Friday, November 29, 2013

Count your Blessings

Thanksgiving. The day in which we feast and feast and feast. Oh and I think there's something to do with celebrating the blessings God has bestowed upon us, too. Obviously everyday should include us thanking God for his blessings, but during the hustle and bustle of this weekend, jumping from feast to feast (or store to store), take extra time to remember what God has done for each of us.

He has no need to do anything for us whatsoever. He is an all-powerful being, who could have just walked away from this world after He created it. Although he had the power to do whatever He wanted throughout the evil history of man, He has decided instead to show mercy unto this world, in instance such as Noah and the flood and Jesus on Calvary.  

Beyond showing us mercy and granting us eternal life, He has taken the opportunity to make himself approachable to us. He's made himself real to us, so we can craft a relationship with him.  

As if that wasn't enough, He has gone a step further. He has been sure to be there for us through all our need, 
"But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." -Philippians 4:19

So I urge you today, to take some time to "Count your Blessings,"
"Count your blessings, name them one by one,
Count your blessings, see what God hath done!
Count your blessings, name them one by one,
And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done."

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Christian Apologetics Series 2: The Necessity of Assumptions When Forming Worldviews

Some may take offense to the number of assumptions that are within this series, but you can't come to any logical conclusion without use of a few presuppositions.

Although one should minimize assumptions as much as possible, there are many things in this world that simply cannot be proven or disproven. In these instances, it is necessary to assume one way or the other. For instance, as much as Rene Descartes wished to avoid presuppositions, his most popular philosophical argument -"cogito ergo sum," or "I think, therefore I am" - is based on the assumption that it takes an existing person to think. To a degree, I am being ridiculous with this idea, but that's exactly my point.

You cannot prove this to be true, but you readily accept it because to assume otherwise is unthinkable. Similar situations occur throughout our entire life, yet we don't notice. This trend is not a nuisance; rather, it is a quite necessary activity to reach any meaningful conclusion.

In geometry (the most logical of mathematics), we have certain ideas we call postulates. These are statements we assume to be true. From these assumptions, mathematicians crafted many theorems, including the Pythagorean Theorem. We don't doubt the Pythagorean Theorem because it's based on assumptions. Why then does it become wrong when we do the same about other aspects of life?

It's not as if we have any alternative that offers a worldview without assumptions. Even the simplest concept, like Descartes' famous maxim, are built upon other assumptions and presuppositions.

The question is which assumptions are better. What should we take by faith? This is the purpose of this Apologetics series.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Bastiat's Conundrum: Communication is Key to Engaging Society

Not only is Frederic Bastiat a brilliant economist who wrote with extraordinary logical reasoning and depth, but also he clearly communicated to the layman. His works are not for the intellectual and academia, although I would hope both would appreciate his insights nonetheless. No, his works are written in a simple way that can communicate an introduction to economics for any layperson (including myself). Indeed Bastiat's most famous essay, The Law, is not a large conglomeration of economic jargon which only a few economics professors could decipher after a few years of study. On the contrary, it is a book that a high school senior could read and understand in about one or two hours.

So clear and profound is Bastiat's work, but he is little known. Evidently, being simple and clear is not a winning philosophy in the world of academia. As Donald J. Boudreaux explained in July, 2013,
"Bastiat was Keynes’s opposite in more ways than one.  Not only was Bastiat’s substantive economics poles apart from that of Keynes – and not only is Keynes, unlike the obscure Bastiat, still celebrated as one of history’s greatest and most influential economists – but Bastiat’s prose is always crystal clear, entertaining, and accessible.  As in the past, no reader must struggle to grasp Bastiat’s meaning.  But even professional economists must tussle with and tug at Keynes’s prose in The General Theory to uncover its meaning.  Reading Bastiat’s works and grasping his meaning gives no scholar any sense of accomplishment.  It's all so easy and enjoyable! The typical scholar’s conclusion, therefore, is that Bastiat was an intellectual lightweight.  That conclusion, of course, is wholly mistaken."

As sad as it is that scholars will write off Bastiat as shallow because of his clear and understandable writing style, we must be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that sometimes we think in the exact same way. If we can easily understand a point someone is making, we might be quick to assume that we already knew that point in the first place. But this is not necessarily true. A great communicator is one who can make a new and complicated topic seem like one you've known your whole life.

The more important takeaway from Bastiat's lack of renown though is a simple dilemma. It appears, that in our writing today, we have to choose whom we wish to engage, the scholars or the layperson. This conundrum, which I like to call Bastiat's Conundrum, is touched on in the Foundation for Economic Education article, "On Being a Catalyst."

In this article, Max Borders explains why instead of staying in an abstract world, economists should try to engage with people and persuade them to action. He uses the word "Catalyst" because in chemistry these are the substances that start a chemical reaction. He asks us simply what reaction to advance liberty are we starting by our words and actions. The best way for me to further explain his article is by letting you see the climax of his position. He writes,
"Being a classical liberal, the old way is seductive. We can spend our days sanctimoniously nitpicking other libertarians’ M.O.s on Facebook. We can craft our seamless syllogisms. We can write yet another journal article or whitepaper that will be read by friends who undoubtedly agree with us. We can rant and rave about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or we can become catalysts."

Mr. Borders wishes economists to catalyze action among people, and indeed this is the key to the answering Bastiat's Conundrum. Being a catalyst starts by first deciding that it's the layperson who needs to be affected, not the academic scholars. Although I have nothing against academia (indeed, I oft had dreams of entering into such a profession myself), I must say that in bringing about real political change, what we need is the layperson on our side.

Liberty advances not based on the abstract works of academia unreadable by all but a select few, but rather through the actions of the population. The most obvious example is seen in the events surrounding the American Revolution. The Revolution was fought by a group of laypeople. The Boston Tea Party was executed by a group of laypeople. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was written for laypeople. It would be amiss to try to imagine an American nation "conceived in liberty" without these events. It wasn't the abstract works that made all the difference, but rather the common people who applied those abstract ideas in the real world.

Thus, the world needs more writers like Bastiat (and Max Borders), who are profound writers who know how to communicate and engage the world. But as Max Borders mentions, this is not enough. I'm sure Thomas Paine's Common Sense would not have been as impactful had he not suggested that America take specific action. It's time to engage the common people. It's time to persuade people to action. It's time to be catalysts.

Friday, November 22, 2013

It Pleased the Lord

When we think about the suffering that Jesus took upon the cross, it's hard not to sit and cry. (Indeed I have procrastinated writing this post for as long as I possibly could in order to put off the emotional upheaval). It was both physical and emotional agony.

Prior to even being nailed upon the cross, Jesus underwent a severe flogging. They took a whip and hit him 39 times. It is said that this whip would cut into skin, leaving the muscles exposed, and then just to top things off, it would cut the muscle itself. One can barely imagine the pain and blood loss that would occur under this type of torture.

But Jesus was still alive. He was then forced to carry his cross up Calvary, meanwhile being yelled at and hit no doubt, until he had no strength left in his body. They nailed through his hands and put him on the cross. It is said that more people die from suffocation on the cross than anything else. There He was, the author of all time, the Creator of the universe, and the source of life on a cross with no feeling, but pain, struggling to stay alive. And he proclaims there for all to hear,
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -Matthew 27:46

He was condemned for doing no wrong, undergoing such torture that he felt he was forsaken, and yet Isaiah 53:10 proclaims,
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief."

Why, Lord, why? Why would you ever feel that putting this torture on your Son, on You Yourself, would ever be pleasing? What could have compelled you to such a thought?

Looking at the context of Isaiah 53 (I strongly recommend you take the time to read the whole chapter), we find our answer. You of course, already know it. You're taught it all the time. He did it for the world,
"3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed... 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."

Jesus didn't just die for us, he underwent torture. Yet we aren't willing to do anything for him. How is that we are so selfish when we are human nothings, while the Creator of the universe, the all-powerful being, made the ultimate sacrifice for us?

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Christian Apologetics Series 1: Absolute Truth

This begins a series I hope to develop further to discover and defend the truth about the world and the God who created it. But before we can find the truth about the world, we must first conclude that there is a truth to be found. So how do we know that there is absolute truth?

"Well, it's nice that you believe that. I guess that's just what's true for you."  

We've all at least heard of this phrase, if we haven't heard it specifically shot to us. In today's society, all the craze is that there is no absolute truth. Never mind that this statement is itself an absolute statement, and if true, is a form of absolute truth. As R.C. Sproul puts it in The Consequences of Ideas,
"Modern relativists...proclaim that there are no absolutes (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes!)."

This shocking paradox in and of itself proves that there has to be at least a little bit of absolute truth, but it would be a huge leap to say that this form of absolute truth is absolute, or in other words, that ALL truth is absolute.

It is impossible to prove either way whether all truth is absolute or not. This is part of the appeal that relativism has in society today. However, simply because a belief lacks proof, the opposite reasoning is not necessarily true. To me, it is far more logical to assume that there is a universal truth that exists than to assume otherwise.

For instance, if there is some truth that is absolute and others not, where is that line drawn? What elements of facts are absolute and which are subjective? It's hard to draw a line anywhere, but the ideas of preference. For instance, I may say that Three Musketeers is the best candy, and you may disagree and say that Snickers are better (as a side note, both are fantastic), but absent trolling, neither of us can dispute that they are both candies. In other words, how we react to and perceive truth may change, but those facts are still the same. But if that isn't the line, what is?

Additionally, if truth is relative, then statements such as, "Murder is wrong" are not necessarily true for all people. Just to point out the obvious example here, how can we blame Hitler for his genocide of the Jews when he thought that he was advancing society? That was the truth "for him." It was of course, not truth at all, but if there was no absolute truth, could we condemn him for these heinous actions? The logical conclusion of relativism is that we can't punish murderers and other criminals if they believe their actions to be right. For that reason, I must accept that there is an absolute knowable truth.

Do you think that I am just sprouting extreme examples for the purpose of argument? That's a fair concern. In answer, I urge you to read some works of relativists in history, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Thrasymachus, and Protagoras, all of whom view ethics and morals as a lie perpetrated by society. Nietzsche would even go as far as saying that our criminals are "supermen" because they have stood up to society's "herd morality." A world without morals is very irrational and absurd (indeed Nietzsche admits this himself). Thus, in order to determine which belief we would like to assume to be true, it makes much more sense to assume there is absolute truth.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Ignorance isn't Bliss; it's Carlisle

Clara: Say we actually find her. What do we say?
The Doctor: We ask her how she came to be. Whatever she is.
Clara: Why?
The Doctor: Because I don't know. And ignorance is... What's the opposite of bliss?
Clara: Carlisle.
The Doctor: Yes! Carlisle. Ignorance is Carlisle. 

In the 2013 Doctor Who episode "Hide", we are gifted with this charming exchange, in which the Doctor is very much annoyed about his ignorance over a matter that affects him nary a bit. (Since this blog has primarily an American audience, I would mention that Carlisle is a city in Cumbria, which apparently Clara and the Doctor don't like. Hmmmmm...)

Yet in America today, we seem far too content, even pleased, with our ignorance of areas that could drastically impact our everyday lives.  

For example, a few months ago, as I was preparing a speech about the Human Scavenging problem (by this, I mean the use of aborted fetal cells to manufacture commercial products) for my last year of competition, one of my club members (who will remain nameless to protect the guilty) distressed over how she "hoped it didn't advance" because it was "depressing." Admittedly, this practice is very depressing, but we can't turn a blind eye to the atrocities in our world. Rather, we must do something about it. To be entirely fair to her, when I said this, she did back down and say that "Ignorance isn't bliss."

But how is it we thought this way in the first place? How have we been programmed not to care about how little we actually know?

This isn't just an isolated problem. This is a problem rooted in our entire culture. We can get more interested in upcoming movies than the Obamacare fiasco. Our political awareness might be limited to nothing more than being willing to read a few political memes that usually just sprout rhetoric with no actual facts (or worse, downright lies). Indeed, I wrote this article starting with a quotation from Doctor Who because I knew I would be far more likely to get hits for an article about a fantastic television series than an article about politics.

