Apparently, Lots of Libertarians Don't Think Women are People Either

[paft.livejournal.com]

So The Mercatus, a right-wing think tank, has declared North Dakota -- which recently passed an incredibly restrictive anti-abortion law, one of the free-est of all the fifty states

Once again, we see that when right wing libertarians use the word "liberty," they're using their own extra-special definition of it. As Salon has pointed out reproductive freedom apparently isn't even entered into the calculations,

Women, you see, just don't count.



*

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The shooting is irrelevant.

It's the assault or killing of another that that poses the legal / ethical problem.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

So, there is no coherent argument that can justify it being illegal to discharge a firearm, so long as no-one was actually shot?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Can't have an injury without a victim.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The question remains unanswered.

Do you agree (as Jeff's argument implies) that there is no coherent argument that can justify it being illegal to discharge a firearm, so long as no-one was actually shot?


Jeff asserted that because banning Guns does not mean you will not get shot, that there is no freedom interest in banning guns.

You seem to be asserting that there is no crime until someone has actually been shot, so there is no purpose to laws which prevent gun ownership.

I think that these opinions (no crime until there is a victim, no interest of freedom without absolute effects) are unsupportable, or at the least inconsistent with lots of main stream accepted law. We have laws against drunk driving itself, not just against those who happen to get in accidents. We have laws about discharging a weapon in certain locations.... the fact that no one was actually shot does not change the fact that the behavior is reckless, and if allowed to continue unchecked will lead to an increase in people getting shot. The increase or decrease of relative probability of people being harmed or killed is part of our calculation of which behaviors are permissible.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Do you agree (as Jeff's argument implies) that there is no coherent argument that can justify it being illegal to discharge a firearm, so long as no-one was actually shot?

Pretty much.

The prohibition on/punishment for attempted murder, can be justified by the need to prevent a second, possibly successful, attempt, but beyond that no, there is no argument that is both coherent and rational.

They all basically boil down to one party saying "I dislike X and thus forbid it" vs. another saying "Well I like X so go fuck yourself".

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Shooting at a person but missing would often qualify as "assault", or assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Indeed. So it is singularly interesting that a behavior that does not directly harm another person, still carries just and legal penalties.

But is intent to harm the only such possible qualification? As said earlier, it is also often a crime to discharge a firearm, even if there is no proof of intent to actually fire upon any living person. Is this just, or unjust?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Assault doesn't count as harming someone?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Firing a shotgun in an apartment should be illegal, as a person could accidentally be hit. I'm not sure that answers the question you're asking.