Peloquin – Thanks for reminding me to get that sticker so I can swap it with my Harry Browne sticker after the election.
True at the presidential level, too.
Hi UglyTruth,
I hate to say this because I’d hate to lose a Libertarian voter, but it’s nothing that isn’t on Browne’s web site (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org):
Browne is personally pro-life.
As a Libertarian, he would of course be opposed to using government (i.e., the people’s) money to provide funding for abortion. He has a number of articles on his site that explain his stance on this issue.
As a pro-life Libertarian, I like that, and I would certainly be willing to settle with the government take on abortion coming from a strict reading of the clear words of the Constitution. However, if this is important to you, you may want to research and then decide whether to change your vote.
You make a good point. In his book, “The Great Libertarian Offer”, Harry Browne says the following:
“I . . . must assume that life begins at conception . . . . .Thus I believe abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is wrong- very wrong. I also believe that turning to the government to settle moral arguments is wrong- very wrong.”
“Since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to deal with abortion, I must oppose any federal activity in this area.”
And finally,
“Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion? I do not, but why should my opinion matter. . . . And the President has no constitutional authopity to dictate to the states on this issue.”
Brown goes on to say that Roe v Wade should be overturned, not because of his pro-Life stand, but because it is an issue for states to decide.
In other words, you are right, Harry Browne is pro-Life, but as President, would not do anything about it.
Uglytruth, You are just STUPID; and yes somtimes the truth is UGLY! To do what you suggest puts you in the ignorantarian party!
I think the OP has been vindicated, so…
[hijack time]
I am so happy to know that the LP is fairly well represented here (probably better then in the general populace). Can anyone tell me why, since the LP has been around longer, and been on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 20 years, are we constantly ignored?
The front page of my local paper showed 3 faces: Gore, W, and Nader. A few elections ago, Perot got all the press, with Forbes right behind. In a weekly paper in town, an article displayed 4 faces, Gore, W, Nadern and Buchannon (ick). I even read op-ed articles that talk about 3rd parties with no reference to LP whatsoever, even one that had been written by an admitted LP supporter (this was during Bush/Clinton/Perot era, sorry can’t remember the writer’s name). On the Comedy Central’s Daily Show last night with John Stewart, Phil Donahue came out pushing for Nader, and when Stewart asked “Why the Green Party and not…[added in references to other 3rd parties]”, but gave no hint of awareness about the LP.
Is it that we simply have no celebrity status? Do we need a big name to market the LP?
What gives?
[/hijack]
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Brainz: Direct insults are not allowed in Great Debates. Take it to the Pit, take it to e-mail, or just plain take it away – but don’t do it here.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Thanks, Dave. I agree with you that there is no place for direct insults on the Straight Dope Message Board.