Skip to comments.Anarchy vs. the Right to Life
Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
What is it Aaron? And why do you think that the murderers deserve less of a penalty than their accomplices?
Absolutely correct. Do you think that other people have the right to use your land against your will?
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.
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.
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."
You want to gamble ? A system is needed. The mafia provides the system. If they decide to kill you, who is to stop them ?
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.
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.
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.
Architect doesn't agree. You and I hire hire one agency to punish abortionists, he hires another to protect them, and, as John Locke would put it, we make our appeal to Heaven.
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.
Pro-life judges or pro-choice ones?
What's a right?
If you believe that, I have a ..., never mind. I can't take advantage of the gullible.
The govenment decides to kill you, who is to stop them? (It's happened a lot recently.)
Wrong about what?
You asked how to counter Lallier's objections. Lallier's "Pandora's Box" example spoke exclusively about these accomplices. Not the abortionists. That is the very example refuted by historical example.
Are you claiming this is an invalid counter-argument because it doesn't speak to the abortionists themselves? How does that have anything to do with countering Lallier, who doesn't mention them?
They most certainly do. Now prove that drug use being immoral is one of them.
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.
I've never seen an object do anything sexually base. And there are plenty of undignified people who aren't objects, and there are people who do unsacred things without being objects.
Just say that fornication itself is immoral and be done with it.
BTW, should it be illegal for unmarried people to have sex without money changing hands?
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.
Society? Too nebulous. If Dope Smokin' Joe takes a toke of the old whacky weed, name the person who suffers an invasion of his person or property.
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.
You can reinforce something without making it illegal to do otherwise.
I don't recall asking you to wage physical war. I'm talking about the arena of ideas.
No, you're not talking about ideas. You're talking about making it illegal to do what you consider (rightly or wrongly) to be immoral. If something's illegal, you don't counter it with ideas, you use police officers and administer punishments.