
Abortion is not litmus test of libertarianism.
There are many sets of "3 questions" that would be a good indicator of
liberal vs conservative vs libertarian views; but adding abortion to
any other 2 questions would only produce confusing results.
Murder is not libertarian. If abortion is murder; abortion is not
libertarian. No matter what your views are, if someone views abortion
as murder, they have made a libertarian decision by concluding
abortion as wrong. Libertarianism is not the final set of answers on a
multiple choice quiz. It is the thought process that leads one to a
consistent set of results; which in most cases is in harmony with what
would be concluded by most people who consider themselves libertarian.
It is this thought process and outlook which is more important.
This is one reason why I have favored the no initiation of force
statement or something like it. A short statement of basic principle
or outlook that all libertarians can agree to without reciting some
laudry list of outcomes that would be a cause for debate either
because it would be incomplete or include include items without full
ps that being said I would hope that no libertarian would campaign
heavily either way on the abortion issue.
>Murder is not libertarian. If abortion is murder; abortion is not
>libertarian. No matter what your views are, if someone views abortion
>as murder, they have made a libertarian decision by concluding
>abortion as wrong.
I'm also quite surprised to learn that a high-profile Libertarian has
taken a so-called "pro-life" position.
Although I've often called myself a "small-L" libertarian, I've never
looked in detail at the Libertarian platform to study exactly what the
party's stated positions and arguments are. I found a quick look
around to be rather disturbing, despite the fact that governmental
silence on the abortion issue is part of the platform.
As I see it, laws against abortion are unenforceable; moral arguments
against abortion are largely irrelevant when considering such laws.
They only serve, as the prohibition of drugs and so-called "victimless
crimes," to drive the products and services underground and create a
black market. Those who can afford to obtain them - those who can
either pay the high price, or are willing to sustain risk - will
continue to obtain them. In the case of abortion, prohibition only
makes the practice unavailable or life-threatening to poor women or
those without connections. This has been the case both here in America
and currently in other countries where abortion is technically
illegal. Ultimately, through the use of herbs or menstrual
extraction, abortion may be available to all women regardless of
Unfortunately, I was unable to find such a justification in the
Libertarian platform for the legalization of "victimless crimes."
It appears that the justification given in the platform is just that
the crimes are victimless - not because of the unenforcability of the
laws, or the erosion of individual liberties and rights which occurs
when the laws are randomly or selectively enforced against particular
individuals or groups. Not to mention the erosion of liberties
across-the-board that is inevitable when the apparatus of a
totalitarian police state is the only effective means available to
enforce such prohibitions.
I thought the party would at least attempt to present something
resembling a logical explanation for one of its most radical
positions. I guess not.
I've spent the last few months studying the actions of anti-abortion
activists, including a week watching Operation Rescue National
blockade Dayton and Cincinnati clinics, and attending "American Life
League" and "Pro-Life Action Network" conferences. Perhaps there are
some similarities between commonly-held goals among the anti-abortion
crowd and the Libertarian Party. In particular, if you watch Randall
Terry's campaign video, if you strip away all of the Christian
propaganda, what largely remains is a position - anti-tax,
anti-big-government - that is generally libertarian.
However, the justification consistently given by the anti-abortion
movement is that this country must be governed by "God's law." In
practice, this would constitute a dictatorship of a particular group
of religious leaders, or theocracy. Many of the leaders of the
movement openly insist that democracy is evil, and make it clear that,
like dictators of the past, democracy is only a method to be used to
eventually take absolute control. When insisting that the anti-abortion
movement must not accept compromise, Operation Rescue National
director Flip Benham recently said (to cheers from the American Life
: We are not looking for a place at the enemy's table where we can
: negotiate with him. We are looking to kick the table over in the name
: of jesus christ and take over!
Clearly, the religious extremists that support Sabrin's anti-abortion
position don't want to just stop there. They are quite serious about
criminalizing all behavior that they don't think is permitted by their
particular reading of the Bible, and providing brutal means of
enforcement. What's more, they're rewriting American history to match
their twisted tunnel vision, insisting the "Founding Fathers" intended
that this be, not a country with secular values, but a "Christian
And if you think that they're only a fringe group, just turn on your
TV, and watch the top corner at the beginning of any program.
The allies of the "Christian Right" - and many others, perhaps because
such things are always proposed to protect some mythical and
seldom-very-well-defined thing called "family values" - have
successfully demanded a so-called "voluntary" TV ratings system, which
exists not to protect all children, but to ensure that their children
will never view positive portrayals of lifestyles that they plan to
outlaw. New FCC commissioners in their confirmation hearings have gone
so far as to propose that NBC, the network that hasn't complied with
all the ratings fine-print, should have its broadcast licenses
threatened with revocation as a result. This is what happens when you
try to make a "voluntary" deal with these people!
Christian extremists go into bookstores and tear up books, demand that
libraries remove books, boycott media conglomerates, complain about
Howard Stern - not to actually change these media, but to reinforce to
their following that secular bookstores, libraries and non-christian
media, that they seldom buy or use anyway, are to be avoided. And
then there's the V-chip and CDA, and the pastors that use Net Nanny
not to keep their children from seeing dirty pictures, but so that
they won't themselves be tempted to have their extremist positions
challenged. These are the actions of a group that not only wants to
shelter its next generation from the reality of life, which shares
little or nothing with the biblical version, but wants to eventually
force that vision upon the rest of us, first through mass cultural
shift through a large movement (Promise Keepers), then through raw
state power obtained through whatever means necessary. "Civil war" is
a frequent reference among this group when discussing means to make
Anti-abortion activism generally springs from this culturally
isolated, extremist element that shares no other values of the
Libertarian party and that only uses abortion as a wedge issue to gain
political and social power.
I would certainly hope that Libertarian Party candidates would
carefully consider that an alliance with extremist movements of this
nature is not in their long-term best interest.
------------- Copyright (c) 1997 All Rights Reserved. --------------
----- "I am Promise Keeper of Borg. Prepare to be assimilated." -----
Mike Doughney ---- mi...@mtd.com ---- http://mtd.com ---- PP-ASEL
What about the enslavement of women to support bloodsucking parasites at
great financial cost, personal inconvenience, & hazard to their health?
Do you think THAT is libertarian?
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
You think that the unborn have the right to have their lives supported by a
woman just because she happens to get pregnant. That's just like some of the
people here in Berkeley who think that people have the right to have housing
provided for them just because they're homeless. You're just another
squatter's rights advocate, an apologist for parasitism.
Unfortunately, the LP's all too willing to have you & take your money.
Except for pregnant women.
>Whenever any American can have his rights taken capriciously, then we are all
>at fascism's door.
You mean like having your right to control your own body usurped by being
forced to support a literal bloodsucking parasite for 9 months at great
personal inconvenience, financial cost, & hazard to one's health?
I think it's Libertarian to say, "If you choose to call the tune,
then it's your reponsibility to pay the piper". We're not talking about
virgin births here. We're talking about people who have chosen to ommit an
act, which we and they know can result in pregnancy. Let them bear the
consequences of their choices.
Comparing the yet to be born child of a woman who (except in rape and
incest cases) chose to become pregnant to a homeless parasite (to use
your term) is an ubiquitous non-sequator (ie: it's an apples to oranges
comparison). BTW, though staunchly pro-life, I will concede cases of
rape, incest and life endangerment, because of many of the arguments you
However, lest your anarchistic views go unchallenged, freedom comes
inexorably linked with responsibility. Murder cannot be an excuse for
irresponsible behavior. If the sex that produced the child was
consentual and the mother's life is not endangered, then there is no
moral or ethical reason to kill the child for the sake of the mother's
I suppose that you'd be in favor of post-birth abortions if the parents
didn't think they could handle the child after birth. If not, then
pre-birth abortion for any than the above cited exceptions is murder and
should be treated as such.
BTW, I don't think we're helped at all by telling people who agree with
the other 59 planks of the 60 plank LP platform that we don't belong.
If you wish to be a political party of one, go and be happy. Let the
rest of us try to get people elected and change policy for the nation.
Finally, my appologies to the NG for the poor spelling in this post. My
monitor is dying and I can barely see what I'm typing.
Jonathan J.M. Arata, P.E.
Political Director - Libertarian Party of Connecticut
Thanks for the additional rhetoric. How about responding to the
argument, rather than adding more simplistic blather?
> Thanks for the additional rhetoric. How about responding to the
>argument, rather than adding more simplistic blather?
You still haven't clarified your earlier statement.
Was it a specific (and erroneous) claim that no one ever advocated
abortion (ie "capital punishment") in case of rape? Or was it simply
confused and empty verbiage?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
What's shallow about my rhetoric?
> Since the fetus is in his mother's body due to the voluntary acts of
Not necessarily, but let's explore this theory: are you obligated to accept
anything that happens to you as long as it's the result of an action you took
>the consequences should not be his to bear. Even in the handful of cases
>where the pregnancy results from rape, no one would claim that the child
>should receive capital punishment.
So, you're for the prohibition of abortion even in cases of rape? Why the
lip service to "the voluntary acts of his parents," then?
> At the heart of the Libertarian concept of justice is that each
>person must be accountable for his own actions. When two adults have
>intercourse, then they are choosing to risk the consequences.
Yep. And when I walk down the street in a bad neighborhood, I'm choosing to
risk getting mugged. Does that mean I have no right to resist if someone tries
to mug me?
When a woman walks down the street in a tight miniskirt, she chooses to risk
getting raped. Does that mean she has no right to resist if someone tries
to rape her?
>The risk of pregnancy (or STDs, but that's not the issue here) is less
>important to them than the physical pleasure or intimacy satisfaction that
>comes from sex. If you want to play the game, then you have to pay the ante.
>It's their choice. Why should they be immune from the consequences?
Because sex isn't a form of Russian Roulette in which a woman consents to be
enslaved to a fetus for 9 months or more if she happens to get pregnant.
> That's what distinguishes Libertarians from liberals. We believe in
>responsibility. They believe in mushy views of "compassion".
Belief in unchosen responsibilities to those you haven't injured in any way
is what distinguishes conservatives from both liberals & libertarians.
Go take your desire to turn what's left of the Land of the Free into a partial
copy of Ceaucescu's Romania & shove it where the sun don't shine.
> My position is that rape should be a capital crime.
That is absolutely poisonous, reminding everyone of the most bloody
days of Jim Crow and lynchings. The US Supreme Court has, with good
reason, declared the death penalty for simple rape to be
unconstitutional. (On the other hand, I support the death penalty for
rape in case of AIDS transmission, or in conjunction with another
extremely serious crimes, eg murder, or severe and lasting
>distinction of time is an artificial distinction, and increasing meaningless
>as medical technology improves, I do not accept a distinction in the child as
>to preborn or potborn.
There we disagree fundamentally. I believe that protected humanity is
correlated with brain activity, not DNA. (Does a drop of blood
contain millions of "children"?) As one with libertarian sympathies,
I have no intention of imposing my belief on you and those you love; I
wish you would extend the same courtesy to me and those I love.
>And the child is as much a victim of his father's
>crime as his mother is, and therefore should not share in the consequences of
I do not offer rape as grounds for late-term abortion, after a fetus
demonstrates human mental activity. It is not unreasonable for
society to demand that the victim make up her mind more quickly.
> You are right about the misfortune to the mother, carrying the child
>of rape for nine months. But Americans in general, and Libertarians in
>particular, do not believe in hurting one person to protect another from
>emotional difficulty. We punish the perpetrator, not the victim.
Except that forcing a rape victim to bear her rapist's child does
indeed punish the victim, degrading both her and women in general. It
is an act of violence, that would appropriately be met with violence.
I am reminded of an article that appeared last year in the "New
York Times" about a traditional community in Ghana (I believe). A
12-year-old girl was raped by an older member of her family. The case
went to the local shaman, who decreed that the family should be fined
for this violation of the social order. And, guess who from the
family was assigned as a menial slave to the shaman, to work off this
fine? The twelve-year-old rape victim!
--Hugo S. Cunningham
>There we disagree fundamentally. I believe that protected humanity is
>correlated with brain activity, not DNA.
So do I. Which begins in the seventh week of pregnancy. Anyone know
what percentage of abortions happen before the 7th week? It's got to
be very small. And in any case, the only abortions that Sabrin said
he would work to ban if he were governor of NJ are the `partial-birth'
abortions, which generally happen in the 6th to 8th month, when the
baby is certainly exhibiting brain activity, and may even be viable.
So I take it that you have no problem with Sabrin's position, then?
>I do not offer rape as grounds for late-term abortion, after a fetus
>demonstrates human mental activity.
Good. And since nearly all abortions happen after the baby has
begun measurable brain activity, such that if it were someone
dying, rather than being born, we would consider them still
alive, and not permit them to be chopped up for parts, I take it
that you would support the banning of nearly all abortions, not
just the `partial-birth' ones that Sabrin said he wants to ban.
> It is not unreasonable for
>society to demand that the victim make up her mind more quickly.
IMHO a woman who has been raped should get herself cleaned out as
soon as the police have finished doing their stuff, so that she
never needs to know whether she would have been pregnant, and never
has to face this issue. Unless, of course, she wants to keep the
baby if there is one.
According to New Jersey Right to Life, Sabrin told them he favored
amending the U.S. Constitution with a "human life amendment". This
would ban virtually all abortions, and many forms of birth control as
So if I kidnap you & hook you up to a guy who needs your blood for 9 months
& will die if he doesn't get it, you don't have any right to disconnect him?
You're a supporter of bloodsucking parasitism, pure & simple. Quit pretending
you have anything to do with libertarianism.
> >According to New Jersey Right to Life, Sabrin told them he favored
> >amending the U.S. Constitution with a "human life amendment". This
> >would ban virtually all abortions, and many forms of birth control as
> I was going by what he said in the 2nd debate (the only one I
> remembered to tape - I heard later that he really shone in the
> 3rd debate), where he only specifically said that he would work
> to ban `partial-birth' abortions. Since state governors have no
> role in ratifying amendments to the federal constitution, it
> doesn't really matter what Sabrin thinks about this amendment,
> whether your characterisation of it is correct or not.
I'm going by the "action alert" sent out by NJ Right to Life. I assume
that Sabrin agreed to their Constitutional strategy, or else they
wouldn't have endorsed him. In any case, their "scorecard" shows him
favoring a "human life amendment". In response to your second point, I
think it does make a difference what a governor thinks about
Constitutional amendments. Do you think most libertarians would favor a
gubernatorial candidate who wanted to amend the Constitution to ban
firearm possession, even though as a governor he would have no say in
the matter? I really don't think so.
> I'm not sure what forms of birth control you think this hypothetical
> amendment would ban.
Since the proposed amendment would grant "person" rights from the moment
of conception, any method of birth control that prevents the fertilized
egg from implanting and growing would be considered the taking of a
human life. This would include the IUD and most birth control pills
(the pill's primary action is to prevent the egg from being released,
but in other cases it will prevent a fertilized egg from imlanting in
the uterine lining.)
> Ron Paul wrote an article in _Liberty_ about
> 8 or 9 years ago justifying the legalisation of RU486 even from a
> right-to-life POV, on the grounds that it has legitimate medical
> uses, and it's a breach of privacy to inquire of a woman exactly why
> she wants it; she doesn't have to disclose her medical history to
> every policeman or chemist to justify why she wants the pills, and
> the presumption of innocence means that they should just presume that
> she wants it because she's got some medical condition that it will
Well, I certainly don't think Ron Paul would have gotten the endorsement
of a group like NJ Right to Life, not if he talks like that. But Murray
> >Comparing the yet to be born child of a woman who (except in rape and
> >incest cases) chose to become pregnant to a homeless parasite (to use
> >your term) is an ubiquitous non-sequator (ie: it's an apples to oranges
> >comparison). BTW, though staunchly pro-life, I will concede cases of
> >rape, incest and life endangerment, because of many of the arguments you
> >snidely make.
> Unwanted pregnancies are just like having homeless parasites squatting in your
> own home, except that they're much worse since they're an invasion of your
> person instead of just your property.
> Don't you believe that people have the right to evict invaders of their own
> BTW, you need to look up the meaning of "non-sequitur."
> >However, lest your anarchistic views go unchallenged, freedom comes
> >inexorably linked with responsibility. Murder cannot be an excuse for
> >irresponsible behavior. If the sex that produced the child was
> >consentual and the mother's life is not endangered, then there is no
> >moral or ethical reason to kill the child for the sake of the mother's
> Since you called my views "anarchistic," let me clue you in: I'm a
> anarcho-capitalist, like most good libertarians who've thought about it. You
> must be new to the libertarian movement.
> The moral/ethical reason to "kill the child for the sake of the mother's
> convenience" is that she has every right to evict tresspassers from her own
> property. She didn't consent to let the child in any more than she would've
> if she'd built a house & had a homeless person break in & squat in it.
> >I suppose that you'd be in favor of post-birth abortions if the parents
> >didn't think they could handle the child after birth. If not, then
> >pre-birth abortion for any than the above cited exceptions is murder and
> >should be treated as such.
> "Post-birth abortion" is an oxymoron.
> You're trying to make an analogy between abortion & infanticide. The only
> similarity is that there's death in both, but that's not enough. Infanticide
> is wrong for the same reason that shooting squatters after you've kicked them
> off your property is wrong.
> >BTW, I don't think we're helped at all by telling people who agree with
> >the other 59 planks of the 60 plank LP platform that we don't belong.
> I do.
> >If you wish to be a political party of one, go and be happy. Let the
> >rest of us try to get people elected and change policy for the nation.
> There's lots more pro-choicers in the LP than there are Ceaucescuites like
> It's your attempts to change American policy to make it more like that of
> Romania under Ceaucescu that I object to.
> "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
> the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
> government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
> --Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
> Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
> Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
> Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
> Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
> Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Sabrin is nothing more or less then a right wing conservative that has no
political standing in NJ GOP politics so he and his cabal have basically
Hi jacked the NJLP to promote their own Guns /No taxes/anti-abortion &
just forget the rest of our platform version of libertarianism. Worse he's
a right wing hitman hired by the Nat'l GOp which is dominated by these
folks, His one job take out Whitman. These people hate everything about
the LP. They hold all of us in total contempt. However, they are just
vicious and cynical enough to hi jack us to carry off a political
assinanation! Sabrin is hiding his contributor's list because knows what
would happen if the rest of the NJLP got wind of whose really behind his
run. As to his being Pro-life personally I find it an oxymoron to be
anti-choice and still call yourself a Libertarian. Especially since our
core belief is centered around control of one's own person.I guess Sabrin
and his ilk thinks that only means men can truly be Libertarians. He's a
hypocrite as was Jefferson. Slaves weren't real humans just 2 thirds of
one for representational purposes. Sabrin and his ilk should return to the
GOP were they belong The party of Hypocrisy!
If Sabrin actually got elected governor of NJ, which he thankfully doesn't
stand a chance in Hell of doing, it would be a symbolic statewide referendum
on abortion in favor of the Ceaucescuites. Although he wouldn't have any
official role in ratifying any amendments to the constitution, he would still
wield considerable patronage power to manipulate others with as well.
>I'm not sure what forms of birth control you think this hypothetical
>amendment would ban. Ron Paul wrote an article in _Liberty_ about
>8 or 9 years ago justifying the legalisation of RU486 even from a
>right-to-life POV, on the grounds that it has legitimate medical
>uses, and it's a breach of privacy to inquire of a woman exactly why
>she wants it; she doesn't have to disclose her medical history to
>every policeman or chemist to justify why she wants the pills, and
>the presumption of innocence means that they should just presume that
>she wants it because she's got some medical condition that it will
A very principled position for him to take. What makes you think that the NJ
Right-to-Life PAC & the rest of the Ceaucescuites share it?
No, because blizzards don't last 9 months, & the drunk will be capable of
making compensation to me after he sobers up. Neither condition applies to
[Stuff that should've already been snipped snipped]
>Sabrin is nothing more or less then a right wing conservative that has no
>political standing in NJ GOP politics so he and his cabal have basically
>Hi jacked the NJLP to promote their own Guns /No taxes/anti-abortion &
>just forget the rest of our platform version of libertarianism. Worse he's
>a right wing hitman hired by the Nat'l GOp which is dominated by these
>folks, His one job take out Whitman. These people hate everything about
>the LP. They hold all of us in total contempt. However, they are just
>vicious and cynical enough to hi jack us to carry off a political
What's more, the lesson that will be learned if Sabrin actually succeeds in
spoiling Whitman's race is that pro-choice GOP candidates will lose, so they'd
might as well not even bother running.
>Sabrin is hiding his contributor's list because knows what would happen if
>the rest of the NJLP got wind of whose really behind his run. As to his
>being Pro-life personally I find it an oxymoron to be anti-choice and still
>call yourself a Libertarian. Especially since our core belief is centered
>around control of one's own person.I guess Sabrin and his ilk thinks that
>only means men can truly be Libertarians. He's a hypocrite as was Jefferson.
>Slaves weren't real humans just 2 thirds of one for representational purposes.
Jefferson was against slavery. One of the first bills he introduced in the
Virginia House of Burgesses when Virginia was still a British colony was to
abolish slavery. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence
contained language condemning King George for allowing the slave trade. He
had nothing to do with the 3/5 rule in the Constitution, because he was in
Paris at the time serving as the US Ambassador to France. He remained an
abolitionist sympathizer for the rest of his life.
Jefferson's far more admirable than Sabrin.
: 1) They want abortion treated as murder.
: 2) They want the death penalty for murder.
: 3) There's no statute of limitations on murder.
: 4) Thus, they want every woman who's ever had an abortion, & every
: doctor who's ever performed one, executed for murder. Q.E.D.
Don't forget every boyfriend who gave a woman money for an abortion
(I forget the legal term: solicitation to murder?).
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
: 1) They want abortion treated as murder.
: 2) They want the death penalty for murder.
: 3) There's no statute of limitations on murder.
: 4) Thus, they want every woman who's ever had an abortion, & every
: doctor who's ever performed one, executed for murder. Q.E.D.
Don't forget every boyfriend who paid for an abortion
: .... Slaves weren't real humans just 2 thirds of
: one for representational purposes. ...
By the way - the abolitionists would have preferred that slaves count
for zero in the census, not one. The 3/5 rule in the Constitution
effectively gave a slave-holder 3/5 of an extra vote for every slave;
counting slaves as whole citizens would have done them no good.
True. He was imperfect, but he still accomplished great things.
>Sabrin on the other hand is a small time weasel! As to the anti-choice
>elements in the Libertarian movement what to do about them? I suspect that
>many of these folks are also very much against our stands on prostitution
>and drugs also. They are what I like to call conservative republicans that
1) They want abortion treated as murder.
2) They want the death penalty for murder.
3) There's no statute of limitations on murder.
4) Thus, they want every woman who's ever had an abortion, & every doctor who's
ever performed one, executed for murder. Q.E.D.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
>1) They want abortion treated as murder.
>2) They want the death penalty for murder.
>3) There's no statute of limitations on murder.
>4) Thus, they want every woman who's ever had an abortion, & every doctor who's
>ever performed one, executed for murder. Q.E.D.
You're assuming that all libertarians agree with the current law that
someone who solicits a murder is guilty of murder. I haven't taken a
poll, but here's one libertarian who strongly disagrees with that law.
The murderer is a moral agent, and therefore bears full responsibility
for his crime. The person who asks him to do it did not cause the
victim's death, because she did not control the murderer's actions,
therefore she cannot be guilty of murder, just as if I tell you to
jump off a cliff and you do it, I didn't murder you. In more technical
terms, there was an intervening act by a moral agent, and that puts
the moral and legal responsibility (same thing in a lib system) on the
one who made the last moral decision, and not on those who came before
him. See David Kelley's _Truth and Toleration_ for a similar concept,
where he says that those who taught philosophy to Stalin can't be
blamed for his actions, because if it's their fault then it can't be
his as well, and vice versa.
Congratulations! You've just exculpated all of the Nuremburg defendants,
except for the lowest ranks. After all, they were only giving orders to mass-
murder millions of people, they didn't actually do the deeds.
If I hire someone to murder you, we're BOTH guilty of murder, plus conspiracy
to murder. If abortion is murder, every woman who's ever hired a doctor to
"murder" her baby is equally guilty of murder & subject to the death penalty
if the Ceaucescuites get their way. So is every boyfriend who ever paid for
the operation, & every doctor who did one.
So, in other words, anybody (or any group of bodies) that has enough
money can have people whacked with no consequences at all? Fascinating.
>I watched most of the debates on CSPAN. The attack on several
>planks was done in such a sneaky way that I didn't understand
>what was going on.
>A motion to alter the Platform was proposed and debated. The motion
>was itself amended, with some debate. Then, when the allotted time
>was running short and everyone was getting bored with the debate, a
>substitute motion was offered and approved, discussion was closed,
>and the substitute motion passed without debate.
I'm not sure which debate you're referring to. I was on the floor
during the abortion and children's rights debates. In the abortion
debate everyone I saw and heard looked like they meant what they
were saying, and the people who offered a compromise wording didn't
pull something out that they had already prepared, they were running
around scribbling something on the fly to propose. In the children's
rights debate, I don't recall any amendments or substitutes; the
motion was to drop the plank, and it succeeded. The only debate
that sounds like what you describe is the gay rights issue, and in
that one see my previous post, where I described some of the reasons
for the substitute motion. I wasn't there in the morning when the
final motion was passed, but I do know that the substitute motion
that was offered was at the request of LGLC, not Tim Starr's
alleged conservatives. I know this because I was at the LGLC
meeting where the substitute motion was put together.
>It's over a year later and only now do I appreciate the enormity of
>what was done. I was blinded by an assumption that the floor debate
>was sincere. I'm glad my membership lapsed: I don't want to defend
>or support a Party in which backroom maneuvers, with phony debates
>on dummy motions, take the place of open debate on genuine issues.
I don't know about `backroom manuevers'. The only one I know about
was the way they kept that Nazi Collins or whatever his name was
from speaking on C-SPAN at the presidential nomination. The last
thing we needed was the eyes of all C-SPAN addicts on us at our big
moment, and this Nazi giving a 10-minute speech or however long it
was. As it was, once the requirement for 35 pledged delegates was
passed, and it was clear that Collins wasn't going to get them, he
didn't even bother showing up, and hasn't been heard from in the
LP since. Yes, it was a backroom manoeuvre, but in this case it
was in a good cause. And yes, I'm not 100% comfortable with how
it was done, because of the precedent it sets.
>Memory is hazy, and I'm probably mixing up some episodes. I'm sure,
>though, that at least twice a substitute motion (inferior to what I'd
>already thought of, while watching tv at a safe distance <g>) was voted
>on with no debate, and at least one such passed - I'd say two, but your
>account seems to preclude that.
Sometimes a substitute motion is drafted so as to take into account
all the issues that were addressed in the debate, so when it's
presented everyone agrees that there's no need to debate it, and
just votes on it and goes home.
>>Don't you believe that people have the right to evict invaders of their own
>RE-But, except in the cases of rape or incest, YOU are the one who moved
>them into there, or at least had half of the blame of it.
This keeps bothering me every time I see it. Why do people insist on
making an exception for incest? I can see that in the case of rape
one can argue that the baby is trespassing, though it's *not* an
invader, because it didn't get there of its own will, it was thrown
in through the window. When someone is tied up and thrown in through
your window he's not an invader, and you certainly have no right to
use force against him in evicting him. But let's put that aside for
now. Why the incest exception? Incest is just as consensual as any
other kind of sex (in cases where it isn't, it's covered by the rape
exception), so why do people who oppose abortion when the pregnancy
results from consensual sex with a non-relative support it when the
parents are relatives? AFAIK there's nothing in libertarian theory
or practise to support the theocratic ban on incest, so what gives?
>> You're assuming that all libertarians agree with the current law that
>> someone who solicits a murder is guilty of murder. I haven't taken a
>> poll, but here's one libertarian who strongly disagrees with that law.
>> The murderer is a moral agent, and therefore bears full responsibility
>> for his crime. The person who asks him to do it did not cause the
>> victim's death, because she did not control the murderer's actions,
>> therefore she cannot be guilty of murder, just as if I tell you to
>> jump off a cliff and you do it, I didn't murder you.
RE-Which would be suicide, but anyway...
>So, in other words, anybody (or any group of bodies) that has enough
>money can have people whacked with no consequences at all? Fascinating.
RE-Agreed. Both parties must have some of the punsihment. The one who killed
them, and the one who hired the hitman.