Political Theory

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Marko — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:48:26 GMT

Back in the day I made an argument on this forum that abortion was wrong the same way it was wrong to drive a bum (or was it a hitchiker?) to your home to spend the night, then wake him up in the middle of the night and throw him out in the rain. That was kind of my thing, and where I was going with this thread (the new human life is indeed as much as snatched from non-existence and placed in the womb by the woman herself, whether she acted for this purpose or not). However, I hadn't considered the implication for the abortion issue of me having since been swayed by Rothbard's arguments on the issue of voluntary slavery, ie the thing where an actor can not be made to shoot movies he had promised to a studio he would, because that is just a broken promise. So in fact throwing the bum out in the rain makes you a total jerk, but not an aggressor. So if I am intellectually honest I must admit it's the same thing with throwing out the baby from the womb. So actually I no longer have a single argument to make as to why Block's evictionism can not stand. (Though ironically what disarms me is a point Block wouldn't agree on.)

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

xahrx — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:57:11 GMT

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Marko — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:03:32 GMT

Damn, I thought I had this thought out, but now it seems the 'no implicit theft' argument really kills what I had in store.

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Marko — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:03:40 GMT

You know I need 3 tons of grain to survive.

You wish to see me live.

You leave me with 1 ton of grain.

I don't see how you can simultaneously hold 1 and 2 if you do 3. Either you doubt 1, or you don't really hold 2.

I can consider both not endangering your life and my getting 9 tonnes of grain a positive value. If I act in a way that is more aligned with the latter than the former end that just means I have demonstrated a preference for that of the two of my values, but I can easily be sincere in both.

It's just like you would sincerely want to have a motorbike, but other things were more important and so you spent money on them instead. The fact you at one point had the means to buy a motorbike, but didn't doesn't prove you never wanted one.

But well spotted. The whole point will be that wishes, motives, intentions etc, have no relevance to the answer of this question which is determined by actions alone.

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Autolykos — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:45:46 GMT

I think Marko's example implies that the wheat farmer is entitled to the grain.

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

mikachusetts — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:09:44 GMT

You know I need 3 tons of grain to survive.
You wish to see me live.
You leave me with 1 ton of grain.

I don't see how you can simultaneously hold 1 and 2 if you do 3. Either you doubt 1, or you don't really hold 2.

Anyway, if you actually know that your action will result in my death AND you have no legal and/or moral right to commit that action, you are absolutely legally and/or morally responsible for my death.

If you are entitled to that grain though, lets say because I stole it from you first, or I contractually obliged myself to give you 9 tons each year or whatever, then you aren't responsible for my death.

Re: Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Wheylous — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:53:28 GMT

Hm, I think so. Imagine a slightly different scenario: I take an antidote from your hands as you are about to drink it and save yourself. I am very much responsible for your death, through the property violation of theft. We know that items do not have inherent value, and hence the justice system should be looking at context to determine value. Stealing the antidote then is as bad as killing the man (though that does bring up the question of whether the antidote would have helped, and this has to be taken into consideration as well - part of the process of law).

So yes, stealing almost all of one's food probably places responsibility for death.

But do keep in mind it's stealing the food that belongs to someone else. (Just in case you try going that line).

Either way, I am not an evictionist. I just don't believe we should ascribe rights to things which are not sentient.

Question for pro-choicers (incl. "evictionists")

Marko — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:20 GMT

You don't need to understand where I'm going with the question for now, but do answer it.

Let us say you are a wheat farmer. Let us say I am the government. Let us say you harvest 10 tonnes of grain and you probably need at least 3 tonnes to survive on. Let us say I know this, but decide to take 9 tonnes of grain away from you in taxes anyway. Let us say that I do not wish to see you dead at all, instead I wish you all the best in the world — I am just not going to let this interfere with my getting 9 tonnes of grain from you.

Let us say that left with 1 tonne of grain alone you eventually starve to death. Is it correct to say that I am responsible for your death? That I did as good as strangle you to death with my bare hands? Is it correct to say it was I who consciously caused you to die? Remember that I did not have certain knowledge you would starve to death, I only knew there was a high likelihood of this outcome.