Am I Really This Amoral (or Immoral?)?

A 23 year old Mexican woman is being detained for allegedly selling her 5-month old baby. Should she be punished? It sounds ridiculous, I know, to allow for the exchange of children. After all, that is child trafficking, and surely that would lead to widespread child-abuse. Wouldn’t paedophiles simply buy children to sexually abuse? Yeah, sure, but what if we regulate it…?

In many states one must undergo a background check in order to purchase a gun. What if the same is applied to selling children, only far more rigorous background checks? I know that adoption is available, but surely a legitimate market for children exists. After all, this Mexican woman was able to sell her baby. If a legitimate market is allowed to be created, with rigorous background checks and regulation, a market in children might actually be beneficial to both biological parent and child. How?

Well, to start, the most common child-seller will be the poor. They need the extra income and certainly will be hard-pressed to feed another mouth. And, conversely, the most common purchaser of children will be rich. So the child, instead of growing up under the strains of poverty, will instead live a life of relative luxury and be able to attend the finest schools. What’s wrong with that? We do not consider adoption immoral…why should we consider the legitimate sale of children any differently?

Am I crazy?

Future of the American Libertarian Party

I am convinced that the American Libertarian Party has no future in American politics. I'm not sure what is more needed: an effective and efficient Libertarian Party more concentrated on getting politicians elected than on petty in-house fighting, or a reform of the entire American political system to deroot the dominance that the two major parties have at the moment.

Any third party, in the current political structure, has no chance of succeeding. Ross Perot in '92 got 19% of the vote and not a single electoral college vote. He simply did not stand a chance because of the way the electoral college marginalizes third parties. Republican and Democratic candidates automatically get their names on presidential ballots in all 50 states. Other parties must petition in order to do so. One may say that this is simply a matter of practicality, but it is also a gross bastardization of democracy in which the entrenched powerful have a far easier time getting elected. There is no way that the current Democratic and Republican parties are what most Americans identify with. Most Americans view the current political process with detachment, with an apocaleptic sense that they cannot change a damn thing about the way the country is run on a federal level. And hey, they're right. It's not because there are too many poor people in America; it's because there is a distinct lack of political opportunity for any candidate who does not have the backing of one the two major parties.

So how can a third party, regardless of how much support they may have with the American people on the actual issues that they advocate, succeed in the current political climate if they are consumed with petty politics amongst party leaders? I listened to a former Maine state legislator today, who was originally a member of the Libertarian Party. He ran for state representative under Libertarian beliefs but as a member of the Republican Party because he was so disgusted by the lack of initiative and efficiency of the Libertarian Party. Either the Libertarian Party needs to be entirely reformed, or forgotten.

Libertarians have another option: mass exodus to the Republican Party, which to me seems the most appealing option. Libertarians differ strongly with Republicans on social issues, but if a big enough Libertarian voice is heard in Republican caucuses, perhaps Republican ideology can be shifted away from the Christian-Right and towards a more minimal state, for which it purportedly advocates.