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