4 ms·

> Thus there is no necessarily libertarian take on abortion. This does not follow. There are various ways to approach a libertarian position on the morality of

> Thus there is no necessarily libertarian take on abortion. This does not follow. There are various ways to approach a libertarian position on the morality of abortion per se which don't devolve into "striking a balance" between conflicting rights (a decidedly non-libertarian concept; natural rights are all negative rights, which do not conflict), but in the end it doesn't matter because there is only one entity involved with both the ability and the standing to justly apply either defensive or retributive force in response to a threatened or actual infringement of their rights, and that is the woman having the abortion. Anyone else using violence to either stop the abortion or punish the woman for having it would be in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, as they are neither directly harmed by it nor acting with the informed consent of, and under the direction of, any party who was harmed. > The true libertarian solution here would be something like school vouchers… The "true libertarian solution" here would be private schools, with 100% private funding. Though of course anything that allows for more choice in where students can receive their education and what they are allowed to learn represents a step in the right direction, all else being equal.

akavi 4y ago
As someone who is strongly pro-choice, this strikes me as begging the question. > There is only one entity involved with both the ability and the standing to justly apply either defensive or retributive force in response to a threatened or actual infringement of their rights Presumably your stance here is that the fetus does not have the ability to apply defensive or retributive force, and therefore has no right to it. This seems to suggest you hold a "might makes right" morality: If someone isn't able to defend themselves, then they have no right to. Taken to its logical end, wouldn't this imply that any murder would not be immoral, since if someone was not able to defend themself from murder, then there is no violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?
- nybble41 4y ago
  > Presumably your stance here is that the fetus does not have the ability to apply defensive or retributive force, and therefore has no right to it. No, that "therefore" does not follow. One does not lose a right just because one lacks the power to exercise it. The fetus would not be wrong to employ violence to resist any attempt to kill it—though even putting it in those terms presumes a degree of conscious decision-making and self-ownership which is not in evidence. > Taken to its logical end, wouldn't this imply that any murder would not be immoral…? No. To begin with, I never said that abortion wasn't immoral or a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Both of those are debatable; from a libertarian point of view the answer to the latter question hinges on whether the fetus can claim self-ownership, which presumes a degree of conscious control and responsibility for the effect of one's actions on others. That is all quite abstract, however, because in practical terms it would be a violation of the NAP for anyone else to intervene. An adult, or even a young child, who found themselves harmed or threatened with harm could consent to allow someone else to fight on their behalf; or, just as importantly, could withhold that consent. (For example, they could be a pacifist and believe that fighting back would be immoral.) In the case of a murder one could look to a will or the like as evidence of the victim's wishes. For an abortion, however, there is no such evidence. Anyone responding to it with force is doing so entirely on their own, and not in self-defense, which makes them the aggressor.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>but in the end it doesn't matter because there is only one entity involved with both the ability and the standing to justly apply either defensive or retributive force in response to a threatened or actual infringement of their rights Standing is where the Libertarian argument collapses. It is the age old question of when does a human have standing and a right to life. Can you kill your 5 year old child, 1 year old, 9 month fetus, 15 week, fetus, ect? There is no clear libertarian or scientific answer for when rights and "standing" enter the human body. You extended the NAP to requiring direction or awareness from the harmed party, but there is the matter of time. Would the harmed party in this case object if given time and awareness? If you shoot someone before they object, do they have no standing? If you poison them secretly, without knowledge to object, do they have no standing?
- nybble41 4y ago
  > It is the age old question of when does a human have standing and a right to life. Anything that is harmed has standing, human or not, conscious or not. A tree has standing to fight back when it's threatened with an axe. The fetus certainly has standing here. What it lacks is the ability to act on it, or to request or consent to someone else acting on it. Not only physically but developmentally, it lacks the capacity to make conscious, intentional, deliberate choices and take responsibility for the consequences. Likewise for "right to life"—the right to respond with defensive force against aggression which threatens your life. It has the right to defend its own life but not the ability. > You extended the NAP to requiring direction or awareness from the harmed party… I didn't "extend" anything. The NAP is a convention which applies only between self-owners, as otherwise action affecting any lifeform (cattle, plants, …), or even non-living matter, without its "consent" (assuming that's even possible) could be read as a violation of the NAP. The question of whether the "harmed party" does in fact have the quality of self-ownership is thus relevant. Whether an entity has self-ownership is determined by its ability (and will) to make choices and take responsibility for their consequences. This, by the way, is the root of the justification for employing defensive force: Deliberately causing harm to others, or failing to take responsibility for unintended consequences of one's actions, undermines one's status as a self-owner, thus placing one outside the protection of the NAP. The relationship changes from that of two self-owners to that of a human actor and a harmful element of their environment. > Would the harmed party in this case object if given time and awareness? Would the tree object to being cut down if we found some way to endow it with consciousness and the ability to communicate? Perhaps, but that isn't the situation we actually find ourselves in, and it won't happen unless someone puts in the effort to make it happen. > If you shoot someone before they object…? If you poison them secretly, without knowledge to object…? Obviously they have standing, but that isn't really the point since they're dead and can't do anything about it. They have a (posthumous) right to restitution and retribution in either case. The question is whether they delegated the enforcement of that right to someone else (which could be "anyone" or a specific person or group) before they were killed. If not, that doesn't imply that the victim didn't have a right to live or that it wasn't wrong to kill them, but it does mean it would be wrong for someone else who wasn't harmed to initiate violence unilaterally against their killer, when they can't rationally claim to be acting for the victim in accordance with their wishes.

