Anarchy vs. the Right to Life

Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

[A.J.Armitage]

Joe Sobran, as evidenced by his recent columns, seems close to being convinced, if not already convinced, by Hans Herman Hoppe's book, Democracy: The God that Failed. As you might have guessed from the title, Hoppe thinks democracy was a bad idea, but he goes further than that; he thinks government, in any form, was a bad idea. He's an anarcho-capitalist. In an anarcho-capitalist society, instead of using police and an official court system to punish criminals, individuals would hire defense agencies, in much the same way we hire insurance agencies now. Then, if you're robbed, your agency would try to track down the guilty party, and, when they catch him, bring him to trial, probably before a judge agreed to by both your agency and his.

I don't know if Sobran realizes this, but anarcho-capitalism sits poorly with his pro-life views. The unborn, and for that matter born children, will be unable to hire an agency to protect them from their own parents or, in the case of some already born children, step-parents. It's not an accident that Murray Rothbard, the founder of anarcho-capitalism, was pro-choice. In chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty, he defends the legality of abortion, as indeed he had to, because if abortion is a crime and an abomination that ought to be punished - and it is - that constitutes a fatal weakness in anarcho-capitalism.

But it extends beyond abortion to child abuse and neglect. Continuing, he wrote that parents, specifically mothers, since pater incertus est, have property rights in their children because they made them. But then he pulls back, and inconsistently advocates limits on parental authority, both by ending it at adulthood and by excluding physical abuse from the things parents can do (but he does not exclude neglect). If, however, you apply the labor theory of property to human beings and not merely the non-human world, neither of these restrictions makes sense. If mothers own children the same way they would own a statue they carved or acorns they gathered, there's no logical point at which the ownership ends, not at 18, not at 21, and not when the kid moves out (Rothbard's own suggestion).

In the case of abuse, his position faces an even greater problem. Not only is his insistence that parents lack the right to "aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc." inconsistent with property rights over the children (why can't I mutilate my own property?), in an anarchist society, there's no one to enforce a prohibition against torturing or murdering one's own children.

Locke himself, the originator of the labor theory of property, did not consider children the property of their parents, and for very good reason; it would've been half way to Filmerism. What he said instead was, "The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their children, during the imperfect state of childhood." (Second Treatise, para. 58)

The only kinds of crimes that could be punished in a pure anarcho-capitalist scheme are ones directly harming paying customers of a defense agency. This certainly has the advantage of doing away with non-crimes like drug possession and prostitution, but, by the nature of how the system operates, it must also leave unpunished real crimes against those other than paying customers. Children, especially unborn ones, are out of luck, and they aren't the only ones. Protection of those outside the charmed circle of paying customers would be based only on charity, and it's easy to imagine pro-life agencies emerging to punish abortionists, but there would just as certainly be pro-choice agencies, and the two kinds of agencies would necessarily exist in a permanent state of war. Once you've gone beyond the model of agencies simply selling protection, there's nothing to prevent agencies from "altruistically" punishing the smoking of marijuana or, for that matter, the drinking of alcohol. An anarchist society can only be peaceful if all force-users other than purely profit-driven defense agencies are excluded and punished (which would mirror the exclusion of other force-users anarchists criticize the state for), and if they are excluded, the unborn will be left with no protection at all, and legal abortion will be more secured by the legal system than any Supreme Court ruling could ever make it, because it would be secured by the structure of the system, and not merely by a changeable rule.

[x]

Good column. No system of political ideas can be perfect and there's no shame in adjusting theory to reality. A system that presumes the existence of rational, independent, individuals who seek there own benefit, will have to consider the claims of those who cannot speak for themselves. Otherwise it will commit grave injustices. Allowing some to speak on behalf of those without voices may open the way to wider state powers, but nothing in this world is pure and perfect and choices have to be made between alternatives neither of which is purely good or bad.

[Hank Kerchief]

This whole anarchy idea is so off the mark from any sense of reality it is breathtaking.

If you mean, the idea that there is the possibilty of a society without a government, I agree. If you mean, the idea that moral intelligent men can live in a society without a government, I dissagree. This difference in principle is important. The only reason there is government is because societies are comprised primarily of immoral individauls. In a hypothetical moral society, government would serve no purpose whatsoever. The problem is ultimately the stuff society is made of, and until that problem can be solved, there is no political solution.

Hank

[jmp702]

A bit of fun here. My apologies to those who find this impertinent...

Those Who Can and Those Who Can't Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, counsel. Those who can't counsel, administrate. Those who can't administrate, enter data into the computer. Those who can't enter data into the computer, take dictation. Those who can't take dictation, alphabetize files. Those who can't alphabetize files, answer the phone.

Those who can't answer the phone, fry hamburgers. Those who can't fry hamburgers, run the cash register. Those who can't run the cash register, wait on tables. Those who can't wait on tables, carry dishes to the kitchen. Those who can't carry dirty dishes to the kitchen, wash the dirty dishes. Those who can't wash the dirty dishes, peel potatoes.

Those who can't peel potatoes, buff the floor. Those who can't buff the floor, haul out the garbage. Those who can't haul out the garbage, write poetry. Those who can't write poetry, write clever letters to the editor. Those who can't write clever letters to the editor, write angry letters to the editor. Those who can't write angry letters to the editor, spray paint graffiti. Those who can't spray paint graffiti, write screenplays. Those who can't write screenplays, write TV scripts.

Those who can't write TV scripts, read scripts for the studios. Those who can't read scripts for the studios, act. Those who can't act, take acting classes. Those who can't take acting classes, sing. Those who can't sing, sing Rock 'N' Roll. Those who can't sing Rock 'N' Roll, sing it anyway. Those who can't sing it anyway, become depressed. Those who can't become depressed, get bitter. Those who can't get bitter, get confused. Those who can't get confused, stay confused. Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, ____________________.

