Before I begin, let’s understand the history of libertarian philosophy. The earliest theoreticians of libertarian classical liberalism were the levellers during the English revolution and the philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. Yes, libertarianism is derived from western states; HOWEVER, western states do not adhere to the true libertarian manifesto. Western nations are only relatively free compared to nations such as China and Saudi Arabia.
Almost everyone on this forum and those who reside on this earth says he favours freedom. Just try to find a single individual who says he does not. Such a search would almost be pointless. Indeed, so many of us even on this forum declare themselves for freedom and against Totalitarianism. But, in spite of this lip service to freedom, those who adhere to some segments of Islam do not realize that our actual liberties are being eroded under such an Ideal Islamic state. By adhering to this ideology the centralized state will undoubtedly make more and more of our decisions for us.
There are many on this forum that claim for freedom but do not fight against a supreme state if its affiliation is with Islam. One would believe that maybe it is because some who proclaim their devotion to freedom do not understand the requirements of freedom. The famous saying goes “many favour peace, but not many favour the things that make for peace”.
Libertarians will generally concede the right of every individual to his “personal liberty,” to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal “exchanges” as sexual activity between “consenting adults.” In short, the libertarian attempts to uphold the individual’s right to the ownership of his own body. After all, why would one give the state control to think, speak and take control of our bodies? But, it seems some on this forum pray for such a day.
In this thread, we discuss in a civil manner where we can draw the line between right wing entities of Islam and the everyone’s right to be free. I hope, for the most part we won’t have to resort to name calling and childish bickering. I will start off with outlining the Ideal way sex should be treated in a free society. From then on, ill move on to other social issues that should be addressed.
Re: The Libertarian Philosophy and far right entities of Islam.
Sex:
Of course, I am going to assume that all those who read this post will be able to identify the difference between pre martial sex, Adultery, and rape. If not, please use Google.
Pre-marital sex:
Let’s face it, sex is great. But why should a social phenomenon be illegal? When was it the government’s job to regulate relationships? One needs to understand that that allowing governments to take control of individual relationships will set an already dangerous precedence.
If 2 unmarried adults agree to have a sexual relationship in private then that is their business. There is no need for the central government to stop this relationship. Let’s face it; there is no crime unless there is a victim and a criminal. In such a case the victim is the criminal and criminal is the victim. Ideally a crime should only be established if someone is it is actually physically or psychologically hurt.
In a free society, if you feel on balance pre martial sex is more harmful than beneficial, don't consume it. If others feel differently, let them be. What one person perceives as harmful, another may see as highly beneficial.
Adultery:
Marriage is a contract between people specifying their hold on assets and having particular social requirements. Therefore if the contract disallows multiple sexual partners we can indisputably assume the contract has been made void. From this point onwards both parties should begin to resolve their issues or establish a divorce. According to some killing the person for breaching the contract should t be a punishment. Such punishment should only go forward IF both parties signed the marriage contract which clearly stated that this is the punishment for breaking the contract.
Rape:
Rape is a crime under any political, social, philosophical point of view. We can all agree rape is a crime unless sex is consensual. Of course, if the sex was consensual then it would not be classified as rape. The only issue we could debate upon is the Ideal punishment for rape.
Re: The Libertarian Philosophy and far right entities of Islam.
Pre-marital sex:
Let’s face it, sex is great. But why should a social phenomenon be illegal? When was it the government’s job to regulate relationships? One needs to understand that that allowing governments to take control of individual relationships will set an already dangerous precedence.
If 2 unmarried adults agree to have a sexual relationship in private then that is their business. There is no need for the central government to stop this relationship. Let’s face it; there is no crime unless there is a victim and a criminal. In such a case the victim is the criminal and criminal is the victim. Ideally a crime should only be established if someone is it is actually physically or psychologically hurt.
In a free society, if you feel on balance pre martial sex is more harmful than beneficial, don't consume it. If others feel differently, let them be. What one person perceives as harmful, another may see as highly beneficial.
Its not necessary that a crime can only occur if there is a specific victim or criminal. At times the whole society can be a victim and hence a particular action can be considered unlawful and liable for ounishment. Forexample in soem states water is a scarce commodity and washing cars and lawns with open taps is illegal and punishable. In this case crime is not being comitted against any specific person but is an act that causes harm to whole society.
Pre-maritla sexual activity leads to lot of problems that the whole society faces and has to deal with, these include and not limited to teen pregnancy, STDs, jealousy, mistrust etc. If a society as a whole has to pay the price of these actions it can also prohibit these actions.
interesting topic slickstar. as someone who likes the libertarian system, I think too often libertarians get painted as libertines. the essence of the libertarian viewpoint boils down to: social or political change should not be brought about through force, unless it is for the enforcement of contracts.
there can however be bounds placed on the nature of contracts that reflect the ideals of the people. for instance, many (not all) libertarians believe that slavery is not a valid contract. therefore the nature of the marriage contract could also be restricted.
