PostHeaderIcon Rethinking Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade is bad law, which should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds. Those most vocal in both the defense and condemnation of it however, frequently seem not to understand the implications of their goals. A case can be made that achieving those goals, by either side, would produce unintended consequences the opposite of what they seek.

As a retired sterile hermit, the incessant abortion controversy ought to be utterly irrelevant to me. It mercifully would be, except the insufferable PC moralists insist on inserting it into national political debate, where it has no business whatever being an issue. Politically Correct and Piously Correct activists alike, muck up our electoral process, by forcing candidates to publicly pronounce their personal moral position, on the question of a woman’s right to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

My natural right to dismiss this issue, as inconsequential here in my hermitage, is under constant assault by these busybodies. Years ago, I analyzed all the shopworn arguments from both sides, and carefully thought through my own position on the matter. None of the constant bickering since, has changed it one iota, nor is it ever likely to. I suspect that a majority of Americans, who are not dogmatic ideologues and are equipped to think for themselves, would generally agree with me.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of 2nd term abortions, 3rd term abortions (once the fetus is viable) are almost always wrong, and partial birth abortions are arguably infanticide and unforgivably abominable to me. It would be far less cruel, and achieve precisely the same result, to wait another minute for the birth and then euthanize the unwanted baby. I regard any doctor who would perform one, any woman who would demand one, and any heartless dogmatist who sanctions them, as evil incarnate. These miscreants deserve no respect whatever.

The first trimester is not so clear-cut. While I am troubled by the notion of using abortion as retroactive birth control, I see no value at all in bringing unwanted, drug addicted, or malformed children into the world, to be unloved, abused, and likely to grow up as criminals preying on those actually wanted and lovingly nurtured. I am old enough to remember when birth control itself, was considered a mortal sin in most of Christendom; so to now suggest a moral distinction, between pills taken the morning before or the morning after, seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Ever evolving doctrine aside, there are any number of situations where aborting a pregnancy early in the process, could reasonably be considered the best among poor options. I reckon that such a decision belongs exclusively to the family involved, in consultation with their medical and perhaps spiritual advisers. I will say, that those dogmatic enough to deny the remedy to a victim of rape, incest, or life threatening complications, thereby violating her own natural right to life and the pursuit of happiness, I regard as every bit as evil and contemptible, as those countenancing partial birth abortion.

Few politicians get away with such a nuanced position, which admits any exceptions either way; yet an unequivocal response to the question, will instantly alienate a sizable portion of the electorate. This, quite naturally, frequently encourages the ambitious politician to simply lie, telling the poll-tested majority what they wish to hear. Who can really blame them? Lying on a job application, because one wants the job, is not particularly uncommon; but how does electing practiced and polished liars, help produce honest government?

For the candidate for national office, this is an easy and fairly safe lie to tell; because there is nothing in our Constitution empowering the Federal government to legislate on the issue anyway. Repealing Roe v. Wade, would not make abortion illegal in America. It would only return that issue to the individual States, where it properly belongs. Then, States could, if their citizens desired, enact laws regulating and/or banning abortion, without regard to the societal norms of other States.

Of course, this would necessarily mean that while abortions could no longer be used casually in such States, as a careless woman’s retroactive birth control, in an emergency one could still be easily obtained legally, for the additional price of a bus ticket to a neighboring State or country. Add the obvious fact that the morning after pill, would become at least as easy to obtain on the street, as any other pharmaceutical (ironically making it even easier to obtain, especially for teenagers), and it would appear that the anti-abortion lobby is powerless, to ever achieve more than placing minor inconveniences in the path, of women determined to obtain an abortion.

That, and perhaps spawning new entrepreneurial opportunities, among border towns, vacation spots, pharmaceutical companies, and illicit drug dealers. I can see the next level of ‘feminine hygiene’ advertising already; “Miss something this month? Make the best of your little accident, with a mini-vacation at our ultramodern resort spa, where you will be pampered, entertained, and cleansed… includes transportation, luxurious accommodations, and tickets to Disney World… Call 1-800-aDoOver for reservations…” Ugh!

