General

Re: Abortion in a free society

gotlucky — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:13:27 GMT

I usually post What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law by Clayton for newbies to the forum to read. I think I'm going to start posting Nielsio's Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism as well. JJ has great beginner threads/links, but I think these 3 are essential for people to understand the basics of decentralization.

Re: Abortion in a free society

Wheylous — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 05:13:28 GMT

For example, if a plot of productively used land was traded for, and was subsequently left utterly unused for two decades, then the societal opinion may side with the ownership right of a new developer wanting to move in, such that the previous owner is compelled to sell at a low price, for fear of losing it altogether.

I agree with you here and diverge from Block, who says that such de-facto abandonment is not real abandonment.

Re: Abortion in a free society

nomar — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:46:16 GMT

This is a very delicate matter, it's more a moral question and since there isn't a "universal moral" in a short-way i think that would be communities where abortion would be "legal" and others which wouldn't.

I think it's the only way where it's possible to "please greeks and trojans".

Re: Abortion in a free society

Nielsio — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:33:25 GMT

There are libertarians who think of the non-aggression principle of person and property as an axiom, and apply it that way. But without understanding its purpose it cannot be properly defended (as elaborated above), nor can it be properly applied. For example, what is a person and what is property?

The axiomatic view may lead one to conclude that from the moment of conception, there is a ‘person’ who ought to be treated with the same rights as any other person. However, right after conception, this being is incapable of rational thought and of purposeful action. It knows no people, and has no conception of the world. If personhood is understood to be derived from the economic advantage of the division of labor, then we can see that the capacity of (human) beings to partake in it can vary. Children have part of the capacity for it and are learning to acquire it fully, and they already have complex personalized interactions with their environment. A fertilized egg however has none of those capabilities.

The axiomatic view may lead one to conclude that ‘property’ ought to remain property if it is traded for, until death and beyond (through inheritance). But when it is understood that the concept of property is adopted in society for a reason, then we can see how the strength of property rights in goods can vary. For example, if a plot of productively used land was traded for, and was subsequently left utterly unused for two decades, then the societal opinion may side with the ownership right of a new developer wanting to move in, such that the previous owner is compelled to sell at a low price, for fear of losing it altogether.

From: http://nielsio.tumblr.com/post/12618682679/crusoe-morality-and-axiomatic-libertarianism

Re: Abortion in a free society

Wheylous — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:28:52 GMT

Walter Block supports evictionism. I support the criterion of sentience. You can find my views on the issue in one of these threads here, probably:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27973.aspx

Re: Abortion in a free society

BransonBow — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:00:02 GMT

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28958.aspx

The Super Ultimate Abortion Mega Meta-Thread. Sounds like a bad Power Rangers spin-off.

Re: Abortion in a free society

gotlucky — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:14:57 GMT

Samuel Smith:

Now, I'm not an expert on the NAP, but it would seem to me that abortion is in violation of it, as it is a form of aggression.

Not all libertarians agree on this. There are many arguments for or against it according to the NAP. My position is that abortion is consistent with the NAP.

Samuel Smith:

But, in a free society, would it still be legal? Most forms of justice that I've seen debated that would exist in a stateless society reflects around making the victim, or the heirs of the victim, "whole" again, or as close as is physically possible. With abortion, there is no victim, or heirs, to make whole again (unless the mother does it without the father's permission).

It depends what you mean by "free society". I look at the "libertarian" society in two ways. The first is whether or not I consider the laws and norms to be consistent with what I consider to be libertarian values. The second is whether or not this society is likely to have libertarian laws and norms.

A lot of people get hung up here as to how to create libertopia so that it is consistent with libertarian values. It is my belief that it cannot be done. We can educate and decentralize, and that will create a society very similar to what libertopia would be theoretically. But we cannot predict what it would actually look like. We can only make estimates as to what it would likely be like. I say estimates because we can not only use economic arguments to demonstrate what will happen, but there are plenty of historical examples that we have to choose from to demonstrate what has actually happened before.

It is my opinion that abortion would be legal in a decentralized society, but it is always possible that there will be pockets of places where it is not. But I think it would certainly be legal in most places of a decentralized society.

Samuel Smith:

You also have the issue that abortion is something that is so widespread and accepted by society, that no court could ever possibly enforce a ban. We all know that you can't stop people from trading what they have, for what they want.

No one can enforce anything 100%. Murder is banned, yet there are people who murder and sometimes don't even get caught. If a woman wants an abortion badly enough, she will take the risk of punishment for breaking the law in order to have the abortion. This is true of any society.

Abortion in a free society

Samuel Smith — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:25:24 GMT

Now, I'm not an expert on the NAP, but it would seem to me that abortion is in violation of it, as it is a form of aggression.

But, in a free society, would it still be legal? Most forms of justice that I've seen debated that would exist in a stateless society reflects around making the victim, or the heirs of the victim, "whole" again, or as close as is physically possible. With abortion, there is no victim, or heirs, to make whole again (unless the mother does it without the father's permission).

You also have the issue that abortion is something that is so widespread and accepted by society, that no court could ever possibly enforce a ban. We all know that you can't stop people from trading what they have, for what they want.