By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

Life begins at conception.

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

Sorry, let me clarify, you're saying that if there's no way to evict it without killing it then it's immoral to do so, but if there's some way to eject the baby without damaging it than it's moral regardless of what happens afterwards, correct?

Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

Right.  So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral.  It's partially a technological issue.

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

Why not?  

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

What is he nuts on?

When explaining an idea to a receptive audience, analogies can be useful. They form a conceptual bridge to something that would be too complex to grasp otherwise.

In political arguments they are always always always useless. The other party will always dispute the model because your analogy always supports your main thesis. Or worse yet, sometimes the reality  IS more complex than your analogy in an important way. It never helps. The other party doesn't need simplification, they need more detail that you can back up with facts.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

Do we need to quote the original post in which you created the analogy?


It's quite clear that we were talking about carbon dioxide. Notice the question I asked you that prompted you to analogize pollution to the water tank/well? It followed a discussion about carbon dioxide. However, if you choose to be so wormy, and claim that we were talking about pollution in general, then that would include carbon dioxide, and many other pollutants and environmental effects which would also affect you and your friends in addition to me.

Why is it relevant that you and your friends are taking damage as well? Because by putting you and your friends in the well along side me, we've clarified to you who is really being affected. Based upon your analogy, you failed to clarify that you understood all who were affected, which makes your analogy weak, and calls into question the justification of your beliefs.   

Once you're aware that you are taking damage, it influences your decisions in a way that is different than if you are not aware of it. By placing the burden upon me alone to demonstrate that everyone is taking damage, you have delayed mitigating the damage done. In other words, the water level rises more than necessary, and possibly results in irreversible damage. Your friends, by being stubborn, or ignorant, are in fact the embodiment of a libertarian think tank engaged in either brownlash or ignorance in the defense of a political ideology.

Your argument, and your analogy, must factor in as much knowledge and truth as possible, if you don't want to be accused of being either willfully ignorant, just plain ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that in your analogy, I am constrained such that I cannot leave the well. This is accurate, as it represents either the fact that we cannot just leave the Earth, or that it is not always easy to relocate. You might want to also consider that we are all constrained within the well. As for the cups of water being poured in, you might want to consider that it's actually our piss and shit, which affects the fish which swim in the well with us. When we've fished out all the fish, we hunt the birds above us, which accounts for how our piss and shit is additive to the water within the well.

Feel free to apply your homesteading logic to fishing within the well if you want. We'll see how that works out.

The well analogy, if properly fleshed out, is in fact an excellent example of a closed ecosystem. It's too bad you thought you and your friends weren't a part of it, as if they lived on Mars.

But in an urban area where buildings are higher and have multiple occupants, it simply won't work.  Even with a monopoly its hard to pay for a decent fire service with the kit to handle fire in a multi-story building.  And in an apartment block, if 1 person out of the 100 or so apartments has paid for the fire service, the other 99 get their fires put out for free as you can't save just one part of one floor of a building.

This is why fire services are generally mandatory. Paying a flat fee per fire doesn't work (because the fire service can't guarantee it's income for a year and hence stay solvent enough to actualy put out fires). Fires effect everyone, at essentially random, at that.

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.