One can take the libertarian philosophy too far if social norms are not taken into account. You may be aware of the libertarian candidate in the US in the 80s, who could not bring herself to clearly condemn sexual relations with minors. there are clearly limits on the nature of contracts as well as an eligibility criterion.
also you may find this interesting, if not wholly convincing: a libertarian case for traditional marriage..
Re: The Libertarian Philosophy and far right entities of Islam.
Sex:
Pre-marital sex:------------------------------
. Let’s face it; there is no crime unless there is a victim and a criminal. In such a case the victim is the criminal and criminal is the victim. Ideally a crime should only be established if someone is it is actually physically or psychologically hurt.
.
Slickster Ji............what do the Libeterian propose we do with the offspring of pre-marital sex?
Unwanted Children?........kill them in their Mother's Womb like evryone seems to be doing!
*So we end up punishing the innocent children for the Lust fullfillments of their Parents.....................:( *
Re: The Libertarian Philosophy and far right entities of Islam.
Its not necessary that a crime can only occur if there is a specific victim or criminal. At times the whole society can be a victim and hence a particular action can be considered unlawful and liable for ounishment. Forexample in soem states water is a scarce commodity and washing cars and lawns with open taps is illegal and punishable. In this case crime is not being comitted against any specific person but is an act that causes harm to whole society.
The scarcity of water affects the whole society directly if one person abuses the system. Hence, the victim is the society. However pre martial sex does NOT affect anyone. If I were to leave my tap running for hours the whole community will be effected. If i were to have sex with a stranger over the weekend for hours, NO ONE would be effected. Hence victimless.
Pre-marital sexual activity leads to lot of problems that the whole society faces and has to deal with, these include and not limited to teen pregnancy, STDs, jealousy, mistrust etc. If a society as a whole has to pay the price of these actions it can also prohibit these actions.
Jealousy and mistrust. lol
Im jealous of my neighbors new car. Lets stop him from getting a another one.
I mistrust my sister because she lied to me about her exam marks.
c'mon.
I agree teen pregnancy is a problem, only because protection is so widely available in today's society. however, the teenager made a decision that she does not want to use protection and therefore suffers the consequences.
Why should the state forcing people to be “moral”—i.e., to act morally—the state would in reality deprive US of the very possibility of being moral. The concept of “morality” makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.
The libertarian, in contrast to so many conservatives and liberals, does not want to place man in any cage. What he wants for everyone is freedom, the freedom to act morally or immorally, as each man shall decide.
I wasn’t around in the 80’s so I wouldn’t know.
The major issue is the age of consent.
Do we go by the natural age of puberty? 12,13,15? or do we create a number and use it universally?
I support homosexuals to live in freedom like the rest of us, however, the word “marriage” itself is defined by a traditional family. Therefore, the homosexual couples can have civil unions and what not.
Re: The Libertarian Philosophy and far right entities of Islam.
Slickster Ji............what do the Libeterian propose we do with the offspring of pre-marital sex?
Unwanted Children?........kill them in their Mother's Womb like evryone seems to be doing!
*So we end up punishing the innocent children for the Lust fullfillments of their Parents.....................:( *
Its an absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.
Okay since slickstar sahab is banned, Ill present a limited defence of libertarian philosophy.
Freedom is a pretty well thought out concept. Classical liberals used to limit themselves to negative freedom, i.e. freedom from*the state's interference in matters related to speech, thought and action. There is also positive freedom, freedom *to.. the freedom to get an education for example instead of being forced to work for example. Another important sense of freedom is the ability to act according to your own conscience and reasoning. As to why you should follow that definition, it isnt such a contentious word, and most proponents of Freedom would have similar approaches to problems. positive freedom proponents may see more of a role of the state than negative freedom one.
the west is hardly a proponent for (classical) liberalism. the current left-right monopoly in most western states springs from Hegelian origins, the current liberals are basically reformed marxists who have no problems limiting economic freedoms, whereas the current right is quite happy limiting social ones. As an example, in the US, the libertarian party is lucky to get 1 or 2 percent of the vote. There would be limits on freedoms in libertarian states though, an easy case is when the freedom of one impinges on the freedom of others.
You decide it, according to whatever criterion you deem fit. There is nothing stopping you from thinking about, talking about, preaching about morality. What libertarians advocate against is using force to bring about social or economic change, where force includes government force (law-enforcement). In truth a strong moral base is beneficial for libertarian society to work.
