3 ms·

There is definitely an autistically propertarian argument in favor of abortion, which I personally consider fairly compelling, but 99.9% of people are not nearl

by wyager 4y ago

There is definitely an autistically propertarian argument in favor of abortion, which I personally consider fairly compelling, but 99.9% of people are not nearly as propertarian as I am, and I'm not willing to give people a pass to use this kind of reasoning selectively. If you support abortion rights on these grounds and you're not also 100% on board with laws that let you e.g. shoot burglars, you're not being consistent. A lot of people using this argument were also pro-vaccine-mandate, which is similarly inconsistent. (Not calling out you personally, just using "you" to refer to the hypothetical flip-flop.)

AlexandrB 4y ago
If the vaccine has side effects similar to that of an average pregnancy it would not only not be mandatory, but would have failed FDA trials and would be illegal to administer. There's a line somewhere between total bodily autonomy and being compelled by the state to experience: nausea, swelling, muscle and back pain, weight gain, incontinence, depression, and laceration to you genitals.
- wyager 4y ago
  You're failing the "consistent propertarian" test hard
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Thanks, I think? I'm not sure why it's necessary to consider one's body "property" to advocate for having some semblance of control over what happens to it. And it's pretty obvious this right is not absolute since parents are still allowed to circumcise their children and sign off on medical procedures done to them.
    - wyager 4y ago
      My original comment is not addressed at people like you; sorry if that was not clear. You don't appear to be claiming to have a property ethic, and are instead using various ad-hoc lines of reasoning (e.g. what strikes you as qualitatively more or less onerous). > parents are still allowed to circumcise their children Indeed, propertarianism where parents do not own their children would also proscribe surgically mutilating them, for example. However, parents would not necessarily be obligated to take care of their children; this is also the basis by which abortion would be permitted. Propertarianism where parents do own their children (which strikes me as unreasonable) would a fortiori also allow abortion, as well as other more universally reviled practices such as post-birth infanticide.
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        Ah, interesting, thank you. How does propertarianism deal with my example of parents making medical decisions on behalf of children? It seems like an interesting quandary because a 1 year old can't be expected to make an informed decision on vaccination (for example) and so some control over the child's body must rest with the parents.
        wyager 4y ago
        I can imagine several strategies compatible with western and near-eastern jurisprudence, such as considering parents to be (temporary) trustees with certain fiduciary duties to their children. I'm by no means an expert in propertarian theory; I just think it's a nice framework for bodily autonomy in particular, since it's computationally efficient, fairly unambiguous, and generally provides agreeable results.

by wyager 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago

If the vaccine has side effects similar to that of an average pregnancy it would not only not be mandatory, but would have failed FDA trials and would be illegal to administer. There's a line somewhere between total bodily autonomy and being compelled by the state to experience: nausea, swelling, muscle and back pain, weight gain, incontinence, depression, and laceration to you genitals.

wyager 4y ago
You're failing the "consistent propertarian" test hard
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Thanks, I think? I'm not sure why it's necessary to consider one's body "property" to advocate for having some semblance of control over what happens to it. And it's pretty obvious this right is not absolute since parents are still allowed to circumcise their children and sign off on medical procedures done to them.
  - wyager 4y ago
    My original comment is not addressed at people like you; sorry if that was not clear. You don't appear to be claiming to have a property ethic, and are instead using various ad-hoc lines of reasoning (e.g. what strikes you as qualitatively more or less onerous). > parents are still allowed to circumcise their children Indeed, propertarianism where parents do not own their children would also proscribe surgically mutilating them, for example. However, parents would not necessarily be obligated to take care of their children; this is also the basis by which abortion would be permitted. Propertarianism where parents do own their children (which strikes me as unreasonable) would a fortiori also allow abortion, as well as other more universally reviled practices such as post-birth infanticide.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      Ah, interesting, thank you. How does propertarianism deal with my example of parents making medical decisions on behalf of children? It seems like an interesting quandary because a 1 year old can't be expected to make an informed decision on vaccination (for example) and so some control over the child's body must rest with the parents.
      - wyager 4y ago
        I can imagine several strategies compatible with western and near-eastern jurisprudence, such as considering parents to be (temporary) trustees with certain fiduciary duties to their children. I'm by no means an expert in propertarian theory; I just think it's a nice framework for bodily autonomy in particular, since it's computationally efficient, fairly unambiguous, and generally provides agreeable results.