The likely unintended consequences, would be to eventually erase all remaining vestiges of shame or doubt regarding abortion, in the minds of modern liberated women in our dying culture. That being the case, it is puzzling why either side of the debate wastes so much time and energy, in their strident effort do defend or repeal Roe v. Wade. There is nothing like a righteous cause to animate the busybodies; but surely there are more worthy causes, with achievable goals, in which to invest their considerable time and passion.

Pro-abortion activists have no reason whatever to fear that abortions might one day become unavailable. Nobody expects there to be a cancer clinic or rehab center in every neighborhood. Just how many abortion clinics do they think we need? Choice? Methinks the zealotry of many, goes way beyond assuring women a ‘choice,’ and approaches something like eugenics. Many women already do travel to distant locations for their abortions, to avoid being seen there by someone they know.

Besides, the overall effect would undoubtedly actually lower the number of unwanted pregnancies taken to term in America. Combine the added inconvenience with the concurrent ubiquity of the morning after pill, and any prudent sexually active female would maintain a supply of them – and then use them far more frequently than is now the case. Clinically, the morning after pill is no different than other readily accepted forms of birth control. It functions to prevent the zygote from attaching to the wall of the uterus, to begin the process of dividing to form a fetus.

If this is an ‘abortion,’ then so too is the IUD et al, which also allow an egg to be fertilized by a sperm; but prevents uterine implantation. Since there is no way to know whether a zygote has been formed or not, until successfully attached to the uterus, it seems even staunch anti-abortion women use these forms of birth control with a clear conscience. Ironically, had Roe v. Wade never happened, the morning after pill would probably have been hailed as the next great leap in contraceptive medicine, and not even thought of as an abortion by most.

Thus, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, and a Pez dispenser full of morning after pills becomes a sine qua non in every purse, fewer ‘accidents’ will ever be born. This is hardly the calamity its defenders predict, quite the opposite. It naturally follows, of course, that it is hardly the victory its opponents desire, quite the opposite. Which begs the question, if the game is as advertised, isn’t everyone playing on the wrong side of the field? And, is victory by either side really going to make enough difference to justify all the ruckus?

Without doing unconscionable mayhem to our Constitution, abortion is here to stay in America. Like it or not, that is reality, folks. By design, our national politicians are not permitted to impose the morality of the majority, on an unwilling minority. Anti-abortion activists are obviously fighting a battle that cannot be won, for a cause which has already been lost. In the process, they are shooting themselves in the foot, regarding far more important issues facing our nation.

When an otherwise agreeable, competent, and likable candidate, who might have garnered enough moderate and independent votes to have won the General election in a purple district, is crippled by having to pronounce his position on abortion to win the Primary, it accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than giving his opponent something to hammer him with in the General, to win those swing voters for himself. This is suicidal insanity.

Were I running for office, I would refuse to play a part in the PC moralists superfluous little drama. I would explain that I was applying for the job of representing all of the citizens in my district, not impose my (or my Party’s) model of the world on them. I would promise that as their representative, I would always vote the way the majority of my constituents wished me to vote, as long as it was Constitutional. Thus, my personal beliefs were immaterial to my qualifications for the office I was seeking, and I would keep them to myself, thank you.

If it were a national office, I would further stress that I intended to take my oath to support and defend our Constitution very seriously, and that it does not authorize Congress to enact legislation that would regulate abortions in any way; so the question was entirely impertinent to my qualifications for the office. I suspect such a simple, honest, straightforward platform, could be a real winner in a General election. If the PC moralists managed to defeat it in the Primary, so be it. I would quietly fold my tent and return to the sanity of my hermitage, where I undoubtedly belong anyway. The world outside has gone mad, and I don’t even recognize my country anymore. ◄Dave►

33 Responses to “Rethinking Roe v. Wade”

  • Troy says:

    Well said. I have become so frustrated with our dysfunctional government that I can hardly blog straight anymore.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Happy birthday, Troy! It will always be an easy date to remember. Not only is it the Winter Solstice; but it was also my father’s birthday. Tell J9 I asked her to do something special for you on my behalf today. 😉 ◄Dave►

  • Trial says:

    Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment…
    In what state is murder legal?

