I've read an excerpt from Rothbard where he argues that when it'll be possible to grow people by artificial means (e.g. in tanks) it should be moral to cut the supply of oxygen/whatever to the said growing human.
While it sounds disgusting I can see some logic here - owner of the tank can do anything he wants with his property.
While we don't have human breeding machines yet, we have rooms with doors. Is it moral to lock a child (or an adult) in a room and let him starve to death?
O_Brien:While we don't have human breeding machines yet, we have rooms with doors. Is it moral to lock a child (or an adult) in a room and let him starve to death?
I believe Block addresses this the best;
Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property abandonment: children's rights
Very interesting. An excerpt from the piece:First, suppose that the parents are willing to notify others of their impending abandonment oftheir baby, but set up roadblocks against anyone else taking over care of it. Forexample, they announce to the world that they are trying to set up a reductio toembarrass the libertarian philosophy. To this end they are going to leave thebaby in his crib, and not feed or diaper bin To those who wish to adopt thisbaby they say: The baby is in his crib. The crib is in our house. This house isprivate property: you cannot have access to it". Picture hundreds of would becaretakers surrounding these parent's house, all of them willing to adopt thebaby, but she insists, based upon her property rights in this dwelling, that all ofthem stay out while the baby dies of stanation.
Does this rectuctio suceed Not at all. Apart from the pragmatic fact thatmost others in society would severely boycott such a couple, there is the pointthat they would be guilty of forestalling the homesteading of property (eg. thebaby) which is no longer owned. This would be in direct and blatantcontradiction to the libertarian homesteading theory which oversees the bringing in to ownership of virgin territory, not the shielding of it from those who wish to homestead it.
Ordinarily, in the case of forestalling new ownership of land which has beenabandoned, not allowing newcomers to one's own property (the donut)for this purpose would be equivalent to land theft, and punished accordingly.But in the present case what is being shielded from homesteading is not land,but rather a baby. This would be equivalent to murder, and those responsiblefor be treated very severely.Sounds convincing but let us imagine this same scenario, but where this couple lives at a very remote place that it takes days, even weeks to reach. What if they announce their intention to abandon the baby and offering it up for homesteading, but the baby dies from lack of care, albeit there were people willing to adopt it and were on their way already, but were not able to reach the house in time. Would the couple be guilty of a crime? Anybody wishes to address this?
Marko:Sounds convincing but let us imagine this same scenario, but where this couple lives at a very remote place that it takes days, even weeks to reach. What if they announce their intention to abandon the baby and offering it up for homesteading, but the baby dies from lack of care, albeit there were people willing to adopt it and were on their way already, but were not able to reach the house in time. Would the couple be guilty of a crime? Anybody wishes to address this?
It sounds like you are grappling with a continuum problem. What does the local custom announce? Is it common to have dispersed networks of homes in this area?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Ehm... lets say all people live in urban areas, but this couple is the exception and lives secluded in a very remote area. And the local custom does not announce anything. People don`t often abandon babies so no custom has developed.Does that clarify things?
Generalized attempt to refute libertarianism: "What if scenario X where being a libertarian was bad?"
(Note this applies to all dogmas. "What if scenario X where being Y was bad?" The only case in which this is false is when Y is defined as "good".)So the whole example presupposes that libertarianism is meant to be an objective and exclusive piece of ethics. While some libertarians claim this, I believe that libertarianism reflects some but not all of what we believe is moral.
Some people make a distinction between libertarianism, which is objectively ethical, and emotive impulse, which is aesthetic. This doesn't really demonstrate anything though, as to an agent objective ethics might be more or less important than aesthetics. Any attempt to resolve this competition between ideas will undoubtedly have to come through objective ethics, which makes resolution circular. We all supplement or behavior with other than the libertarian code. I wouldn't worry about it if ethical conflicts like the OP arise. Some of them can be solved through a clarification of libertarianism, but obviously people can go on changing the "what-if" until they get the answer they want. So lets opt for a meta-analysis like this :P
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Snowflake: Generalized attempt to refute libertarianism: "What if scenario X where being a libertarian was bad?" (Note this applies to all dogmas. "What if scenario X where being Y was bad?" The only case in which this is false is when Y is defined as "good".)
(Note this applies to all dogmas. "What if scenario X where being Y was bad?" The only case in which this is false is when Y is defined as "good".)
People who offer those responses are usually not prone to critical thinking. It is the epitome of the lazy, anti-intellectual approach IMO.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap