Would child neglect be punishable in an Ancap society?

Reply

Mises Pieces Posted: Wed, Jun 9 2010 2:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Was just reading over Rothbard's pro-choice argument in For a New Liberty, and it got me thinking.  He claims that the question of whether or not the fetus is human is irrelevant because it is living as a parasite on the mother's body, potentially infringing upon her right of self-ownership.

This makes me wonder, couldn't this same argument be extended to early childhood?  While a child may not be a literal parasite like a fetus, it still lives a parasitic existence on its parents, as it cannot feed and care for itself.

So, would the parents be legally justified if they were to simply neglect or abandon their own child?  If not, what is the key difference between the parasitism of the fetus and that of the infant?

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 2:53 PM

rated by 0 users

Did the parents invite the child to live as a "parasite"?

Reply

Mises Pieces replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 3:16 PM

rated by 0 users

"Did the parents invite the child to live as a "parasite"?"

Umm... I don't know... you tell me :)

Anyway, in the FaNL passage, Rothbard writes (about abortion):

"Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and eject it." (p. 132)

So in the case of abortion, at least, the fact that the mother "invited" the fetus into her body does not preclude her from aborting it.

And even though "the property owner in her own body" doesn't apply, she still is the owner of the surplus income and labor she must expend on sustaining the child.

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 3:38 PM

rated by 0 users

I think that makes a big difference: http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/16-wisniewski-block-on-abortion/

Reply

Mises Pieces replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 3:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Interesting... So must someone who is pro-choice also condone child abandonment/neglect if they wish to remain logically consistent?

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 4:18 PM

rated by 0 users

It depends on their logic and views on when life begins. Most don't believe life begins until sometime after conception, possible even until birth. If they believed the baby is as much alive at conception as it is at birth, or beyond, then yes, they would have to condone child neglect to remain logically consistent.

Reply

Mises Pieces replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 4:51 PM

rated by 0 users

OK well that makes sense, and pretty much frames the mainstream abortion debate.

But if this is the case then when Rothbard writes:

"Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion."

is he wrong?  Or is he just saying it's irrelevent to the issue of legality because he doesn't think we will every be able to agree on a definition of the beginning of life?

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 4:58 PM

rated by 0 users

I think it's very important, and for the reasons explained in that reply to Block. If it's not life, then abortion doesn't cause death, but if it is, then it does.

Reply

Clayton replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 4:59 PM

rated by 0 users

Rothbard's position (from Ethics of Liberty) is that parents may at any time repudiate their child, that is, refuse to care for it any longer. I disagree with Rothbard but not because I believe parents have some intrinsic moral duty to care for their children. I think Rothbard fails to investigate why the normative legal concept of parental duty arose in the first place.

It is rarely the case that both parents simultaneously desire to abandon their child. Most of the time, one or the other parent wants to abandon, most often, the male*. Hoppe has noted (can't remember the cite, sorry) that the modern human "nuclear" family is an evolutionary innovation over our early ancestors where the costs of child-bearing and rearing were borne by the female alone or the group as a whole, rather than by the individual male and female who conceived the children. Paternity uncertainty is the primary reason for this ... it is impossible without DNA sequencing technology to be certain that a particular child is indeed the offspring of a particular male. The family is possible because of the human female's concealed fertility which essentially makes it difficult for her to reproduce with a man with better genes while accepting provenance from a more diligent man**. The family privatizes the costs of begetting offspring by placing the costs of bearing and raising children on those who benefit from the children, that is, the genetic parents of the children.

Since the emergence of the human family, the parties with vested interests in a child have become more numerous. The grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on, all have an indirect interest in the survival of a child since that child carries a significant fraction of their genes. When a man abandons his children, he is implicitly repudiating the cost of raising his wife's children, that is, he is pushing the burden off himself and onto her family. With the advent of the "single, working mom" this is a little less the case today than it used to be, but that is an extremely recent invention in the grand scheme of things.

