For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[arthrimus]

Not sure I agree about the 'right to life'. I don't think that this is a good way to justify government intervention, because it opens the door to things like food stamps and universal health care. This is exactly why the non-aggression principle is a better standard. You don't have the right to enough food to sustain your life. You DO have the right to use your time and energy to earn money to purchase food.



Not true. My moral code dictates that both acts are wrong. My political code and my moral code are separate and distinct.

My political code dictates that I should only intervene if it is an initiation of force. Unfortunately, in this case, an act of God has created a situation where two people are initiating force against one another. The mother created a life by force, and the baby is residing inside her by force.

So the question is not whether I think it is right or wrong. The question is whether I think that I should intervene by force. In the case of murder, the answer is simple. In the case of abortion, it is not. So I must also weigh the efficacy of my intervention, among other factors.

You do in fact have the right to life. Meaning, you have the right to not be actively killed by another person. That has nothing to do with being unwilling to do the work required to sustain yourself. If you do not provide for yourself, then you are initiating force against yourself. It is not the job of government to engage in preemptive justice. The Government can only deliver justice once there is an imbalance caused by an injustice. Food stamps and welfare are preemptive measures to ensure that you do not die. What they should be doing is letting you starve to death, then determining who is at fault for the death and dispense justice accordingly. If it is determined that you were a bum who was too lazy to sustain yourself, then you served your own justice through your death.

Your understanding of the forces being initiated in a pregnancy are fundamentally flawed. A mother and father initiate force to conceive a child, the child retaliates by consuming the resources of the mother. The child is not acting in aggression, it is responding to being created in the only way it is physically possible to do.

 

[IndyDave1776]

At that point (i.e., accepting that abortion is in fact the murder of a separate and distinct human being) you must favor outlawing all forms of murder including abortion, legalizing all forms of murder, or you are being dishonest. No way out of this one.

Not true. My moral code dictates that both acts are wrong. My political code and my moral code are separate and distinct.

My political code dictates that I should only intervene if it is an initiation of force. Unfortunately, in this case, an act of God has created a situation where two people are initiating force against one another. The mother created a life by force, and the baby is residing inside her by force.

So the question is not whether I think it is right or wrong. The question is whether I think that I should intervene by force. In the case of murder, the answer is simple. In the case of abortion, it is not. So I must also weigh the efficacy of my intervention, among other factors.

It is so true. An unborn child either is a person or it is not. It is that simple. There is no third alternative, and it necessarily is a fixed answer and to argue that it does not need to be a fixed answer is proof of a lack of any understanding of objective truth. If you believe that an unborn child is not a person, then it is nothing but a gob of crud in a woman's guts and abortion then would take on the moral and legal implications of popping a zit. If an unborn child is a person, than killing it is murder regardless of circumstances. As for invoking the NAP, I fail to understand how using sharp instruments to fatally violate one's body and/or ripping it to shreds and vacuuming up a hose is not unprovoked initiation of force.

Second point. I don't care what anyone says, prohibition of murder must be applied equally to all who qualify as falling within the boundaries of personhood. You cannot accept as truth that an unborn child is in fact a person yet condone abortion unless you are either delusional or dishonest.

I would also point out that you cannot blame this situation on God as it would not have happened without the woman making a decision to spread her legs with the predictable consequences. Therefore, the initiation of force argument falls apart as the child did nothing to initiate the situation, but rather it was initiated by the willful action of the mother.

 

[arthrimus]

I would also point out that you cannot blame this situation on God as it would not have happened without the woman making a decision to spread her legs with the predictable consequences. Therefore, the initiation of force argument falls apart as the child did nothing to initiate the situation, but rather it was initiated by the willful action of the mother.

To take this thought further, in a pregnancy that results from a consensual sexual act, the mother and the father bear equal responsibility for the initiation of the pregnancy. When you look at this through the lens of incest and rape cases, the mother becomes absolved of responsibility for initiation of force, but that still does not justify an abortion. The initiation of force is attributed solely to the father in these cases, which means that the only person that the mother, or law enforcement on the behalf of the mother, can retaliate against is the father. The child is never responsible no matter what circumstances lead to it's conception, because prior to those events the child did not exist.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

To take this thought further, in a pregnancy that results from a consensual sexual act, the mother and the father bear equal responsibility for the initiation of the pregnancy. When you look at this through the lens of incest and rape cases, the mother becomes absolved of responsibility for initiation of force, but that still does not justify an abortion. The initiation of force is attributed solely to the father in these cases, which means that the only person that the mother, or law enforcement on the behalf of the mother, can retaliate against is the father. The child is never responsible no matter what circumstances lead to it's conception, because prior to those events the child did not exist.

I was just about to tweak Dave's last point regarding cases involving rape and incest, but you expanded in it better than I could.

 

[foszoe]

Wow! When I saw the page count was way up I knew a hijacking had to have occurred. It appears at least tangential though to the Non Agression Tenet which I was learning about.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow! When I saw the page count was way up I knew a hijacking had to have occurred. It appears at least tangential though to the Non Agression Tenet which I was learning about.

I don't know about that. It may have settled into one political issue, but non-aggression and murder seem to have a pretty strong connection.

 

[level.eleven]

Does circumcision, the mutilation of the female or male genitals, violate NAP? This one seems clear cut.

 

[steveh_131]

It is so true. An unborn child either is a person or it is not. It is that simple. There is no third alternative, and it necessarily is a fixed answer and to argue that it does not need to be a fixed answer is proof of a lack of any understanding of objective truth. If you believe that an unborn child is not a person, then it is nothing but a gob of crud in a woman's guts and abortion then would take on the moral and legal implications of popping a zit. If an unborn child is a person, than killing it is murder regardless of circumstances. As for invoking the NAP, I fail to understand how using sharp instruments to fatally violate one's body and/or ripping it to shreds and vacuuming up a hose is not unprovoked initiation of force.

I actually agree with you, my only point here is that I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I think that intelligent and reasonable people could disagree on this subject, and make good points for either side.

Second point. I don't care what anyone says, prohibition of murder must be applied equally to all who qualify as falling within the boundaries of personhood.

No, it is not prohibited even under our current system if the person killed initiated some sort of force against the killer. I don't find it to be intellectually dishonest to take this stand and still subscribe to the NAP. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is necessarily inconsistent.

I would also point out that you cannot blame this situation on God as it would not have happened without the woman making a decision to spread her legs with the predictable consequences. Therefore, the initiation of force argument falls apart as the child did nothing to initiate the situation, but rather it was initiated by the willful action of the mother.

Disagree, here, but mostly for religious reasons. I don't create life, God does. He has created this situation that puts the rights of two individuals at odds with each other.

Does circumcision, the mutilation of the female or male genitals, violate NAP? This one seems clear cut.

It is certainly an type of force, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. The question goes right back to whether children are property or individuals, or if there is some sort of inherent contract between parents and children.

I see you've resumed sniping. You haven't answered any of my questions yet.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I actually agree with you, my only point here is that I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I think that intelligent and reasonable people could disagree on this subject, and make good points for either side.

While there is room for argument about the correct answer, in order for law to work, it must be established one way or the other. Personhood or non-personhood at the whim of one individual subject to change at any moment is inherently unstable and the rule of law must be stable, requiring that in order to have stable law on the matter, we must have it settled one way or the other whether an unborn child is legally considered a person. Case in point, it is two counts of murder to kill a pregnant woman, but it is perfectly legal for a doctor to kill an unborn child. This type of thinking put Roy Bean on the pages of history, and not in a good way.

No, it is not prohibited even under our current system if the person killed initiated some sort of force against the killer. I don't find it to be intellectually dishonest to take this stand and still subscribe to the NAP. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is necessarily inconsistent.

That would be justifiable homicide, not murder.

Disagree, here, but mostly for religious reasons. I don't create life, God does. He has created this situation that puts the rights of two individuals at odds with each other.

Only one time in history did birth occur without sex. For all others, it is a consequence of a choice. Aside from that distinction, I agree. I still find the argument that the child has initiated force against the mother as espoused by one libertarian writer who had previously been quoted is patently stupid as the child had no choice in the decision to procreate, where the mother, unless raped, did, and is facing the consequences of a free choice she imposed on herself.

 

[level.eleven]

It is certainly an type of force, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. The question goes right back to whether children are property or individuals, or if there is some sort of inherent contract between parents and children.

I see you've resumed sniping. You haven't answered any of my questions yet.

Wait a minute. I did not agree to any social contracts.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wait a minute. I did not agree to any social contracts.

Would a binding agreement to attend a party be a social contract?

 

[steveh_131]

While there is room for argument about the correct answer, in order for law to work, it must be established one way or the other. Personhood or non-personhood at the whim of one individual subject to change at any moment is inherently unstable and the rule of law must be stable, requiring that in order to have stable law on the matter, we must have it settled one way or the other whether an unborn child is legally considered a person. Case in point, it is two counts of murder to kill a pregnant woman, but it is perfectly legal for a doctor to kill an unborn child. This type of thinking put Roy Bean on the pages of history, and not in a good way.

Ok. So which is it? Is the child the property of his/her parents? Your answers would imply as much, since you've made it clear that the child was created by its parents.

If the child is property, then abortion should be allowable under the NAP, right?

If the child is an individual, then spanking, punishment, or any other initiation of force against the child by the parents should not be allowable, right?

That would be justifiable homicide, not murder.

Exactly. Which is what someone would categorize abortion if they believed the child (or God) was initiating the force.

Only one time in history did birth occur without sex. For all others, it is a consequence of a choice. Aside from that distinction, I agree. I still find the argument that the child has initiated force against the mother as espoused by one libertarian writer who had previously been quoted is patently stupid as the child had no choice in the decision to procreate, where the mother, unless raped, did, and is facing the consequences of a free choice she imposed on herself.

So what about in the case of rape? We haven't even touched that one yet

 

[level.eleven]

What is it called when the list of exceptions grows out of hand?

Law.

 

[steveh_131]

What is it called when the list of exceptions grows out of hand?

Law.

Here's the question: In the case of the parent-child relationship, who is initiating force?

My answer: God.

So we're left with a semi-contractual relationship. It is not 'excluded' from the NAP...the NAP is simply not applicable, unless you're prepared to exact some vigilante justice on the Almighty.

So what other 'exceptions' have you pointed out thus far, apart from the parent-child relationship?

 

[mrjarrell]

Does circumcision, the mutilation of the female or male genitals, violate NAP? This one seems clear cut.

Seems clear to me, too. You're delegating an initiation of force against someone who has no say in the matter. It's an unnecessary procedure that they could consent to at a more advanced age, if they wished. Yes. It's a violation of the ZAP/NAP. An easily avoided one.

 

[level.eleven]

Here's the question: In the case of the parent-child relationship, who is initiating force?

My answer: God.

So we're left with a semi-contractual relationship. It is not 'excluded' from the NAP...the NAP is simply not applicable, unless you're prepared to exact some vigilante justice on the Almighty.

So what other 'exceptions' have you pointed out thus far, apart from the parent-child relationship?

You know I can't respond to this. Low blow.

Apart from the parent child relationship? We can't even get out of our house without a shredding of NAP. Do the arguments against your anarchical fantasy of private law need be repeated? Are you going to surrender to my private arbiter of law? I don't want this for you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok. So which is it? Is the child the property of his/her parents? Your answers would imply as much, since you've made it clear that the child was created by its parents.

If the child is property, then abortion should be allowable under the NAP, right?

If the child is an individual, then spanking, punishment, or any other initiation of force against the child by the parents should not be allowable, right?

Being 'property' and being subject to authority are somewhat different. If your 14 year old truly is property, then you should be able to put a bullet in his head if you feel like it. Being a person does not, however, free him from consequences including punishment for misdeeds.

Exactly. Which is what someone would categorize abortion if they believed the child (or God) was initiating the force.

Hypothetically correct, but what kind of dumbass could actually believe that? The child had no choice whatsoever, and even if we do blame it on God, abortion would be just as reasonable as killing me in response to an event blamed on God.

So what about in the case of rape? We haven't even touched that one yet

If you are going to follow nonagression, how do you execute a child who had no choice in the matter for the actions of a criminal? I would like to see the aftermath of rape mitigated as much as possible. While this is a difficult conclusion for me, as a believer that life starts at conception, hence consider abortion to be murder, I cannot find a way to justify executing a child for the actions of a criminal. Yes, I am at a point where although I would like for the situation to go away for the victim, I find myself boxed in by the principles in which I believe, but then again, situational ethics devolve into no ethics whatsoever.

I would also offer what, to the best of my knowledge, is a unique treatment for the rapist. In my world, he would spend approximately two decades in work release with the proceeds going to support the woman and her child through college and after that begin serving his sentence for the crime. Needless to say, no credit time would be allowed for the time in work release.

 

[steveh_131]

You know I can't respond to this. Low blow.

Unfortunately, things happen this world that are beyond the will of man. You can call it 'nature' if you prefer, but that doesn't change the effect.

Apart from the parent child relationship? We can't even get out of our house without a shredding of NAP. Do the arguments against your anarchical fantasy of private law need be repeated? Are you going to surrender to my private arbiter of law? I don't want this for you.

Everything you've brought up thus far has been explained and answered. You have not yet answered any of my questions, have you?

Being 'property' and being subject to authority are somewhat different. If your 14 year old truly is property, then you should be able to put a bullet in his head if you feel like it. Being a person does not, however, free him from consequences including punishment for misdeeds.

Under the NAP, it does free him from consequences as long as he has not initiated force against another person.

Hypothetically correct, but what kind of dumbass could actually believe that? The child had no choice whatsoever, and even if we do blame it on God, abortion would be just as reasonable as killing me in response to an event blamed on God.

I agree with all of that, but I can see the logical basis behind an argument that a mother shouldn't be forced (by man) to house and feed a child inside her body that was ultimately placed there by God.

To sum it up, I think that any government that we do choose to put in place should be limited in its power by the NAP.

Because the parent-child relationship is (in my opinion) not truly governed by the NAP, I think we have to take more practical considerations into account. Should the child's right to not be killed outweigh the right of the mother to do what she pleases with her body? I think it should. On the other hand, how much government intervention do we really want to take place within the parent-child relationship? At what point is it doing far more damage to liberty than good?

 

[dross]

A word about the initiation of force.

As an individual, I may not initiate force. I may use force to defeat force used against me.

I may use force to help another person being attacked, or held against their will. I am not initiating force.

What if I learn someone is being held against their will in the house next door. They are being held with the threat of violence. I can use force to free them, and I am not initiating force.

This extends to foreign policy. I can use force to aid an ally who has had force initiated against him. I can use force to free an enslaved populace. These are not initiation of force. The force was initiated by the original invader or the oppressive government.

These are the moral principles. Like all things in life, the details complicate matters. The oppressive government won't admit they're oppressive, and the initiator of force will claim justification. The difficulty of the reality doesn't change the principle, however.

 

[level.eleven]

A word about the initiation of force.

As an individual, I may not initiate force. I may use force to defeat force used against me.

I may use force to help another person being attacked, or held against their will. I am not initiating force.

What if I learn someone is being held against their will in the house next door. They are being held with the threat of violence. I can use force to free them, and I am not initiating force.

This extends to foreign policy. I can use force to aid an ally who has had force initiated against him. I can use force to free an enslaved populace. These are not initiation of force. The force was initiated by the original invader or the oppressive government. Making NAP whatever you want it to be renders it useless.

These are the moral principles. Like all things in life, the details complicate matters. The oppressive government won't admit they're oppressive, and the initiator of force will claim justification. The difficulty of the reality doesn't change the principle, however.

Nothing in this post complies with NAP.

Block, Rothbard, etc. would all say that you should be punished for initiating force against your neighbor. Block said as much, if you value the life of your neighbor, you should have no problem accepting the punishment for initiating force and trespassing on private property. Of course, NAP and foreign policy can't exist. That is a simple application of the axiom. There can't be a government to initiate force.