Sean King

My photo
Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Palin, the Libertarian?

David Harsanyi: [I]n contrast to any national candidate in recent memory, Palin is the one that exudes the economic and cultural sensibilities of a genuine Western-style libertarian.

Find out why he thinks so here.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting argument and I can see where they are coming from. The abortion thing still freaks me out and seems the anti-Libertarian perspective on a key human rights issue. And for the article to say that Ron Paul is the Libertarian champion is disingenuous, because he was NOT a Libertarian, even if Libertarians considered him a step in the right direction for the most part. His abortion stance is an example of how he is not a Libertarian. Anyway, interesting article, but I'm still completely creeped out by her stance on the abortion issue. I'd happily listen to you try to convince me not to be...but I'm not sure you can, but feel free to give it a go!

-- Your Sister

Sean King said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean King said...

Hey sis.

Libertarians insist that the primary pupose of government is to protect life, liberty and property, and that any government's attempt to extend its powers beyond these basic objectives results in less individual liberty for all.

And, despite the fact that I would personally vote to support a woman's right to choose, I find it hard to argue that aborting a fetus doesn't terminate a life. After all, a fetus meets the scientific definition of life, and abortion most definitley ends it (though it can't be said to end "consciousness", which is an important distinction in my book).

I think those who advocate in favor of legal abortion need to be truthful about its impact--i.e., that it ends life. They can then reasonably argue that ending a life that has not become conscious may be justified where doing so provides significant benefits to lives that have. And, the pregnant woman is the one best positioned to weigh the cost and benefits of that decision.

In other words, which does the least total harm--terminating a life that never achieved consciousness, or bringing an unwanted baby into the world? I think the answer to that question varies from circumstance to circumstance, but regardless, I KNOW that the government is not best positioned to make that determination.

Because opposing legal abortion does serve to protect life (which is one of the key goals of libertarianism), I don't see anything inherently contradictory about opposing abortion under a libertarian banner. Even so, I'm not completely sure that Palin qualifies as a libertarian, but my view on this has nothing to do with her position on abortion.