This isn't just my circle of friends, who I believe to probably be better than most of America in this area. No, it is a widespread problem ingrained into our entire culture.

Michael Lofti over at has twice compared Google analytics to show how America has reacted to recent shifts in pop culture vs. developments in crucial politics areas, (see here and here). Although admittedly, this is not a perfect means to study how people view the world, it is still an accurate measure to determine American involvement and to paint a credible picture of what that looks like. It's not a pretty picture either. In the first circumstance, when analyzing the reactions to Miley Cyrus' twerk compared to the impending threat of a military intervention in Syria, Lofti found that,
"On August 25th after Miley’s VMA performance her Google peak rating went from 67 to 100 in less than 24 hours. Meanwhile, during the same period of time... the peak search value for chemical attacks in Syria actually fell to a value of 3, which is down from a value of 4 only 24 hours earlier. The term “Syria” is valued at 56- averaging flat over the past few days."
Similarly, when contrasting how America responded to the finale of Breaking Bad versus the government shutdown, Lofti found simply,
"With so many lives being touched by a federal government shutdown, one would expect Americans to be alarmed and search for content related to the shutdown. On this evening Breaking Bad’s internet search volume (25) is 5x higher than government shutdown’s search volume (5). The next day (September, 30th) the letter from Obama’s executive office announcing the shutdown made headlines. However, Breaking Bad’s record setting traffic from the previous night also made headlines. Breaking Bad’s search volume (65) is 3x higher than 'government shut down' (21)."

So, our culture is evidently not very politically aware, but is that really a bad thing? Is there a reason why we can't just continue singing kumbaya and enjoy our daily dose of mindless entertainment? Sure, you can still enjoy your dose of pop culture, but it would be wise to take some time to become informed of the political processes that can threaten your liberties and the way you live your life (and even that entertainment you hold so dear).

A quotation attributed to Edward Murrow goes,
"A nation of sheep will soon have a government of wolves." 

This, my friends, is why we must be aware of the politics in our world. If we remain ignorant, we will be easily manipulated and tricked, and we will watch as our government is destroyed through political processes.

Controlling the media is the way that many different villains in the Doctor Who series I previously mentioned take over the world. This isn't just the fictional route to power though. In almost every authoritarian government, free speech is one of the first rights attacked.

We must stay informed. I don't mean keeping ourselves informed by watching the news. Unfortunately, there are problems in the media about reporting all the facts in an unbiased manner. Whether this is because they are intentionally pushing their own agenda or just trying to find a more entertaining story, we may never know. Regardless, we should doubt everything that any news source tells us (yes, even Fox News) and validate it with our own independent research and other news sources. Receiving well-balanced information from multiple sources is paramount to being informed.

We must realize that ignorance of important political moves in our day can be as the Doctor calls it, "Carlisle," no offense to the residents of that city (unless you're upset at the BBC). It makes us vulnerable to government lies and intrusion in our everyday life.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

We are Hungry!

As I read through Numbers in my daily devotions, I came across a sad trend. The Israelites  seem to be cursed with forgetfulness. Every time a new trial comes up, they completely forget what miracles God did in their past trials and go complain to Moses about bringing them out of Egypt to die in the wilderness. (Never mind for a second that Moses didn't lead them out of Egypt at all. That credit goes to the Lord, yet somehow it's much easier to target God's servant than it is to target God, isn't it?)

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Chapters 20 and 21. In chapter 20, the Israelites are distraught over not having any water to drink. The Lord tells Moses to strike a rock with his rod, and water will come out. So he did, and so it came to pass, that the Israelites were given water to quench their thirst.

You would think then that they would be content for a while, but you know they weren't. In the very next chapter, they again are without food and water, and instead of just asking the Lord to provide as he had done before, they again complain to Moses that he brought them out to kill them off in the wilderness. This time the Lord responds with punishment of fiery serpents which brought with them a deadly disease. This causes the Israelites once again to remember that their Lord is the all-powerful God.

