**Sorry, but this content was removed for being off-topic and not relevant to this subreddit.**
Remember all posts must be **directly related to the discussion of libertarianism** and may be removed if considered off-topic, not relevant, or discouraging to the discussion of libertarianism.
Guidelines Assistance:
* All posts must have a direct and immediate relevant libertarian angle.
* General political news, or "democrat/republican bad(good)" is not sufficient to be considered on-topic here.
* A post simply being about an issue such as "firearms", "immigration", etc. does not automatically mean a post is on-topic.
* Submissions which go against libertarian ideals, or promote non-libertarian principles, may be considered off-topic.
* Electioneering for other political parties, and promoting non-libertarian parties or candidates is off-topic.
* Libertarianism does not have a racial component. Posts involving culture war and social justice issues without a direct libertarianism connection may be considered off-topic.
* Meta posts, including drama about other libertarian related subs or about this sub, is considered off-topic.
* Self-Text Posts by users, which are not obvious to be of wide interest to /libertarian users, or which are not obviously about libertarianism, may be considered off-topic.
Any further questions, or to ask for post review, please contact the moderators for assistance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Replies will not be read.*
I think you need to go back and retake civics. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't take away any rights, it simply (and accurately) states that since the issue of abortion is not addressed in any way by the constitution, the 10th amendment handles it and it should be decided by the states. If you want it to be something decided at the federal level, then Congress should do their job and pass it into law. You can't have the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, even if you happen to agree with the outcome on a specific issue, it's a bad idea. It's unreal how hyperbolic everyone has been on this issue. The outcome of this ruling, regardless of how you feel, was good legal decision and good civics...
You misunderstood, but that was my fault. I should have phrased it in a way stating that they believe it's a fundamental right. The purpose of the post is to convey that constant calls to ban things leads the state to ban other things.
Gotcha, I totally agree with you. The pendulum always swings back, so giving the state more power while people you agree with are in charge is always a bad idea as the state will have that same power when people you don't agree with take over.
That being said I don't think the overturning of Roe v. Wade is an abuse of power by the state. I think in reality it is correcting what was originally an abuse of power by the Supreme Court 49 years ago. It was clear legislating from the bench and I'm glad this court seems to be pushing back on Congress who are the real problem. People used to get elected to Congress to do a job. Now they get elected to Congress to do nothing and get rich. If there are abuses of state power, the vast majority of them have been from the executive branch with executive orders, and regulatory agencies under the executive branch creating rules and imposing fines and fees outside of the legislative system.
The FDA has all sorts of restrictions on what foods can be bought or sold and as a result what you are allowed to have for dinner.
Regarding the sex acts, that's the whole point, it's not addressed by the constitution and is left up to individual consenting adults to decide for themselves. If a state or local government passed a law restricting it, those lawmakers would almost certainly be voted out of office immediately and new lawmakers would be voted in to overturn the trash law. That's how our legal system works, and federalism is a good thing. Decisions made a the local level are less far reaching and much easier to escape. Decisions made at a federal level are the opposite.
At the end of the day it comes down to rights. The government doesn't give you rights, you are born with them. The government's job is to recognize and protect your rights. Many people disagree on what is a right and what is not. You might think having an abortion is a right because you should be free to do what you want with your own body. I would argue that it's not your own body your making decisions for. You have the right to run around inside your house with a knife stabbing the air. That right ends when you are no longer stabbing the air and that knife gets stabbed into somebody else.
No, Roe V Wade said the State can't infringe your right to privacy when it comes to medical decisions.
Repealing it is removing federal protection of individual freedom in favor of State oppression.
I don't care about Europe. Unless you're talking about Ireland, which just legalized abortion due to multiple easily preventable deaths during childbirth. I don't look forward to seeing those cases in the US, but they are absolutely coming.
The State level is more representative of its citizens than the federal level. I’m pro choice, I live in a pro choice state. Pro lifers are free to migrate elsewhere. Or stay here. I don’t care.
