Libertarianism itself is not really an issue in Australia, where it is left or right. The Liberal Democrats, now the Libertarian Party, have not had any real impact, and don't look like ever amounting to anything serious.

The Family First Party seems to be the only group who takes abortion seriously, but the topic is generally left to individuals, with the odd one or two occasionally making the news briefly for getting inside the legal distance from abortion clinics that has been declared, in order to protect women availing themselves of the the gruesome procedure of getting rid of unwanted babies; the latest 'trespasser' being arrested for praying outside of one of the abattoirs.

As an old man, I have better things to think about, and it's really none of my business; but, perhaps if women took a bit more responsibility for themselves, conducted themselves better, the problem would go away, and we would all be relieved of arguments that are going nowhere.

While I don't personally believe in abortion on demand, I do believe in responsible effective contraception/birth control and planning.

That said, I also believe a woman retains the absolute right to choose and is total mistress of her own body! And that is a human position not a libertarian one.

Politics of any flavour has no place in this human right!

Stick your nose somewhere else more appropriate like a bill of rights that includes the right to bear arms.

The reason Switzerland was never attacked by Hitler, was it was and remains an armed camp. And we are looking down the barrel of a Chinese gun because we are effectively disarmed by the law and exorbinate annual licence fees!

It's not guns that is the problem but the failure of government to enact a proscribed register. To keeps guns out of the hands of nutters,

Who are just as likely to use a motor vehicle to murder and injure the innocent!

Outlaw guns and the only ones with guns will be the outlaws! And home invasions will and do proceed apace!

Politicians state and federal are surrounded by folk with concealed guns.

Take that protection away to ensure they get no more rights/protection from nutters than the ordinary disarmed citizen!

If that were so, gun laws would change overnight!

Criminals clearly have more rights than the disarmed and all too often, near beaten to death or killed, homeowner/occupier.

Think, if it ain't broke, don't fixx it!
Alan B.

Dear Ttbn,

«The Liberal Democrats, now the Libertarian Party, have not had any real impact»

Australian libertarianism does not benefit from being associated with American politics.

Many Australians value personal freedom, but most Australians also value a social safety net. A party which combined the two may not be considered "libertarian" in the classical American sense, but it could be quite successful in Australia.

Personal freedom and a robust safety net are not contradictory, and the first to expose this was Jesus Christ. When asked whether one ought to pay taxes, Jesus presented a Roman coin, carved with Caesar's head and famously replied: "give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God".

- Money is printed by governments. One should be absolutely free whether to use it or not, but if one does, then one also needs to observe the conditions attached to that money, which typically include taxes!

---

Now to the topic:

Abortions are widely considered to be sinful.
The question is whether it is the state's responsibility to keep us on good terms with God.
Libertarians claim that it is not.

Some believe that states are responsible to protect us.
All libertarians limit that responsibility, but there is no consensus among libertarians as to the extent of these limitations.

Libertarians for example generally agree that government protections should not extend to wild animals.
Libertarians also agree that government protections should not extend to protecting people against their own poor choices.
Libertarians also agree that government protections should not extend to people who are in other countries.

I further suggest that no government protection should extend to individuals who do not wish to be protected by that government or to events which individuals choose not to be protected against.

Consistent with all the above, a baby (born or unborn) is neither a citizen nor a visa-holder. So long as his/her parents have not introduced him/her to the state and asked the state to extend its protection to their baby, there are no grounds for the state to protect that baby.

Abortion for convenience is very wrong & only the conscience of the mother can judge & juggle that. Abortion due to health fears for the mother & the foetus are logical if nothing else.
We now have the ability to near 100% certainty of prediction as to the health of a foetus. If there is the likelihood of a foetus baby not being able to grow & have live a life without constant assistance then those who insist on imposing this preventable miserable existence by abortion should put themselves on a register to put up their hand to be a carer.
Only competent medical officers should be making the decision. Parents are too emotionally involved to be expected to make a decision.

Challenging progressives with responsibilities turns them into Houdinis !

“For example, libertarians oppose capital punishment on the basis that no state should have the power to kill a human being,”

This is not an argument; it is just a tautology. The essence of Capital punishment is the state killing, after due process, a human being. So Mr Leyonhjelm is effectively saying that the state should not kill criminals because the state should not be allowed to kill people, which include criminals.

It is like saying “I believe in the law of double jeopardy because an accused should not have to stand trial for a crime he has previously been acquitted of.” And that is nothing more than a definition of what double jeopardy actually is