I've got two people for whom I may vote, today: A Republican and a Libertarian

[capri0mni]

*sigh*

I can understand that, given a choice between the two, a Libertarian would rather have local state laws, than over-arching federal laws. But tell me: how is it consistent with Libertarian philosophy to fervently wish that state to curtail Roe V. Wade, little by little?

I mean, isn't the whole point of the basic Libertarian world view that an individual's freedom to make moral and person decisions should not be curtailed by any government, federal, state, or city? I would think a Libertarian would want the most liberal (lowercase l) abortion rights possible.

Why should a woman's freedom depend on the lottery of where she happens to live?

Unless, of course, "freedom from government" only counts for the men, just like it did in Thomas Jefferson's day...

This is precisely why, in their business meetings, at least, Quakers don't vote: because the rights of the people in the minority are just as important of those in the majority. Instead, they work things out by consensus. Only works in small groups, I know. Wouldn't work for government at large at all. So we do vote in elections, in general...

But I can't, in good conscience, vote for either of the candidates, today.

Comments

[uncacreamy.livejournal.com]

Libertarians, like all other people, are complicated, and prone to having beliefs that don't mesh with the political views of their party.

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

True.

I'm wondering, too, if Libertarians around here trend toward the more socially conservative end of the spectrum than they would in New York, or California (say), simply by absorbing the local mores as by osmosis.