Why aren’t libertarians rejecting Rand Paul’s fight against Planned Parenthood?

[r3volution 3.0]

To Stalin, who has just as legitimate a subjective desire as you have (according to you).

So, Stalin's ethical view is legitimate...to Stalin? Sure.

And it's illegitimate to me.

Where's the problem?

 

[Sola_Fide]

So, Stalin's ethical view is legitimate...to Stalin? Sure.

And it's illegitimate to me.

Where's the problem?

Because your view, at its foundation, sanctions might makes right. You literally concede Stalin's foundation for ethics. You sanction it. It blows me away that you don't see that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Because your view, at its foundation, sanctions might makes right. You literally concede Stalin's foundation for ethics. You sanction it. It blows me away that you don't see that.

I'm saying that Stalin's ethics, like everyone's, reflect his subjective desires. It doesn't follow that I agree with him or sanction his behavior.

If I say that your love of pizza reflects your subjective desires, does that mean that I too must love pizza?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm saying that Stalin's ethics, like everyone's, reflect his subjective desires.

How does it follow that I agree with him?

If I say that your love of pizza reflects your subjective desires, does that mean that I too must love pizza?

You implicitly agree with him because you have no foundation to say his view of ethics is objectively wrong. Your view of subjectivity actually sanctions statism, because statists operate on the same foundation. You have no argument against them.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You implicitly agree with him because you have no foundation to say his view of ethics is objectively wrong.

The phrase "objectively wrong" does not have a meaning.

Ethical statements do not represent objective facts; they represent the subjective desires of the speaker.

There is no such thing as an objective truth in ethics.

You have no argument against them.

Sure I do, I'd make all the usual libertarian arguments.

 

[osan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-rand-pauls-fight-against-planned-parenthood/

Seems like a pretty lousily written article. Almost has a hit-piece flavor about it. It certainly paints too broadly and, IMO, mischaracterizes "libertarian". Another example of human communications running afoul of clarity and precision. Big surprise there, eh?

I really don't give a damn about the abortion issue, save that it is grossly divisive in practical terms and that people on both sides of the question are wrong, so far as I can see. That said, state-funded abortion is wrong in the way that any state-funded program is. Furthermore, I take great exception to the use of the term "state funded" as it is grossly misleading in perceptual terms... as if something real and tangibly, independently extant in itself called "the state" were so selflessly paying out all this money for stupidly careless women to get hoovered. Let us call it what it is: taxpayer-funding, AKA the robbery of working Americans of the fruits of their labor.

 

[Ronin Truth]

NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE