Political Theory

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Libertyandlife — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:21:23 GMT

Well that post was a misunderstanding from my part too, I didn't read the whole thread.

Libertyandlife:

Ahhh...sometimes I skim through.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Pablo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:16:21 GMT

Libertyandlife:

The only reason to a fight a way period is in defense. Obviously invasion is not defense. That was my whole point.

I am still very confused.

I may have misunderstood your argument.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Libertyandlife — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:07:49 GMT

The only reason to a fight a way period is in defense. Obviously invasion is not defense. That was my whole point.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Pablo — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:49:56 GMT

Libertyandlife:

DD5:

You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?

Now that's a whole different animal. A person would easily stop the murder in his own street, or fight a war in his home country, but wouldn't fight in another country as an aggressor. That's just interventionism. Unless maxLiberty is a neocon, this seems more like your just trying to belittle him.

That doesn't even make sense. You can fight a war against mowing lawns in North America, but not in western Europe? What is your reasoning here?

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Maxliberty — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:33:24 GMT

DD5:
What you are saying is that there is a middle ground. You were unable to defend your firm position due to its inconsistency and incompatibility with freedom. You support "murder" only in some cases... You should have ended the debate right here and there.

Just like I recognize self defense as justified homicide so too can an abortion under some circumstances be justified. Both involve killing people but for reasons we can understand and tolerate. There is no inconsistency.

DD5:
In the free society, there is no coercive authority that makes any such decisions. There are only defense agencies that enforce the rules and laws that have been created by the market itself. Are you familiar on some of the work on this issue?

Yes, perhaps you need to think on the subject a little more. Whatever you want to call it, some people will think your defense agency is a coercive force when it takes action on aggression that they do not think is a aggression. In a free society there is nothing to stop any defense agency from voluntarily protecting people it considers vulnerable like children, or handicapped individuals, or any other group.

So a defense agency (which could be an individual acting alone, comical how the Austrians first act in a free society is to create an agency, not themselves, to protect them) steps in when they see you beating your 2 year old child with a tire iron on your front lawn. You cry foul that your rights to beat non contract capable organisms has been violated and the "defense agency" says it was simply protecting someone unable to sufficiently protect themselves from being assaulted. Now what? Who do we go to now?

DD5:
Since all exchange is voluntary in the free society, you will be free to disassociate yourself with people who refuse to contractually agree not to support abortion in any way. But you cannot enforce a total ban.

I am perfectly free to assist in protecting people being assaulted. A free society does not require that I sit by while you murder someone in the seat next to me. Again, you are envisioning a society without consequences for actions taken. An impossibility with the human species.

DD5:
If most people will agree with you, it will be very difficult for the small minority who support abortion to conduct business with anybody. They would be pressured into submitting into your demands, but you could not force them.

If you are under the impression that there is nor right or wrong then this would be correct. The NAP is not the absence of acknowledging right and wrong. It is about aggression towards other humans equal in rights to yourself. These rights exist whether you have a 'defense" agency protecting you or not, no matter how big the majority is.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

DD5 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:38:46 GMT

Maxliberty:

DD5:
So you support the murder of a baby in case of rape! Ok, I told you that the "human" argument doesn't hold water. Now even you agree

What am I saying is that there may be some cases that due to the nature of the pregnancy ........

What you are saying is that there is a middle ground. You were unable to defend your firm position due to its inconsistency and incompatibility with freedom. You support "murder" only in some cases... You should have ended the debate right here and there.

Maxliberty:

DD5:
Now, who will decide where the middle ground is? What coercive authority will make such decision for all of us????

Who will decide when any aggression has been committed? What coercive authority will punish the serial killer?

In the free society, there is no coercive authority that makes any such decisions. There are only defense agencies that enforce the rules and laws that have been created by the market itself. Are you familiar on some of the work on this issue?

Since all exchange is voluntary in the free society, you will be free to disassociate yourself with people who refuse to contractually agree not to support abortion in any way. But you cannot enforce a total ban.

If most people will agree with you, it will be very difficult for the small minority who support abortion to conduct business with anybody. They would be pressured into submitting into your demands, but you could not force them.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Maxliberty — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:23:29 GMT

Libertyandlife:

DD5:

You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?

Now that's a whole different animal. A person would easily stop the murder in his own street, or fight a war in his home country, but wouldn't fight in another country as an aggressor. That's just interventionism. Unless maxLiberty is a neocon, this seems more like your just trying to belittle him.

Aggression wherever it occurs is wrong. I don't pay much attention intellectually to the borders of France or any other country when it comes to injustice. This is why the question was silly to begin with. If I support protecting children against murders next door then theoretically I would support protecting them from child murders everywhere. Murder is not more acceptable the further away it is. Let go of the state definitions of who you are....home country...interventionism...this is how the state wants to define things.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Maxliberty — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:18:42 GMT

DD5:
So you support the murder of a baby in case of rape! Ok, I told you that the "human" argument doesn't hold water. Now even you agree

What am I saying is that there may be some cases that due to the nature of the pregnancy or the nature of the circumstances that abortion might be considered acceptable in order to save the life of one of the persons involved. Some types of pregnancy would be potentially fatal to the woman and the child if allowed to continue so an abortion in those cases would be reasonable.

DD5:
No human has a right to enslave another, even if it his only way to survive.

You definition of enslavement is requiring consequences for actions. If this is true it leads to scenarios that humans simply are not hard wired to accept such as child murder, doctors murdering patients, and many other scenarios that humans just are not biologically designed to accept. We are bio-chemically designed to protect children. To pretend that murdering one year olds is acceptable human behavior ignores the reality of our own humanity. What you want os to change the species so it no longer is human...so that is transformed into something else that disconnects action from consequence.

DD5:
Now, who will decide where the middle ground is? What coercive authority will make such decision for all of us????

Who will decide when any aggression has been committed? What coercive authority will punish the serial killer?

DD5:
This is where you have made your big error in reasoning. Since you do support abortions in some cases, you should have known better then to advocate a State to make such decisions. Especially since most of the western world is pro-abortions (you can abort at 9 months in many countries).

I have not advocated for the state...like always I never even mention the state in my discussions. You keep bringing up the state, not me.

DD5:
You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?

I support preventing child murder.... if that means invading France should I have the energy to do so then so be it. Does that answer your question?

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

I. Ryan — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:25:58 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:

Such as what?

I explained it, here:

I. Ryan:

Conza88:

You should probably present an argument as to why the objection is inadequate... instead of just asserting it.

Well, I did provide an argument, an implicit one, atleast. The argument of Block seems to reduce to essentially that, if you, via your property, "put[ an entity] in[to] a better position", you, at any time thereafter, have "the right" to withdraw the assistance of your property and thereby allow them to fall back to the "worse position". But, although my reiteration of his argument does not seem to immediately reveal any absurdities, I think that some tentative ones, atleast, do exist. For example, if you, in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, (a) encounter a sunken ship and a small crew floating helplessly among the wreckage and, then, (b) answer their request, extract them from the water, onto you ship, do you, at any time thereafter and until you dock, have "the right" to tell them to leave the ship, to their almost certain death? If so, that implies, moreover, quite unfavorably, I think, that you would have "the right" to negotiate, to tell them, for example, to either (a) disrobe, bend over and remain silent or (b) acquiesce to the depths of the Atlantic.

E. R. Olovetto:

Since you don't want to prescribe punishment to the mother who aborts her child, I will just assume that whatever one comes up with will be "unfavorable" to the mother. Perhaps a single, teenage mother will have to drop out of school and work a low-wage job to support her child, whereas she may have instead gone to college, gotten married, and raised several children in a loving home. This is, in fact, the beginning of when a parent may be considering what is best for her children, a decision best made by that person alone.

I never said that.

E. R. Olovetto:

So, you've conceded the moral or legal question, and raise one of personal preference or ethics. I think that abortion is a terrible action and would be happy to see it not practiced. I feel that the proper method of accomplishing this is respecting individual rights though. Increased prosperity may change the minds of some mothers considering abortion. Removal of regulation regarding adoption would allow groups such as the hypothetical "Friends of Babies" to offer mothers money to carry a child to term.

I did not.

E. R. Olovetto:

Is it more favorable to you to leave questions of legality to the majority or some other purely arbitrary method?

No, I favor neither democracy nor any "other purely arbitrary method".

E. R. Olovetto:

Again, eviction is the only position consistent with what we consider property rights, freedom, etc. Any alternative at least leaves the uncertainty that your ruler will not uphold such values. What people choose to accept is what we will have.

What ruler?

E. R. Olovetto:

I won't deny that a fetus can sense pain after a certain point or that an infant will suffer if left to die. I also will not, however, claim to be able to place a value judgment on such suffering versus that of a child raised in a loveless, squalid home. The pro-lifers, in an ironically similar position as the environmental socialists, need to put their money where their mouth is.

I do not even know why that is relevant to any discussion about my objections.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Libertyandlife — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:59:56 GMT

Ahhh...sometimes I skim through.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Spideynw — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:18 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:
Wrong

How is that? Can grass reason?

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Capital Pumper — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:22:09 GMT

Esuric:

Yes, let's compare babies with blades of grass!

That what the pro-life propaganda ads would want you to think.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

DD5 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:58:33 GMT

Libertyandlife:

DD5:

You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?

Now that's a whole different animal.

Only if you're arguing from a Statist perspective and not a libertarian perspective. Go back over the thread. You may see more clearly why the question is appropriate.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

Libertyandlife — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:13:52 GMT

DD5:

You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?

Now that's a whole different animal. A person would easily stop the murder in his own street, or fight a war in his home country, but wouldn't fight in another country as an aggressor. That's just interventionism. Unless maxLiberty is a neocon, this seems more like your just trying to belittle him.

Re: A Question for The Pro-Choicers on this Board

DD5 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:58:16 GMT

Maxliberty:
I confer all rights on someone the moment become human.

So do I. But again, you must resort to "social" rights and not individual rights based on the NAP to make your case.

Maxliberty:
n some pregnancies it may be a case where abortion would be permitted due to physical or emotional stress to the mother that would be considered life threatening.

So you support the murder of a baby in case of rape! Ok, I told you that the "human" argument doesn't hold water. Now even you agree

Maxliberty:
The fact that the innocent third party was forced into the situation does not make them less human nor does it absolve their rights

No human has a right to enslave another, even if it his only way to survive.

Maxliberty:
You favor child murder and i oppose it. I do not see a middle ground.

I don't support murder, but call it what you want. You now support it also. As you've indicated above: "it may be a case where abortion would be permitted due to ....."

So maxLiberty,

You seem to think that there is a middle ground after all.

Now, who will decide where the middle ground is? What coercive authority will make such decision for all of us????

This is where you have made your big error in reasoning. Since you do support abortions in some cases, you should have known better then to advocate a State to make such decisions. Especially since most of the western world is pro-abortions (you can abort at 9 months in many countries).

You never answered: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?