  • Daedalus says:

    Abortion is only one of the elite moralists targets of individual liberty. You may not also commit suicide, or ingest substances that they dislike.
    On abortion surely the right of a woman to determine her own health and destiny is important. Do we have a right to regulate what she does with her own body?
    As to the answer “God”, That is no answer at all. It would be like trying to figure the answer to a complex math equation and someone saying God is the annswer. It still gets us no closer to solving the problem.

  • Greg says:

    “Roe v. Wade is bad law, which should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds. ”

    ACK! Dave, Dave, Dave! >..<

    What say you?

  • Greg says:

    Aha! So it DID eat my post! :p I had like… 5 paragraphs there too 🙁

    There was a ton of what I wrote there. Let me see if I can remember what it was the second time. Trying to put this in from memory >.>

    It went something like this:

    First of all,
    “Roe v. Wade is a bad law, which should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds.”

    ACK! Dave, Dave, Dave! *twitches* Roe v. Wade is NOT a law, it is a DECISION that upheld/granted/what have you handed down by the Supreme Court, but is NOT law itself. “Legislating from the bench” refers to decisions that, in effect, become law. But they are NOT law itself. Also, Laws frequently end with the word “Act.”

    *takes my professor’s cap off, puts on my pundit hat*

    (STOP READING if your opinions have changed)
    Now that that’s over with, I disagree for the very same reason you used to defend it: The 10th Amendment. THe 10th Amendment, in my opinion, guarantees your right to personal choice, since it is not delegated to the states, or the federal government. THerefore, it must be our right.

    That being said, I think there is room for compromise. The Commerce Clauses regulates interstate business. You couldn’t regulate my right to an abortion, but through clinics such as Planned Parenthood, you COULD tell them what kinds of abortion they can give and when (in terms of pregnancy).

    What say you?

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Greg, you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension before; but now you are actually misquoting me. Since most of us use cut & paste to extract quotes, it almost looks deliberately disingenuous. I hope it is not, that you just retyped what you thought you read, and once again are embarrassing yourself. Here is what I actually wrote above:

      Roe v. Wade is bad law, which should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds.

      Please note that there is no article ‘a’ in front of the word law, even though you inserted one in your misquote. I did not refer to the SCOTUS ruling as ‘a law,’ but as simply ‘bad law.’ Now, please visit your dictionary. You will find the word ‘statute’ describes the legislative acts you were twitching about, while adorned with your silly professorial dunce cap. Yes, the word ‘law’ is an acceptable synonym for a statute; but not so much the other way round. Look up the plethora of definitions for the word ‘law,’ and you will discover several that apply to my usage of it. In my trusty Merriam-Webster iPad app, the very first entry is:

      1a(1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law

      In fact, there are six definitions for ‘law’ as a noun, with several sub-parts, and not until the synonyms discussion at the very end, is the word ‘statute,’ or the fact that legislation is one method of creating law, even mentioned. May I suggest you stick to punditry; you seem a bit inept at pedagogy. ◄Dave►

      • Greg says:

        “May I suggest you stick to punditry; you seem a bit inept at pedagogy.”// nope, I think I just need to slow down my reading pace with you. Definitely not a pundit. Yuck. :p (Also that was kinda hurtful… just sayin’… I am new to the whole concept of blogging. 🙁 )

        • ◄Dave► says:

          What an odd way to apologize for misquoting someone, Greg, after gleefully jumping at the chance you perceived to set the old man straight, for not sharing your embarrassingly narrow definition for a very broad term. Yes, I would appreciate your adopting a pace that permits reading for comprehension hereabouts, most especially if you are inclined to comment on what you think was said. There is a fair amount of learning to be had as a reward for the effort.

          Spare us your emotions and plea for victimhood. Save those handicaps for your favorite Lefty websites, where they will be appreciated; only your intellect is of any use to you here. I had already warned you that I would box your ears, whenever you messed up. Perhaps had there been less zeal accompanying your hubris, I might have been less inclined to unsheathe my trusty rapier. 😉

          That said, you get an ‘A’ for resilience, restraint, and a measure of intellectual curiosity. Good on you; most young Lefties I have encountered, would have fled such an embarrassing upbraiding in a sputtering huff, leaving behind a pile of scatology to be cleaned up. I find most to be rather close-minded and unappreciative of the opportunity, to cut twenty or more years off the inevitable process of outgrowing their youthful idealism, and learning how to deal with the real world as it is. For folks so enamored with change, they sure are resistant to it. ◄Dave►

        • Greg says:

          Also, I retyped your quote; I knew it said “law” there and not “a law.” (Remember how I said it “ate” my first entry? The first entry had it correct; the second one I typed out fast before I lost what it was I wanted to say 🙁 ) I still didn’t like it though. Now that you have explained your position, and have explained what you meant, I do stand corrected. 🙂

          I have often considered myself to be “middle of the road,” but “left-leaning” at the same time. That is to say: I have an open mind and am not “partisan blinded”– that is to say, if you come up with a far better point and better logic than I do… why should I not change my position? Politics and positions and policy, etc. are all pointless if they do not change based on good evidence 🙂

          Finally, thank you for your kind words. I do enjoy having my ears boxed on occasion as it does set me straight. Further, if I enjoy reading your blog, which I do, why would such a comment deter me from doing something I otherwise enjoy? 🙂

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Much better! I understand your ‘lean’ to the left from center-field. If you were a true Lefty, you couldn’t put up with me. That is also why I want to believe you are saveable and worth saving. 😀 ◄Dave►

    • ◄Dave► says:

      I disagree for the very same reason you used to defend it: The 10th Amendment. THe 10th Amendment, in my opinion, guarantees your right to personal choice, since it is not delegated to the states, or the federal government. THerefore, it must be our right.

      Greg, did you read my correction the last time you made this assertion misconstruing the Tenth Amendment? To repeat, I said:

      No, not the Tenth, that was the Ninth. You also have the right to stick green ice cream in your left ear, and there is nothing in the Constitution empowering the government to prevent it. Your so-called ‘right to personal choice’ is just a subset of your natural right to Liberty, and there is no need to list all one’s rights. The Constitution limits the governments powers, which automatically protects your sovereignty, or autonomy if you prefer. The Bill of Rights was technically unnecessary and changed nothing, because the Federal government was not empowered by the Constitution to violate our individual Liberty; but the original States wanted to make absolutely certain that they understood their limitations. History has proven the wisdom of their caution. ◄Dave►

       If so, do you refute it, or did it just not penetrate your armor?

      The Commerce Clauses regulates interstate business. You couldn’t regulate my right to an abortion, but through clinics such as Planned Parenthood, you COULD tell them what kinds of abortion they can give and when (in terms of pregnancy).

      What say you?

      I would say that it dismays me that you keep trying to mess with the intent of our Founders, and stretch the Interstate Commerce clause to empower the Feds to meddle in the affairs of individuals. As I have repeatedly pointed out hereabouts, and to you directly, that was not their intent, and all endeavors to do so are unconstitutional. All politicians who try such a thing, however well-intentioned they might be, are engaged in treasonous behavior in violation of their solemn oath to protect and defend our Constitution. ◄Dave►

      • Greg says:

        Okay, so if you agree with me, through the 9th amendment, that we have our right to personal choice (which is, as you say, a portion of Liberty), but are not in favor of abortion. I’m going to ask something (after reading the above a few times) here: If you are uncomfortable with certain types of abortion, and you want to undo Roe v. Wade… is there anything that you would seek to be changed about current law(s) that you would do to also keep liberty intact?

        The other things that I totally agree with are both here:
        “There is nothing like a righteous cause to animate the busybodies; but surely there are more worthy causes, with achievable goals, in which to invest their considerable time and passion.” — absolutely agree! I can think of a few of the top of my head (regardless of actual policies here): The economy, the war on Drugs, crimes against women, hate crimes, etc.

        And here:
        “Thus, my personal beliefs were immaterial to my qualifications for the office I was seeking, and I would keep them to myself, thank you.” — absolutely agree again! Abortion is (you could kind of argue that it is so by design as well) a wedge issue. The only thing that answering questions like that seeks to to do is to drive a wedge in society, causing you to lose voters–if you were voting. It is a highly contentious issue, one that should be stayed away from for the most part, in a campaign. Sometimes, I think the only purpose of asking and answering that question is to sign a death sentence for your support of different segments of the population.

        ^Hopefully, I’ve read everything right up there 🙂

        • ◄Dave► says:

          ^Hopefully, I’ve read everything right up there

          As a general proposition, Greg, it is probably safe to assume that when you agree with me, you have understood what I wrote in that instance. 😉

          It is when you don’t agree with me that you get to exercise the freedom of choice you so cherish. In your head, you can choose to react emotionally and evade the issue, secure in your well-established feelings regarding what is right, wrong, or ought to be. Or, you can engage your intellect, ask yourself on what objective basis you disagree, and cogitate on whether this might be an opportunity to restructure your mind, as opposed to just rearranging your prejudices. A serviceable mind is priceless, and a terrible thing to waste by engaging in groupthink.

          There is a forest here that you are missing, in your frenzied efforts to classify the trees. That is the generally libertarian worldview of most of the active participants here, which generally comports with the worldview of the Founders of our country, and the original intent of the Constitution. They designed it to create a republic to perpetuate the ability of freemen to coexist as equals, with maximum Liberty consistent with law and order, pursuing their own happiness, their own way, unmolested by coercive busybodies operating under the color of law.

          The libertarian motto is; ‘I care not what others do with their lives, as long as they don’t forcibly interfere in my own.’ I live by that motto, so no matter what I personally think of abortion, it is none of my business, nor that of anyone else outside her family, if a woman chooses to have one. Therefore, the answer to your question, regarding what I might seek to change, remains: No, nothing! And, it will remain so, no matter how you ask a question regarding regulating behavior of citizens by the Federal government. They do not have the Constitutional power to do such a thing. Period, full stop, end, fini.

          As to the ‘worthy causes’ that sprang to your mind, give it time; this too shall pass. It is actually possible to evade and escape the burning issue traps, which consume enormous amounts of time, effort, and money, yet rarely get satisfactorily resolved. Yes, most of the social issues, including abortion, are deliberately designed by the oligarchy to keep us at each other’s throats, instead of their own. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    Since this topic seems to have acquired new life, I have a small but useful enquiry. At what stage in development does one obtain natural rights? To keep it simple, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      That is a very good question, John. As a matter of law, it is at birth. As a matter of religious dogma, I am unqualified to opine. As a matter of human biology, I am going to surprise you and state that it is somewhere around the stage of puberty. The human species requires an inordinately long time, after the initial gestation period ends with a live birth, to develop into a competent adult, able to survive independently.

      I would suggest that one incapable of asserting natural rights, is not yet in possession of them. Until we are conscious – aware that we are aware – the notion of rights is nonsensical. As long as we are dependent on parents for our sustenance and survival, they are the sovereigns and we are mere chattel.

      This is a subject I would be interested in pursuing; because my libertarian philosophy disturbingly falls apart, when I try to reconcile the rights of children, with the rights of their parents. What business is it of mine, if a parent is abusing his own child on his own property. Philosophically, none; yet as a human being, I can’t seem to abide that conclusion… ◄Dave►

  • Greg says:

    Ack! THat’s what I get for speed-reading. I missed that part about the ice cream.