The more resources which a father must expend on the raising of one daughter's children, the fewer resources he has for his other grand-children or for procreating more of his own children. That is, when a son-in-law abandons his children, the father-in-law's reproductive success is diminished. This fact pits these two individuals in a natural conflict of interests. For this reason, when a man abandons his children, the father-in-law is likely to be motivated to retaliate against the son-in-law, since he now stands to lose nothing if his son-in-law is dead. So, child abandonment naturally leads to disputes between in-laws and even blood relatives. It is the role of law to resolve such disputes without resort to martial contest. I believe that a robust theory of property has to take into account the particulars of human nature and, particularly in the area of family, this can become very complex. These issues have typically been handled through religious institutions, for better or worse, but what is important to realize is the material conflict of interests between the various persons involved.

So, I think Rothbard - for all his genius - was too simplistic in his treatment of child abandonment. It's not as simple as saying, "it would be aggression to force the parents to care for a child, even if they no longer want to". The family and in-laws certainly have standing to sue at law and it is a matter of law to hammer out who is responsible for what expenses. If we had a free market in law, precedents and best-practices would emerge that would act as a guide, permitting people to reason about and calculate the costs of having another child, of divorcing, of repudiating the care of a child, and so on. As always, the root problem is the territorial monopolization of law and the inevitable zombie law that results.

Clayton -

*Evolutionary psychology tells us why males tend to abandon their children more frequently than females, it has to do with a concept from biology called reproductive anisogamy which basically means that the female invests a hell of a lot more into a child than a male does, as a matter of biological fact (the male invests a sperm, the female invests 10 months of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc.) One less child for a male is easily replaced, for a female, it is a major loss. This is true of most (all?) mammals, not only humans.

**The idea is that, somewhere in our ancestral history, primate males began exchanging food for sex which began to break down the alpha-male model. But the alpha males could still beat the "provider males" by copulating with their "wives" only when she was fertile and leaving her alone the rest of the time. She benefitted by having children with better, alpha genes. The alpha male benefited by having someone else pay to raise his children. The "provider males" were all-round losers until the emergence of concealed fertility which made it impossible for a female to double-dip in this way.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 5:10 PM

rated by 0 users

There were several threads on this last week and I didn't feel like bothering with them because the "pro-life" position reduces to absurdity.

Did the parents invite the child to live as a "parasite"?

Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies. The act of having sex may have been voluntary, but the resulting fetus is an unintended consequence. Yes, we might expect someone to know that having sex might lead to being pregnant, but why don't we extend the pro-lifer's expectation of liability further?

I know that when I go to the store to get some ice cream that I might, even though I don't intend to, leave my door unlocked. What if the proverbial loser had just been disowned by his parents and happened to wind up slipping in my back door? He needs someone to take care of him and he wandered into my home in this state. This is analogous to the situation that Wisniewski opposes a woman's property rights on.

Nowhere does he cite Block, who handled this possible objection decades ago.

No, we will stand by our position. Since foetuses are dependent on the owner of the womb in which they reside, they derive their status from that owner's attitude toward them. If the owner (mother) does not want them, they are trespassers; it doesn't matter whether or not they were invited in the first place. The woman, like the homeowner, has the final say and is not obliged to provide a long term sanctuary. A guest may be asked to leave. A foetus may be removed.

The faulty analogy of Wisniewski is saying that the fetus was "drugged and dragged onto a plane then asked to leave at 30,000 feet". A woman had sex. There is no implicit plan to drug and kill people. Both mean imminent death, but the all-important "chains of causation" differ.

Wisniewski also seems confused about how enforcing this law would work in an otherwise free society. It's fraught with problems at every turn.

It depends on their logic and views on when life begins.

Nope, this is entirely irrelevant.
 

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 5:25 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., I don't see how your unlocked door analogy applies. The proverbial loser acted and freely entered your house. Also, booting him wouldn't cause his death. A fetus is conceived involuntarily, it was acted upon, and evicting it would cause certain death, up to a point in the timeline.

As for the question on how this would be handled in a free society, I believe Block's evictionism is the most practical approach. But who knows, really.

Reply

Marko replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 5:31 PM

rated by 0 users

No, we will stand by our position. Since foetuses are dependent on the owner of the womb in which they reside, they derive their status from that owner's attitude toward them. If the owner (mother) does not want them, they are trespassers; it doesn't matter whether or not they were invited in the first place. The woman, like the homeowner, has the final say and is not obliged to provide a long term sanctuary. A guest may be asked to leave. A foetus may be removed.

Depends entirely on what kind of a guest are we talking about. A guest of a Motel may not be asked to leave in the middle of the night.

Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies. The act of having sex may have been voluntary, but the resulting fetus is an unintended consequence. Yes, we might expect someone to know that having sex might lead to being pregnant, but why don't we extend the pro-lifer's expectation of liability further?

I know that when I go to the store to get some ice cream that I might, even though I don't intend to, leave my door unlocked. What if the proverbial loser had just been disowned by his parents and happened to wind up slipping in my back door? He needs someone to take care of him and he wandered into my home in this state. This is analogous to the situation that Wisniewski opposes a woman's property rights on.

That isn't the same type of liability. A loser taking a shelter in your house is not a result of you leaving a door unlocked. It is a result of his coming through your unlocked door uninvited.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 5:49 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., I don't see how your unlocked door analogy applies. The proverbial loser acted and freely entered your house. Also, booting him wouldn't cause his death. A fetus is conceived involuntarily, it was acted upon, and evicting it would cause certain death, up to a point in the timeline.

As for the question on how this would be handled in a free society, I believe Block's evictionism is the most practical approach. But who knows, really.

"Adult children" are about as common as aborted babies. How do you know that this loser won't be unable to find another unlocked door, or the world is so cruel that nobody helps him and he won't die? It must be asked first as well if you believe that a helpless child can be abandoned after they leave the womb. What about a 40 year old dependent with Downs syndrome? By this line of reasoning, a birth control accident could chain a woman to caring for an invalid for the rest of her life.

Whether the proverbial loser or the fetus acts is irrelevant. The fetus has the right to not be aggressed upon due to its status as a potential moral agent and actor-producer. In both cases the state of dependency is the result of the mother's actions. She doesn't intend to leave the door open any more than she intended to get pregnant. I really shouldn't have to say this, but people don't have sex simply to procreate. Again, the important thing is the primacy of the mother's right of self-ownership and her ability to decide what lives inside her.

I have asked this question close to ten times now in this repeated topic. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that eviction is murder, who has a right to pursue her for this crime?

If rape excuses abortions, must a rapist be captured? Suppose the boyfriend admits to rape in a mock trial in the abortion clinic and the "victim" agrees to no punishment as is anyone's right. Are you, as a 3rd party, going to come prove the sex was consensual?

Depends entirely on what kind of a guest are we talking about. A guest of a Motel may not be asked to leave in the middle of the night.

A fetus is not a guest without the consent of the mother qua property owner. Motels agree to let people stay the night. The purpose of running an airline is to get people from point A to B, not toss them out midway. There is absolutely no explicit or implicit contract with C (the fetus) when A and B agree to have sex.

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 6:24 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., sex and having children go hand in hand. Intended to get pregnant or not, so long as one intended to perform an act that is supposed to (or naturally going to) lead to pregnancy, then one should be responsible for the result of that action. The fetus, intentionally or not, was created and given life. This was not it's choice. It was not an actor. The mother's actions, intentionally or not, caused the fetus to be given life (created) through no effort of it's own. It is a completely innocent party at this point, caused by the actions of the mother. I don't know that that justifies aggression against it by the one who created it to begin with. We aren't talking about accidently creating a shoe, we are talking about accidently creating a life. That's why this whole debate centers (for most people) on when the "bundle of cells" qualifies as a life.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 8:22 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., sex and having children go hand in hand.

Sex and pleasure "go hand in hand" as well, cf. gay sex.

Intended to get pregnant or not, so long as one intended to perform an act that is supposed to (or naturally going to) lead to pregnancy, then one should be responsible for the result of that action.

Again, the nature of human sexual behavior is not solely guided by the purpose of conceiving children. This comment of yours is some form of naturalistic/moralistic fallacy. I don't really feel like bothering with a comprehensive response when you ignore my points, sorry/

Reply

Mises Pieces replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 9:07 PM

rated by 0 users

"There is absolutely no explicit or implicit contract with C (the fetus) when A and B agree to have sex."

My question would then be: does the mother's act of carrying the child to term constitute an explicit contract among A B and C?

I would tend to agree with Clayton that it does, as to me it seems virtually self-evident that a parent should be obligated to sustain their child at least until they can find someone else to take responsibility.  It does bother me a little that Rothbard and Block apparently believe that child abandonment should be legally permissible, but I guess it's the only consistent position to take if you also believe that the question of when life begins is irrelevant.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 9:14 PM

rated by 0 users

...

Reply

Zavoi replied on Wed, Jun 9 2010 11:37 PM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

Again, the nature of human sexual behavior is not solely guided by the purpose  of conceiving children.

When I take a car out for a joyride, my purpose is to have fun, not to cause damage. Am I any less responsible for the damage?

E. R. Olovetto:

I have asked this question close to ten times now in this repeated topic. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that eviction is murder, who has a right to pursue her for this crime?

The same as in any murder case: the first person who pursues the case.

If the fetus is not a person, then aborting it is clearly not murder. So let's assume for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person.

An unconscious person falls off a cliff and you catch them with a lasso. Some time later the person wakes up and starts climbing the rope back up to the top. You say, "Sorry, I changed my mind, I'd like my rope back please. Immediately."

The act of "inviting" the climber to use your rope was one-sided, since the climber was unconscious at the time. Is it therefore not a true invitation, such as an airplane pilot might extend to a prospective passenger?

Reply

Clayton replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 1:09 AM

rated by 0 users

"There is absolutely no explicit or implicit contract with C (the fetus) when A and B agree to have sex."

My question would then be: does the mother's act of carrying the child to term constitute an explicit contract among A B and C?

I would tend to agree with Clayton that it does, as to me it seems virtually self-evident that a parent should be obligated to sustain their child at least until they can find someone else to take responsibility. It does bother me a little that Rothbard and Block apparently believe that child abandonment should be legally permissible, but I guess it's the only consistent position to take if you also believe that the question of when life begins is irrelevant.

Hrmmmm, I think you've misunderstood my posts. I've explicitly stated that I do not think that abortion or abandonment constitute a dispute (or "contract") between the mother and the child because the child is unable to speak for itself. In the case of abortion, we are really talking about a dispute over the disposal of the fetal tissue. Prior to viability, there is nothing to dispute... the woman may simply dispose of it and it certainly would constitute aggression for someone to forcibly prevent her from doing so, even the biological father of the fetus. After viability, the exact terms of the dispute would have to be hammered out in court but basically, I think a mother should not be permitted to have the child removed in a manner that does not preserve its life, if the biological father wants to raise it. Such killing seems to me to be gratuitous and immoral. However, in order for the father to assert an interest in having the viable child removed non-destructively, he must be aware of the fact of the pregnancy and must indicate his intent prior to the operation. Failing that, his "right" to the child's life is lost*.

In the case of abandonment, we're really talking about a monetary dispute... who pays to raise the kid?? The very existence of publicly subsidized alternatives increases the amount of abandonment by reducing its emotional costs - family does not place as much pressure on parents to stick with it as they would if the family had to pick up the tab when parents abandon their children. It has a similar effect on divorce... it's much easier to try to walk out from a marriage and try to shirk your financial/household obligations in doing your part in raising your own offspring if you are living under a legal system that is lopsided and makes one side or the other pay more heavily and eases the burden on the other side. Abortion, divorce, child abandonment are all issues that are far too complex to be handled by statutory law and the family in Western society has been visibly blighted by the proliferation of statutory family law. These used to be handled under the umbrella of religious institutions. No one can know from introspection or any other method what is the right solution to these complex social issues. I think we need competitive law courts to really flesh out the details of each case and which will allow new precedents and best-practices to emerge to guide people in understanding the consequences of their actions in marrying, having children, and so on.

Clayton -

*Bear in mind that I'm interpolating here, I'm "guessing" what sort of legal norms would emerge in a natural order legal system... I'm not making fiat normative pronouncements

Reply

Michael J Green replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 1:42 AM

rated by 0 users

Would child neglect be punishable in an Ancap society?

I suspect it would be punishable.

