Abortion

why this self-identified libertarian is not a Libertarian voter

By J. L. Bastiat ⋅ May 19, 2008 ⋅  Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

I make no bones about it, these days. I drift very heavily in among my conservative friends–I am culturally conservative, in most respects, and very conservative as regards the authority of the Scriptures, but I won’t deny that “conservative” these days seems most often to be deployed for one of three purposes:

1. to identify a libertarian person or position without being “fringy”
2. to denote a “just leave it alone so you don’t make it worse” position
3. as synonymous with “Republican” despite the big-government, Big Brother approach Republicans are taking to mimic the Democrats in appealling to a culture of political ignoratii seemingly hellbent on fascism

And I did, once, vote for the Libertarian candidate–for governor of Illinois, in the mid-90s. In Illinois, you must understand, despite the wishes of the rest of the state there are Chicago Machine Democrats and Chicago Machine Republicans, and for most of the last 20+ years, it was corrupt Republicans who ran the executive. The current governor is, of course, making many a voter wish for the days of “Big Jim.”

By the way, that’s the politics Obama comes from. ahemRezkoahem

But I digress (usually). The end of the matter, for me, is this: there is no God-given reason to use the power of the State to back one vision for culture or society over another; there is every reason the governments we live under among the nations should become, to the extent we are able, just in their efforts to punish and deter and demand restitution be made for the use of force and fraud among their citizens; and that they become, as we are able, just in their efforts to resist and deter and demand restitution be made for the use of force and fraud against their citizens by other nations. Policing and borders, courts and armies, the collective self-defense (as Bastiat would call it): these are the affairs of government.

The rest is intrusion, and self-aggrandizement, and high-minded faith in one’s own ability to judge. That’s what this “libertarian” thinks. To the extent government is responsive to our efforts, our efforts should be directed to getting the government to limit itself to these tasks, to enshrine and institutionalize those limits, and to enforce them against it.

And that’s why this libertarian cannot support the Libertarian Party. Quite simply:

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

(Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee)

“Government should be kept out of the matter” simply will not work where the killing of human beings is concerned. We can argue over whether to call it “murder”–Many think the term is generally applicable, while dedicated pro-lifer and author of The Party of Death Ramesh Ponnuru actually does not. It is certainly homicide.

And that’s the problem. “Up to you” about homicide is not libertarian. Force (D&E requires force; partial-birth abortion requires lots of force) and fraud (Planned Parenthood’s consistent effort to squelch disclosures that are bad for business, among other things) are being used against a human being; there is no due process for the baby, no right to face accusers, no attorney, no vigorous defence, before the vacuum cleaner brains her.

That’s the Libertarian Party. But it’s not libertarian.

And John McCain, bless him, makes me crazy. I want to hate him some days. But he has a consistent anti-abortion record (to be honest, some of the pro-life issue set are too complex for me to be self-assured about a position; abortion is easy). I believe he will back these plays:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

(John McCain 2008)

There’s way too much mealy-mouthing, even so, on that page (read it all). And yet–for now, it seems, it’s too much to ask to be a libertarian and vote for the Party so named.

But then, who ever heard of libertarians with a Party Line?