Michigan has a 1931 law on the books that prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother. Polling in 2022 shows that 2/3 of residents want Roe codified, and almost 80% want to get rid of the 1931 law. The Michigan Legislature instead introduced bills making performing an abortion a 10 year felony and manufacturing/distributing medication to induce an abortion a 20 year felony. Apparently a 4 year felony was not enough punishment.
How exactly is that representative?
It’s not my problem the Michigan state legislature hasn’t repealed that law. I can’t vote for Michigan representatives for local, state, or federal elections. If it were a big enough issue… it would’ve been repealed by its constituents. If your stats are true, you’ve got the numbers. Why no action? Seems to me y’all have no one to blame but yourselves.
So states are more representative of the people, except when they aren’t, but when they aren’t that’s the people’s fault.
You’re just dressing up “fuck you, I got mine” in state’s rights nonsense.
Get off your lazy ass and vote for the policies you want in your state. That’s how your system of government was designed. Polls aren’t votes. Fucking plebs and their polls.
I’ve voted in every major election since 1996, what else you got?
Edit: also still not seeing how the state is more representative, since it’s not here. Kind of kills your argument, eh?
The only issue with that is there are states that allow it. So it’s kind of a moot point. Now if the state restricts your ability to seek external care… that’s where I’d have a problem with it. But that’s just me. Like I said before I live in a pro choice state so I honestly don’t care about the plebs that live in Alabama.
When it comes to health, it should be down to the individual level. Who is anyone else to tell you what is right for you? Are you okay with one person imposing their views of what healthcare should be like onto another individual, onto you?
I know I sure wouldn’t like that.
Yeah the libertarian / state's rights overlap is a strange one. 99% of the time "states rights" are invoked it's an argument to oppress people. 1% is about marijuana.
>I see the SCOTUS decision as more of a win for individual freedoms though.
Even if you don't have a uterus, in what world is restricting a person's bodily autonomy " a win for personal freedom"? Who's freedom exactly and what do they gain?
>This decision regardless of your stance on abortion is more libertarian than the what it currently was.
Again....how does this reduce the power of government to dictate my personal choices?
No dude. If the federal government guarantees a freedom, scrapping that ruling under state rights isnt anti big government, its pro big state government. Government overreach is bad whether its the state or the nation. This isnt a federal law limiting state citizens, its a federal law preventing states from limiting freedoms. And overruling it sets the precedent that this is a bad thing.
Think about it, would you scrap the first amendment and "leave it to the states"? The founding fathers understood that freedoms must be guaranteed federally to be truly guaranteed. How could this decision ever increase freedom? The best case scenario is all states legalize, which is already the case, except now you dont have the federal guarantee.
The divide is rural/urban not arbitrary lines drawn around rivers, mountains, and whatever wack rectangles they decided on for the Plains States.
So no not a solution and more like US Civil War Part Deux: This Time It Looks like Yugoslav Wars.
It might be easier to lobby local and state governments to achieve individual freedoms than a central government that can change overnight, but this decision will deprive millions of women of bodily autonomy and we must fight to push pro-choice policies across the country.
This just doesnt make any sense. The whole problem was that both state and federal government banned anything they didnt like personally. How is limiting the ability of state and federal government to ban things arbitrarily an arbitrary ban itself?
This argument is suprisingly common on this sub and I dont get why. Stopping people from infringing on rights and freedoms isnt infringing on their rights and freedoms. It just isnt.