    And I agree with you: The Bill of Rights guaranteed our civil rights and really is a bunch of common sense. HOWEVER, some governments do not have common sense, so it’s good to have it spelled out.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Greg, I enjoy deliberative dialogue, and my mind detests open loops. Associative conversations drive me round the bend. My mind insists on completing the discussion of a topic at hand, before something I say triggers my correspondent to abandon it entirely, to instead expound on what just popped into his mind. I can politely engage in the brand new conversation; but my mind is niggling me to go back and finish the other one. Yet, before the second is concluded, the associative type has taken off on another tangent, now leaving me with two open loops. There is a limit to how many dangling subjects it is willing to juggle, before it shuts down in protest.

      I rarely participate in boring associative conversations in social settings; but they are fascinating to observe among a sizable group. It seems to me that few of them care a whit, what others have to say; they are just looking for opportunities to take the floor, and talk about whatever comes to mind. They usually devolve into a cacophony of several people talking at once in sub-groups, on completely unrelated subjects. It is literally mind-boggling to me. 😐

      I hope this explains why my attempts at a dialogue with you have been rather frustrating. You are astute at asking questions; but rather stingy about answering them, or providing feedback for my efforts. My mind is still anticipating a response to a fulsome reply to one inquiry, and you are off generating more questions on a brand new subject. That in itself is OK, I can multitask with a keyboard; but I still wish to complete all the open loops. I could do what I do in those social settings, just walk away and ignore the new topics; but it would be unfair if I did not at least explain my boredom.

      If you missed the ice cream analogy, it means you missed reading that post entirely. This gives me hope that you may have missed reading other replies, for which I have been awaiting feedback. I offer the same suggestion I gave John, regarding frequently checking the Comments RSS page, so as not to miss a reply to something you posted. I would ask you to review it now, all the way back to when you first started participating here, to see if you find anything that deserves a followup reply. Thank you. ◄Dave►

    • Greg says:

      Just email the thread names; I should be able to figure it out from there. I apologize for leaving so many unanswered as I look at how many there were as I happen upon them (without a guide I mean). Sorry. 🙁

  • Greg says:

    “You are astute at asking questions; but rather stingy about answering them, or providing feedback for my efforts. My mind is still anticipating a response to a fulsome reply to one inquiry, and you are off generating more questions on a brand new subject.” // Well, now that you have given some feedback (and I am more than willing to listen!), may I ask a few questions so that we can be on the same page? 🙂

    1) What sort of feedback do you desire? How can I improve?

    2) May I inquire as to how I have been “Stingy” answering your questions? How would you prefer me to answer them in the future? Sometimes, I do not answer them because I’ve downright missed them (thanks for the Comments RSS!); other times it is simply because I do not know HOW to answer them. It’s weird. I have an idea in your head, but I don’t know how to explain it 😐

    3) How would you rather me interact with you in your own blog? Remember; the key to success is to make sure that I (or any other blogger) do not ruin the others’ fun! It seems that, somehow (from what I’m getting above), I am ruining your fun, and I certainly do not want that to happen! 🙂 Keep in mind though, that I am new to blogging (and thus its etiquette!) and therefore will probably need a lot of prodding and feedback before I get it just right.

    Part of the problem with this here:
    “Before the second is concluded, the associative type has taken off on another tangent, now leaving me with two open loops,” Is that my mind is constantly scattering, from one topic to another, trying to get as much information as possible. I apologize for that and will try to refocus and try to see a conversation through so as to keep your interest engaged and not turn you off, like I am apparently doing.

    Thanks for the helpful hints. Blogging is a two-way street, and if I’m being too much of a strain on you, let me know, give me feedback, and we’ll go from there. I will get it right; but it will take some time being that I am new to this.

    And above all, I’d like to thank you for being up front with me about it so I can change my approach and make it just as enjoyable for you as it is for me 🙂

    • ◄Dave► says:

      1)If you disagree with something I said in a reply to you, explain why. If I have changed your view, by all means let me have the encouragement of learning it. If I call you on something, and you do not challenge it, I only can assume you ‘got’ the lesson. When you repeat it a couple of days later, I learn that you did not, and it is frustrating to have to repeat it.

