Comments on: Libertarians and War: A Bibliographical Essay Property - Prosperity - Peace Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:36:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: ScottSemans Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:58:18 +0000 Been away, just checked back. Likely talking to the crickets at this point.
All these arguments reduce to the idea that humanity begins at fertilization, which is either absurd, or a misuse of language – in either case, enabled by mental compartmentalization. For religious, sentimental, or other personal reasons, you are refusing to make or see connections that would otherwise be obvious.
1) What would you think of a restaurant that offered a chicken dinner and served you a fertilized egg? Or a breeder who sold you a week old horse, then said you’d have to wait 11 months for it to be born?
2) By your definition, an abortion is a two-person conspiracy of murder (thus 1st degree) of an innocent person. No legal system treats such an act lightly. Regardless of your (libertarian, not anarchist) views on justice & penology, what should be the state’s response? Arguing for leniency undercuts the humanity of the victim and violates any notion of human equality. Best case: Penalty as for a caregiver inducing a doctor to overdose an unwanted aged relative.
3) Similarly: a woman has killed a father’s child. What rights of compensation or retribution are there?

By: Michael Barker Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:59:24 +0000 @ Scott A Libertarian defense of Pro Life? Heres one: The starting point of my world view is the Human value argument. A logical extension of the Human value argument would be that it protects the unborn as all human life has equal value and therefore equal rights. A woman does have natural rights in regards to the control of her body. But at some point in pregnancy that control shifts to a cooperation and the unborn has the right to protection.

By: Anthony Gregory Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:18:07 +0000 I believe in inalienable rights and oppose voluntary slavery. A woman can’t alienate her right to control her body for a whole nine months, even if she could make an agreement to a person not yet born. To force her to carry the baby to term is to enslave her and enforce the most brutal of specific performance contracts.

In any event, this thread is probably best devoted to war issues.

By: Stephan Kinsella Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:38:43 +0000 See my How We Come To Own Ourselves and Objectivists on Positive Parental Obligations and Abortion. The basic idea is that libertarians are not against all positive obligations–we oppose those that are unchosen. But some can be incurred as a result of one’s actions. I’d argue that creating a rights-bearing dependent human gives rise to the obligation to care for the person created. It’s astonishing to me to say that a fetus is a “trespasser” when it’s there as a result of the mother’s actions (in most cases).

By: Stephan Kinsella Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:34:06 +0000 “It’s viability, because all else is either dogmatic myth and/or unscientific. Quantum physics informs us what we think of as, sloppily, “life” and “living” is energy, which you cannot destroy. The “dead” have stopped being animated due to loss of all energy. The energy transforms, visibly, into “other” “living” forms”

This is scientistic nonsense. Dead bodies don’t have less “energy” than living ones.

By: Bob Roddis Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:03:16 +0000 I highly recommend listening to each of these Scott Horton interviews which examine in detail the lies and more lies about the Iraq invasion told by both the Neocons and their media hacks:

3/22/13 Peter Hart
3/22/13 Daniel McAdams
3/20/13 Greg Mitchell
3/19/13 Dahr Jamail
3/19/13 Jonathan Landay
3/15/13 Eric Margolis
3/15/13 Karen Kwiatkowski

By: D. Frank Robinson Sun, 24 Mar 2013 04:10:37 +0000 I greatly appreciate some references to the Spanish-American War and Phillipine Rebellion as well as the war on Native American nations. Thanks for a great start.

By: Anthony Gregory Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:49:20 +0000 Ralph, if it’s any condolence, following the leads in your own scholarship has once or twice ruined my day as well.

By: Ralph Raico Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:59:31 +0000 Dammit, Anthony, I planned to visit my usual websites this morning and then get down to doing my work. Now, with your excellent essay, I’ve got to go and read a bunch of important articles I missed. Some friend you are.

By: Matthew Dirks (a.k.a. MerlinYoda) Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:09:16 +0000 It does follow, especially when it’s only means of survival is via the nourishment and shelter provided via the mother and we’ve recognized that the gestating being is recognized as not just as simply being alive but as embodying human life.

It would be an entirely different thing if it was some other non-human entity deriving sustenance from a human being. I mean, It’s not like we’re not arguing for the right of something on the level mosquito to not be killed when biting people for their nourishment via their blood-sucking.

As alluded to down-thread, a parent depriving their child of food and shelter would be charged with abandonment. They could even be charged with manslaughter if the child died as a result. How would this differ in that respect? Even if you somehow did not kill the gestating entity (which is what abortion does by definition) and simply “evicted” it from the womb prior to viability, how would it have any chance of surviving independently?

Once the developing being is viewed (at least legally) as human, then the mother should have the same level of parental obligation that she would have to any newborn child. Currently, the point of viability is widely held as an acceptable compromise for a legal cut-off for when abortions cannot be done by law except in extenuating circumstances (e.g. life of the mother at risk and such). Although, I have seen attempts in other states to push it slightly earlier than that point but nothing so far back as to pre-fetal stages (although, I wouldn’t be surprised is some state legislatures have made serious non-partisan attempts to do so).