Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anarchy vs. the Right to Life
Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by 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.



TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: libertarians; paleolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
At long last, my column returns.
1 posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paleo_list; libertarians; OWK; Anthem; Publius; diotima; Aristophanes; CatoRenasci; Romulus...
.
2 posted on 02/12/2002 3:34:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Besides Locke, anarcho-capitalism certainly isn't consistent with Adam Smith. (To the contrary to some Marxists)
3 posted on 02/12/2002 3:40:31 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
In my experience, reductionist analyses obscure more than they reveal.

There is a HISTORY to the relation between person and state; and history is not reducible to a simple cause/effect schema based on materialist models of the behavior of 'stuff'.

Nor is history reducible to a complex, 'plumbing of human-motivation' ideology based on some OTHER Frenchman's wacko scheme.

IMNSHO. ;^)

I could have said 'German'; I just like to tweak les Frogs. ;^)

5 posted on 02/12/2002 3:53:54 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
A little surprizing reading about the need for governmment from you. Be that as it may, it's nice to read another of your thought-provoking articles again.
7 posted on 02/12/2002 4:06:31 PM PST by curmudgeonII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
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.

Nope.

The market protects people in unexpected ways. For example, people in the Eastern Bloc drove these cruddy little cars like Trabants and Ladas because they depended (forcibly) on the government to protect them from carmakers. In the West, we drive far better quality products, precisely because we have a market. I don't know whether Ford or Firestone was at fault for the Explorer problem but you can be damn well sure that they fixed it. The market doesn't tolerate screwups. I don't have to know anything about tires to benefit from the marketplace.

WRT babies and other defenseless people, my first point would be: are they protected now? Surely the position of the Libertarian Party - return the issue to the states - is superior to that of the supposedly anti-abortion Republican Party - which is to betray their supporters. Returning the issue to the states is the first step towards establishing a free market in abortion policy.

More importantly, the market protects the defenceless too. Rothbard and Hoppe are wrong to continually talk about defence companies. They are obviously an integral part of the Natural Order but the first line of defence to wrongdoing is not hired hands. Rather it is ostracism.

If I renege on a debt to my credit card company, the company won’t normally sue me in court. Instead they will put a black mark against my name and I will find that honest merchants will cease to give me credit or to deal with me in any way with other than cash. Eventually, I will give in, right the wrong I caused, and I will be re-instated in polite society.

No government. No punishment (why do you insist on that anyway?). Just quiet resolution of the wrong inflicted and restitution thereof.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard disgustingly refers to a foetus as an intruder in its mother's body and claims that she has the right to expel the intruder. Well, in some absolute sense, he is right. It is her body and she reigns supreme over it. OTOH, killing someone else because he inconveniences you is evil. Rothbard forgot the second half of the equation. The answer is not to jail her (and historically women were never jailed for murder – do you really want them to be?) but to denounce her actions as evil and humiliate her in polite company.

It would also be a good idea to denounce Rothbard for his repulsive lack of concern for the unborn.

One last point. Do you really want to trust government to protect your rights? Didn't work well for the Trabant drivers. Nor, for that matter, for the children stolen by the CPS.

8 posted on 02/12/2002 4:11:44 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
So what's YOUR answer, A.J.? Stengthening the State?

In relation to abortion? Yes.

By which I mean, of course, that I want it to be illegal.

9 posted on 02/12/2002 4:17:14 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII
A little surprizing reading about the need for governmment from you. Be that as it may, it's nice to read another of your thought-provoking articles again.

I did call drug possession and prostitution non-crimes, of course, so my libertarian credentials are still good. I've always been pro-life.

And thanks for the complement.

10 posted on 02/12/2002 4:22:42 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"By which I mean, of course, that I want it to be illegal. "

Thanks AJ you have captured precisely what is needed to restore this Nation back on the path to again being the beacon of the world. Without it, to borrow a comtempory phrase, we just suck. Just like the Europeans we would be heading for oblivion. Now let's discuss something important - tax cuts anyone?

11 posted on 02/12/2002 4:30:02 PM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; tex-oma
It's not necessary to "strengthen the state" to provide protection to the unborn. The ability of the state to protect the rights of citizens is already there. What we're faced with is putting unborn children under this protection.

The purpose of government is to defend the equal rights of all persons, with special care to the defenseless. The writer of this article is absolutely right that abolishing government would only frustrate this and leave the weak unprotected--which would, in turn, endanger us all by creating a society of the survival of the fittest.

What we've done in our society is corrupt government--turning it from a protecting agent to an oppressive one. Certainly we don't want to see an expansion of this power; the key to protecting the unborn is to reverse the government's power back to a focus on the equal protection of rights.

12 posted on 02/12/2002 4:34:10 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Interesting.....nice post.
13 posted on 02/12/2002 4:38:00 PM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Architect
The market protects people in unexpected ways. For example, people in the Eastern Bloc drove these cruddy little cars like Trabants and Ladas because they depended (forcibly) on the government to protect them from carmakers.

Wait a minute there! There's no comparison between communism and being protected from murder. You're misusing the term "protection" here.

WRT babies and other defenseless people, my first point would be: are they protected now? Surely the position of the Libertarian Party - return the issue to the states - is superior to that of the supposedly anti-abortion Republican Party - which is to betray their supporters. Returning the issue to the states is the first step towards establishing a free market in abortion policy.

Turning the issue over to the states still leaves you with a government, not anarchy. I agree about the Republican party on abortion, and certainly Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned, which would return it to the states, but an amandment might ultimately be a good idea.

A free market in policy isn't a good idea, and anarcho-capitalism couldn't bring it about without permanent warfare. You'd have the problem of people paying agencies to punish whatever they wanted.

More importantly, the market protects the defenceless too. Rothbard and Hoppe are wrong to continually talk about defence companies. They are obviously an integral part of the Natural Order but the first line of defence to wrongdoing is not hired hands. Rather it is ostracism. If I renege on a debt to my credit card company, the company won’t normally sue me in court. Instead they will put a black mark against my name and I will find that honest merchants will cease to give me credit or to deal with me in any way with other than cash. Eventually, I will give in, right the wrong I caused, and I will be re-instated in polite society. No government. No punishment (why do you insist on that anyway?). Just quiet resolution of the wrong inflicted and restitution thereof.

That's all fine, if you're talking about credit card debt. Murder is something different.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard disgustingly refers to a foetus as an intruder in its mother's body and claims that she has the right to expel the intruder. Well, in some absolute sense, he is right. It is her body and she reigns supreme over it. OTOH, killing someone else because he inconveniences you is evil. Rothbard forgot the second half of the equation. The answer is not to jail her (and historically women were never jailed for murder – do you really want them to be?) but to denounce her actions as evil and humiliate her in polite company.

I don't think Rothbard is right about that at all. If the baby intruded into her mother, at what point did the intrusion happen? At or before conception? No, she didn't exist yet. After conception? No, she's already there. The baby had no choice in the matter. The issue isn't the mother's body, it's the baby's body (and you do admit here that the baby is a person). As I said before, when it's killing someone, shunning doesn't cut it.

One last point. Do you really want to trust government to protect your rights? Didn't work well for the Trabant drivers. Nor, for that matter, for the children stolen by the CPS.

That depends on the government. The communist governments weren't trying to defend rights in the first place. They had other, evil goals. The CPS is abusive and needs to be restrained if not abolished, but being against abortion doesn't mean supporting everything alledgedly done "for the children". In fact, most people who do things "for the children" want abortion to be legal.

15 posted on 02/12/2002 4:45:07 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
Ok....assume you've made abortion illegal. Now, how do you proceed to prosecute your new statute?

The same way you prosecute any other statute. If evidence that it's been violated turns up, you try to find out who did it. If you catch someone, you hold a trial.

16 posted on 02/12/2002 4:52:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I did call drug possession and prostitution non-crimes, of course, so my libertarian credentials are still good. I've always been pro-life.

Isn't that selective morality? Abortion is immoral because the result is a violent death of an innocent and defenseless human being. Prostitution is also immoral because it reduces a person to an object, dehumanizing them at a base level. And drugs speak for themselves.

While it is true that laws have never completely stopped any action in society, this is not an acceptable excuse to legalize the action. Conversely, if making a thing legal were the answer to crime we could simply make everything legal and all crime would be brought under control.

Legalizing drugs, prostitution, or any other immoral action will not make society better, but make it worse. The legalization of such immoral acts only initially make law enforcement easier because fewer people are arrested, tried and jailed. But, eventually immorality breeds immorality without improving society.