      2)There have been so many examples… If I ask if you have read something, and get no reply, what am I to think? I have asked on 3 or 4 occasions where your ‘class’ is? No response. I expected your blog to be busier than mine, with lots of commentary to spar with. Crickets. Even questions I leave over there go unanswered.

      3)See #2

      Yes, that is why I used the deliberative/associative metaphor. I can see that you are one of ‘them.’ 😛

      Don’t worry about my happiness. You do what it takes to make you happy, and I’ll do what it takes for my own. If I give up on you, I’ll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, I rather enjoy the role of mentor, so that is what I am playing at being. It may be unappreciated or a waste of my time; but I will be the judge of that. 🙂 ◄Dave►

      • Greg says:

        As far as the question about my “class,’ I answered that twice, once literally and once (today) I finally understood what you wanted and answered it. The literal part was, I posted the syllabus. The actual answer you were looking for is: I had hoped some people from facebook would respond, but I guess not. Oh well. *shrug* One day, it will be busy. Just (apparently) Not now. Let me go and see what comments on my own blog I am missing. I remember the socialism response; that was well-put 🙂

  • Greg says:

    Well said on your last reply up there about the libertarian worldview. Seems that I have more a libertarian worldview as well socially (for the most part), in some regards and not so much in other regards (government-wise and business-wise). For instance, here’s my view on regulation of businesses, in this case banks. With your permission here, I’d like to flesh this out a bit from you, and give you one of the instances that I would disagree: “The libertarian motto is; ‘I care not what others do with their lives, as long as they don’t forcibly interfere in my own.’” Let me run by a few of my own cogitations as examples:

    What do you do if business forcibly interfere with your lives? A good example, seems to me, is the banking crisis. Along with banks’ bad loans, subprime mortgages, bad investments, and the like, it seems to me that they sort of DID forcibly interfere in our lives, making it for the worse rather than the better. I am also a proponent of keeping the invisible hand as invisible as possible. Let me explain how I intend to reconcile both of them, in my mind. Let’s use the banking crisis: If banks made bad loans, investments, etc. (Which they did), causing the crisis, and they learn from their mistakes–no regulation is necessary. BUT! If the banks continue to make the same mistakes, you sort of have to have a bill that tells them “NO! BAD!” That is how I reconcile the two: if you make the “invisible hand” visible only as a LAST resort, rather than being a gut reaction, that seems to work well in my mind.

    The other argument as I have made is kind of the “negative photograph” image of ObamaCare. Using again forcible interference, I would argue that an insurance company denying me coverage (And thus the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness (found in the Declaration if I’m not mistaken)–would also be forcibly interfering in my life for the worse. My ideal version of a sort of ObamaCare plan would be that making it so that if I ASK for health insurance, it must be provided to me. If I don’t want it, I don’t want it; but if I want it, I am therefore taking steps to make my life for the better; therefore, it seems to me that this regulation would fit the “pursuit of happiness” that the Founders speak of in the Declaration. However, the main reason why I do not like ObamaCare as it is written today, is the “Tax” provision. That is to say, if I must buy health insurance or face a penalty; if I cannot afford either of them, is not the legislation forcibly interfering in my life to make it worse?

    You had praised me (at least I think you did?) for recognizing a truth when I see it. The above is sort of where I say regulation is necessary. I guess the question I am asking is: “Would you say that, if something forcibly interferes in your life, it must be regulated so that it doesn’t?”

  • Chris says:

    Here I thought we were reviving a five year old post. LOL Not so much. Just as well. This topic has been beaten up pretty good. 🙂

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • ◄Dave► says:

      Yeah, I had been remiss in deleting the spam. It was fun to reread the whole thread, however. I miss the repartee and could do with another Greg to mentor and cuff occasionally. 😉 ◄Dave►

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links