Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Being anti-abortion is so unlibertarian!

rated by 0 users
This post has 50 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene Posted: Fri, Aug 26 2011 5:04 AM

To me, being in favor of government crack down on women who perform abortion is almost as bad as the draft. This is something so intimate, something you do with your body. Government intervention in something so personal is simply inexcusable. The fact that many libertarians support such stance is bewildering. You can play some logical games to prove its actually okay, but in the gut level I feel it is extremely anti freedom. What do you think?

  • | Post Points: 95
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 6:33 AM

For me the question is, do fetuses own themselves?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:20 AM

I think the question is red-herring. It doesn't matter it owns or not itself, it's in woman's body and therefore, can be evicted. Peacefully. :)

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:27 AM

Peacefully from the fetus' point of view? Artificial wombs don't exist yet.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:30 AM

I suppose it would be like kicking out a homeless guy.

The problem being that if you can peacefully evict a fetus, why not a baby or a child? This innocent eviction does away with all of parents' obligations to their children. Now, this might be a good thing ultimately, but I have not yet come to that conclusion.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:31 AM

I don't think abortion is ultimate point which determines is one libertarian or not. Anti-heroin minarchists usualy aren't treated as a statists!

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:41 AM

Wheylous:
I suppose it would be like kicking out a homeless guy.

The problem being that if you can peacefully evict a fetus, why not a baby or a child? This innocent eviction does away with all of parents' obligations to their children. Now, this might be a good thing ultimately, but I have not yet come to that conclusion.

One could consider this a "lifeboat situation", except that in this case (typically), helping the other person won't lower one's own chance of survival. I think a better analogy is pushing someone off of one's own boat when the other person can't swim. In that situation, the boat owner intentionally placed the other person in a situation that put his life at substantial (if not severe) risk.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

For me the question is this:  Is it happening on my land? 

Yes? Then, no, you are not going to have an abortion on my land. 

No?  Then, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want on your own God-foresaken land.  You would be wise to be ever vigilant to defend yourself from crazy anti-abortionists who may choose to invade your territory in defense of the unborn. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 9:33 AM

Haha, nice stance.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 9:37 AM

Charles Anthony:
For me the question is this:  Is it happening on my land? 

Yes? Then, no, you are not going to have an abortion on my land. 

No?  Then, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want on your own God-foresaken land.  You would be wise to be ever vigilant to defend yourself from crazy anti-abortionists who may choose to invade your territory in defense of the unborn.

Anti-social much?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 9:50 AM

Anti-social much?

Agreed. Plus, it contradicts your stance on loose property rights. If new people can do whatever on your land, how come old people can't have abortions?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

Autokylos:
Anti-social much?
I proudly call myself an anarchist. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 10:56 AM

What type?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

Wheylous, 

You are making a mistake by assuming that property rights must be the same for old people as it is for the unborn. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 11:01 AM

Charles Anthony:
I proudly call myself an anarchist.

Are you implicitly claiming that anarchists are anti-social?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

Autokylos, 

I am smugly dismissing the relevence of your question and the assumptions you make. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 11:38 AM

Cry me a river. And as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing to be smug about.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 11:38 AM

Do rights suddenly change? Perhaps there is some deeper issue than property rights then which we should be addressing.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 29
Points 730
Hankster replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 12:38 PM

Wheylous:

Do rights suddenly change? Perhaps there is some deeper issue than property rights then which we should be addressing.

 
Like the right to Life. Like the sanctity of life. Like how life > property.
 
Or like the NAP.  No baby every trespassed, invaded, or crawled up into a womb.  There is NO property rights violation or aggression of ANY stripe from the baby so no violence due it.  The reason the baby is in the womb is solely due to the mother's actions and the subsequent consequences of those actions.  Yes, actions do have consequences.
 
Or like responsibility.  The prime responsibility for the baby being in the womb is the mother's and secondarily the father's.  In one sense, she violated the NAP since that baby was not asked for consent.  She should now, along with the father, be responsible for caring that child through to birth.  At that point she can continue as mother of the child or since it is now viable outside of her body she can put it up for adoption.  (the waiting list for babies in this country is so long that I personally know people that went to Central America and Russia, in spite of the red tape and costs, to adopt babies)
 
(Ignoring the case of rape which is another matter and insignificant contribution to abortion numbers)
 
 
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 3:41 PM

These are all philosophical musings, but in practice, if someone kidnapped and tortured my girlfriend for undergoing a medical procedure, I wouldn't call that someone a libertarian.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 4:00 PM

That's a very superficial view on things. So is "if someone killed the baby inside of her he is not very libertarian."

Hey, I just found a justification of everyone being inherently sinful: By being inside a mother, a baby violated the NAP. Hence, it is immoral to begin with. Bad, bad babies... no

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:11 PM

"Anti-heroin minarchists usualy aren't treated as a statists!"

I would say they are statist, if they want the state to stop heroin.  But not if they are like most people and simply don't use heroin.

 

  But this seems like a silly principle to be 'anti-heroin'.  Does that mean they will accept meth, but not heroin?  I don't see the principle at all.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 7:17 PM

"Anti-heroin minarchists usualy aren't treated as a statists!"

Minarchists really are statists. Reformed to a point, but statists by definition.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

Wheylous:
Perhaps there is some deeper issue than property rights then which we should be addressing.
The issue is that morality is not found through reason and logic.  Libertarianism, anarchism and advocating the non-aggression principle are all moral codes. 

 

Wheylous:
Hey, I just found a justification of everyone being inherently sinful: By being inside a mother, a baby violated the NAP. Hence, it is immoral to begin with. Bad, bad babies... no
That could be the original sin with which we are all born. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 8:28 PM

From what I understand of libertarian literature (have not read, but heard), there is apparently logic (or the authors like to believe there is).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 9:18 PM

Wheylous, have you read this yet?

In response to the OP, the government has no authority whatsoever and everything they do is de facto illegitimate. Why is it illegitimate? Because it violates property rights, upon which civilization and society rest. It doesn't matter if you're the government or not, if you violate property rights—which abortion retaliators would necessarily do—then yet it is anti-freedom, inexcusable, and as bad as the draft.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 26 2011 9:20 PM

Wheylous, have you read this yet?

Alas, as I mentioned twice elsewhere, no, but I will get to it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sat, Aug 27 2011 2:58 PM

Wheylous:

That's a very superficial view on things. So is "if someone killed the baby inside of her he is not very libertarian."

Hey, I just found a justification of everyone being inherently sinful: By being inside a mother, a baby violated the NAP. Hence, it is immoral to begin with. Bad, bad babies... no

 

 

firstly one has to prove that "baby" has basic human rights and that eviction it is an act of kiling it (not just removing unnecessary tissue). Also, if that happened with woman's consent, I don't see big problem (yet again, I am not so sure about later periods of pregnancy).

 

In my opinion, fetus and woman's relationship is symbiotic, but only woman has a right not to allow to be fetus in her womb.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

1) People do stuff to benefit themselves...this is a philosophical fact.  Egoism is correct and irrefutable.  The second one tries to bogard you into thease non things is the second everyone gets all messed up...often at the expense of the person trying to convert one to some "moral imperative".

2) We are social animals, anyone debating this is a blind fool.  Any social action that would "rock the boat" in such an extreme way doesn't exist, aand if it does it is beyond our discussion or calculations.    This is why we have division of labor and the inescapable logic of the market process.   Being pro or anti abortion has no bearing on this - it has shown itself to be the equivlent of a non issue - or a fun thing for rich people to bitch about and show off their peacock feathers.  The more wealthy and open or society economies the more this seems to manifest in obviousness among cultures more actively/ self-admittidly participating in the market process.