If you want less government, then you should fight to retain what remains of our foundational culture.

17 posted on 02/12/2002 4:54:40 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
That's all fine, if you're talking about credit card debt. Murder is something different.

I've already established that you are wrong to say that the market only protects people who have hired defense companies.

Now. Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

To wit:

"To violate this right of individual sovereignty opens many fearsome Pandora’s boxes. For one example, if abortion is homicide then innocent women who have suffered miscarriages can be hunted down by the state and hustled off to gynecologists and investigated as possible crime scenes...A state that can define its jurisdiction so as to include the insides of our very bodies will leave absolutely no room left for any individual humanity at all. Such a state will not be above dictating the genetic engineering of people to make them more ‘fetus friendly’ in the interest of protecting "our" little "proto-citizens." Believe me, even Catholics do not want to go there..."

18 posted on 02/12/2002 5:01:24 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: JMJ333
Isn't that selective morality? Abortion is immoral because the result is a violent death of an innocent and defenseless human being. Prostitution is also immoral because it reduces a person to an object, dehumanizing them at a base level. And drugs speak for themselves.

Do they? You can't take their immorality as a given. I certainly don't give it. I don't know about prostitution reducing a person to an object, either. What, exactly, would such a reduction consist of? I've always thought of commerce as a distinctly human activity. No, prostitution is immoral because it involves fornication.

You're right, of course, that abortion is immoral because it kills someone. It's also something else. It's a crime. There's an actual victim, the baby.

While it is true that laws have never completely stopped any action in society, this is not an acceptable excuse to legalize the action. Conversely, if making a thing legal were the answer to crime we could simply make everything legal and all crime would be brought under control.

That's not the reason to make those things legal. The reason is, they aren't crimes. Any punishment of them is itself a crime, a crime you have to fund.

Legalizing drugs, prostitution, or any other immoral action will not make society better, but make it worse.

The immoral action I'm concerned with is violating the rights of someone else. That most certainly will make society worse.

If you want less government, then you should fight to retain what remains of our foundational culture.

I can see fighting for our culture, but not, you know, fighting for our culture.

20 posted on 02/12/2002 5:19:48 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
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.

If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ? What if the crook already hired them to not track them down ? These anarchists must have IQ level just above room temperature in an Igloo.

21 posted on 02/12/2002 5:20:19 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Architect
and I will be re-instated in polite society

How does this re-instatment come about ? Who decides ?

22 posted on 02/12/2002 5:23:39 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage;VRWC_minion
If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ? What if the crook already hired them to not track them down ? These anarchists must have IQ level just above room temperature in an Igloo.

My sympathies, Aaron. Not only do you get attacked by people by principles, you also get it from people with [...] something.

23 posted on 02/12/2002 5:25:52 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Who decides ?

Igloos, obviously.

24 posted on 02/12/2002 5:27:04 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
And do they have any rights while be aprehended. Who insures those rights ?
25 posted on 02/12/2002 5:27:08 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Architect
should be people with principles
26 posted on 02/12/2002 5:27:55 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Offer an answer. Who pays the agency if you have been robbed of your money and how do you stop the bad guys from buying out the agency first. Who is to stop this agency from running a protection scheme like the mafia.

I cannot believe that anarchists can't see the idiocy in thinking anarchy is a viable "system".

27 posted on 02/12/2002 5:31:13 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
What a wonderful thread.

I would love to know once and for all who the anarchro-capitalists here are, rather than them masquerading as conservatives.

Why not come out and admit what your true beliefs are? This is a website, nothing more. Why not see if your true beliefs can stand up, rather than an act you put on?

28 posted on 02/12/2002 5:33:00 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I cannot believe that anarchists can't see the idiocy in thinking anarchy is a viable "system".

That's your right. Now go away and let me talk to AJ. He has something to say.

29 posted on 02/12/2002 5:34:01 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage; tex-oma; all
Interesting material. From Libertarians for Life. (Yes - there are more pro-life libertarians than people might other wise believe. And I am such a libertarian myself; though I take my own stance for spiritual as well as rational reasons, I believe it ought to be none other than the individual states which should be restricting or outlawing abortion, and that the federal government had no proper business in the issue in the first place.) At least one rock and roll star whose brains haven't gone, if you'll pardon the expression, entirely to bed...

Home ] The Library ] [ Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll ] Links ] Order Literature ] Contacting Us ]

Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll
Gary Cherone Asks Eddie Vedder Some Questions

torch.gif (3538 bytes)

   

"My hope is to introduce as many who will listen,
regardless of where they stand,
to Libertarians for Life.
For their arguments are persuasive,
reasoning from science and philosophy.
Anyone with an objective mind
will find them hard to ignore."

     -Gary Cherone
  

For some time now, Eddie Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam has spoken out in favor of abortion choice. In June of 1999, the rock world heard a different take on the issue when Gary Cherone (at the time, lead singer of the band Van Halen, formerly of Extreme) penned an Open Letter to Vedder.

That pro-life letter caused a stir, and in November of 1999, Cherone discussed the matter on Fox TV's "O'Reilly Factor." Vedder has yet to respond, but the issue remains.  Here's a second Open Letter.


"I feel like I know every angle of this issue,"
said Eddie Vedder.
"I know the adoption angle;
I know what it's like to be fifteen and be in a situation
and have to make a decision.
Terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing."

—Eddie Vedder, Rolling Stone 11/12/98 #799


What About the 98.6 Degree Angle?

Another Letter to Eddie Vedder
by Gary Cherone

The vast majority of people who support abortion
take that position with the firm conviction
that life does not begin at conception
That being said...

If one personally felt "terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing"
but was the right of the individual to make that "decision"

Is the life within the mother's womb a human person?

If the answer is no, it is not a human person
Why would one feel it "is not an easy thing" to do?

If the answer is yes, it is a human person
Why would one advocate "terminating" it?

If the answer is I don't know, if it is, or isn't a human person
How many more "decision(s)"
would one make in an uncertain "situation"?

If the unborn is not a human person
No justification for abortion is necessary
However...
If the unborn is a human person
No justification for abortion is adequate.

Nearly all arguments for abortion
are based on the faulty premise
that the unborn are not fully human.

Respectfully,
Gary Cherone
(1/22/2001)

Copyright ©2001, Gary Cherone
Credit for source must be given to Libertarians for Life.


one of life's many choices
Rose Vista
a home for pregnant women
P.O. Box 66879
Mar Vista, CA 90066
donations appreciated


An Open Letter to Eddie Vedder

When is a woman not a woman?

Therein lies the only clear refutation of a woman’s rights.
A woman’s rights —
seems a mere tautology, a redundant catch phrase.
Are not rights self evident?
Intrinsic assumptions of the inalienable?
So, when is a woman not a woman,
a right not a right?

When she doesn’t exist.

When does a woman become a woman?

Is it when
her first ballot has been cast?
Or when
she graduates from her class?

Is it when
she makes a wish on her sweet sixteenth?
Would I be amiss if it were her first kiss?

Is it when
she’s diagnosed by the boy next door?
Or as ambiguous as the cutting of the cord?

Is it the time
it takes to travel the distance through the canal?
Or when
she’s kicking and becomes viable?

Is it when
her sex is discovered by a sonogram?
Or after eight weeks when
the changes in her body will be mainly in dimension?

Is it when
her brain waves are detected after 40 days?
Or is it around three weeks when
her primitive heart beats?

Can there be only one true line of demarcation?
One finite measurable point in time that differentiates
life from non-life?
Womanhood from non-womanhood?
Rights from no right?

Is it the moment of conception —
that point when all of the above is set in motion?
That precise moment when
"a separate human individual, with her own genetic code,
needing only food, water, and oxygen, comes into existence"?

Indeed,
It is at that point,
"like the infant, the child, the adolescent,
that the conceptus is a being who is becoming,
not a becoming striving toward being.

She is not a potential life,
she is a life with great potential".
She is not the mother,
she is an other —
a somebody other than the mother.

A woman,
however beautiful, however complex when fully grown,
begins life as a single cell, a zygote —
that stage in human development through which we all pass.
She fulfills "the four criteria necessary to all life —
metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Her genetic makeup is established at conception,
determining to a great extent
her own individual, physical characteristics":
her eyes, her hair, her skin color, bone structure, her gender.

