Private Law and Pizza?
I can't believe no one else has posted this--and perhaps someone did and I just missed it--but Domino's founder is trying to establish a community where abortion is prohibited. I've talked with Walter Block before about this type of thing, and I believe his only concern was that children born into the community might suffer "unlibertarian" things that they never agreed to.
Comments (58)
J
It seems as if the press is seeing smoke, but there is no real fire as Thomas Monaghan is backtracking on some of his earlier statements about the town. He says there are a lot of misconceptions about the town and his partner in the project envisions a more open society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5661119,00.html
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/03/monaghan-dominos-philanthropy-cx_cn_0303autofacescan06.html
Published: March 3, 2006 4:12 PM
Manuel Lora
Just wait till the ACLU sues for some infringement of rights. "Oh, the horror, they want to ban condoms and control who opens businesses!" What a bunch of commies.
Published: March 3, 2006 4:15 PM
Nick Bradley
Well, they wouldn't get to experience such "unlibertarian things" if they were murdered in the womb in the first place.
I never quite understood the Randian pro-choice argument myself. What's the difference between a baby the day before birth an the day after: nothing at all. If that's the case, then why do abortion rights stop at birth?
Published: March 3, 2006 4:15 PM
Ryan Fuller
A community with a great deal of religious homogenity will tend to use the power of government to enforce religious precepts. The same can be said for any dominant ideology that is not opposed to the government's use of force.
If they refrain from using the local government as the enforcement arm of the church, they'll have to enforce all of their rules as terms of a contract, probably tied in some way to the sale or rent of land in the area. I don't see what the problem is, if they should go that route.
I doubt they'll be able to resist the lure of using the government to force people into compliance with their views, though. Hardly anybody does, and most people don't even bother to try.
Published: March 3, 2006 4:16 PM
Lisa Casanova
Manuel,
An article I read (I'll have to go back and find it again) said the ACLU already had their eye on this one. I wondered myself how an experiment like that would survive nowdays, when exclusionary communities tend to be met with great suspicion.
Published: March 3, 2006 4:18 PM
Manuel Lora
Lisa,
Yes, we'll see how it goes. The ACLU and others want to control things that they do not own, even if those who participate in that experiment go in it voluntarily and fully knowing what it implies. But does the ACLU object when gated communities have their own security and policies regarding pets? Not really. But wait until those policies have to do with sexual orientation, race, income and then the collectivism appears.
We are free to discriminate on non-PC things, but not about anything that could become an "issue."
Published: March 3, 2006 4:25 PM
Aaron
Nick-
The libertarian (I don't know if Rand's reasons were the same or not) pro-choice argument is the same as against any other forced welfare or entitlement. ie. The right to self-ownership does not imply the entitlement to live at the expense of anyone else's person or property.
The planned community is intriguing; I can't say I'd want to live there, but don't see anything wrong with what he's wanting to do. It would establish in fact a small example of a local ruler legitimately owning and controlling most areas - it's what 'social contract' type people want to fallaciously view the federal government as now. Abortion aside, I think it would be more interesting to see if or how he charges people to live there, how he'd monetize roads, etc.
Published: March 3, 2006 4:41 PM
Plowman
If he owns the entire property on which he is developing this community, how is it any different from owning a single home? Presumably a family who owns a home may prohibit pornography and contraception within their own home (the parents making a binding set of rules for their children, or the agreements made between spouses). If a person is not allowed to establish rules for his own development property, then theoretically a single homeowner may not even create rules "opposed to the constitution" in his own home.
Published: March 3, 2006 4:53 PM
Tom Anger
What's the problem? Those who don't like the rules don't have to join the community. A community in which everyone consents knowingly and in advance to the rules is supposed to be an anarcho-capitalist's dream-world? No?
Published: March 3, 2006 5:19 PM
averros
Those who don't like the rules don't have to join the community. A community in which everyone consents knowingly and in advance to the rules is supposed to be an anarcho-capitalist's dream-world? No?
You also have to have a way to *leave* the community if you change your mind.
So, yes, a community can prohibit abortion, no problem, as long as it lets its member wishing to get abortion to leave. As soon as she wishes, with all her property intact.
Now, the community is under no obligation to take her back after that.
Published: March 3, 2006 5:57 PM
Jim
I agree with Tom above. Those who wish to live in a community like that, and willingly purchase property to live there and rear their children in such an environment, should be able to do so.
If their kids don't like the community once they are of the age of majority, they should be able to move away.
But, this appears to be a property rights issue. If Mr. Monaghan wishes to purchase property and sells lots to individuals who agree to the required terms, that fits within a libertarian worldview. As long as a government is not exerting control.
Most likely, the courts will intervene and destroy this voluntary community.
Published: March 3, 2006 6:41 PM
Manuel Lora
I agree. Someone (from the inside or outside) will file a lawsuit and claim that some "right" is being violated. Maybe it will be about discrimination.Published: March 3, 2006 6:55 PM
Paul Edwards
“Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to sue.�
If civil libertarians sue over this, they should go look for another name to call themselves. How about the AHU: American Hypocrites Union. Secondly, they should learn what the constitution is, or at least what it was ever purported to be: a chain on the federal government, not on individuals seeking to enter into voluntary covenants.
Frances Kissling, president of the liberal Washington-based Catholics for a Free Choice says:
"This is un-American, I don't think in a democratic society you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens."
I suppose the truth of his statement depends on what one considers “American�. But by my books, this is about as American as it gets. This is what the early Americans came here for, to practice their religion and live amongst like minded people, un-hindered by the coercion of the G-D state.
In respect to his “democratic society� reference, maybe he is right. This is one of the huge flaws of democracy: that the majority can potentially prevent a minority group of individuals from entering into voluntary covenants prescribing how to live and what is allowed in their community and what is not.
It’s funny, this week, I just covered Hoppe’s explication of how such communities as this one would occur under anarchy in “Democracy the God that Failed�. I didn’t think I’d be reading about them occurring under the tyranny of democracy.
Published: March 3, 2006 6:55 PM
SK Peterson
I recall seeing something on the news about this and the civil liberties arguments centered not so much on abortion, but on the "right of access to birth control." This argument came in the wake of the Maryland? or Mass.? decision to force pharmacies to carry RU-486, under the reasoning that refusal to do so discriminates against women and endangers women's health.
Aaron - your libertarian argument for abortion: "The right to self-ownership does not imply the entitlement to live at the expense of anyone else's person or property" would imply that infanticide and/or negligent homicide of children would be legal, if not moral. Since children are by a simple fact of nature generally incapable of providing for themselves they must live at the whim of adults. By your reasoning, if a parent decides at some time post-natal that the child is too great a burden, they can then summarily deny extension of support and cease providing for the child, thereby condemning it to death.
Published: March 3, 2006 7:23 PM
Blake
SK, I think Aaron most likely understood what he was saying. Furthermore, he is correct.
Infanticide - or actively aggressing upon a child - is indeed immoral and illegal, but Aaron never implied or stated anything to the contrary. To assume otherwise is incorrect. "Negligent homicide," or, in other words, not feeding the baby, on the other hand, would have to be legal in the purely free society. The key difference is active action vs. passive non-action.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it is moral to do let an infant starve - that is a personal matter. It also should be noted that parents generally care for their children voluntarily, and when they do not wish to, on the free market, they can sell their guardianship rights to the child to a more caring person or persons.
Basically, everything you said was right (except for infanticide being legal), but you argue ad populum that such actions should be illegal. I recommend Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14
Published: March 3, 2006 7:37 PM
Aaron
Blake-
Exactly.
Published: March 3, 2006 10:20 PM
Gekko
If he owns the property in which people are living then he can understandably make the rules about how that property is used.
But from a Rothbardian point of view, if someone buys property in the middle of the town they could presumably set up an abortion clinic. Surely he would then have no right to dictate to those people what they should and should not do with their property once ownership has transferred. Is a clause in the contract controlling how the property is used valid? Could he therefore say "I sell you this property on the basis that I can decide how its used at any point into the future"?
Published: March 4, 2006 3:12 AM
Paul Findlay
So far in my limited encounters with liberalism and Austrian style economics through this blog, I have liked what I've seen.
So it particularly struck me when just above Blake aired his views about "negligent homicide", and I read the referenced Rothbard chapter.
It seems overly reductionist to reduce dependent children to some kind of coercive force (potentially violating property rights) over parents that can be repudiated.
Do/must all libertarians think this way? Is there much room in liberalism for natural law and natural philosophy?
Can I quote an anarchist:
Published: March 4, 2006 6:01 AM
Paul D
"The right to self-ownership does not imply the entitlement to live at the expense of anyone else's person or property."