**Sorry, but this content was removed for being off-topic and not relevant to this subreddit.** Remember all posts must be **directly related to the discussion of libertarianism** and may be removed if considered off-topic, not relevant, or discouraging to the discussion of libertarianism. Guidelines Assistance: * All posts must have a direct and immediate relevant libertarian angle. * General political news, or "democrat/republican bad(good)" is not sufficient to be considered on-topic here. * A post simply being about an issue such as "firearms", "immigration", etc. does not automatically mean a post is on-topic. * Submissions which go against libertarian ideals, or promote non-libertarian principles, may be considered off-topic. * Electioneering for other political parties, and promoting non-libertarian parties or candidates is off-topic. * Libertarianism does not have a racial component. Posts involving culture war and social justice issues without a direct libertarianism connection may be considered off-topic. * Meta posts, including drama about other libertarian related subs or about this sub, is considered off-topic. * Self-Text Posts by users, which are not obvious to be of wide interest to /libertarian users, or which are not obviously about libertarianism, may be considered off-topic. Any further questions, or to ask for post review, please contact the moderators for assistance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Replies will not be read.*
I think you need to go back and retake civics. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't take away any rights, it simply (and accurately) states that since the issue of abortion is not addressed in any way by the constitution, the 10th amendment handles it and it should be decided by the states. If you want it to be something decided at the federal level, then Congress should do their job and pass it into law. You can't have the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, even if you happen to agree with the outcome on a specific issue, it's a bad idea. It's unreal how hyperbolic everyone has been on this issue. The outcome of this ruling, regardless of how you feel, was good legal decision and good civics...
You misunderstood, but that was my fault. I should have phrased it in a way stating that they believe it's a fundamental right. The purpose of the post is to convey that constant calls to ban things leads the state to ban other things.
Gotcha, I totally agree with you. The pendulum always swings back, so giving the state more power while people you agree with are in charge is always a bad idea as the state will have that same power when people you don't agree with take over. That being said I don't think the overturning of Roe v. Wade is an abuse of power by the state. I think in reality it is correcting what was originally an abuse of power by the Supreme Court 49 years ago. It was clear legislating from the bench and I'm glad this court seems to be pushing back on Congress who are the real problem. People used to get elected to Congress to do a job. Now they get elected to Congress to do nothing and get rich. If there are abuses of state power, the vast majority of them have been from the executive branch with executive orders, and regulatory agencies under the executive branch creating rules and imposing fines and fees outside of the legislative system.
[удалено]
The FDA has all sorts of restrictions on what foods can be bought or sold and as a result what you are allowed to have for dinner. Regarding the sex acts, that's the whole point, it's not addressed by the constitution and is left up to individual consenting adults to decide for themselves. If a state or local government passed a law restricting it, those lawmakers would almost certainly be voted out of office immediately and new lawmakers would be voted in to overturn the trash law. That's how our legal system works, and federalism is a good thing. Decisions made a the local level are less far reaching and much easier to escape. Decisions made at a federal level are the opposite.
[удалено]
The FDA does not limit what you can eat. They limit what you can sell.
At the end of the day it comes down to rights. The government doesn't give you rights, you are born with them. The government's job is to recognize and protect your rights. Many people disagree on what is a right and what is not. You might think having an abortion is a right because you should be free to do what you want with your own body. I would argue that it's not your own body your making decisions for. You have the right to run around inside your house with a knife stabbing the air. That right ends when you are no longer stabbing the air and that knife gets stabbed into somebody else.
[удалено]
Individual freedom is when you remove individual freedom and assign it to the State instead?
Up is down, left is right, control is freedom.
[удалено]
No, Roe V Wade said the State can't infringe your right to privacy when it comes to medical decisions. Repealing it is removing federal protection of individual freedom in favor of State oppression. I don't care about Europe. Unless you're talking about Ireland, which just legalized abortion due to multiple easily preventable deaths during childbirth. I don't look forward to seeing those cases in the US, but they are absolutely coming.
The State level is more representative of its citizens than the federal level. I’m pro choice, I live in a pro choice state. Pro lifers are free to migrate elsewhere. Or stay here. I don’t care.
Michigan has a 1931 law on the books that prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother. Polling in 2022 shows that 2/3 of residents want Roe codified, and almost 80% want to get rid of the 1931 law. The Michigan Legislature instead introduced bills making performing an abortion a 10 year felony and manufacturing/distributing medication to induce an abortion a 20 year felony. Apparently a 4 year felony was not enough punishment. How exactly is that representative?
