A prolife libertarian…

tries to reason with insane libertarians on the question of abortion with the provocatively titled post “What if the ‘Fetus’ Could Shoot Back?”. The insane libertarians labor to underscore the fact that libertarian ideology, untethered from natural law and revelation, is one of the crazier and more inhuman philosophies the human mind has devised. It’s a philosophy for people with no children and, in Randian purity, is a chemical soup for manufacturing enemies of God every bit as evil as Stalin. Only the evil is privatized, not harnessed to armies and police state systems to kill millions in gulags. But as our abortion industry demonstrates, we Western individualists are quite capable of using private enterprise to achieve similar ends without all that fuss about mass graves, gas chambers, and round the clock executions. Same butchery, nicer aesthetics. And that is, after all, what’s most important, isn’t it? Feeling good instead of actually *being* good?

""He speaks and his people sit up at attention," the President added. "I want my ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"In all cited cases, the technology IS neutral; but the user employs it for wretched ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"I disagree. As I understand him, Mark makes the point that all of those examples ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Mark, I think there's an interesting set of ideas to work through here and you're ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Will

    So, are you proclaiming that Libertarians for Life are not “real” libertarians? Maybe you should head over to http://www.l4l.org and, in your new capacity as libertarian pope, inform them so, and do likewise for Atheists for Life, Pagans for Life, and Feminists for Life. (Witches for Life seems to have vanished.)

    And you keep ignoring that Ayn Rand denounced those awful libertarians as “concept stealers”, because they had the nerve to be anti-statist without adopting her philosophy.

    • MarylandBill

      Read what he wrote, not just what the chip on your shoulder tells you. Specifically, he was talking about Libertarians who untether their ideology from natural law and revelation. Now perhaps we could argue about the inclusion of revelation in his argument.

      I think we all recognize that like most political movements, Libertarianism represents a range of views rather than a specific set of views. If a Libertarian recognizes that it is the proper role of the state to protect all individual persons in the state from violence by others, then they are not the “insane libertarians” that Mark is talking about.

    • I think that would depend on which parsing you give to this sentence:

      libertarian ideology, untethered from natural law and revelation, is one of the crazier and more inhuman philosophies the human mind has devised

      If Mark meant libertarian ideology, untethered as it is from natural law and revelation, … is inhuman then that might – might! – be what he’s saying. But if he meant, libertarian ideology, when untethered from natural law and revelation, … is inhuman, then that’s almost certainly not what he’s saying.

      • MarylandBill

        Considering that Mark has been a big supporter of Ron Paul, who is generally seen to be fair libertarian in his views, I think it is safe to say he was not saying that Libertarianism is necessarily untethered from natural law and revelation.

    • I believe the key phrase in Mark’s post was “untethered from natural law and revelation.” The intellectual heritage of libertarianism is very much built on both natural law and revelation. Bastiat, Mises and others were huge proponents of natural law as the appropriate driving force behind public policy. Bastiat believed that “the law is justice.” Bastiat also had a fundamentally divine understanding of liberty, stating that “liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.” Furthermore, Mises and other classical liberals despised anarchy and believed that government was necessary and good when contained within its proper role. Many of the more progressive libertarians of today have completely forgotten that heritage – as is the nature of progressivism – and have instead come to stand for a sort of godless quasi-anarchy with only superficial connections to their classical liberal forefathers.

      • Michael

        “Many of the more progressive libertarians of today have completely forgotten that heritage”

        Those would probably be the ones who suckled deeply at the teat of Ayn Rand. Sorry about the image that metaphor might create in some peoples’ minds. I think I just sickened myself.

    • Mark Shea

      In response to your question: No.