Children and infant humans (pre or post-birth) do not act (in any meaningful sense) to seize this entitlement; therefore, they are not valid targets for self-defense and murder, either by direct or passive action.
Published: March 4, 2006 9:08 AM
Kristian Joensen
To everyone read this: http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf
Published: March 4, 2006 12:54 PM
Kristian Joensen
It is very interesting.
Published: March 4, 2006 12:54 PM
Dwight Johnson
Kristin, thanks for providing the link to the article. Very interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand.
We live in a society that generally recognizes a free market in theology. People become members (and frequently subsequently renounce membership) of religious communities by choice. And these religious communities have territories that overlap. Where once your religion might be determined by where you live, it now is more likely to be determined by what you believe. And that is proper.
However, we do not live in a society that recognizes a free market in morality. Rather, our laws are territorial, and, if abortion is "the law of the land", it is so whether you agree with it and its underlying moral foundations or not. But what if there was a free market in morality, and subsequently, in law. In such a society, law would not adhere to a person because of the place they resided, but by a choice they made, according to their beliefs in the underlying morality of that law. Support for a free market in morality does not imply a belief that all moralities are equal, any more than belief in a free market in theology implies that all beliefs about God have equal merit. It is just a belief that, as human beings, we have the right to be wrong.
Published: March 4, 2006 5:32 PM
Nick Bradley
Aaron:
you said: "The right to self-ownership does not imply the entitlement to live at the expense of anyone else's person or property."
-- Don't children live at the expense of another's person or property?
Published: March 4, 2006 5:55 PM
Aaron
Paul F - Apparently not all libertarians are in agreement on these issues. :-)
Paul D - Unless I misread, no one here has argued for murder of post-natal, independent infants, so that is a non-issue. The relevance of willful intent with respect to aggression is definitely an interesting topic, but one for another day. We'll have disagreements but I'm glad that you do seem to recognize the anti-abortion stance implicitly means a form of entitlement.
Nick - They can - but they can also be abandoned/given-away rather than forcibly removing them from your body, hence no infanticide.
Kristin - The first half of Feser's essay does have some interesting and valid argumentation. He has a mix of valid and invalid examples, but the key issue with his conclusions is easily pinpointed as a disagreement in premises. He considers valid the concept of involuntary duty, and speaks of 'duty' to someone on a desert island, the unborn, or a child. Duty, and its necessary counterpart of entitlement, are exceptions to the general idea of libertarianism.
I don't expect to change anyone's views on divisive issues such as whether it's moral to force a woman to carry a child to term, or parents to rear a child. I only hope that libertarians who hold such views realize that duty/entitlement are involved, and that risks a short, slippery slope to other forms of entitlement libertarians more unanimously oppose. (The second half of Fezer's essay actually inadvertantly shows another form of dangerous slippery slope I hadn't thought of before. He builds on his own duty-based conclusions to attempt to reconcile libertarianism with even government banning of pornography or gay pride rallies.)
Published: March 4, 2006 7:18 PM
Ike Hall
I'd like to point out Walter Block's excellent comments on abortion from last summer's seminar. The more I think about it, the more sense his view makes to me.
Abortion is both eviction and murder. Libertarian legal theory holds that eviction is always the right of the property owner (in this case. the mother). However, libertarian legal theory also strictly outlaws murder, and even if there's no telling whether a fetus will otherwise survive to be born, it is undeniably human.
Now, "pro-lifers" argue against both eviction and murder, at all stages of pregnancy. "Pro-choicers" argue that both are acceptable, at all stages of pregnancy. Block's view is that eviction is always a legal right, but if murder can be avoided at the same time, it should be done in that fashion. Therefore, at early stages of pregnancy, it is simply technologically not possible for the baby to survive eviction. At late stages, accomodations can and must be made for "premature eviction", as it were. In between, well, it depends. The whole notion of fetal viability must be raised on a case-by-case basis.
In any case, D&X procedures ("partial-birth abortions") would necessarily be outlawed. If, as in the case of a severely malformed fetus, a D&X would otherwise be considered, the doctors must instead deliver by C-section or otherwise "evict" the fetus, without killing it, regardless of whether the baby otherwise survives. They can't kill it, but they don't necessarily have to save it. Good on them if they try, though.
This compromise potentially solves some tricky moral issues, but I'm not surprised that neither camp seems willing to discuss it, according to Dr. Block.
Published: March 4, 2006 10:34 PM
Roy W. Wright
That's actually a pretty sensible stance that hadn't ever occurred to me, Ike.
Published: March 5, 2006 12:29 AM
tz
Block's argument on abortion is logical sounding nonsense.
Either trespassers can be legitimately killed on sight (upon detection) or they cannot. I.e. either the right of eviction allows for murder (knowing that evicting someone will directly lead to their death) or it does not.
He tries to get out of this by an "implicit contract", if I invite you onto my plane or ship, I can't just throw you off. But what if you never intended to be on board after it gets underway (e.g. you got on the wrong plane, or at the party onboard just before the ship left, you fell asleep and were found as a stowaway)? Then you could be ejected at 30,000 feet, or thrown overboard. No need to wait until the plane lands or is near a port, property trumps life.
He can have it either way, but not both. Either if he accidentally wanders onto someone elses property, his life is forefiet, or there is a duty to not evict in such a way as to kill someone.
Engaging in sex can result in pregnancy. This means a new human being will be generated that will be for many months dependent on the woman. This is completely foreknowable. It would be like any other negligent (or intentional) act between two parties that would cripple and make dependent a third party for about 9 months. If the intent was to conceive (going back to the implicit contract), and it happened, then how can a woman change her mind? If I can't throw Block out of a plane at 30,000 feet because I change my mind, can a woman evict a fetus before viability?
Doris Gordon presents the case at l4l.org. If you want well reasoned arguments, she does better than anyone else I know.
Entitlement is merely another word for rights. Are you entitled to your property or do you have a right to it? How about your life? Or is there a duty not to violate either right or is there not?
Also I would make a distinction of Feser's notes on moral pollution. I don't think you can derive that he intends to ban pornography as such, however he can make the case that it must be kept away from children (compare a public health problem with a disease that is merely mildly annoying to adults but deadly to children).
Moreover, pornography in the strict sense is not even speech, it is an incitement (yelling fire in a theater is designed to induce fear and panic, not rational argument; Pornography is designed to induce lust and arousal, which are also not material for reason - rights should be tolerant of irrationality or evil, but to give irrationality and moral evil the same status as reason and moral good is suicidal).
Published: March 5, 2006 1:15 AM
Paul Edwards
Tz,
I strongly agree with you that Block fails to adequately elaborate on how evicting a stowaway, or especially an invited passenger, at 10,000 feet might be different from an abortion of an independently non-viable fetus. As he puts it “it doesn't matter whether or not they were invited in the first place. The woman, like the homeowner [airplane owner?], has the final say and is not obliged to provide a long term sanctuary.� Perhaps he would argue both are justified and on the same grounds. I’m not sure.
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf
In any event, in an “Editor Replies:� to a rebuttal to Block’s argument by Roger E. Bissell
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_03-04.pdf
we read this:
“The Editor Replies: … the proper analogy would … [be] a stowaway who aggresses against the ship or plane owner from the very beginning. But the important point is something else that needs saying: It may well seem like overkill, even if punctiliously correct from the point of view of libertarian law, to toss a stowaway overboard. But just as it is a far greater crime to murder or assault someone than to steal his property, so it is a far graver trespass against someone to invade his or her body than it is to stow away on his property. The fetus is an invader of, an aggressor against, a woman’s body, and hence insisting on immediate ejection does not carry the same bizarre connotation as tossing a stowaway overboard. A woman should have the right to eject an unwanted parasite within her body as rapidly as possible – whether or not the parasite is considered human.�
However, this answer strikes me as surprisingly weak. On the terms that Block admits the fetus is human and could even be an invited guest, and yet on the change of heart of the mother, an abortion is now justified. I don’t see how the invitation can be terminated before the fetus is completely viable on his own. To me, if you admit the fetus was invited, you are certainly on a close par with deciding, mid-flight, you don’t want one of your airplane passengers and dumping him mid-flight.
The fact that the fetus obtains its subsistence direct from the mother’s body is not relevant if it is not putting the mother’s health in danger. It is more on par with not depriving one’s guest of life sustaining fluids to survive while on the flight.
Finally, not that the stowaway analogy strikes me as completely applicable to conception, I still question the editor in asserting that it is justified to toss even an uninvited stowaway out the airplane at 10,000 feet. I’ll allow an eye for an eye perhaps, but a life for hiding on a plane? I'm not convinced.
Published: March 5, 2006 4:45 PM
Vedran Vuk
I would place a longer comment but I'm too busy ordering 10 pizzas from Domino's
Published: March 5, 2006 5:47 PM
averros
The discussion with regard to abortion rights seems to be centered on mother-fetus relationship.
Instead, it would be a very good idea to consider what the legal prohibition of the abortions is: it is an aggression by third parties against one of the parties in a dispute involving only two parties.
It is *exactly* the same as what Bush does in Iraq. Meddling with the affairs of people who didn't appoint the meddler as the representative.
I'm sorry, but this kind of position is not compatible with individualism and/or libertatrianism. This is just another flavor of collectivist interventionism. No matter how well intentioned it is, it is wrong, for exactly the same reasons it is wrong in all other aspects of life.
Published: March 6, 2006 1:44 AM
SteamshipTime
averros,
"it would be a very good idea to consider what the legal prohibition of the abortions is: it is an aggression by third parties against one of the parties in a dispute involving only two parties."
Do you know what position the party of the second part, the fetus, takes on the issue of whether he or she should be ejected from the womb?
Published: March 6, 2006 9:21 AM
D. Saul Weiner
I am uncomfortable with laws preventing abortion, but I do not buy the argument that allowing a fetus to live represents an entitlement, as suggested above. Assuming that sex was not forced, the fetus/child could be construed as a contractual obligation. Sure it may not have been desired and the couple may have even used contraception, but pregnancy is a known contingency. Conceptually, it is not much different from the situation where you marry someone, agree to support them, and then they contract some debilitating disease. You didn't anticipate this situation when you got married, but you nevertheless have an obligation to them under these circumstances.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:56 PM
jeffrey
No one has mentioned the real problem with this idea: the world's most disproportionately designed church building!
Published: March 6, 2006 1:02 PM
tz
For the fetus to invade or trespass, he or she would have to be outside the woman and then cross a geographical line specifically against the will. In this case we have someone teleporting into that region having no existence beforehand.
Also the definition of invasion is stressed. It is normal and natural for a baby to grow within the mother (and there are also complications to many abortions). If I spray water randomly, and some gets in your mouth, is that an "invasion" and not different in kind than using a knife to inflict a sucking chest wound?
Someone might dislike unpleasant smells in public but normally they don't have superior rights because things bother them more. So I don't think you can automatically escalate pregnancy to some kind of violent bodily invasion just because a woman might dislike it more than something else.
Also this action is normally a forseeable consequence. If I invite you and a guest onto my ship or plane knowing that I will be out for 9 hours or 9 months without a way of getting you off safely (and you don't inform your guest that I tend to throw people overboard on whims), I can't call that invasion or trespass - it was not your whim nor your guest's causing the problem, but a consequence of MY action that placed you and your guest in a postition to be dependant on me. MY actions have consequences for several parties, all of which are forseeable.
And it is not death for hiding on a plane, but as I've noted, it can be completely unintentional - if you merely get on the wrong plane by confusing places or markings and aren't noticed until they are in the air.
Published: March 6, 2006 4:08 PM
Peter
It is normal and natural for a baby to grow within the mother
It's not unnatural for a cancer to grow inside a person, either. Does that mean a person with cancer has no right to have it removed?
Published: March 6, 2006 5:24 PM
averros
tz --
> For the fetus to invade or trespass, he or she
> would have to be outside the woman and then
> cross a geographical line specifically against
> the will.
Well, study the biology. The genetic information which makes the fetus a distinct being from the mother DOES cross the "geographical line". Given that modern women do not wish to get pregnant every time they copulate, that crossing is often against the wish of the host.
Besides, to become a trespasser one does not have to come uninvited - not leaving when asked is also a trespass.
> whim nor your guest's causing the problem, but
> a consequence of MY action that placed you and
> your guest in a postition to be dependant on me
Oh? Since when an open door constitues the positive invitation to trespass? You know, that spermatozoid didn't have to impregnate, did it?
Now, if you say that this is a mechanical process, then you automatically declare the embrional development mechanical. No moral problem with terminating mechanical action, yeah?
Besides, as anyone who has any idea of how human reproduction works surely knows, the female body performs "natural" abortions quite often. And, yes, this can be reduced by lifestyle choices (diet and such), so it can be argued that this is to a some degree voluntary. Should we punish women for that, too?
Trying to smuggle beliefs into (invariably punitive) laws is bound to generate idiotic consequences. Just don't do it.
Published: March 7, 2006 6:18 AM
Paul Edwards
"Besides, to become a trespasser one does not have to come uninvited - not leaving when asked is also a trespass."
How squares that philosophy with the airplane owner and his passenger mid-flight? I am so far, satisfied that the analogy fits, and i am unconvinced that at 10,000 feet in the air "not leaving when asked is also a trespass."
Published: March 7, 2006 11:23 AM
billwald
The Ave Maria experiment is as "libertarian" as the free state project.
Published: March 7, 2006 1:14 PM
John Delano
"It is normal and natural for a baby to grow within the mother
It's not unnatural for a cancer to grow inside a person, either. Does that mean a person with cancer has no right to have it removed?
"
-Peter
The difference is that cancer is considered part of the single individual. A fetus is considered a separate person.
Published: March 7, 2006 10:04 PM
John Delano
"The Ave Maria experiment is as "libertarian" as the free state project."
- billwald
Yes, it's freedom of association.
Published: March 7, 2006 10:06 PM
Peter
A fetus is considered a separate person.
By some
Published: March 7, 2006 10:41 PM
Paul Edwards
“To some�
Block, in his article here
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf">http://mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf">http://mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf
argues convincingly that the fetus is a human being and concludes his argument as follows:
“The fetus is not a potential human being, it's an actual one. This goes for the fetus right before birth, six months before, three months before, three weeks before, and, if cognizance be taken of logic, the fetus is human life, a human being, immediately after fertilization, in the two cell stage of development! ! (before this, of course, there is no human life; there are only two separate cells, the egg and the sperm. This is why contraception is not equivalent to killing a human being).�
Neither Block nor Rothbard used the weak argument that the fetus was not human to argue the case for abortion.
Published: March 7, 2006 11:02 PM
Peter
I didn't say it wasn't human. It only it wasn't "a separate person", which is not the same thing.
Published: March 8, 2006 12:01 AM
Paul Edwards
If the fetus is human, then i suppose it is a separate human. Are human and person two distinct terms? Dictionary.com defines a person as a human with legal rights and duties. If that is what you mean in distinguishing between human and person, then i think you are begging the question. The question is what justifies the position that the human fetus has no legal right to not be expelled from the womb to certain death?
The argument that i am most familiar with, (Block/Rothbard) is that it forfeits its right to live because it is now aggressing against the property of its mother, because its invitation to live in the womb has been revoked.
However this same argument does not seem to hold up in the case of the human guest on board your plane in mid-flight who is no longer welcome mid-flight. In that case, he remains a person and is justified (or is he?) in being let off the plane in such a manner that doesn't assure his death.
Published: March 8, 2006 12:55 AM
Tracy SAboe
So a baby outside of the womb is agressing against it's mother by forcing the mother to feed and clothe it as well?
Seriously, the argument for "eviction." is no different from arguing that a mother w/in her right to abanden her child outside of the womb in the street smoewhere.
Is Walter Block seriously suggesting that child Neglect shouldn't be a crime? Because that's basically what he's saying in regards to eviction. That if the mother doesn't want to feed the unborn baby she shouldn't be forced to and therefore eviction is perfectly acceptable to kick-out the unwanted tenent.
If that's the case -- to be consistent -- he'd also need to argue that it's acceptable to kick a new born baby outside of the house in the cold in the middle of winter and refuse to feed it too.
Tracy
Published: March 8, 2006 2:28 AM
Peter
Paul: first, it's clearly not a separate human, since it's not, in point of fact, separate from the mother - that's precisely the problem! Second, yes, "human" and "person" are different things; a dead body is human, but it isn't a person. And I suppose it's possible that aliens from outer space could arrive tomorrow, who would be people but not human.
Tracy: exactly. Note that "not a crime" only means nobody is justified in using violence to prevent it (i.e., to force the mother to care for the child); it seems to me unlikely that any community would look favorably upon such a mother. See The Ethics of Liberty.
Published: March 8, 2006 4:31 AM
Peter
Re: throwing someone off a plane in mid-air: it depends on the circumstances, of course, just like throwing an unwelcome guest out of your house - say you live in a cabin 50 miles from the nearest neighbor, there's a blizzard and it's 40 below; can you toss your no-longer-welcome guest out into the snow? Well, strictly speaking, I expect the answer is yes, but few would do so, and fewer still would view it as morally (as opposed to legally) acceptable behavior unless someone else's life was somehow put at risk letting him stay until the plane landed/weather cleared/etc. And if the owner had somehow arranged the situation (e.g., invited him on board the plane), it would have to be suspected as a murder (e.g., that the owner intended throwing the guest off in mid-air before he took off, and arranged the situation to that end).
Published: March 8, 2006 4:43 AM
Paul Edwards
Hi Peter,
“first, it's clearly not a separate human, since it's not, in point of fact, separate from the mother�
Neither is the mother separate from the fetus; does it follow then, that she as well, is not a separate human?
----------
“Re: throwing someone off a plane in mid-air: it depends on the circumstances, of course, just like throwing an unwelcome guest out of your house - say you live in a cabin 50 miles from the nearest neighbor, there's a blizzard and it's 40 below; can you toss your no-longer-welcome guest out into the snow? Well, strictly speaking, I expect the answer is yes,�
I have a problem with this. If I have a change of heart and my invited guest is no longer welcome, you are saying I am now justified in sending him to certain death because he is no longer a welcome guest.
“but few would do so, and fewer still would view it as morally (as opposed to legally) acceptable behavior unless someone else's life was somehow put at risk letting him stay until the plane landed/weather cleared/etc.�
I am not convinced that the ethical penalty for over-staying one’s welcome can fairly be judged as death.
“And if the owner had somehow arranged the situation (e.g., invited him on board the plane),�
Now you’re speaking my language, Peter.
“it would have to be suspected as a murder (e.g., that the owner intended throwing the guest off in mid-air before he took off, and arranged the situation to that end).�
I agree. Furthermore, even if it could be established that there was no intent at the point of the invitation to commit the murder, I would argue that at the point he pushed his passenger out the door at 10,000 feet, he definitely had intent.
Published: March 8, 2006 10:13 AM
ns
I was thinking of finding an appropriate metaphor for a fetus...someone who is:
- lives on host's property
- interacts only with the host
- does not act or express preferences
- does not have any social connections besides with the host
etc etc...
The above describes a slave, in a sense.
So, the whole argument could be reframed as:
If, unintentionally, you got a slave in your posession, what your obligations are?
Published: March 8, 2006 4:31 PM
ns
withdrawing... not a good analogy
Published: March 8, 2006 8:08 PM
Peter
Neither is the mother separate from the fetus; does it follow then, that she as well, is not a separate human?
Sure. Thus the fetus presumably has the same right (to have itself separated from the mother; hence, aborted. But, as ns says, a fetus isn't actually capable of acting or expressing preferences)
Published: March 8, 2006 11:51 PM
Paul Edwards
Peter,
I think i need to back up to the start, to see if I jumped to invalid conclusions regarding your point here.
We started with your first comment:
John: A fetus is considered a separate person.
You: By some
My interpretation of your statement: A fetus is not a person and so if it lives or dies is of no ethical consequence, much like if an egg had not been fertilized in the first place.
But you concede it is human, just not a separate person because it in fact not separate from its mother. But you concede that the mother is also not a separate person because, of course she is not separate from her fetus.
So we have agreed that neither the mother, nor the fetus is physically separate from each other. Does it then follow, according to you that neither are persons? Or are both persons, just neither separate persons? I would argue that the physical separateness of the two is not relevant to them being persons from a legal perspective. So what I’m driving at is on what criterion, if any, would you argue that the fetus is not a person and the mother is? Or do you concede that the fetus is a person, just like the mother, just that neither are separate persons.
If the fetus is a person, albeit not a separate person, then we are justified in protecting it from murder via expulsion from the womb, in a similar way as the airplane passenger would be so protected from expulsion from the plane at 10,000 feet.
Published: March 9, 2006 12:48 AM
Peter
The fetus is human: that's a biological fact, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's not a person, capable of acting in the Misesian sense, until it's sufficiently developed (I don't know precisely how or where to draw that line, but it's certainly well after the point of conception). The issue of separateness too is not really relevant; either party can, if capable, choose to sever the connection; the point is only that the mother can survive in the absence of the fetus, while the opposite is not true. A fetus is no more "a person" than, say, my left arm would be a separate person if you removed it from my body and connected machinery to keep it "alive". It's still biologically human.
AFAICS, an airplane passenger is only "protected" from expulsion mid-air by the relative ease of landing and removing him safely (or, perhaps, giving him a parachute). If it was impossible to remove him for a long period, and he unavoidably inconvenienced the plane's owner in the meantime, I can't find a way (absent religion) to justify forcing the owner to keep him around. So no, I don't think you're justified in prohibiting either "murder via explusion from the womb" or "explusion from the plane at 10,000 feet".
Published: March 9, 2006 5:02 AM
Vince Daliessio
The abortion conundrum cannot be solved by defining terms in a manner favorable to one's own position. I have struggled with this myself for years. I personally find the concept of abortion in general to be, not just morally reprehensible, but supremely nihilistic and demographically suicidal. But as a practical matter, until the point of viability (which gets earlier and earlier), there is no conception of libertarianism that can logically support preventing abortions. The fetus has no other way to survive than "trespass" on the mother's (?) body. However, once viability is reached, the mother's claim against trespass is no longer by definition in conflict against the fetus' presumed right not to be killed.
Published: March 9, 2006 9:36 AM
Paul Edwards
Vince,
It is indeed a tough one. It is the toughest one. And in the past i have argued the Rothbardian argument, i have argued precisely your position Vince. But that was before i was confronted with the invited/invitation expired airplane passenger analogy.
Peter says if you change your mind mid-flight and decide your invited passenger is no longer welcome, and you have no parachute, and no way to land and let him off safely, you are justified in kicking him out to his death based on consistent libertarian ethics.
With Peter's ethical view of airplane passengers, abortion should be very easy. I, on the other hand, have a problem with the former, and hence also a problem with the latter. I am waiting for someone who believes like me that booting your passenger out of the plane at 10,000 feet is surely murder to explain why an abortion is surely not.
Any takers.
Published: March 9, 2006 10:11 AM
Manuel Lora
The pilot has agreed to fly the airplane. Thus, the passenger cannot be legitimately evicted before he is safe. Otherwise, it would be murder.
Thus, abortion is murder, but eviction, if the baby survives, need not be so. I am adding to Block's evictionism on the grounds that just like the mother must wait, due to the obligation to the child, untill the eviction results in a non-death, so must the pilot wait to evict until the passenger is safe, otherwise, I should be able to kick anyone out of my car while I'm doing 100mph.
Abortion means removal AND death. Eviction does not. You must remove the "intruder" in the most gentle way. If a person walks into your yard, you do not pull a Shotgun Cheney on him.
Published: March 9, 2006 10:50 AM
averros
Folks --
stop concentrating on what happens to fetus and rather think of what happens to a mother which had an abortion.
Who has a right to punish her?
(Besides "this is murder" argument applies just as well to those of us who like good steaks, and is consistently applied by the ideological vegans).
Published: March 9, 2006 9:25 PM
Paul Edwards
I believe that libertarian laws must be just and we must be satisfied with nothing less than completely just laws. To be just they must be justifiable via consistent application of libertarian principles through argumentation. The principles of argumentation ethics I am advocating are those presented by Professor Hoppe.
Therefore, I think it is important to hammer out such important life and death issues through argumentation to see just how far we can go with libertarian ethics and argumentative justification to determine honestly and to the best of our ability, what is the principle that brings justice.
I believe that a society not interested in complete justice will eventually be enslaved by their own slack ethics. They will fall into slavery to the state because they cease to care enough about or understand enough about justice and how to arrive at it. A small con that takes, will lead to larger cons that will again eventually take.
When I used to argue for the woman’s right not to be a slave to the fetus, I felt bad for the fetus when someone said “but the fetus is a living human, and the abortion kills it�, but I said to myself, only what is justified is just! Now that I am arguing the other side and people will say “but what of the mother’s rights to her body, and how can you judge her a murderer and who will execute the penalty?�, but I will still say, whatever is justified is just. So obviously, I can allow that i may be mistaken, and my conclusions can be wrong. But I will never be wrong in seeking justice. So disagree with my arguments, nail me, and show me I am wrong. Show me my inconsistency and how my propositions are performative contradictions. I don’t mind. I will gladly fall on the side of what is justified if I can be made to see it.
But questions of determining what is justified, and questions determining how courts and society will deal with the implications of these determinations are two separate questions that really must be answered in the order of the former first, and the latter second. That is: let’s keep the horse before the cart.
Averros,
If your murderer-meat-eater rebuttal is serious, let me know and I will answer it. Hoppe answers why killing of animals for food is justified and why killing humans through aggression is unjustified. I would argue similarly.
Published: March 9, 2006 11:20 PM