Would such punishment be consistent with Rothbardian libertarianism? Perhaps not.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 3:19 AM

rated by 0 users

As with everything else, it would up to the market of juridical and insurance services to decide, but I can guess that it would not be punishable. On the other hand, as Rothbard point out, I agree that should children run form their houses no one would have a right to get them forcibly back home.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:47 AM

rated by 0 users

When I take a car out for a joyride, my purpose is to have fun, not to cause damage.

Yes Zavoi, our purposes conflict intersubjectively, which is why we have a coherent system of property rights. We can very well change "joyride" to "driving to work" and "have fun" to "get to work".

Am I any less responsible for the damage?

Driving to work is very much like sailing a ship. The road or waterway is "unowned", even if it is truly privately 'owned', in that the car or ship has some sort of easement right to travel through a certain area. So when "damage occurs" there are three possible scenarios (looking only at the culpability of the driver):

1. [2 teeth] I'm driving to work with my buddy Jimmy, and he says, "Hey, I'll give you $20 if you hit that old bum wandering across the street". The bum could be stumbling across the sidewalk, out of where one expects a car to be driven, and the case remains the same. Not only do I cause damage by negligient behaviour(1), but I also intend to cause harm to the victim (1). So even if we suppose that "abortion" is "killing an innocent", and again this position reduces to absurdity, we're not talking about "murder", rather "manslaughter".

2. [1 tooth] Jimmy and I are driving to a concert, drinking some beers. I'm pretty drunk and pass out, sideswiping a row of cars alongside the road. Alternatively, there could be a red light or merge and I fail to stop or yield then crash into some cars. I cause damage, and my actions are teleologically negligible(1), but I had no intent of sideswiping bums or anything (0).

3. [no teeth] I am driving to work, sipping coffee with Jimmy. We're talking about how Ray Allen went so cold in game 3 of the NBA finals after his record game 2, and arguing about who will win game 4. It gets pretty heated, but I am still basically focused on another thing I am intending to do, drive to work. So, I am driving to work along Rockaway Blvd., under the LIE, and some wino comes out from behind a beam, meets my bumper, and sails over my roof.

There is no substantive difference between this case and a birth control accident. So, besides the whole factor of rape, whose enforcement in relation to abortion has so far been ignored by my opponents, there is this further question. Not only do I not intend to have children as a result of my sexual escapades, but I've also taken some drug which relatively promises 99% efficiency in stopping pregnancies.

Since I've been on "the pill", and I also wasn't trying to get pregnant, I think you have another problem in trying to interfere with womens' property rights. You are going to have to prove that sex was consensual, and that I was not, at that time, taking a birth control pill, or else your position reduces to even more incredible absurdity.

Rather than try to twist words and craft more pathological hypos, I want a pragmatic economic argument from you people. The answer isn't here (indeed, I'm confident any arguments will be flawed), but you should read this, not for the answer, but for the type of requirement necessary to advance your position.

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:50 AM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., gay sex isn't technically sex. "Sex" is sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the act of mating. You can't mate with someone of the same sex, therefore you can't have sexual intercouse with someone of the same sex. Society calls it "sex" but it's really just touching genitalia and feeling pleasure. Male/female sexual intercourse will naturally lead to pregnancy. That is it's primary purpose. Pleasure would be secondary.

Consider a car. It's primary purpose is to move someone from point A to point B. If I park my car on a hill, and proceed to use it as a bed for the night, am I liable for any damage my car creates when the brakes fail while I'm sleeping and I damage another car or run someone over? I wasn't using it to move me from point A to point B, but I still parked it on a hill and sat in the driver seat. If someone is responsible for their "negligence" in this case, why wouldn't they be responsible for their "negligence" in getting pregnant?

Either way this debate goes, I agree that it's not something that would be easy to enforce in a free society, and it probably wouldn't be. But abortion also wouldn't be given the green light by a state, producing a sort of entitlement mentality that women are free to concieve and abort, and how dare anyone criticize or ostracize them for it. It certainly wouldn't be state incentivized (as in China), but neither would it be culturally acceptable without a state saying it's okay. You know?

Reply

Spideynw replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 9:44 AM

rated by 0 users

"So, would the parents be legally justified if they were to simply neglect or abandon their own child?"