But for how long? We know that these same Israelites as they wander for forty years will once again complain to Moses about want of water. How is it that they keep forgetting God's past miracles?

Is it possible that we ourselves keep forgetting God's majesty in our own lives? I believe too often we have our own version of short-term memory loss that limits us to see the miracles God has provided both in the Bible and our everyday life. When one forgets such things, he will find himself much more easily caught in sin and distrust in the Lord, just as the Israelites did here. That is the main reason why I think it is so important that we start our day off reminding ourselves of the Lord's majesty and power. We can do this by reading our Bible and praying to our Lord as soon as we awake in the morning. That is how we can avoid the plague of forgetfulness that affected the Israelites in this situation.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Thoroughly Furnished

As Christians, we all desire to live a good life. We wish to live morally. Obviously this is not the end goal of a Christian life, but it is one thing that is definitely a priority in our Christian walk because sin weakens our relationship with the Lord. Thus, we try and try to eliminate sin from our life, so we can strengthen our relationship with the Lord.

But are we doing this all wrong? Do we have our cause and effect backward?

Don't get me wrong, having unresolved sin in our life does indeed harm our relationship with the Lord, but do we too often try to eliminate this sin without actually increasing our relationship with the Lord? Perhaps what I mean to say is that too often we view living a good life as an end in itself and thus find our ways to get there pretty impossible.

But beyond just seeing it as a means to a higher end, we need to seriously rethink the way in which we try to eliminate our immorality. We can't just work with our own power to try to tackle our sin problems. This is simply flesh fighting against flesh, and let me tell you a secret, flesh wins. This is not a winning formula in the end.

We must have a relationship with the Lord upon which we can build before we can think to eliminate our wrongdoing. This is what I meant by Christians having it backwards in their Christian walk. Rather than eliminating sin to get a relationship, we have to have a relationship in order to get rid of sin.

This particular method is specifically outlined in the latter half of 2 Timothy 3, where the Bible says,
"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In other words, we must read and obey the Bible. The Bible is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. We all remember this, but what we seem to forget is why. Verse 17 tells us that these four things are there "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Obviously, it's not as simple as that. There will still be difficulty in fighting off temptation in our every life, but we know that we cannot do this by ourselves, and must have assistance from the Holy Spirit, so why do we try to do it without that assistance?

We must know that if we want to be "Thoroughly furnished unto every good work," we MUST read the Bible and form a relationship with the Lord.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

When Government is the Answer

Yes, you read my title correctly. 

Those who have perused my website Human Scavengers may have noticed that I advocate a free market solution to the problem of products being made with aborted fetal cells and may conclude that I am a strong Libertarian. Personally, I consider myself a Federalist, but I distress over looks I receive upon saying that. Therefore, I identify myself as a Libertarian. 

Some may question how a Libertarian could be so strongly against abortion. There seems to be a problem with how people characterize the Libertarian "movement." (I use that term loosely as I don't like how it implies that Libertarianism is a recent development when it was really the groundwork for the Constitution in 1789.) 

Perhaps too many people equate Libertarianism with anarchy. Although there are some Libertarians who do believe that government as an entity is completely unnecessary, there are plenty of us who disagree. What most people don't realize about the Libertarian "movement" is that most believe that sometimes government is the answer. That bears repeating. 

Sometimes government IS the answer to America's problems. 

Certainly these situations are very rare, but nonetheless, they very much exist. Neither I, nor most Libertarians, would fret over government laws making theft, murder, and enslavement illegal. Some of us may disagree whether these laws should be state laws or federal laws, but we would admit that the government is the solution to problems such as these. In fact, that was the reason we believe government was created in the first place. 

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, explained Libertarianism this way in his book Libertarianism: A Primer,
"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others."

To further iterate that there is a misunderstanding of Libertarianism, I find that too often the last part of this definition, namely, "So long as he respects the equal rights of others" is left out. In this way, Libertarianism is restricted to being simply, "The view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses." This is a very weak philosophy which would indeed be unsuitable for the view that abortion is wrong and the government itself should do something about it. 

Thus far, we've talked a lot about what Libertarianism is not, but what is it actually? To put it a better way, what do Libertarians believe is the proper role of government? 

Although I cannot speak for every Libertarian in the country, I can say that as a whole, the ideology is marked with strikingly similar beliefs to those of nineteenth century political philosopher Frederic Bastiat. (I told you the principles of Libertarianism have been around for a while.)

Frederic Bastiat explains in his brilliant essay The Law what he believes to be the foundation for government. Simply, Bastiat believes that the purpose of government is to protect life, and as an extension, personality (or individuality), liberty, and property of individuals. 
"We hold from God the gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot support itself. He who has bestowed it, has entrusted us with the care of supporting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it. To that end, He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties; He has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements. It is by the application of our faculties to these elements, that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropriation, by which life pursues the circle which has been assigned to it, are realized.

Existence, faculties, assimilation — in other words, personality, liberty, property — this is man.

It is of these three things that it may be said... that they are anterior and superior to all human legislation.

It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life...

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual — for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes."

Here Bastiat has outlined the foundation for government. He explains that people form governments to forcibly protect their rights, their individuality, their property, and their liberty. He concludes this passage by pointing out that the government by its nature lacks the authority and jurisdiction to "Destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes."

[In the United States government, there are many laws in violation of this principle of Bastiat, but alas, that is not the purpose of this post.  Thus, I will neglect to mention the NSA, individual mandates to buy insurance of any sort (or anything at all for that matter), and civil asset forfeiture in order to answer my initial question.]

So what do Bastiat's principles and Libertarianism have to do with this abortion crisis? In other words, how does abortion fall within the proper jurisdiction of government? 

How it falls within such governmental authority depends solely on your philosophical or religious belief. As you probably know, there are two primary camps when it comes to abortion: pro-choice and pro-life. The former states that abortion is a morally permissible act for various reasons (the most prevalent being that the "fetus" is not yet human). The latter, and in my opinion correct view of abortion, namely, pro-life, states that the unborn baby is both alive and human, and termination of said life would be murder, plain and simple.

Those who misunderstand Libertarianism will automatically say that it allows for "The right to live his life in any way he chooses." Thus, Libertarians must believe that women have the right to live their life without the "burdens" of a child, right? 

Wrong. Libertarians must not believe that at all. Some will, just as some Democrats and Republicans do, but that belief is not in any way a staple of the Libertarian Party. Remember, Libertarians believe that "Each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.

If a Libertarian accepts that an unborn baby is indeed alive and human, and has rights, then he finds the act of abortion to violate (or not respect) the equal rights of others. Thus, he considers abortion outside of a man's natural rights because it abridges the rights of others.

According to my understanding of Libertarianism, the government should have an obligation to reverse Roe v. Wade and to pass a law abolishing abortion entirely. It has the duty to be the solution for America's infanticide problem, just as it is the solution to the remaining murders in America today by punishment through the criminal justice system. 

In this belief, I am not alone. Dr. Ron Paul, leader of the resurrection of Libertarianism in politics today, explains in his book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect our Freedom,
"On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.  It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.  Soon the crying stopped....

That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted.  But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life.  My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.  These were human lives.  There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. 

Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom.  I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.  To speak only of the mother's cost in carrying a baby to term ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn.

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus...It's a giant leap of the federal courts to declare abortion as a constitutional right...If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life - not grant permission to destroy it." 

Indeed, the travesty of Roe v. Wade is not a sign of strengthening Libertarianism. When one views abortion as murder, one views Roe v. Wade as very anti-libertarian. Looking back to Frederic Bastiat's essay, The Law, we can remember that the government "Cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes." What Roe v. Wade established was the idea that the Federal Government would force the states to keep this murder legal. The government is now "lawfully" used to destroy countless unborn babies before they have a chance to do anything but simply live. 

Abortion laws are the opposite of what Bastiat championed as the purpose of governmentRather, government has an obligation to protect life, not destroy it. So contrary to popular belief, Libertarians can believe that government is the answer to protecting life if government is used properly. So yes, you did read my title correctly. Sometimes government IS the answer to America's problems, and in protecting innocent victims of abortion, it needs to be.