Yes, the Lincoln-Douglass debates were famously about how much they completely agreed with each other on abolition and were actually worried about tariffs or industrialization or whatever. So worried they were afraid to even talk about it.

No, there was no question of “preserving the union” until secession, which was explicitly a conservative move against threats to the institution of slavery. Reacting to someone’s reaction to you doesn’t make you also a reactionary, on the contrary, it means you’re staying the course.

Or, you know, if Hillary’s old head of P.R. said something hilariously ironic very publicly in response to the news this editorial is commenting on. Could be that.

You realise this argument is also a defense of Hitler, right?

That’s not accurate and you know it. The change being resisted was the end of slavery.

We very much all already live in “Conservative-Topia.”

I’m confused. Are you pretending you don’t remember your own post right now? The one I was replying to? Like you just happened to come across this out of the blue instead of posing the hypothetical it’s based on?

If a fetus is a person, then surely it’s a child and its parents are responsible for protecting it. If women can be compelled to give live birth, someone must do the compelling. He’s so negligent in checking his woman that she killed somebody in his care. Sure sounds like a crime to me.

Read the fucking article

He sure had a say in causing the pregnancy.

You should tell the Department of Defense that.

Pop quiz! Which bearded dissident told his followers that the only ethical society was one where “each give according to his ability, and take only according to his need?”

No, we don’t. It’s called a disagreement. There are no natural constants or cultural universals from which these answers can be derived. If there were, we’d be talking about which ones are ETHICAL, not which are MORAL. This is a hugely important distinction which, I’m forced to repeat, goes back to Aristotle and has…

I literally don’t know anyone who describes government policy as “outside the realm of morality.” I also can’t think of a defensible position that places ANY human action outside the “realm of morality.” That’s the kind of phrase a cult leader uses to explain why they can fuck the new recruits but everyone else has to…

Well, the idea behind Republican Liberty is that the remaining moral choice is to vote away the people who unfairly cut your taxes, or, if government is unresponsive to the electorate, I guess guillotine them? You also have the negative liberty to volunteer for more tax (no, really, there’s such a form) and the…

Counterpoint: negative income tax IS a common service

That’s not what a flat tax is tho, flat tax just means there’s no progressive increase on earned income (and no tax at all on unearned income, one of the rare things in this world that’s EXACTLY as fair as it sounds)

You just described an independent judiciary, bud. What would the Founders think?!?

“Moral arguments aren’t particularly strong.”

If you think these things are comparable I’m forced to assume you’re a minor violating Gizmodo’s EULA