There will be no legal protection for the unborn in an anarchy society.
-Brodie (isn't worried about it, because abortion probably will not happen anymore than it already does today)
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I can get on board with evictionism to a degree. It would be a step in the right direction. More than that and morality becomes more of an issue. If one doesn't want to care for another's child that's been evicted I don't see how that would be a crime, but I would think such a person to be inhumane and a bit of a scumbag.
MrSchnapps:Being totally and completely dependent on someone else for basic day-to-day survival is the very antithesis of all things sovereign. The baby cannot express itself, and cannot assert itself in any way. It was brought into being and is continually sustained by the mother.
It was brought into being and is continually sustained by the mother.
Technically, it's being sustained by an environment which happens to be provided by the mother. :P
Anyways, I understand your point above, but it seems like you're still using a certain implicit definition for "sovereign". Can you explain to me what it is? I'm guessing it's something like "the ability to express/assert oneself"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Mtn Dew:I can get on board with evictionism to a degree. It would be a step in the right direction. More than that and morality becomes more of an issue. If one doesn't want to care for another's child that's been evicted I don't see how that would be a crime, but I would think such a person to be inhumane and a bit of a scumbag.
Presumably the issue isn't that the mother wants the fetus to die per se -- it's that she doesn't want to have it in her body or she doesn't want to have to raise it once it's born. Were I to father a child and the mother didn't want it, I would do everything in my power to buy her out. That means, at the very least, paying for any and all medical costs for her during the pregnancy, birth, and any complications that arose thereafter. If it also meant paying for a gym membership, personal training, plastic surgery, etc. for her to get back into the same shape she was before she got pregnant, I would be willing to do that as well. All so that the child would not die. But that's just me.
I really see no difference between a baby "in" a woman's property (her body) and a baby "on" her property (her home). If she can kill it one place she be allowed to kill it in the other. But should she be allowed to remove the baby from either?
I really see no difference between a baby "in" a woman's property (her body) and a baby "on" her property (her home). If she can kill it one place she be allowed to kill it in the other.
But should she be allowed to remove the baby from either?
Allowed by whom?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
A court, I would presume... Or a lynch mob... Or something in between... Whatever institution(s) the market provides to mete justice.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
One presumes that such an institution would be paid by the mother, and so why would they stop her from doing anything with her body?
Were I in the jury, mediation council, lynch mob, etc., I would quite agree with you. We cannot, however, make that presumption with certainty. One can only guess what would appear on the market. It doesn't sound too far-fetched that some abortion prevention/punishment "baby rescue" operation would spring up. The legality of such a firm's actions would be decided by the courts, lynch mobs and mediators.
I was just making the point that from a strictly adherance-to-the-NAP point of view, even if a unborn child is recognized to have full rights (a big if, granted) a woman certainly has a right to remove an unwanted trespasser from inside her body.
Technically, it's being sustained by an environment which happens to be provided by the mother. :P Anyways, I understand your point above, but it seems like you're still using a certain implicit definition for "sovereign". Can you explain to me what it is? I'm guessing it's something like "the ability to express/assert oneself"?
Yes, something along those lines. I see the reductios, though, and I don't like them. It's difficult to put forth a precise definition that isn't susceptible to absurdities.
I am, however, against abortion.
@ Clayton
If we can accept that a tresspasser does not maintain the products of thier labor, then the qustion becomes, is semen tresspassing?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Say it's at the moment of conception. So what? You've aknowledged that a woman has the right to protect her body from the other human living inside of it. I'm asking why she only has the right to evict that other human when her life is in danger, as opposed to whenever she feels like it. The moment she decides that other human is no longer welcome within her body, that other human becomes a tresspasser. Why must her life be threatened by said tresspasser before she may force the trsspasser to leave? Do I have the right to send a guest out of my home for any reason, or just when that guest is threatening my life? If for any reason, how is the woman's body any different? If it's only when threatened, what gives the guest the right to remain? In other words, does she have the exclusive right of control over her body or not?
Say it's at the moment of conception. So what? You've aknowledged that a woman has the right to protect her body from the other human living inside of it. I'm asking why she only has the right to evict that other human when her life is in danger, as opposed to whenever she feels like it. The moment she decides that other human is no longer welcome within her body, that other human becomes a tresspasser. Why must her life be threatened by said tresspasser before she may force the trsspasser to leave? Do I have the right to send a guest out of my home for any reason, or just when that guest is threatening my life? If for any reason, how is the woman's body any different? If it's only when threatened, what gives the guest the right to remain?
In other words, does she have the exclusive right of control over her body or not?
Well then you run into the legal question of proportionality. Abortion involves the killing of the fetus, which, for the purpose of this discussion, is human at the moment of conception. If fetuses could be grown outside of the womb, then no problem would occur. But since we can't grow them in a tank (yet), to "evict" a fetus is to kill it. This essentially makes abortion different from simple eviction. Yes you have the freedom to evict a trespasser from your property but it is not absolute. Not even the castle doctrine gives you the right to kill a trespasser if he otherwise posed no threat to your life - you can physically drag him out but you can't kill him. For the use of force to be considered legal, it must be necessary and proportional to the threat. To put it another way, the trespasser has to be a credible danger to your life for the use of deadly force to be legal. You are only ever justified in killing an unwelcome guest if he was, say, armed and violent for example, simply refusing to leave is not good enough. Similarly, to justify the killing of the fetus, the mother must prove that its presence constitutes a grave danger to her life. Really I find the concept of absolute self ownership that's so prevalent in this thread dangerous. Simple sovereignty violation is no ground for murder. "luzl he infringed on mai librty so I kild him" will never hold in a court of law. Try it in the real world where retributive justice, and to a degree, utilitarianism, dominate and it will land you in jail.
Autolykos: Of course, it all depends on how "human" is defined, doesn't it? What's to prevent someone from defining "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens"?
Of course, it all depends on how "human" is defined, doesn't it? What's to prevent someone from defining "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens"?
Well nothing, but it would create more problems than it would solve and I doubt anybody but the most ardent fundamentalists would attempt define it that way. People born with intellectual disabilities would starve to death for example, as their caretakers can't decide what to feed them or whether to feed them at all. More people will die of medical emergencies as emergency responders can't decide how to treat them if they were unconscious. There will be corpses on the streets yada yada... Because of the issues it would raise it's easier for them to just claim fetuses as "human" instead.
MSN live :Well then you run into the legal question of proportionality. Abortion involves the killing of the fetus, which, for the purpose of this discussion, is human at the moment of conception. If fetuses could be grown outside of the womb, then no problem would occur. But since we can't grow them in a tank (yet), to "evict" a fetus is to kill it. This essentially makes abortion different from simple eviction.
Not if there is a blizzard outside. If you come home from the movies one particularly frigid evening and find a homeless person has broken into your home, it's certainly not murder to force him to leave, even if the elements would surely kill him. It may be an asshole-ish thing to do, but it is certainly not murder to refuse to provide shelter from the elements.
Likewise, the fact that the fetus does not have the abilty to survive outside the mother's body does not make the removal of said fetus murder. The mother is under no obligation to provide for the shelter against the elements.
MSN live :Yes you have the freedom to evict a trespasser from your property but it is not absolute.
Oh?
MSN live :Not even the castle doctrine gives you the right to kill a trespasser if he otherwise posed no threat to your life - you can physically drag him out but you can't kill him. For the use of force to be considered legal, it must be necessary and proportional to the threat.
I see nothing here that backs up your claim that the right on eviction is not absolute. It seems you are granting that one has the absolute right to evict, but placing limits on how it is done (i.e proportional). If that's the case, I quite agree with you.
MSN live :To put it another way, the trespasser has to be a credible danger to your life for the use of deadly force to be legal. You are only ever justified in killing an unwelcome guest if he was, say, armed and violent for example, simply refusing to leave is not good enough.
The property owner may push or drag the tresspassor, as you said. If the tresspasser resists, the owner may increase the amount of force to overcome the resistance. This is still proportional. The property owner may do this even if the tresspasser would surly die outside. He is under no obligation to provide free room and board.
MSN live :Similarly, to justify the killing of the fetus, the mother must prove that its presence constitutes a grave danger to her life. Really I find the concept of absolute self ownership that's so prevalent in this thread dangerous. Simple sovereignty violation is no ground for murder. "luzl he infringed on mai librty so I kild him" will never hold in a court of law. Try it in the real world where retributive justice, and to a degree, utilitarianism, dominate and it will land you in jail.
The woman can simply hire someone to push or drag the fetus out of her.
MSN live: Autolykos: Of course, it all depends on how "human" is defined, doesn't it? What's to prevent someone from defining "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens"? Well nothing, but it would create more problems than it would solve and I doubt anybody but the most ardent fundamentalists would attempt define it that way. People born with intellectual disabilities would starve to death for example, as their caretakers can't decide what to feed them or whether to feed them at all. More people will die of medical emergencies as emergency responders can't decide how to treat them if they were unconscious. There will be corpses on the streets yada yada... Because of the issues it would raise it's easier for them to just claim fetuses as "human" instead.
What the heck are you talking about? People born with intellectual disabilities, people with medical emergencies and fetuses all belong "genetically to the species Homo sapiens." Autolykos is saying calling for all of these to be called human. Where's the instead? Or are you saying only people without intellectual disabilities and medical emergencies, and fetuses, are human, and other Homo sapiens are not?
Not if there is a blizzard outside. If you come home from the movies one particularly frigid evening and find a homeless person has broken into your home, it's certainly not murder to force him to leave, even if the elements would surely kill him. It may be an asshole-ish thing to do, but it is certainly not murder to refuse to provide shelter from the elements. Likewise, the fact that the fetus does not have the abilty to survive outside the mother's body does not make the removal of said fetus murder. The mother is under no obligation to provide for the shelter against the elements.
whether or not it's murder is dependent on the attendant circumstances of the eviction but to evict a non violent homeless person from your property during a blizzard would likely make you liable for manslaughter/wrongful death should he succumb to hypothermia outside your property later on. It won't take much to convince a judge/jury that your eviction was the proximate cause of his death. Even thought it might not have been your intention to kill him, the fact that you, knowing full well that your eviction would most likely result in his death, recklessly removed him from your property constitutes the mens rea of the crime. It is like putting your drunk friend in the middle of the road at night. If he got run over you're still culpable even though you didn't actually kill him.
Abortion requires the intent to deprive the fetus of life. The burden of proof is on the mother and her physician to prove otherwise. The prosecution won't have to work hard to establish causation and culpability. Abortion is even clearer cut than kicking a homeless person out into the storm. It's more like "evicting" a trespasser by throwing him off your 10th floor balcony. "lol i didn't kile him the pavement and the fall killed him keke".
I see nothing here that backs up your claim that the right on eviction is not absolute. It seems you are granting that one has the absolute right to evict, but placing limits on how it is done (i.e proportional). If that's the case, I quite agree with you. The property owner may push or drag the tresspassor, as you said. If the tresspasser resists, the owner may increase the amount of force to overcome the resistance. This is still proportional. The property owner may do this even if the tresspasser would surly die outside. He is under no obligation to provide free room and board.
It is not absolute in the sense that you can't evict a non violent trespasser if it was foreseeable that doing so would most likely result in his death. You don't have an obligation to provide free room and board but you do have an obligation to ensure that your eviction would not cause the trespasser death or serious injury eg you can't throw him down a long flight of stairs, you must physically carry him down etc etc. If the owner knew that evicting the trespasser would surely result in his death and yet he proceeded to do so without even attempting to mitigate the risks, he is said to have acted with recklessness borderlining on criminal intent - elements necessary for the establishment of mens rea. The fact that the trespasser violated his property rights is no excuse if the trespasser was otherwise civil. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not without limit lest everybody get killed for petty crimes like fraud or simply for stepping on someone's foot.
So? Just because you can hire a hitman to kill someone doesn't mean you'll be immune from prosecution if the use of force was not justified. If you're so sure that hiring someone to commit a crime would shield you from all potential lawsuits then why don't you go pay some thugs to beat up some random person and see how it works out for you?
Don't be ridiculous, an abortion is never self-defense. It's always self-defense.
It's always self-defense.
It is sometimes (but not often) self-defense. Wow, that was pretty dialectical. I feel like Karl Marx.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
The eviction was not the cause of death. The cold outside was the cause of death. The trespasser had no right to be in my home. My actions were not the cause of him being outside; the fact that he could not find shelter without stealing and was therefore exposed to the elements was the cause of death.
It is not absolute in the sense that you can't evict a non violent trespasser if it was foreseeable that doing so would most likely result in his death. You don't have an obligation to provide free room and board but you do have an obligation to ensure that your eviction would not cause the trespasser death or serious injury eg you can't throw him down a long flight of stairs, you must physically carry him down etc etc.
Throwing him down the stairs is a method of eviction -- a how. I have agreed with you that there are limits as to how an eviction may take place. We disagree about the absolue right to evict -- not how it's done, just the right to do it. I am not talking about excessive force. I am talking about the absolute minimal force necessary to complete the eviction -- ideally no force at all, simply a verbal order.
If the owner knew that evicting the trespasser would surely result in his death and yet he proceeded to do so without even attempting to mitigate the risks, he is said to have acted with recklessness borderlining on criminal intent - elements necessary for the establishment of mens rea.
You are putting a positive obligation on the owner of the property to use his property in a manner he does not want. Either he has an obligation to provide the trespasser shelter from the elements (all the time or in circumstances) or he does not.
The woman can simply hire someone to push or drag the fetus out of her. So? Just because you can hire a hitman to kill someone doesn't mean you'll be immune from prosecution if the use of force was not justified.
So? Just because you can hire a hitman to kill someone doesn't mean you'll be immune from prosecution if the use of force was not justified.
I paraphrased your words. "[Y]ou can physically drag him out but you can't kill him." Are you now saying I can't physically drag him out?
I defined "human" as fully sovereign beings and that one of the criteria of "humanhood" is that a being must at least have the capacity for consciousness. Autolykos asked what's to stop someone from ignoring all the other criteria and simply define "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens". I contended that If we were to define "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens" and subsequently awarded them full sovereignty, then it would lead to the problems I proposed. Corpses are genetically human but they don't have the capacity for consciousness. People in a coma and people with intellectual disabilities are genetically human and yet they're not "human" in the sense that I described in my earliest post : they do not have full sovereignty as they either can't fully express themselves or we can't interpret their wishes in anyway. They are partially sovereign - they have the right to life but not the right to liberty, their right to liberty is delegated to their caretakers, next of kin, physicians etc etc. Is it really that hard to understand?
They are partially sovereign - they have the right to life but not the right to liberty, their right to liberty is delegated to their caretakers, next of kin, physicians etc etc. Is it really that hard to understand?
To understand? Not really. I was a bit confused that you exclude the mentally disabled from your definition of human, but included a fetus. Other than that, I understand you completely. Does it make me agree with your disgusting vile point of view? Not in the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
you'll be surprised at the things that can be construed against you in a court of law.
Absolute rights exist only in the state of nature. In the context of a civil society your rights are contingent on the rules set forth by your community, state or pda. If the only rule in your community was "don't murder petty criminals" then your absolute rights of liberty and murder are abridged. You have the right to murder anybody so long as you don't murder a petty criminal. Similarly, if your community had specifically stated that your right of eviction would be recognized in court if and only if the degree of the force used was reasonable, and subsequently you used excessive force to remove a trespasser, then your right of eviction won't be recognized at all during your trial. natural rights=/= legal rights. Even though we have the absolute right to murder whoever we like whenever we like in the state of nature, we have agreed to give up that right and subject ourselves to the rule of law when we established civil society. If you don't like this arrangement you can go form your own community where absolute natural rights are upheld. In a libertarian society no one is really going to force you to stay.
Whether the owner has an obligation to give the trespasser shelter from the storm depends on the values of the community in which he resides. If the owner's community was collectivist in nature then he might have an obligation to provide the trespasser with clothing, food and shelter. If on the other hand his community was libertarian then he might only need to provide food and clothing for the trespasser before evicting him or he might owe him no obligations at all. What his specific obligations are in relation to trespassers are between him and his community/defense agency. However, under the current legal system where property owners do in fact owe civil trespassers a certain duty of care, you generally can't evict a trespasser if it was foreseeable that it would result in his death. Doing so could make you liable for tort and or criminal prosecution.
you can drag him out or you can hire someone to drag him out. The use of force in this case is justified. You can't however strike him with a crowbar, as it is neither necessary nor reasonable for you to do so. Also, hiring someone to commit a crime will not absolve you of blame.
It was a poor choice of words, I said "human" when what I really meant was "sovereign". I've never held that a fetus is sovereign per se but for the purpose of our discussion it is. What's so disgusting and vile about my point of view? Would you rather grant people with mental disabilities etc absolute "rights" even if it would mean they would starve to death? What's the difference between someone who's mentally impaired and someone who's passed out drunk in the middle of the road? We can legitimately intrude on the drunk's liberty and not the mentally impaired's? One can justifiably ignore the drunk's right of liberty and remove him from the road so as to render him a reasonable standard of care until he regains consciousness or emergency services arrive. It may very well be that the drunk was actually trying to commit suicide so in a strict sense the good samaritan did infringe on the drunk's right of life and liberty. Yet it won't be a stretch to say that the good samaritan acted in good faith. Are you going to condemn him for being "disgustingly vile” and "unnatural" for his "initiation" of "violence" and “violation” of “rights”? Your rights are never absolute in a civil society.
They are partially sovereign - they have the right to life but not the right to liberty, their right to liberty is delegated to their caretakers, next of kin, physicians etc etc. Is it really that hard to understand? To understand? Not really. I was a bit confused that you exclude the mentally disabled from your definition of human, but included a fetus. Other than that, I understand you completely. Does it make me agree with your disgusting vile point of view? Not in the least.
We must be careful not to declare someone sovereign on the basis of humanity alone. Sovereignty is a product of action. One must be an acting man to have rights, as only beings capable of action can make choices and be responsible for those choices.
Fetuses, and even babies for that matter, do not act. As such, they do not have rights.
Stranger, then what about people in coma? Do they not have rights?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Absolute rights exist only in the state of nature. In the context of a civil society your rights are contingent on the rules set forth by your community, state or pda.If the only rule in your community was "don't murder petty criminals" then your absolute rights of liberty and murder are abridged. You have the right to murder anybody so long as you don't murder a petty criminal. Similarly, if your community had specifically stated that your right of eviction would be recognized in court if and only if the degree of the force used was reasonable, and subsequently you used excessive force to remove a trespasser, then your right of eviction won't be recognized at all during your trial. natural rights=/= legal rights. Even though we have the absolute right to murder whoever we like whenever we like in the state of nature, we have agreed to give up that right and subject ourselves to the rule of law when we established civil society. If you don't like this arrangement you can go form your own community where absolute natural rights are upheld. In a libertarian society no one is really going to force you to stay.
This is an almost perfect misrepresentation of natural rights. Here's a hint: There is no natural right to murder. Here's another: Because natural rights are negative rights, they never conflict. It is impossible by definition.
Whether the owner has an obligation to give the trespasser shelter from the storm depends on the values of the community in which he resides. If the owner's community was collectivist in nature then he might have an obligation to provide the trespasser with clothing, food and shelter. If on the other hand his community was libertarian then he might only need to provide food and clothing for the trespasser before evicting him or he might owe him no obligations at all. What his specific obligations are in relation to trespassers are between him and his community/defense agency.
A community does not have values. Individuals have values. A number of individuals may share similar values. They may even impose those values on others. That impossition is a violation of rights. Most members of a community may decide that rape is preferable to courting. That in no way implies that a rape victim's rights are not violated.
However, under the current legal system where property owners do in fact owe civil trespassers a certain duty of care, you generally can't evict a trespasser if it was foreseeable that it would result in his death. Doing so could make you liable for tort and or criminal prosecution.
The current legal system is rather off topic for this discussion.
I paraphrased your words. "[Y]ou can physically drag him out but you can't kill him." Are you now saying I can't physically drag him out? you can drag him out or you can hire someone to drag him out. The use of force in this case is justified. You can't however strike him with a crowbar, as it is neither necessary nor reasonable for you to do so. Also, hiring someone to commit a crime will not absolve you of blame.
One again, you bring up the strawman of excessive force. Do you actually read the words to which you're replying? I am not taking about excessive force. We agree that excessive force is actionable. I'm not talking about throwing someone down the stairs or using a crowbar. Stop strawmanning and adress my actual arguments:
You either support the right of an owner to to evict a trespasser using the minimal force necessary to do so, or you support slavery. There is no other option. The fact that a "community" support slavery in no way makes slavery a non-violation of rights.
What's so disgusting and vile about my point of view?
You hold the opinion that slavery is not a rights violation because the slave owners say so.
Your rights are never absolute in a civil society.
Rights are absolute in all cases. A "society" is only civil if it recognizes this.
no, that is your misrepresentation of natural rights. It is a modern libertarian misconception that people do not have a natural right to murder whoever they please in the state of nature. "Rights" in the modern sense, mean obligations, the permission to do something or not to do something, as such they are dependent on the value judgments of those around you. When Hobbes and Locke talked about natural rights, what they meant was not the permission, but rather the ability, the liberty of people to do whatever they desire regardless of others' opinions. I quote, from Leviathan:
"The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. By liberty is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him. A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent. And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves."
"The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.
By liberty is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.
A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves."
In a free society, a community’s values are reflective of the values of the individuals that comprise it. Sure they may differ on a few things but most of the differences would be purely academic in nature. No "impossition" of values would be needed in a libertarian society as people have the freedom to come and go as they please. It would be nonsensical for a communist who deeply resents private property to remain in a capitalist community. A rape victim's “rights” won't be recognized in a rapist community where the "right to rape" is upheld. So for all practical purposes the victim does not have a “right” to not being raped in that particular community, even though such a “right” is acknowledged elsewhere. Volenti non fit injuria. Being free to rape and be raped is part of the social contract of the rapist community, if you don’t want to be raped, then don’t sign the contract - don’t settle there, or leave if you’re already there.
No, legal principles such as proportionate force, presumption of innocence and volenti non fit injuria etc etc...are derived from reason, you know, the same place libertarianism comes from. They are tried and true and some of them are even older than libertarianism itself. It's erroneous to assume that the legal system in a libertarian society would depart far from the one we have today.
One again, you bring up the strawman of excessive force. Do you actually read the words to which you're replying? I am not taking about excessive force. We agree that excessive force is actionable. I'm not talking about throwing someone down the stairs or using a crowbar. Stop strawmanning and adress my actual arguments: You either support the right of an owner to to evict a trespasser using the minimal force necessary to do so, or you support slavery. There is no other option. The fact that a "community" support slavery in no way makes slavery a non-violation of rights.
*facepalm*
"oh lookie here, ima gunna respond 2 an alleged strawman with a strawman of mai own1!! ur eithr wif mi or u supor slavery!1!!u vile creature1!1!"
You just don't get it or you don't wanna get it? Your right to evict is subject to the rules laid down by your community. If your community said that you have the absolute right to evict then you have the absolute right to evict, if it said you don't then you don't. If you don't like it, you can either convince them that they're wrong or leave but it would be juvenile for you to accuse them of supporting slavery or that they offend against nature.
If the slave truly voluntarily sold himself into slavery in a community that recognizes his right to do so then no "rights" have been violated. Sure you might not understand why someone would sell themselves into slavery but who are you to deny him his liberty to decide what he wishes to do? Nobody was even harmed in the process.
Wow really? When did I ever say that? I’ve never even implied such a thing so don’t put words into my mouth. All I said was that people in a coma and people with mental disabilities etc are “partially sovereign” as their right of liberty is delegated to their caretakers the same way the right of liberty of the above mentioned drunk is delegated to the good samartian who chances upon him. Suppose that we were to grant them your version of “rights”, then how are we supposed to care for them if their right of liberty is absolute? How do we interpret their wishes if they can’t express themselves? What should we feed them? Should we feed them at all? If they refused to eat, are they trying to commit suicide or they simply just don’t want to feed themselves? What happens when they’re sick? What treatment, if any, should we give them? Surely such a sordid approach would lead to their death?
Really the only way for your silly concept of absolute "rights" to be enforced is through the oppressive organs of the state. Libertarianism is morally universal but not morally absolute. It's never black and white; you only have absolute rights when your neighbors think you do. If you believe in the non-aggression principle, then you cannot seriously say that rights are absolute in all cases. A civil society is formed when its citizens voluntarily relinquish their natural right of arbitrary murder and subject themselves to reason, not when they're forced by some moral crusaders to adopt a set of static, absolute, and dogmatic "rights". Absolutism breeds tyranny. For fuck's sake, go read a book on political philosophy and you'll see how your ridiculous absolutism goes against what libertarianism really stands for – the liberty to choose how you want to live your life.
It actually hurts. I'll not respond point by point, but a few thoughts:
The search for the meaning and origin of natural rights did not stop with the writing and publication of Leviathan.
Negative rights don't conflict.
The recognition of a right, or the failure to recognise a right, presupposes the existence of the right. A rape victim's rights are violated even if those rights are not recognized by others. I understand, and generally agree with, your use of the phrase, "for all practical purpose." However, I think it's important to distinguish between the extistence of a right and the recognition of a right. At times, one's rights may be violated, and no one will ever do anything about it.
There is no such thing as a social contract.
It's funny you brought up the NAP. The NAP is inconconsistent with non-absolute rights. All agression conflicts with the NAP. Said another way, one has the absolute right to be free from agression. For fuck's sake, go read ANYTHING regarding the NAP or the concept of negative rights and see how ridiculous is your claim that sometimes agression isn't in conflict with the Non-Agression Principle.
Why don't you ask them?
It actually hurts. I'll not respond point by point, but a few thoughts: The search for the meaning and origin of natural rights did not stop with the writing and publication of Leviathan. Negative rights don't conflict.
Stop confusing natural rights with legal rights.
The origin of the natural rights of life, liberty and property is reason, aka, the "law" of nature, which states that if you want peace, you would respect each other's rights. There is no deeper meaning.
Negative rights do conflict. When you act against another person's (absolute) negative right to be free from violence and violence was used against you to assert the person's right, your (absolute) negative right to be free from violence would be in conflict with his. If the negative right of violence was absolute, it would lead to the absurd situation of you suing each other for the violation of your respective "right". How do we resolve this conflict? According to the non aggression principle, your negative right to be free from violence is revoked when you act against another individual's right to be free from violence, thus resolving the conflict.
For the last time, you have the absolute natural right to anything and everything in the state of nature but whether you have such a right in a free society is contingent on the acknowledgement of the right. The distinction between the existence of a right and the recognition of a right is what I've been stressing on this whole time. From a libertarian point of view, the rape victim's rights had been violated, but from the point of view of a rapist living in a rapist community, no rights had been violated. The rape victim's "rights" won't be enforced in the rapist community as those "rights' aren't recognized there. The end.
Yes there is, if the only rule in your community was the non aggression principle, the the nap would be the only term in the social contract of your community. Your community may require you to sign an actual piece of contract before you move in, the contract you sign would be the codified social contract of the community, which explicitly set down your rights and responsibilities in writing. If you violated the terms of the social contract, and your community decides to punish your violation in accordance to the terms set forth by the contract, there's nothing you can do, the community is upholding their end of the contract. You knew you will be punished for contract violations when you signed the contract. You can't go to a pda and tell them that your "rights" are being unjustly infringed, no pda will enforce your "rights" as you voluntarily signed the contract, they'll just tell you to piss off.
No, according to you, rights are "absolute in all cases". According the the non aggression principle, rights are not absolute in all cases. Your right to be free from violence will be ignored when you act against someone else's right to be free from violence. Only your right to be free from aggression is absolute under nap ie no one can initiate violence against you in all cases, not your right to be free from violence or even your right of life. How can you say that your rights are absolute in all cases when the nap specifically states that you don't have the absolute right to life and to be free from violence once you initiate aggression? Your rights are non absolute at least in this instance. In truth, your rights are only "absolute" in so far as the exercise of your rights doesn’t interfere with someone else's rights. eg your (negative) right of life is not absolute, when you threaten the right of life of another individual, he can justifiably violate your right of life. Neither is your (negative) right of liberty absolute, when you intrude on someone's right of liberty, whether on purpose or by recklessness or negligence, your right of liberty can justifiably be intruded on as well. You know what the hell I'm talking about, stop grasping at straws.
Stop confusing negative rights with positive rights.
The distinction between the existence of a right and the recognition of a right is what I've been stressing on this whole time.
Then we may be in agreeement. I know it's something I've been stressing the whole time, and I thought you were disagreeing. Either I'm too thick to see it in your posts or you didn't get it across well, or somewhere in between. Looking back, I see a lot from you along the lines of rights only exist when other recognize them. That''s pretty much not making the distinction, which is why I (possibly misatkenly) challenged you on it.
There is no such thing as a social contract. Yes there is, if the only rule in your community was the non aggression principle, the the nap would be the only term in the social contract of your community. Your community may require you to sign an actual piece of contract before you move in, the contract you sign would be the codified social contract of the community, which explicitly set down your rights and responsibilities in writing.
Yes there is, if the only rule in your community was the non aggression principle, the the nap would be the only term in the social contract of your community. Your community may require you to sign an actual piece of contract before you move in, the contract you sign would be the codified social contract of the community, which explicitly set down your rights and responsibilities in writing.
A contract that is actually signed by the parties affected, as you suggest here, certainly falls outside the standard meaning of social cotract. Such a contract does not require the special "social" modifier.
No, according to you, rights are "absolute in all cases". According the the non aggression principle, rights are not absolute in all cases. Your right to be free from violence will be ignored when you act against someone else's right to be free from violence. Only your right to be free from aggression is absolute under nap ie no one can initiate violence against you in all cases, not your right to be free from violence or even your right of life. How can you say that your rights are absolute in all cases when the nap specifically states that you don't have the absolute right to life and to be free from violence once you initiate aggression?
Did I mention any rights aside from the "right to be free from aggression" absolute or otherwise? There is no negative right to life, or to be free from violence, aside from the right to be free from aggression.
Maybe it's a bit of both. Either way it doesn't matter. I've never denied that rights exist. But in pratice, indeed, rights only exist when others recognize them. We'll be wasting our time screaming at somebody for violating our "rights" when those "rights" are not even recognized by the community.
Contract can be implicit or explicit. I feel the adjective "social" is apt as it is a contract between individuals in a community whether they actually signed it or not. Just because football/soccer is called differently doesn't mean it's not the same sport. The idea of a social contract had been misappropriated by statists to justify the legitimacy of the involuntary state, I don't blame you for rejecting it.
well you did say that rights are absolute in all cases. If by "rights" you meant specifically the right to be free from aggression then yes under the non aggression principle your right is absolute in all cases. You should have made it clear from the start, but it doesn't matter now.
Is it not possible that there be special natural laws that apply directly to the creation of a new human being? Is it really necessary for consistency of your theory that you treat a newly created human being as if it were an adult in a civil lawsuit? The baby is trespassing inside of the mother? Are you kidding? Pregnancy is not a case in which a person magically appears from thin air and happens to warp inside of a random woman's body. If that were the case, I believe you may have a solid foundation in that the baby is trespassing. Is it not possible that natural law dictates that a mother has responsibilities to a baby that "belongs" to her? Whether she “planned” or “wanted” the pregnancy or not? I think it is possible. Actually, I think that it is true. If for no other reason, my attempt to deduce the rights of the parties involved through observation of the circumstances and consequences of the various possible actions.
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
Is it not possible that natural law dictates that a mother has responsibilities to a baby that "belongs" to her?
Natural law isn't really 'hot' on these forums. On a mechanistic worldview, you cannot move from descriptive to perscriptive.
However, I do agree generally with your objections to abortion.
It's not as if pregnancy is somehow a random, uncaused, unprovoked event. If, say, you allow someone on your property and make an oral contract with them to the effect that they can stay unmolested on your property for the same amount of time as any regular pregnancy takes, then I fail to see how you can evict the 'trespasser' from your property.
You consented, did you not? Even more abject would be if the 'trespasser' is dependent on remaining unmolested on your property to even exist. If you were to evict him and break your oral contract, he would die, let's say.
I think this is comparable to pregnancy. Of course, a case could probably be made for eviction in the event of a rape, for example.
Thoughts?
Natural law was not a good choice of words, then. To rephrase the question in a way it may be more 'correct', Is it not possible that there be 'special' 'rights' that apply directly to those involved in the special circumstances of a pregnancy, which may not normally apply outside the context of pregnancy? I'll admit, it's hard even for me to consider this. It's just what popped into my head as I was skimming through this thread. I've always been one to believe that "all men are created equal" and it may come across as if this consideration is contradictory to that, but it's really not. At least, I don't think. I just think that pregnancy is an extremely special circumstance and so special 'rights' or 'responsibilities' may apply to those involved. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to treat the baby and the mother as if they're a defendant and a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
There is certainly no contract, oral or otherwise, in the case of pregnancy.
And in your guest example, what are the penalties for breaking your alleged contract? Are you saying if I invite guests over for a few hours, and fifteen minutes after they arrive, I get called into work, I'm obligated to allow them to stay for the few hours? I can't say, "Sorry folks. There's an emergency at work. You have to leave."?
Even more abject would be if the 'trespasser' is dependent on remaining unmolested on your property to even exist. If you were to evict him and break your oral contract, he would die, let's say.
Due to the "contract", this isn't really analogous to pregnancy. Absent a contract, I don't see how the tresspasser's problems are of any concern of the home owner's. It would be a nasty thing to do, sure, but it would be even more nastty to force the homeowner to allow the tresspasser to stay (slavery)
No contract? You mean a woman by engaging in sexual intercourse does not implicitly agree to the possibility of fetus development?
And in your guest example, what are the penalties for breaking your alleged contract?
Your counterexample is a little odd. I'd compare it to this: if you agree to have your three year old young nephew over to your cottage in the wilderness for nine months, then you can't just turf him off your property when you feel like it.
If you agree to have him on your property, whether in the house or in some sort of 'tent' or any other structure still on your property, then you have an obligation to him.
It's not comparable to having guests over. With 'dinner' guests, there is no expectation, there is no extended stay, and there is no loss of life if you ask them to leave.
>>No contract? You mean a woman by engaging in sexual intercourse does not implicitly agree to the possibility of fetus development?
I just want to point out that there is no obvious connection between your 2 questions. contracts arent between moral agents and parts of nature, they are between moral agents. presumably a moral agent has to exist in order to contract with you. When a man and a woman are in coitus, any baby that may one day be born as an outcome of the chain of events was certainly not present during the act of their own conception.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
You can't possibly profess to be a Libertarian and endorse abortion period. You can't sit around and and vent about your liberty and inalienable rights and then endorse a persons right to take the life of an innocent child born or unborn. You are intelligent enough to know that a fetus is a child, that is the end result. Just because you may not want a child doesn't change that fact. It's not a religious issue it's a matter of right and wrong. That child is not your property, As you are not the property of your parents.
That is a good point, Nir.
I don't think it necessarily must be a contract between the woman and the fetus. That would indeed be odd.
Instead, I think it's some sort of implicit 'performance agreement'. An agreement that the woman enters into by nature of her reproductive system to 'house' a living being for nine months.
For instance, in the nephew example I gave above, presumably the contract would be made not with your kleine Neffe, but with your nephew's legal guardian.
That child is not your property, As you are not the property of your parents.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. It seems parents do exercise a tremendous amount of control over their children. If this is the case, then the child is not sovereign.
If it is not sovereign, then it is owned by the parents. If it is owned by the parents, then the parents can do what they want with their own property without interference.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly compare a human being to a lump of matter that can moved and manipulated by the whims of the owner.
I agree, this appears to be a real problem.
MrSchnapps:That is a good point, Nir. I don't think it necessarily must be a contract between the woman and the fetus. That would indeed be odd. Instead, I think it's some sort of implicit 'performance agreement'. An agreement that the woman enters into by nature of her reproductive system to 'house' a living being for nine months. For instance, in the nephew example I gave above, presumably the contract would be made not with your kleine Neffe, but with your nephew's legal guardian.
So following the nephew example; presumably the contract in the case of the fetus is between the woman on the one hand and the legal guardian of the fetus ( the selfsame woman?).
Is that a contract with oneself? like when you make a new years resolution?
I see the trouble with this view. I'm going to try and avoid it.
Let's say the woman implicitly creates a trust upon conception.
The woman is the grantor, the trustee, and her physical body is transferred to ABC trust as a result and becomes trust property.
According to the implicit trust agreement, the woman voluntarily surrenders her body as a vehicle for the fetus for the full birth cycle. Oh, and the grantor always makes sure to include that the trust agreement cannot be modified by that old mischevious trustee.
Now I'm just grasping at straws. This is pretty silly. I'm going to see if I can't come up with something better than this.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. It seems parents do exercise a tremendous amount of control over their children. If this is the case, then the child is not sovereign
So your point is that you are not sovereign. Your parents are free to do with you"their property" as they wish. You better hope they don't have a big life insurance policy on you. Might have to sleep with one eye open.