So let us not be confused,
"she did not come from a zygote — she once was a zygote.
She did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo.
She did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus".
She did not come from a little girl — she once was a little girl.

When is a woman not a woman?
The answer is absolute, non-negotiable.
To argue against would be to ignore the innate,
the fact of the matter.
The answer can never be a matter of opinion or choice.
This is not a metaphysical contention.
This is biology 101.
The answer is scientifically self-evident —
as inherent as the inalienable.

Therefore,
the ability to pursue happiness
is contingent upon liberty —
her liberty,
and her freedom is solely dependent upon
the mother of all human rights...

the right of life.

Respectfully,
Gary Cherone
(June 1999)

[Quotations by Francis J. Beckwith]
Copyright ©1999, Gary Cherone
Credit for source must be given to Rock for Life.

 

LFL's literature and speakers are available to explain and defend why we oppose abortion. Our reasoning is expressly philosophical and scientific rather than either religious or pragmatic. A form for ordering hard copies of our literature is available on the Web, or send a self-addressed stamped envelope to:
Libertarians for Life
13424 Hathaway Drive
Wheaton, MD 20906
footlogo.gif (5216 bytes) Phone: 301/460-4141
Fax: 301/871-8552
Email: libertarian@erols.com
Web Site: http://www.L4L.org

Home ] The Library ] [ Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll ] Links ] Order Literature ] Contacting Us ]

Copyright ©2001 Libertarians for Life
Logos Courtesy of Lonnie R. Williams

This page was last modified on June 02, 2001.


31 posted on 02/12/2002 5:34:35 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dales
I don't think we are hiding out. Nor are we masquerading as conservatives. Although we do believe that conservatism is best served by the market, not the state.
32 posted on 02/12/2002 5:38:48 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
I know that it means something completely different than "constitutional Republic" and something completely different than the founding fathers of our country put in place.

I also know that it empowers the charletan and the confidence man and those who refuse to adhere to societal contracts.

It is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.

33 posted on 02/12/2002 5:40:50 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Sure, I'll leave you to your madness with a note that anachrists always fail to address any practical applications.
34 posted on 02/12/2002 5:40:59 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
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.

It doesn't follow. An elementary rights analysis would show that it is rightful to come to defense of the rights of others; but it is not rightful to commit aggression on behalf of others. Thus a charity hiring a protection agent to punish abortionists would do so by rights of protecting the unborn, while NARAL hiring another agent to protect the mother's whims would be out of bounds. Your agrument would work in an environment without laws, but it doesn't work in the environment you present according to Hoppe, where the use of force is moderated by judges.

It's nice to have your column back.

35 posted on 02/12/2002 5:43:14 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Architect
I will admit, I never confused you for a conservative.

The question I have for you is, you want us to buy into a system that is predicated on people living up to their agreements more times than not. This is a website for and by conservatives, yet you feel free to peddle your stuff here anyway.

If you can't abide by the simple guidelines as to what this site is about without us hiring some agency to enforce it on you (with your agreement as to a mediator? lol), then why would you anticipate anyone with a brain would agree that anarchro-capitalism is a good idea?

36 posted on 02/12/2002 5:43:47 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Architect
I've already established that you are wrong to say that the market only protects people who have hired defense companies.

No, you haven't. The dire threat that a murderer will be snubbed at a church pot-luck isn't my idea of protection, and there's no point in pretending credit card companies, or whoever, will avoid business with people who had abortions; even if a very few do, it's hardly enough to be any any real form of "protection". And in any event, the non-paying debter is known to the creditor. This is not necessarily the case with a violent crime such as abortion; the guilty party might remain unknown. The two situations are different.

Now. Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

Probably for abortionists. I don't know about the mothers, but there has to be a penalty.

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

Inside the mother's body or not, the fact remains that the issue is the baby's body. Aggression doesn't suddenly become a right because of where it happens to be. If it does, why the body, in particular? Why not property in general? If I own land, it's mine just as much as my body is.

Government jurisdiction isn't determined by location (speaking here of government in general, not any particular government), but by the nature of the acts involved, which is why his later objections are mistaken. If banning the initiation of force somehow leads to required genetic engineering, why not genetic engineering to make people more "non-fetus friendly"? If you've already granted jurisdiction over your relations with others, why not?