3)  In fact they are nonsense terms outside of subjective legal laws (not even biological languages can enter here).  "Life" is an arbitrary tautology of whatever legal system is in place, as well as "murder", "peace", and "violence".   If there was an "obviousness" to wether or not abortion was "good" or "bad" it would be mostly bred out of existence and hence, a non issue...but there isn't.

4) When something is nigh infinitly more powerful and in control of something on a conistent basis, it is a nonsensical comedy to try to make an issue of it.  We step on ants all the time.  It is "in our nature" - just as it is in the nature of a lion to kill a lamb.  To call something like abortion right or wrong is comical...it is a consumer choice.  All other talks of this are confused language mixngs of using going out of style/ profit cultures, expectations, biological urges, social signaling devices beig mixed with more modern notions - where there is simply no reason to care about this crap.

5)  There is a high correlation of people breeding less, making more money, and showing less traditionally "violent" behavior towards others.  We are overall more peaceful, developed, and intellegent as people than we were 300 or even 50 years ago.    Once again, major concerns for breeding seems to be for people looking at what is rapidly turning into outmoded expectations within prosperous human society.

6)  Any political theory that tells you what you "ought" to do is no theory at all - but a pack of nonsense.  At best, liberal liberterianism describes how the individual relates to the social world and shows how the logic of inter-subjective social power functions, how one can act within the structures, and the consequenses of languages outside the structures of socio-economic reality trying to assert themselves into economic reality...and that is it. 

In the end there really can't be anything to get too huffy about in political theory, it only affirms the reality you see.  If "the heart" of liberalism is to really mean something unique above all the other nonsense politics out there, it is to describe one's politics as the consequence of actions and an affirmation of reality.    If you are getting pissy about something it is your inability to assert your aesthetics/ consumer choice as a "thing in itself" without subsidy.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Sat, Aug 27 2011 7:23 PM

Egoism is correct and irrefutable

Francois seems to disagree:

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/against-psychological-egoism/

While I do agree with egoism, I think it might actually be irrelevant in any discussion. If egoism is not true, we have to look at all the factors that affect a person's brain (social norms, needs, etc) and use those to see how decisions are made. If egoism is true, we still have to look at the same factors because the person takes those same factors into account anyway. So the factors are there regardless of the validity of egoism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

1) That man is a nonsensical asocial nutjob who in a very literal sense speaks gibberish

2) I am not speaking of psychological egoism - but Stirnerite ontological egoism.  In the case of psychological egoism, I am very close to calling it a very real fact (and a better option than eliminative materialism and evolutionary psychology) - in the sense that all that can be made are positive statments to affirm oneself and one's comparative advantage at any given moment at any given time...though that is not what I am addressing here.  I am stating that "stuff" (material) is manifest by force that by necessity acts as itself and for it's purpose and is always itself.   Furthermore this doesn't lead to some type of "left wing" , "cool", and polite type of French nihilism/ post-structuralism/ cosmological nihilism, but a very real consistent logical structure as to what goes on in the real world. 

 

I am also saying that logic is a "non thing that  has compelling universal consequence of inter-subjective actions and that is what what is neccesarry for any Darwinian/neo Darwinian narrative to work (and not just on earth, but universally), as well as the laws of Human Action as Menger / von Mises/ and maybe even Lachmann layed them down

3) The factors a person takes into account, are because egoism is true.  We are dealing with intersubjective relations and the world of facts.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

A note on psychological egoism:

 

1) Clinical psychology wise - it doesn't matter, whatever "works...works" via what ever method you chose.  The end result is still essentially Freudian (who was not a British empiricist, but a German continental methodologist)...to strip the person of all the BS in their head, strip them down to thier own "subjective" basic values (which will still be neo darwinian/ naturalistic by any stertch of the word), and let them realize the realistic consequences and options within extant society.