Yes.  No one has positive rights.  If you cannot take care of yourself, no one is obligated to take care of you, unless you have contracted with them in the first place to do so.  And just because someone decides to have a child, does not imply a contract.  Contracts can only be made with reasoning beings.  Otherwise, taking in a dog would be considered an implied contract with the dog to take care of it.

Reply

justinx0r replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:10 AM

rated by 0 users

@ER

I remember in another thread about child rape you were arguing that since very young children would eventually have rights (even if they are too young now to claim them) it is wrong to do whatever you please with them. If you buy that argument how can you put forth a pro-choice argument? If a fetus will eventually become a human and have rights how can you logically say that you can do whatever you wish with it (like aborting it)?

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:37 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., gay sex isn't technically sex. "Sex" is sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the act of mating. You can't mate with someone of the same sex, therefore you can't have sexual intercouse with someone of the same sex. Society calls it "sex" but it's really just touching genitalia and feeling pleasure. Male/female sexual intercourse will naturally lead to pregnancy. That is it's primary purpose. Pleasure would be secondary.

Who are you to declare what the "primary purpose" of having sex is for every human being? The women who end up having abortions were not having sex for the purpose of procreation. This is exactly how bad laws end up being made. Some "lawmaker", in between their campaigns of lies, has nothing better to do than force their subjective valuations on another person. The process of making foie gras or the sight of a junkie revolts them, or some study comes out on the health risks of soda, and a new victimless crime is born.

Like I said before, this is some sort of naturalistic/moralistic fallacy. It's "natural" that humans have sex for pleasure, and don't just mate in the springtime. The two purposes sit beside each other and neither is superior.

Consider a car. It's primary purpose is to move someone from point A to point B. If I park my car on a hill, and proceed to use it as a bed for the night, am I liable for any damage my car creates when the brakes fail while I'm sleeping and I damage another car or run someone over? I wasn't using it to move me from point A to point B, but I still parked it on a hill and sat in the driver seat. If someone is responsible for their "negligence" in this case, why wouldn't they be responsible for their "negligence" in getting pregnant?

I don't see what sleeping in the car has to do with it. Unless you knew that your brakes needed fixed and parked on a hill anyway, this is an accident and there is no negligence. Good luck proving that a condom wasn't used and a mother just recklessly had sex and planned to abort any possible baby.

Either way this debate goes, I agree that it's not something that would be easy to enforce in a free society, and it probably wouldn't be. But abortion also wouldn't be given the green light by a state, producing a sort of entitlement mentality that women are free to concieve and abort, and how dare anyone criticize or ostracize them for it. It certainly wouldn't be state incentivized (as in China), but neither would it be culturally acceptable without a state saying it's okay. You know?

Right, the economic argument is that practice will trend toward the correct answer anyhow. I'm ethically opposed to abortion as much as anyone, but consistently applying private property as law is the only solution. Those who really care about the "intrinsic value" of every life, just like the enviro-communists with whales, need to put their money where their mouth is.

In a free society, there is no barrier to adoption. With no child labor laws, raising kids could be a profitable venture. Some monastery that churns out baked goods could pay mothers who consider abortion to carry the fetus to term. Also, women could agree to all sorts of wacky laws, like compulsory head-scarfing or to be punished should she abort a baby. Then again, these women would want these rules. It's completely libertarian to agree to odd cultural mores, but not to force them on outsiders.

@ER

I remember in another thread about child rape you were arguing that since very young children would eventually have rights (even if they are too young now to claim them) it is wrong to do whatever you please with them. If you buy that argument how can you put forth a pro-choice argument? If a fetus will eventually become a human and have rights how can you logically say that you can do whatever you wish with it (like aborting it)?

I'm not saying that a woman can do whatever she wants with it. I'm saying the rights of self-ownership a woman has over her body, to determine what grows in it, is superior to any other claims to the uterus. For the actual topic of young children, there is no justification of positive rights as well. You can't just abandon the responsibility of guardianship, lock a child in a secret room, and forestall other would-be guardians.

Block isn't wrong in his position on abortion (video); however, two things I have been saying recently need to be added to the explanation.

A fetus, like any young child, has a certain amount of negative rights due to it being a potential moral agent. This has been discussed at length in many threads, including the child slavery thread.

Evictionism, as opposed to "pro-life" or "pro-choice", is timeless in its correctness. Scientists have begun to attempt to raise children from adapted pig uteri. Parents can't just abandon children in any way they see fit. It may be customary to drop an infant off at a hospital or fire station. One day we might not have these things, rather Star Trek like handheld healing modules and advanced sprinkler systems, and some other measure will be deemed "reasonable". The question of what is reasonable is a matter of jurisprudence and not legal philosophy.

Before analyzing the consequences of adopting the pro-life doctrine into libertarianism, it's necessary to understand how the provision of justice in a free society would work. There is an analogous relationship between economics (praxeological catallactics, not mainstream pseudo-science) versus econometrics (applied economics) & law (praxeological legal philosophy) versus Austro-libertarian jurisprudence (human law put to action). The former of each group uses the axomatic-deductive method along with verbal logic, and the latter of each can draw on an array of relevant nomothetic fields (military strategy, geology, meteorology, psychology, blood spatter analysis, and many more.) This is the quality-quantity dichotomy between the disciplines of social science and natural science. (See also what I wrote here.)

So the same requirement of "reasonable measures" being taken applies to the eviction of a fetus. If there was some researcher wanting the fetus to do his research, a mother would have to hand it over, rather than the procedure of vacuuming it into a wood chipper type device. The latter procedure is technically not acceptable, even if there is no way to keep the baby alive. Technological means is one consideration of jurisprudence though. So, Block conflates these two and just assumes what a judge would do. It's a good assumption, but even with a good theory there has to be a person willing to act to carry it out. See what I wrote about the via negativa here.

Reply

Skyler Collins replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:50 PM

rated by 0 users

@E. R., thank you for the response.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:59 PM

rated by 0 users

You're welcome. I didn't mean to be harsh if it the start seemed that way.

Reply

My Buddy replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 3:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Abortion is an irritating issue since it comes down to when a fetus becomes a child.

Frankly though, Rothbard's analogy is flawed. When you eject a person from your house, you give them the options of going to another house, living on the street, etc. When you eject a fetus, you kill it with no chance of survival. It is less kicking out the person living in your house and more shooting at them wildly with a shotgun while they sleep.
 

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 3:13 PM

rated by 0 users

Abortion is an irritating issue since it comes down to when a fetus becomes a child.

It is irritating that I already said once in this thread why this issue is utterly irrelevant. Also your analogy is flawed, try reading what I wrote.

Reply

MaikU replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 4:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Personally I don't consider fetus a human, unless it has born and no longer "uses woman's resources". However, I am stuck in between, seeing abortions as necessary evil and just usually practice. I dislike it, yes, but it would be wrong to force woman to have an unwanted child. It's her body after all. But I am not strict propertarian, so any analogy with landlords (one user made it above) seems stupid to me.

But hey, maybe in future, as technology develops further, we will be able to just "extract" fetuses from women (so that they didn't need to carry it for 9 months) and just grow it in incubators. Why not, lol? It's 2525, ffs.

P.S. also I like Olovetto's arguments.

Reply

Benjamin replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 11:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Rothbard's position (from Ethics of Liberty) is that parents may at any time repudiate their child, that is, refuse to care for it any longer.

Murray Rothbard: sociopath.

Followers of Murray Rothbard: also sociopaths?

"Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".^[8] He previously stated that: "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony"^[9]

^{- Dr. Robert Hare, on Sociopaths}

Reply

Sieben replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 11:56 AM

rated by 0 users

Libertarians also think children are not bound to their parents. I.e. they can choose who to live with. This is superior to simply chaining children and parents together, coercing parents if they don't love their child enough.

Reply

Benjamin replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 12:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Libertarians also think children are not bound to their parents. I.e. they can choose who to live with. This is superior to simply chaining children and parents together, coercing parents if they don't love their child enough.

Ha, so a six year old can go off and find new parents? How about a 2 year old? Admit it; that's just stupid.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 12:09 PM

rated by 0 users

If they cannot, then they cannot, would you make it worse by making laws and institutions against them so doing even if they could?

Reply

Sieben replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Benjamin:

Ha, so a six year old can go off and find new parents? How about a 2 year old? Admit it; that's just stupid.

Reply

Benjamin replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:08 PM

rated by 0 users

If they cannot, then they cannot, would you make it worse by making laws and institutions against them so doing even if they could?

Seriously?  No one's advocating laws against children, only a sociopath would advocate laws against children.

We might be talking about two different things here, but children can't survive on their own, are you sayin that parents should be free to leave their unwanted children on a rock to die?  Like in Sparta?

Reply

Benjamin replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:17 PM

rated by 0 users

"When babies were born in ancient Sparta, Spartan soldiers would come by the house and check the baby. If the baby did not appear healthy and strong, the infant was taken away, and left to die on a hillside, or taken away to be trained as a slave..."

So replace "soldiers" with "parents," and everything's Kosher?

What if the baby signed the slave contract?

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:34 PM

rated by 0 users

>>We might be talking about two different things here, but children can't survive on their own, are you sayin that parents should be free to leave their >>unwanted children on a rock to die?  Like in Sparta?

why does being left on a rock in the modern world mean 'left on a rock to die', particularly when there are hospitable people like yourself who can care for the child (if you want to).

When a baby is left on the church steps, 'they are left on a rock to die'.... ok....

Reply

Bohemian replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 2:23 PM

rated by 0 users

As a biochemist and molecular biologist, I have a bit different view on several of these arguments. To frame my statement, I need to clarify a few points.

1. Fetus as a parasite: While intuitive, this argument is not entirely true. A woman and fetus are actually a kind of chimera--two creatures fused into one. Two organisms with a singular intertwined body and will.
2. Life begins at birth vs conception: Life must begin at conception. To argue otherwise is to claim that you yourself are not alive as you read this. The same biochemical reactions occuring in a newly concieved fetus are really no different than those in your finger tips right now.
3. Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Only applies to sentient, concious life interacting with other sentient, concious life. Human vs. Non-human is irrelevant.

The Unborn

Every person (remember the distinction of person versus human) has the right to protect thier person, property, and liberty. If the fetus is unwanted, it may be removed because it is not a person. While it can exert will over the mother (hunger, distress, etc.), it does so in no more a fashion than any other recognized non-sentient, non-concious life. Late term aboritions are contentious, as the physiological condititions for conciousness and sentience exist, but have not been conclusively proven to be held (to my knowledge). Should it be proven, and at what point in the development, then the NAP must refute abortion at that point.

Infants

While no explicit contract between concious sentient beings, that does not dismiss obligation under the NAP. Should an individual's actions directly result in another person not being able to care for themselves (paralyzation in an auto accident for example), then the responsible party is beholden to compensate them to satisfaction. As the willfully conceiving parent is responsible for the infant's condition of being unable to care for itself, the willfully conceiving parent must accept responsibility until the child is considered capable. However, there are two flaws with this reasoning.

1. Many psychologists/biologists/physicians do not consider infants to possess conciousness/sentience until about 8 months old. This complicates person-hood.
2. The infant would be responsible for alleging damages, or securing a party to represent it in alleging damages that it cannot care for itself due directly because of the conciever. The premise is self-contradictory, and cannot be satisfied with conventional law. Assumptions implicitly *must* be made.

Childhood & Adolescence

The parent is beholden to care for the child, though the method of doing so was never stipulated. Therefore, while under the care of the parent, the child must accept absolute authority of the parent. However, should the child feel that the parent is not acting in its interests of protetion & care, then it may appeal to a third party for ajudication. This is not a one way street though. In doing so, the child may demonstrate ability to provide for its own interests to a satisfaction where parental care is no longer obligated.

Divergence into Adulthood

A child at any point may claim that its right to self determination. In revoking the authority of the parent, they also end any obligation of the parent. Likewise, a child unwilling to move out (26 year old dead-beat) could be forced to after an alleging parent proves that the child has the faculties capable of providing for itself.

This is how I regard the entire matter. The issue of the fetus being alive or human is irrelevant. The sole argument of importance is on personhood.