Difference Between Republicans and Libertarians Is Explained with One Word
Tags: John Locke Liberty Autonomy Republican Libertarian
Difference Between Republicans and Libertarians Is Explained with One Word published by The 1st Amender
Writer Rating: 0
Posted on 2019-06-10
Writer Description: Changing the way people think about news.
This writer has written 204 articles.
Formally the definition referred as: "Freedom from external control or influence; independence."
"But Mr. 1stAmender! Republicans love independence!"
Do they? Are you so sure about that? Would they, for example, have autonomy over your own body? Namely in the following fields?
- Autonomy to have a right to abortion, regardless if it is another human life inside, that ultimately it is not up to the government to make this decision over moral judgment. It should be up to the individual, being that it is their body inherently at risk. I, myself, am pro life, but this is an individual perspective, not the innate doctrine to destroy the autonomy of my neighbor claiming my morals as higher than the judgment of another individual.
- Autonomy over ownership to illicit "risk" in their own life. Being that an adult can gamble away their savings out of their own volition, that it is not ultimately up to the government to maintain a standard of morals against people and their judgments over their lives. Just as a man can step inside a car and illicit the risk that they may crash, but the reward being that they get to work on time. They inherently have a right to "risk".
- Autonomy over the ownership of "risk" in their life to consume drugs. Just as a cognitive adult has the ability to judge "risk" and how much they want in their life for a reward, it is not up to the government to decide "what" drugs you consume provided you are not harming or destroying other individuals right to life, liberty, or property.
- Autonomy to sell your body and your labor in any way you please. As an adult, they have a right to sell their body for services, namely those in sex industry, albeit as morally contemptible as any employment in the sex industry. Because government should not have right to morality, that morality is ultimately judged by people, and not a civil magistrate like in olden times. It is up to these people to decide whether or not they want to illicit this level of "risk" within their life.
When you list it out, it turns out that Republicans are not interested in independence over autonomy. Like the magistrate of olde, they would hold an implicit ownership over people's lives in order to maintain a certain moral doctrine based on Christian principles. Of course, being that there is nothing wrong with Christian principles, it seems to be a fair bet to lean on the pillar of morality established by Christianity. But to say that Christians themselves can rob wealth from individuals to then seek their "moral crusade" against individuals that want nothing to do with their sense of morality, to then be forced to lean against the very same pillar of morality others are accustomed to.
All in all, adults will be adults, and they themselves will decide ultimately what should or shouldn't be good for their lives. Only unto they revoke the very rights that we so solemnly hold as true. The right to life, liberty, and property. Then and only then can a truly just, fair, equitable, most equal society to equality of opportunity can then be erected. Free from prejudice and decay, as was firmly understood by John Locke in the 1600's.
You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.