That should be the mantra of the Republican Party, repeated by every candidate when he wakes up in the morning, before every speech, and again before he goes to sleep.
Take out the “sort of” and that may well be the quote of century. Of course, this is only a step away from the “out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom” rhetoric that so angers the so-cons (mostly that latter half). Being a social moderate myself, I don’t care much whether Giuliani was thinking about abortion when he said this.
As a social conservative (as well as a fiscon and neocon), and a Republican that knows that without social conservatives the Republican candidate can never win, I find this statement troubling. I was close to being able to enthusiastically supporting Rudy if he were the nominee. Now, I’m significantly less sure.
Just to make sure you know, this statement wasn’t code for any sort of position on abortion. It came up in the context of taxes and civil unions, and Rudy was arguing that his opposition to taxes, and his support in NYC for ensuring that gay citizens are afforded the same legal protections that the rest of us enjoy as we live our lives, both stem from his political philosophy, which is articulated in our quote of the century above. Beyond that, I guess I would just ask to what extent you would disagree with the general principle that government should generally err on the side of not meddling in people’s lives? If it’s abortion that you’re concerned about, I think it’s quite possible to be a small-l libertarian and pro-life, and it’s definitely possible to be a small-l libertarian and support judges who defer to the democratic process.
Dave G- You are exactly right. Prime example was Goldwater who was vigilent on free markets, small govt., etc but pro-life. The reality is there is only one thing a President can do about abortion- appoint conservative judges. Once Rudy said Alito and Roberts were ideal judges he satisfied me on that score.
Could you explain how it is consistent with small-l libertarianism to support the notion of the government passing laws to ban and criminalize abortions?
I can understand someone who holds both views at the same time, but I think it is wildly inconsistent. Not that there is anything wrong with thtat, we are all a maze of inconsistencies. But I dont see how you can claim that it is not inconsistent.
“Could you explain how it is consistent with small-l libertarianism to support the notion of the government passing laws to ban and criminalize abortions?”
Easily. In fact, it was the subject of my first paper back in college if I recall correctly.
If one starts with the premise that the primary purpose of the state is to protect the inherent, natural rights of each individual — life, property, and all that — and that the state basically exists to decide who wins when my rights to live and to act run into yours, abortion then becomes a clash between the rights of two individuals. You have the woman and her property rights over her body versus the child and his or her right not to have his or her life ended against his or her will. The result of such a conflict would presumably be that in most cases, the right to life trumps the woman’s property right over her body, unless not having an abortion would likely lead to the mother’s death, in which case it’s one right to life versus another.
So it would be very easy to make the case from a small-l libertarian perspective that all abortions should be illegal except for those where the mother’s life is in danger. I suppose the way to refute that argument would likely involve distinguishing the rights of an adult from a fetus, or those of a two-week-old fetus from an 8-month-old one and all that. And one can reach a number of variant conclusions depending on those factors. But my point simply is that small-l libertarianism and being pro-life can be quite compatible.
“I see Dave. All you have to do is redefine the meaning of “person†under the law, and it all makes sense.”
Yup. Just like when we “redefined” the meaning of person under the law to acknowledge that African-Americans were indeed an entire person, and not simply three-fifths of one…
Dave,
Well, you do know, don’t you ( I guess not), that African Americans were never defined any way other than as full people.
The relevant Constitutional passage that you refer to – the “three fifths” rule, referred to slaves, not to blacks.
Obviously, all the slaves were black, but not all blacks were slaves.
The passage was also NOT any sort of an existential statement about the value or humanity of the slaves. Rather, it was a political compromise between, oddly enough, the slave owners who wanted the slaves to be counted fully (so that the Southern population would be larger in the census, leading to more seats in Congress), against the anti-slavers who didnt want the slaves counted at all (on the principle that if they were not going to be allowed to vote, then they would have no representation, and their numbers should not be used to increase the political power of their masters).
Oh, and btw, even if the 3/5 rule were an appropriate example, which it isn’t, it would still be a bad example of the issue under discussion, since the rule was not “redefined” out of existence, but was overwritten by Constitutional amendment.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
That should be the mantra of the Republican Party, repeated by every candidate when he wakes up in the morning, before every speech, and again before he goes to sleep.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Take out the “sort of” and that may well be the quote of century. Of course, this is only a step away from the “out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom” rhetoric that so angers the so-cons (mostly that latter half). Being a social moderate myself, I don’t care much whether Giuliani was thinking about abortion when he said this.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Dare I say it’s morning in America again?
December 5th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Dave G. . .nice.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Well, Dave, I dare say that Rudy Giuliani’s staff would love for you to make that particular connection
December 5th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Is it just me, or is Giuliani the closest thing a small-l libertarian like myself will get to the perfect candidate?
December 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
(In a major party, that is)
December 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Nusrat:
It’s not just you
December 6th, 2006 at 12:31 am
As a social conservative (as well as a fiscon and neocon), and a Republican that knows that without social conservatives the Republican candidate can never win, I find this statement troubling. I was close to being able to enthusiastically supporting Rudy if he were the nominee. Now, I’m significantly less sure.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Hi Steve,
Just to make sure you know, this statement wasn’t code for any sort of position on abortion. It came up in the context of taxes and civil unions, and Rudy was arguing that his opposition to taxes, and his support in NYC for ensuring that gay citizens are afforded the same legal protections that the rest of us enjoy as we live our lives, both stem from his political philosophy, which is articulated in our quote of the century above. Beyond that, I guess I would just ask to what extent you would disagree with the general principle that government should generally err on the side of not meddling in people’s lives? If it’s abortion that you’re concerned about, I think it’s quite possible to be a small-l libertarian and pro-life, and it’s definitely possible to be a small-l libertarian and support judges who defer to the democratic process.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Dave G- You are exactly right. Prime example was Goldwater who was vigilent on free markets, small govt., etc but pro-life. The reality is there is only one thing a President can do about abortion- appoint conservative judges. Once Rudy said Alito and Roberts were ideal judges he satisfied me on that score.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Could you explain how it is consistent with small-l libertarianism to support the notion of the government passing laws to ban and criminalize abortions?
I can understand someone who holds both views at the same time, but I think it is wildly inconsistent. Not that there is anything wrong with thtat, we are all a maze of inconsistencies. But I dont see how you can claim that it is not inconsistent.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“Could you explain how it is consistent with small-l libertarianism to support the notion of the government passing laws to ban and criminalize abortions?”
Easily. In fact, it was the subject of my first paper back in college if I recall correctly.
If one starts with the premise that the primary purpose of the state is to protect the inherent, natural rights of each individual — life, property, and all that — and that the state basically exists to decide who wins when my rights to live and to act run into yours, abortion then becomes a clash between the rights of two individuals. You have the woman and her property rights over her body versus the child and his or her right not to have his or her life ended against his or her will. The result of such a conflict would presumably be that in most cases, the right to life trumps the woman’s property right over her body, unless not having an abortion would likely lead to the mother’s death, in which case it’s one right to life versus another.
So it would be very easy to make the case from a small-l libertarian perspective that all abortions should be illegal except for those where the mother’s life is in danger. I suppose the way to refute that argument would likely involve distinguishing the rights of an adult from a fetus, or those of a two-week-old fetus from an 8-month-old one and all that. And one can reach a number of variant conclusions depending on those factors. But my point simply is that small-l libertarianism and being pro-life can be quite compatible.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I see Dave. All you have to do is redefine the meaning of “person” under the law, and it all makes sense.
With skillful redefinition of terms, I guess it would be possible to make any two positions in the world consistent with eachother.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“I see Dave. All you have to do is redefine the meaning of “person†under the law, and it all makes sense.”
Yup. Just like when we “redefined” the meaning of person under the law to acknowledge that African-Americans were indeed an entire person, and not simply three-fifths of one…
December 6th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Dave,
Well, you do know, don’t you ( I guess not), that African Americans were never defined any way other than as full people.
The relevant Constitutional passage that you refer to – the “three fifths” rule, referred to slaves, not to blacks.
Obviously, all the slaves were black, but not all blacks were slaves.
The passage was also NOT any sort of an existential statement about the value or humanity of the slaves. Rather, it was a political compromise between, oddly enough, the slave owners who wanted the slaves to be counted fully (so that the Southern population would be larger in the census, leading to more seats in Congress), against the anti-slavers who didnt want the slaves counted at all (on the principle that if they were not going to be allowed to vote, then they would have no representation, and their numbers should not be used to increase the political power of their masters).
Nothing there about “persons under the law”.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:39 am
Oh, and btw, even if the 3/5 rule were an appropriate example, which it isn’t, it would still be a bad example of the issue under discussion, since the rule was not “redefined” out of existence, but was overwritten by Constitutional amendment.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
WE need more libertairans in the GOP!!!!