Why should anyone follow any other person's mindset, including religious mindset? You understand that it is this very notion that leads to the idea that everyone should be free to follow their conscience. Assuming we believe people are acting on conscience we need to merely preach to them and appeal to their minds in order to change their behaviour, instead of using state force.
Its an absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: **If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, **unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body,** has the right to change her mind and to eject it.**
What a sick, twisted argument. If she is carrying an unborn child, she no longer is just one body.
What a sick, twisted argument. If she is carrying an unborn child, she no longer is just one body.
Essentially you are defending an act of murder.
what? How is it a twisted argument? You can give the idea of abortion whatever label you want. Are you putting forward the notion that the government now owns a portion of the every female body?
^Once she made a decision to let the baby live in her womb till the age of viability then she cannot reverse the decision to eject it as it will cause harm to another human being (child) which is not her property.
Like a person donates a kidney to another person, but he cannot later recalim that now he wants his kdiney to be ejected and put back into his own body.
^Once she made a decision to let the baby live in her womb till the age of viability then she cannot reverse the decision to eject it as it will cause harm to another human being (child) which is not her property.
Like a person donates a kidney to another person, but he cannot later recalim that now he wants his kdiney to be ejected and put back into his own body.
This is a preposterous fallacy. The host of the fetus is the rightful owner of the fetus for as long as the fetus is inside her. The survival of the baby directly linked to the host. To argue otherwise is laughable. If, as you say the host does not own the baby while its inside her, who does?
That is like saying I don't own my own arm, or my kidneys...but an external entity (state) is the rightful owner of me. wth?
And your comparison is incorrect. It would only be reasonably correct if the government decided that your kidney should go to another sentient being. Why should the government need your permission to use your kidneys?
As extreme as it may sound, I really dislike the idea of the government telling us what we can and cannot do.
A woman may own her arm and leg but not the fetus. Fetus is a separate human being, with its own unique DNA, requirements and senses. Once the fetus reaches the age of viability (age at which it has capacity to live outside the womb on its own (around 24 weeks) then mother does not own it.
It does not give any one right to kill an individual if his/her survival depends upon him/her. Lets say if i find a baby in desert and pick it up and nurture and then after 2 days still in desert where its survival just depends upon me, can i kill the baby?
how can a state deem it illegal to kill a baby as soon as it has come out of the birth canal and not the moment before? This is not a libertarian issue, it is an issue on when life begins.
Most of the discussion comes down to when life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The anti-abortionists like many on this forum say all they want is the fetus to be given the rights of any human being. ie, the right to life and the right to not be murdered. But there is much more involved here. If, hypothetically we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let's ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body?
Ravange posts up a dilemma. My brain want to say that the mother has the right to abort the child just moments before but deep inside I feel it is murder. I just don't know, and very confused. I don't want to come off as a moral less person of any sort. I am against abortion. But I just cannot fathom the notion that the governmnet must deprive everyone of the most precious part of his or her humanity—the freedom to choose.
^ when it comes to preserving life, the government does deprive people from the freedom to choose. abortion is not special in that regard.
as for this:
[quote]
If, hypothetically we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let's ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body?
[/quote]
Except for cases of rape, pregnancy is the consequence of an action you take. so 'unbidden' isnt exactly accurate. in the case of rape it is much more problematic and i would be open to leaving it to the conscience of the mother, perhaps.
Libertarian philosophy basically consists of ONE principle. The principle of NON-AGGRESSION. According to libertarian, AGGRESSIVE force cannot be used for any reason whatsoever. Defensive force is permissible to respond to aggression by others. Libertarianism is essentialy a PRINCIPLE that can be accepted or rejected by any philosophy, religion or world-view. It is not itself a complete philosophy and does not mandate any kind of morality or behaviour - other than non-aggression.
Libertarian individuals are free to form voluntary communities based on shared values and regulate these communities as they wish - as long as the communities are truly voluntary.
For example, muslim are free to form an islamic community and regulate it according to Shariah laws. Those who join such communities voluntarily agree to submit to its rules. If they disagree with the rules, they are free to leave or not join in the first place. In such a community, members who engage in pre-marital sex and can be punished according to the rules of the community - since they agreed to these rules. The important thing is that their right to leave voluntarily is not infringed upon.
A perfect example of a libertarian community is the Amish community. They are a very conservative community and strictly enforce their rules among their members. Yet, this enforcement is entirely voluntary. Any member is free to leave. They do not use state corecion AT ALL to enforce their rules. In fact, they try to stay away from the state as much as possible. No, Social Security, No medicare, no public education.