2)  In a more metaphyscial sense: there is no "I" in a Cartesian sense.  There are just recycling patterns of patterns of things looping around with mirror capabilities.  Another way to state this is millions of chuncks of unique "ego's" competing (just as Dawkins or any neo Darwinst will state about genes, or anything else for that matter) and asserting themselves (often with contradictory motives), and all we can talk about is what manifests on the inter-subjective level (which we can obviously do, or else we wouldn't exist)...the rest is meaningless as everything is unique and all and all unto itself.

So a dude jumps onto a grenade because it was necessary to exist as such, there is no other way to state it.  I think anyone taking a real look at the complexities, and realities of the world is going to have to admit this as fact.

 

Note:  I still won't claim psychological egoism, as it may be circular.  Still though - behaviourism, evolutionary psychology, and things of that nature are wrong, and why modern psychologists ought not be taken too seriously - they are essentially "british empiricist" science hobbyists rather than deep thinkers who have had their worked subsidized by universities for no good reason.  Freud is someone to probably take more seriously in the long run, and I would bet would be more in the "Austrian tradition" when looking at the social sciences.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 194
Points 3,900
Gipper replied on Sat, Aug 27 2011 11:49 PM

Murder is immoral.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 206
Points 3,855

Eugene:
The fact that many libertarians support such stance is bewildering. You can play some logical games to prove its actually okay, but in the gut level I feel it is extremely anti freedom. What do you think?

To declare a party line for libertarianism is un-libertarian.  If you wish to have one declared, however, you would find yourself the minority in the Libertarian hierarchy.  Recommend you get a second opinion from Dr. Paul.

In a free market, there would be so little demand for abortion it would wither to practically nothing.  Planned Parenthood, through which virtually all abortions are conducted, is subsidized heavily by the Federal Government.  Without this funding, it would cease to exist because they alone promote the demand.

Abortion used to be allowed or disallowed according to individual state law, as it should be.  The free market applies to legal systems too.  But since the Supreme Court decided to discover a "right to privacy", the issue has become a Federal mandate, and one more tool used to divide us.  This "right to privacy" has yet to repeal the PATRIOT Act or warrantless wiretapping, so it seems that the State only uses it when it is convenient for them.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

Murder is immoral.

Murder is illegal as a tautolgy.  If by that you mean immoral, sure.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

Wheylous:
From what I understand of libertarian literature (have not read, but heard), there is apparently logic (or the authors like to believe there is).
Logic is used by libertarians to apply the NAP to the world around them.  However, the NAP can not be derived exclusively through logic.  [For instance, if it is morally wrong to initiate aggression, then pushing an old lady in front of a bus is morally wrong would be a logical statement -- however, it is morally wrong because you ASSUME that initiating aggression is morally wrong.] The NAP hinges on making a moral assumption that it is wrong to initiate aggression.  You will certainly find libertarians who will keep saying that the NAP is like a law of nature but they dellude themselves. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 24
Points 785

"1) That man is a nonsensical asocial nutjob who in a very literal sense speaks gibberish"

I am the eggman,

They are the eggmen.

I am the walrus,

goo goo g'joob

g'goo goo g'joob.

"all that can be made are positive statments to affirm oneself and one's comparative advantage at any given moment at any given time."

Sociopathic much?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Aug 28 2011 6:38 AM

For me the question is, who put the fetus in there?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Aug 28 2011 7:24 AM

Charles,

What have you read on property rights and such by Hoppe and Kinsella?

I think you are wrong in saying the NAP isn't somehow intrinsic in our nature. We are social animals, and society rests on the NAP. Ineed, civilization itself (and, action per se) rests on the acceptance of the most fundamental libertarian principle: self-ownership.

You may assume things, and point out that to state the NAP would be a positive statement. That doesn't make it not true or unlogical. The logic is fine.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 28 2011 8:01 AM

I myself currently assume the NAP, yet I meant people like hashem. And yes, I shall be reading more literature :P

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (51 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS