Yglesias Advocates For Murder! (Or “In Which Yglesias Forces Me to Defend Ron Paul…”) (Updated to Fix a Bit of Very Bad Writing on My Part)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: In the original version I badly misstated my own understanding of the libertarian philosophy so that I accidentally implied that they were okay with harming children. That is not what they believe, and I didn’t think that was what they believed, I just very badly misstated what I meant to say. Indeed, the whole point of this post is to say that a person could consistently be a libertarian and still believe in protecting one particular kind of child–the unborn–from the harm of adults without any inconsistency. I have edited the post after the fact to better capture what I was trying to say in the first place and I apologize for the error.
——————————-
I try to pay as little attention to Matt Yglesias and Think Regress as much as possible. They have proven again and again to be a completely dishonest outlet again and again, and truly you have to be willfully blind not to see the essential dishonesty involved in their analysis.
But now and then it is useful to emphasize that point, so in today’s example, Yglesias says he is just so confused that Ron Paul is a pro-life libertarian:
After looking at [Ron Paul’s] positions and statements, the most remarkable thing is that if it weren’t for his loud fanbase of self-proclaimed libertarians you wouldn’t really think this is the platform of a libertarian. He’s loudly trumpeting his plan to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies[.]
Now, first, Althouse is right to say that the last sentence is flat out false. All Paul has advocated for is that the Federal Government gets the hell out of the abortion question entirely.
But let’s pretend that Paul actually wanted laws imprisoning women for unnecessary abortions. Is that unlibertarian?
Not by my understanding of the term. The libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, goes something like this: we should have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as it does not harm another person(unless that person is an adult who consents to that alleged “harm”). Mind you, I am not libertarian myself, but I have enough exposure to the philosophy that I know that is a decent restatement of it.
But the key issue, just as it was in Roe v. Wade, is what counts as a person. Let me quote from this key passage from that decision:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.
Then in that case, the Supreme Court decided that a fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that not only did they not have any rights that any human being was bound to respect, but the states could not grant them any rights. (Of course by that logic our animal cruelty laws are unconstitutional, but I digress…)
And likewise, if a fetus is a person, then the libertarian case for “choice” falls apart as well, for then you can limit that conduct because you are harming another person.
But not according to Yglesias. No, according to him, Ron Paul should stand up for what he himself considers to be murder (hence my tongue-in-cheek title for this post). I would ask Yglesias, if libertarianism requires tolerance of murder, exactly which classes of people should be allowed to freely murder the others?
But in the end Yglesias is either 1) honest but dumb, or 2) dishonest, and prone to tell dumb lies. Those are the only two options. And shame on any liberal who fails to see through it. You have to be uniquely cocooned not to see the fallacy in claiming that a libertarian should allow what he or she considers to be murder.
And don’t even get me started with his silly claim that libertarians cannot support border control.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Yglesias is the most stupid blogger on the innertubes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:23 amHow exactly do you construe this as advocating for the Federal Government to get the hell out of the abortion question entirely?
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:28 amToo bad spvrty didn’t take that Remedial Reading class that was offered in Summer School this year.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:35 amYglesias
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:36 amI think you’re being to charitable to Benen,Drum,
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:37 amand a whole host of others, daley
Agreed, is the “adult” in the quote below really part of libertarian philosophy?
“freedom to do whatever we want as long as it does not harm another non-consenting adult person”
Bret (493d93) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:38 amCongratulations! You’ve written a post which misinterprets the respective positions of Yglesius, Ron Paul, AND libertarians. A trifecta!!!
Maybe instead of trying to “interpret” other peoples’ positions (and get them wrong) so you can mock them, perhaps you should simply state your own.
Kman (5576bf) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:42 amYou really aren’t very bright, are you? Try reading the passage slowly: Paul advocates for the federal judges to stay away from state decisions on abortion. That’s pretty much the definition of the federal government getting the hell out of the abortion question.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:58 amChuck, I still haven’t figured out if Fificvs is just that stupid, or is a genius at performance art.
How many times will he get skooled before going away? Because I know he won’t actually read or think about anything. It’s because of how heavy his pom-poms are, I guess.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:01 amBret, I don’t see how that can be right.
No libertarian I’ve ever met thinks it’s OK to beat kids or violate their rights.
They recognize a difference between a child and an adult, but that doesn’t mean the child can be violated.
Yglesias is attempting to answer a fundamental question by avoiding that question entirely. He simply assumes the fetus has no rights, and then asserts those who assume the fetus does have rights are being awful when they are actually being intellectually consistent.
I personally do think it’s a tough pickle deciding how to penalize women who abort their children. Politically. Morally, I think they should be in prison for a number of years, but politically that’s a non starter.
So pro lifers who are pragmatic will want to outlaw abortion* in red states, get the federal government out of the question altogether, and subject practitioners to penalties.
* other than in emergencies.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:04 amChucky – that isn’t advocating for the federal judges to stay away from state decisions on abortion that’s the federal government entering the fray and stepping all over the principle of the separation of powers to legislate on behalf of one side of the debate.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:13 amNo libertarian I’ve ever met thinks it’s OK to beat kids or violate their rights.
That libertarian has yet to meet spvrty.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:14 amYglesias is tiresome and wrong and a liar. But he is hardly alone. Armies of people like him go on rants, hand wringing and decrying what other people think or believe. They may do this in ignorance, or more likely in purposeful dishonesty, but either way they mis-characterize what others think or believe in order to seriously harm and diminish those people. We’ve actually seen a few such soldiers commenting on this blog.
It’s going to be all about the “war on women” between now and 2012. Oh, and that “They’re going to impose criminal penalties on women and throw them in jail” lie was the the key to the whisper campaign and the hysterical and mysterious last minute phone bank calls and blog posts that roared through the 2012 gubernatorial race in my state. Those lies, which were then reinforced by more subtle TV ads and mail drops, were the key factor that caused the R. candidate to lose by a whisker (shedding some women and Independents) after having led throughout the campaign against a horrible and incompetent Dem incumbent. It’s an ugly accusation and it is hard to refute. It always drags the narrative away from the economy and back to social issues. Gird your loins.
elissa (c01b9b) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:20 amYou’re dead wrong, butt nugget. In fact, what Paul advocates is a recognition of the 10th Amendment in that issues upon which the Constitution is silent remain in the jurisdiction of the states.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:20 amBret is correct. The libertarian philosophy does NOT specify not harming an “adult” person. Instead, it blindly follows the other aspect of the Roe v Wade decision — the part that Aaron did not emphasize in his piece: that the right to privacy (or “liberty”) for a woman trumps any question of ‘personhood’ on the part of the fetus.
IOW, libertarians use Roe v Wade as their ‘get out of jail free card’ on the issue of abortion and how a pro-choice stance might totally conflict with their base philosophy.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:20 amSpurty is being aggressively ignorant and transparently dishonest, AGAIN? SHOCKA.
CBO says unemployment to remain above 8% until at least 2014. Barcky promised stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. I blame Bush.
JD (b98cae) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:20 amMy guess is sparty is in his forties. A child in all the ways that don’t matter.
Not sure why we bother with him. He is a little pile of rote lefty silliness. It’s just boring.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:22 amNot to worry, JD. Fificvs will just move on, spraying more nonsense as he goes, and understanding not a bit of it. He is really pathetic.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:22 amSpurtCircus with his “by doing nothing they’re doing something” accusation. Ho hum. *YAWN*
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:23 amThis article highlights where the leftists get their talking points. All one must do is drop by Think Regress, rawstory, or MMfA and it is readily apparent what the daily and weekly memes are.
JD (29e1cd) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:27 amby doing nothing they’re doing something
Isn’t that the foundation of Wickard that the Left relies upon today for the Individual Mandate?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:33 amSorry–obviously I meant 2010 election in my 10:20 comment.
elissa (c01b9b) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:34 amYep.
And all we have to say in reply is ‘jobs.’
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:41 amI like it where people can have the abortions if they want I think people can make their own decisions using their decision-making skills so put your drinks up for Nebraska and whatever
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:41 amAh crap. I wrote out the philosophy badly to make it sound like libertarians are ok with child beating. I will have to correct that tonight, but if you look in context, you’ll see I meant the opposite of what I implied.
Aaron Worthing (109425) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:41 amAW is channelling Joe Biden.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:43 amBoth sides of the Abortion issue attract unreasonable twits, but what really makes me uncomfortable is that of the two extremes I sympathize most with the Pro Life extreme, while my personal beliefs and preferences go in the other direction.
To my ear the extreme Pro-Life position boils down to “Abortion is Infanticide, and we will kill the child murderers.”. I don’t agree with that, but I can respect and understand it. IF, and I say again IF, I believed that abortion was infanticide, I too would be tempted to kill those that did it in job lots. I would also expect to stand trial for murder, though. That’s how that works.
To my ear the extreme Pro-Choice position boils down to “A fetus is not a person. Woman’s body woman’s choice. AND DON’T YOU DARE DISAGREE WITH ME YOU NEKULTURNY PEASANT! I’ll have you throw in JAIL if you disagree with me! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!”
I can’t agree with the part of that after the word “choice”. I have to say that I think that attitude undermines the whole side. In many ways I find that attitude more frightening than the random nuts that kill abortion doctors.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:45 amRemember, Planned Parenthood is an off-shoot of the Eugenics Movement, whose purpose was to decrease the addition of harmful minorities to the chosen mix.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:52 amC.S.P. thank you for including the “extreme” qualifier in your comment
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:52 amYes and the left support eugenics not the right.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:57 amYes and the left support eugenics not the right.
That would make the Left “Racists”, right?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:00 amIcy Texan,
You’re welcome. Thanks for noticing it. It is my contention that a major part of solving many of our policy questions would have to include taking the extreme factions of both sides, putting them in the same room, and welding the doors shut. I, personally, would put food in through small slots, but I have a mean streak.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:05 amBut for them I doubt we’d even notice race at all as a society. Perhaps I am naive.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:05 amDustin, they do seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with it, don’t they?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:07 am“Bret is correct. The libertarian philosophy does NOT specify not harming an “adult” person.”
Bret and Icy – You are confusing me. If I have a teenage daughter, are libertarians cool with me giving her a non-consensual clitorectomy to conform with muslim practices in certain foreign countries?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:08 amWhat did I say?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:32 amFrom the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
— Note that they do not clearly define what qualifies as an ‘individual’ or an ‘other’.
The Libertarian Party’s official stance on abortion:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
— Note that they do not specify “Federal” government. Libertarians do not necessarily respect states rights.
Also from the party’s Statement of Principles:
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others
— Initiation of force by a government; initiation of force by a doctor forcing forceps on a baby’s head is another matter. These statements taken together seem to indicate a clear acceptance of the Roe v Wade definition of a fetus being a non-person. It’s a convenient way to dodge the issue, as is the non-committal phrasing of “leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration” in their ‘position’ on abortion.
Basically, on the issue of abortion Libertarians choose to punt. Either they’re afraid of alienating potential supporters from the pro-choice crowd, or, they simply cannot resolve what they might see as a catch-22 conundrum within their stated philosophy: the right of the fetus not to be harmed vs the ‘liberty’ of the mother to decide how to live her life. One might think that ‘do what you want as long as you do not harm others’ is pretty straightforward, but not when the possibility of not really being able to do ANYTHING you want comes into play. This is the hedonistic, liberal, Bill Maher “Let’s legalize drugs & prostitution” wing of libertarianism rearing its ugly head.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:39 amdaleyrocks, hopefully I just answered your question.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:42 amThanks Icy. You confirmed what I thought.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:56 amIcy Texan,
Just because it is in the Libertarian Party platform doesn’t mean Libertarians have a consensus on the view. Abortion is the classic case where there is no Libertarian consensus.
Some Libertarians believe abortion should be banned as a violation of individual rights. Others believe the issue should be left up to the woman to decide. Both can claim to be good Libertarians. There’s no inherent contradiction, such as there would be with a putative Libertarian advocating a socialist economy.
And what do you have against hedonism and liberalism anyway? 😉
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 8/25/2011 @ 1:10 pmAnd don’t even get me started with his silly claim that libertarians cannot support border control.
I am a Libertarian, and support border control. I favor more legal immigration and less illegal immigration. It’s vastly amusing when someone who isn’t even even L(l)ibertarian tells me what I must believe.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 8/25/2011 @ 1:12 pmBBJF, you WILL comply!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 2:44 pmPlease don’t write “advocates for”. One may advocate (verb) something, one may be an advocate (noun) of something, or one may be an advocate for a person but one cannot advocate for anything.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:03 pmI think the problem is that Yglesias and other lefties like him don’t believe that we right to lifers actually believe what we say we do. They’re convinced, for some reason, that we only pretend to believe that a foetus is a person created equal with all others, and equally endowed by its Creator with certain inalienable rights. They think this is just a pretense we put up to hide our real agenda, which is some sort of theocracy (the existence of atheist right-to-lifers puzzles the hell out of them).
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:08 pmHow do you feel about infanticide, feets? OK for the two years, as Paul Singer advocates?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:11 pmIt’s compromise language hammered out over years of bitter debate. Libertarian philosophy is very clear on whether abortion should be permitted or forbidden — provided that you first answer the question of who is a person with the right not to be killed. There’s nothing in the principle of libertarianism that can answer that question, and thus there are libertarians on both sides of it.
A clear majority in the LP fall on the not-a-person side, and thus believe that preventing a woman from aborting her foetus is just as unacceptable as preventing her from having her ear pierced, or from cutting her toenails. But a significant minority of LP members, including many delegates to the conventions and members of the platform committee, believe a foetus is a person, and therefore the law must protect the foetus from being murdered.
The platform language is the result of years of bitter debate on the floors of conventions. The majority position ultimately prevails, but recognises that the minority position is deeply felt, and is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles given their premises. Thus it would be wrong to force a right-to-lifer to be an accomplice in what he sees as murder, even indirectly by taxing him to pay for an abortion.
(Note: I was a delegate at the LP conventions of 1996, 1998, and 2000, and this debate took place at all three. It probably still happens at every convention.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:22 pmno you can’t kill your baby after it’s borned and really if you don’t want to have a baby you should do the abortings as soon as possible once you find out you’re pregnant for all kinds of reasons
you should think about adoption though unless you’re a complete drug addict or something
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:00 pmWhy not, though? What’s special about being out of the womb rather than in it, that suddenly endows someone with “certain inalienable rights”?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/26/2011 @ 11:06 amWith a “late term abortion”, what is the actual difference between a pre-partum, and post-partum abortion?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (985f21) — 8/26/2011 @ 11:09 amSeriously, Aaron, Yglesias can advocate murder, or he can be an advocate either for murder or for murderers, but he cannot advocate for murder. It’s not possible in the English language.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/26/2011 @ 2:19 pm