[Hank Kerchief]

......Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, ____________________.

Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, become President of the United States.

Hank

[jmp702]

...and then engage in a war(?) that _____________.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

Is Sobran advocating a return to feudalism?

The problem with hiring a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called mercenaries) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as wages will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as tribute. History, especially ancient history, shows many examples of this.

[Hank Kerchief]

Well, see, you are definitely a candidate for the presidency, not being able to complete that very easy sentence. This is the war that will, let's see, "make the world safe for democracy," hmmm, or maybe, "end all wars," hmm, no, wait a minute, I've got it, "rid the world of terrorism," yep, that's it.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

The problem with hiring a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called mercenaries) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as wages will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as tribute. History, especially ancient history, shows many examples of this.

The problem with electing a "defensive agency" (also sometimes called the government) is that the people with the weapons tend to write the rules, if not immediately, then eventually. And the fees that are at first offered as payment will soon come to be extracted at sword-point as taxes. History, especially modern history, shows many examples of this.

Hank

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian To get into some crackpot discussion over wheth we're going to have the kind of society where I'm going to ned to hire Samuri as a remedy for a crime committed against me is not my cup of tea tonight. 93 posted on 2/12/02 8:42 PM Pacific by RLK

Ahh... I agree.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian What's the punishment for the murder of a child or unborn baby? 96 posted on 2/12/02 8:49 PM Pacific by Demidog

I believe that the murder of a child should carry, as a maximum - but appropriate - penalty, Capital Punishment as sentence upon conviction.

[JMJ333]

You know that, and I know that, but JMJ333 doesn't. If you allow agencies to go past punishing crimes against their clients, there's no structural reason not to have agencies punishing whatever someone's willing to pay for.

I'd like to see where I advocated anything except upholding the law in regard to prostitution and drug abuse. I've been advocating societal standards, and somehow you've interpreted that to mean government agencies going past punishment. Seems to me there is always a way to twist out of having to deal with concrete truths. Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Ok. Well-stated. Now. Tell us how you intend to catch women who commit abortions. In your perfect state, let's assume that the state has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn (I'm not so sure this is true but for arguments sake lets say it is.) What is your plan for catching and trying these criminals? What's the punishment? In the case of a miscarriage, does the state have the right to invade the woman's medical records or subpeona her doctor to "prove" the unprovable?

Generally, No. Subpoenas can only follow the admission of a valid Charge.

Biblical Law specifies the evidentiary requirement for the introduction of a valid Charge. (more below)

I await your plan with eagerness.

If I may speak for A.J., here is our plan:

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. -- Deuteronomy 17:6

Capital Cases should require the evidentiary testimony of at least two knowledgeable witnesses.
Short of Oath or Affirmation, No Warrants shall issue.

Specifics could go into depth and include diverse considerations, but that will serve as a fundamental basis.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

Prostitution is not illegal in Nevada.

Should it be, or not? And on what Biblical Basis?

IMHO, preaching the illegitimate ecclesial claims of the Bishop of Rome as the "Vicar of Christ" is immoral, and ensnares far more "clientele" worldwide than even the most entrepreneurial prostitute. (NOTE TO BAN-HAPPY MODERATORS: This is ONLY my own ecclesial opinion and is offered as a point of hyperbole, reductio ad absurdum!!)

But, much as I might (and do) consider Romanism to be immoral, I don't believe that I have Biblical Basis to outlaw it.

So, BIBLICALLY, what immoralities should the State prohibit, and why?

[JMJ333]

Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.

[JMJ333]

Excuse me for posting the meaning of Vicar of Christ on your thread, but I wanted to post a definition so any lurkers might be able to read it and see that teaching people about the term and women selling themselves aren't comparable.

Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19. In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.

Respectfully, I know full well that my argument could apply equally well to Presbyterianism, if presbyterianism be false.

I'm talking about the fact that false preaching is, by definition, spiritual whoredom. Either Rome, or Presbytery, is false. Either Rome, or Presbytery, is enslaving men's souls to a false Gospel in a way to which no bodily prostitute could possibly compare.

What authority has the State to ban bodily whoredom, but permit spiritual fornication?

Should it attempt to proscribe both... or neither, having no authority to do so?

[Hank Kerchief]

Fascinating that you couldn't pass up the temptation to compare prostitution to the term "vicar of Christ". You'll have to excuse me for not debating, but I really have nothing to say to you.

EXCEPT...

Excuse me for posting the meaning of Vicar of Christ on your thread, but I wanted to post a definition so any lurkers might be able to read it and see that teaching people about the term and women selling themselves aren't comparable.

Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi). etc. etc. etc....

Why in the world would anyone confuse what OrthodoxPresbyterain said with what your saying. This is lent, and you should be more understanding.

Hank

[JMJ333]

I always show a decency to people who I debate, except in those rare instances when I lose my temper. This occurs when my faith is ripped to shreds, which is what happens each and every time I debate with OP and a handful of others on this forum. It is indeed lent, and I intend to be good. Therefore, I'm not going to get into a theological debate with him, which is what he is trying to bait me into. =)

[week 71]

This is an honest question, I'm not being bellicose; When one says vicar of Christ are they implying the pope is vicariously Christ or in place of Christ, Christians may experience Christ through the pope?

[JMJ333]

No..not at all. Simply it means that he is the head of Christ's church on earth--His replacement. Christ handed the keys to Peter and told him upon this rock I build my church. It means the Pope has Authority passed down to him by Christ to lead his flock.