akavi 4y ago

As someone who is strongly pro-choice, this strikes me as begging the question. > There is only one entity involved with both the ability and the standing to justly apply either defensive or retributive force in response to a threatened or actual infringement of their rights Presumably your stance here is that the fetus does not have the ability to apply defensive or retributive force, and therefore has no right to it. This seems to suggest you hold a "might makes right" morality: If someone isn't able to defend themselves, then they have no right to. Taken to its logical end, wouldn't this imply that any murder would not be immoral, since if someone was not able to defend themself from murder, then there is no violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

nybble41 4y ago
> Presumably your stance here is that the fetus does not have the ability to apply defensive or retributive force, and therefore has no right to it. No, that "therefore" does not follow. One does not lose a right just because one lacks the power to exercise it. The fetus would not be wrong to employ violence to resist any attempt to kill it—though even putting it in those terms presumes a degree of conscious decision-making and self-ownership which is not in evidence. > Taken to its logical end, wouldn't this imply that any murder would not be immoral…? No. To begin with, I never said that abortion wasn't immoral or a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Both of those are debatable; from a libertarian point of view the answer to the latter question hinges on whether the fetus can claim self-ownership, which presumes a degree of conscious control and responsibility for the effect of one's actions on others. That is all quite abstract, however, because in practical terms it would be a violation of the NAP for anyone else to intervene. An adult, or even a young child, who found themselves harmed or threatened with harm could consent to allow someone else to fight on their behalf; or, just as importantly, could withhold that consent. (For example, they could be a pacifist and believe that fighting back would be immoral.) In the case of a murder one could look to a will or the like as evidence of the victim's wishes. For an abortion, however, there is no such evidence. Anyone responding to it with force is doing so entirely on their own, and not in self-defense, which makes them the aggressor.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>but in the end it doesn't matter because there is only one entity involved with both the ability and the standing to justly apply either defensive or retributive force in response to a threatened or actual infringement of their rights Standing is where the Libertarian argument collapses. It is the age old question of when does a human have standing and a right to life. Can you kill your 5 year old child, 1 year old, 9 month fetus, 15 week, fetus, ect? There is no clear libertarian or scientific answer for when rights and "standing" enter the human body. You extended the NAP to requiring direction or awareness from the harmed party, but there is the matter of time. Would the harmed party in this case object if given time and awareness? If you shoot someone before they object, do they have no standing? If you poison them secretly, without knowledge to object, do they have no standing?

nybble41 4y ago
> It is the age old question of when does a human have standing and a right to life. Anything that is harmed has standing, human or not, conscious or not. A tree has standing to fight back when it's threatened with an axe. The fetus certainly has standing here. What it lacks is the ability to act on it, or to request or consent to someone else acting on it. Not only physically but developmentally, it lacks the capacity to make conscious, intentional, deliberate choices and take responsibility for the consequences. Likewise for "right to life"—the right to respond with defensive force against aggression which threatens your life. It has the right to defend its own life but not the ability. > You extended the NAP to requiring direction or awareness from the harmed party… I didn't "extend" anything. The NAP is a convention which applies only between self-owners, as otherwise action affecting any lifeform (cattle, plants, …), or even non-living matter, without its "consent" (assuming that's even possible) could be read as a violation of the NAP. The question of whether the "harmed party" does in fact have the quality of self-ownership is thus relevant. Whether an entity has self-ownership is determined by its ability (and will) to make choices and take responsibility for their consequences. This, by the way, is the root of the justification for employing defensive force: Deliberately causing harm to others, or failing to take responsibility for unintended consequences of one's actions, undermines one's status as a self-owner, thus placing one outside the protection of the NAP. The relationship changes from that of two self-owners to that of a human actor and a harmful element of their environment. > Would the harmed party in this case object if given time and awareness? Would the tree object to being cut down if we found some way to endow it with consciousness and the ability to communicate? Perhaps, but that isn't the situation we actually find ourselves in, and it won't happen unless someone puts in the effort to make it happen. > If you shoot someone before they object…? If you poison them secretly, without knowledge to object…? Obviously they have standing, but that isn't really the point since they're dead and can't do anything about it. They have a (posthumous) right to restitution and retribution in either case. The question is whether they delegated the enforcement of that right to someone else (which could be "anyone" or a specific person or group) before they were killed. If not, that doesn't imply that the victim didn't have a right to live or that it wasn't wrong to kill them, but it does mean it would be wrong for someone else who wasn't harmed to initiate violence unilaterally against their killer, when they can't rationally claim to be acting for the victim in accordance with their wishes.