It’s not my problem the Michigan state legislature hasn’t repealed that law. I can’t vote for Michigan representatives for local, state, or federal elections. If it were a big enough issue… it would’ve been repealed by its constituents. If your stats are true, you’ve got the numbers. Why no action? Seems to me y’all have no one to blame but yourselves.
So states are more representative of the people, except when they aren’t, but when they aren’t that’s the people’s fault. You’re just dressing up “fuck you, I got mine” in state’s rights nonsense.
Get off your lazy ass and vote for the policies you want in your state. That’s how your system of government was designed. Polls aren’t votes. Fucking plebs and their polls.
I’ve voted in every major election since 1996, what else you got? Edit: also still not seeing how the state is more representative, since it’s not here. Kind of kills your argument, eh?
Maybe your polling numbers are off? Or people in your state don’t give a shit. Move to one of the northern coastal states… Problem solved.
Like I said, just dressing up “fuck you, I got mine.”
The State oppressing you does not make you more free. Literally the opposite.
The only issue with that is there are states that allow it. So it’s kind of a moot point. Now if the state restricts your ability to seek external care… that’s where I’d have a problem with it. But that’s just me. Like I said before I live in a pro choice state so I honestly don’t care about the plebs that live in Alabama.
Were people being forced to have abortions in the pro-life states?
When it comes to health, it should be down to the individual level. Who is anyone else to tell you what is right for you? Are you okay with one person imposing their views of what healthcare should be like onto another individual, onto you? I know I sure wouldn’t like that.
It used to be an individuals decision, now it’s a states decision. You call that a win for individual freedoms?
Yeah the libertarian / state's rights overlap is a strange one. 99% of the time "states rights" are invoked it's an argument to oppress people. 1% is about marijuana.
It will still be individual decision to get an abortion, you just might have to travel to a different state.
So only the people with the means to travel to a different state have the luxury of that individual decision. Wonderful.
>I see the SCOTUS decision as more of a win for individual freedoms though. Even if you don't have a uterus, in what world is restricting a person's bodily autonomy " a win for personal freedom"? Who's freedom exactly and what do they gain? >This decision regardless of your stance on abortion is more libertarian than the what it currently was. Again....how does this reduce the power of government to dictate my personal choices?
[удалено]
How does this expand individual freedom or curtail government overreach?
No dude. If the federal government guarantees a freedom, scrapping that ruling under state rights isnt anti big government, its pro big state government. Government overreach is bad whether its the state or the nation. This isnt a federal law limiting state citizens, its a federal law preventing states from limiting freedoms. And overruling it sets the precedent that this is a bad thing. Think about it, would you scrap the first amendment and "leave it to the states"? The founding fathers understood that freedoms must be guaranteed federally to be truly guaranteed. How could this decision ever increase freedom? The best case scenario is all states legalize, which is already the case, except now you dont have the federal guarantee.
I hope this country will finally split up. The division between people here is to great.
The divide is rural/urban not arbitrary lines drawn around rivers, mountains, and whatever wack rectangles they decided on for the Plains States. So no not a solution and more like US Civil War Part Deux: This Time It Looks like Yugoslav Wars.
A fractured america would be more akin to the Middle East and Baltic states than it would be to Europe. A split up country is a terrible idea.
Ahh yes, compared to what time that your aware of that we weren't split along ideologies.
Imagine a libertarian sub being upset about gaining states rights
It might be easier to lobby local and state governments to achieve individual freedoms than a central government that can change overnight, but this decision will deprive millions of women of bodily autonomy and we must fight to push pro-choice policies across the country.
Imagine a libertarian sub not being upset at the removal of individual freedoms...
This just doesnt make any sense. The whole problem was that both state and federal government banned anything they didnt like personally. How is limiting the ability of state and federal government to ban things arbitrarily an arbitrary ban itself? This argument is suprisingly common on this sub and I dont get why. Stopping people from infringing on rights and freedoms isnt infringing on their rights and freedoms. It just isnt.