37 posted on 02/12/2002 5:43:56 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Do they? You can't take their immorality as a given. I certainly don't give it. I don't know about prostitution reducing a person to an object, either. What, exactly, would such a reduction consist of? I've always thought of commerce as a distinctly human activity. No, prostitution is immoral because it involves fornication.

Yes I can, because I don't live in subjective utopia. Concrete moral truths exist. Prostitution reduces a human being to an object because that is what happens when you act sexually base. It strips a person of dignity, and denegrates the sacredness of sex, marriage, family, and human life.

You're right, of course, that abortion is immoral because it kills someone. It's also something else. It's a crime. There's an actual victim, the baby.

There are victims of drug usage and prostitution also. It has a negative effect on society--the society which we have a moral obligation to pass on as healthy as possible for American children. If the "values of morality and legality" are not reinforced among the public and in the media and social institutions, the agreements, declarations, and most sophisticated juridical instruments will be useless. Without a clear conscience of what is right and wrong, our societies will be incapable of being immune to the plague of crime.

I can see fighting for our culture, but not, you know, fighting for our culture.

I don't recall asking you to wage physical war. I'm talking about the arena of ideas.

38 posted on 02/12/2002 5:48:13 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I simply want to be left alone. Let me take care of me and mine in the best way we know how. Why do you statists insist on taking care of us against our will?
39 posted on 02/12/2002 5:48:14 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ?

The idea is, you've already paid, the same way you've already paid the insurance agency when your house burns down. There are other objections, however.

40 posted on 02/12/2002 5:50:58 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Probably for abortionists. I don't know about the mothers, but there has to be a penalty.

What is it Aaron? And why do you think that the murderers deserve less of a penalty than their accomplices?

41 posted on 02/12/2002 5:51:55 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Because its possible you can end up being a burden on the rest of us and I don't believe in euthansia.
42 posted on 02/12/2002 5:53:34 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
If I own land, it's mine just as much as my body is.

Absolutely correct. Do you think that other people have the right to use your land against your will?

43 posted on 02/12/2002 5:54:17 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
Bravo, Gary Cherone!
44 posted on 02/12/2002 5:54:21 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Architect
And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

Bob Lallier apparently never cracked a history book covering the period before Roe vs. Wade. In virtually the entire history of this country, abortion was illegal. Our history has already proven illegal abortion does not open such a Pandora's box.

Lallier's essential argument boils down to reserving the protection of the state only to those whom it is convenient to protect, allegedly out of fear law enforcement might go crazy. The obvious answer is to reign in the scope of law enforcement back to its constitutional limits. Just like any crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the accused has rights that must be respected.

45 posted on 02/12/2002 5:57:08 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Who is to stop this agency from running a protection scheme like the mafia.

I suppose an anarchist could answer, the same people who stop the government from running a protection scheme like the mafia, there'd be a lot to that, but the government can be restrained by the public, at least in a republic, while a protection agency, if it starts acting like the mafia, will put itself outside the market (which is the check they think will act against misbehavior), i.e., will coerce people to pay, without necessarily providing a service. So what you'd have is a small state, and a very despotical one. Unless the agencies get together and invade small states like that, there'd be a lot of reinstatement, and not in a nice way.

46 posted on 02/12/2002 5:59:31 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Ok, I just started working and have no money to pay such an agency. I get my first paycheck and get robbed at gunpoint. In fact a service provides a list of uninsured folks for a fee for the bad guys and I just can't get off that list because every pay day I get robbed.
47 posted on 02/12/2002 6:02:20 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Our history has already proven illegal abortion does not open such a Pandora's box.

Wrong. The murderers were never prosecuted for their crimes. Instead their accomplices were. Abortion became common when a significant percentage of the population came to believe that it was "a women's right."

48 posted on 02/12/2002 6:04:29 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The mafia works because it is based on pure capitalism. You pay, you get protection. You get a service by not getting robbed, broken into, damage to property etc.

You want to gamble ? A system is needed. The mafia provides the system. If they decide to kill you, who is to stop them ?

49 posted on 02/12/2002 6:06:00 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Because its possible you can end up being a burden on the rest

I explicitely tell you that I don't want your "help". Yet you insist on extending it against my will. Let me suffer the consequences of my errors. If errors they should prove to be.

50 posted on 02/12/2002 6:08:21 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson