I'm going to assume you're going by this definition: "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."
Close enough. I'm sure you'll make the mistake of thinking that "free" has a monetary meaning though. Hint: it doesn't.
I believe I'll have less of it if we adopt the kind of policies you seem to endorse.
Yes, universal healthcare, the right to abortion, the right for homosexuals to get married. All things you oppose, they're very restrictive, aren't they, gbaji?
Universal health care is not liberty. It's security. The cost is liberty. The Right to abortion I've already discussed. The Right to marry is not the same as the government providing benefits for marrying. You've mistaken "government paying for things I want" with "goverment staying the hell out of my life". I'm always surprised at the sheer volume of indoctrination required to get people to equate those two things and then continue to cling to that comparison even after someone like me points out just how opposite they are.
Liberty is the state of an authority not telling you what to do. All of the things you listed require an authority control what you get. That's not liberty. Those are state granted benefits, not freedom.
I may disagree with the specifics of when that fetus gains an overriding right to live, but I don't disagree at all with the basic premise being argued. It's absolutely in keeping with the principles of classical liberalism. There is no contradiction here.
No, the foetus isn't alive, it's a parasite until it's born.
Lol. So you support elective abortion right up to the moment of birth?
Do you even realize that this is a cop out? You adopt this assumption because it makes you feel better about the political position you've taken. I get it. But do you? I mean, for someone so enlightened and free, you sure do cling to your dogma stronger than any religious fundamentalist I've ever met.
I thought you were about liberty though, why are you all about oppressing the rights of women?
I'm not. I am, however, about recognizing that this is a case of opposing rights in the first place. I'm not hiding from the issue by adopting an extreme position. You are.
So you really don't get that rights aren't inalienable at all? The only rights you have are the ones you either 1) are allowed to have, or 2) fight your arse off to keep. I think you're full of sh*t, personally.
I think you don't know what rights are. In fact, I know
that you don't know what rights are. You can parrot a definition, but when applying it to real world situations, you do so incorrectly every single time. And it's not a question of what rights you do have right now, but which ones you should have
. And that's based on an application of principles. I just find it interesting that you've basically given up on even trying to find a common principle with regards to rights, presumably because you live in a society in which there are no principles involved. You get what your government gives you, and you thank your government for it, and are careful not to ask "please sir, may I have another?".
You've given up. I haven't. I know that misery loves company, so you want desperately for us evil conservatives in the US to stop talking about rights and principles and liberties so you don't feel so bad every time you see the difference, but that's not going to happen. You'll just have to learn to live with it.
You still think people's lived in the USA are better than those of the lives in Europe? Because you hold "personal liberty" far, far higher than "personal well being"? That seriously does make so little sense to me it is unreal.
Those who are willing to give up essential liberty for a little security will soon find themselves with neither.
Yeah. I place a hell of a lot more weight on liberty than personal well being. Because I know that when you give up the former for the latter, eventually you lose the latter as well, because you don't have the former to keep what you have from being taken from you anymore.