Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 100

Thread: Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

    Chances are you've never heard of it before... so keep an open mind please. It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go. Save the appeal to authority fallacies please, as well as the appeal to emotion.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
    — Unknown





    Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block).

    This is a brief introduction to the theory of Evictionism. Evictionism is the abortion "compromise". I have no strong feelings on this issue, I go where the logic goes. Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you first read the below... or you will more than likely appear foolish & arrogant. Why? Because the objection you just took a total of 10 seconds to think up, has more than likely been addressed in the article.

    • Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (pdf).
      *Pg 14 - IV. Introduction to the Compromise*
      *Pg 21 - V. Evictionism*
      *Pg 24 - VI. Compromise*
      *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*
      - Present tactic not working
      - Eviction is a compromise position
      - Moving from the present law
      - Eviction has not failed
      *Pg 33 - VIII. Implications*
      *Pg 35 - IX. Objections*
      - Transplant analogy misses the mark
      - Positive obligations
      - Returning stolen property
      - Endangerment
      - Plucking
      - Parental Rights
      *Pg 44 - X. Conclusion*
    • Also closely relevant is: Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: Children's rights (pdf)


    Edit:



    I’m not at all emotionally invested like those of the “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” brigade, I’m predominately interested in the logic of it - which position is to be considered just. As it stands - neither of those positions are, they are both partly ‘right’ and partly ‘wrong’. The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism [video]. For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article (where all your inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:


    • A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
      B. Eviction (pro property rights)
      C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)

      1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
      A. no
      B. no
      C. yes

      2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
      A. yes
      B. yes
      C. no

      3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
      A. yes
      B. no
      C. no

    I don’t think there’s any conflict between Hoppe’s position -he is simply giving the private law framework- and Block’s, where he is specifically giving what he considers to be the ‘libertarian law code’ response. Here’s a great diagram that encapsulates what is meant. There need not be just one ‘law code’ that individuals voluntarily sign up to adhere by, but the libertarian principles of ‘self-ownership’ and ‘original appropriation’ naturally lay the foundation.
    Last edited by Conza88; 12-24-2011 at 01:11 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Do we really need to rehash the abortion argument for the 9 billionth time and why does there have to be a "correct libertarian position"? Why can't people just believe what they want to believe on the issue?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails not_this_shit_again3.jpg  
    Last edited by jdmyprez_deo_vindice; 08-26-2011 at 02:29 AM.
    "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
    designed to make of their victory,
    there would have been no surrender at
    Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
    Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
    I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
    with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (D-Texas), 1870


  4. #3
    //
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails not_this_shit_again.jpg  
    Last edited by jdmyprez_deo_vindice; 08-26-2011 at 02:29 AM.
    "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
    designed to make of their victory,
    there would have been no surrender at
    Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
    Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
    I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
    with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (D-Texas), 1870


  5. #4
    To answer your question: Read the first line of the OP.If you're not interested in the discussion; then don't participate. Thank you for your useless contribution.

    Why put forward a solution to the problem of 'abortion'? Because this position is the answer to the demonic political 'debate' between two false 'solutions'. Irrational A versus irrational B. A third way, the libertarian way - imo, solves the issue. As a result it trumpets the awesomeness of libertarianism - it brings people together. That's what liberty does.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  6. #5
    The entire OP is an appeal to authority. heh

  7. #6
    Why can't you spell out the basics in a nutshell for those of us with too little time to check all the links and watch the video?
    No - No - No - No
    2016

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Chances are you've never heard of it before...
    I fall on the same side as Penn Jilette. First, there has to be symmetry in the law. If you are $#@!ing deader than Fanny's Fried Chicken when your brain stops (and therefore no longer a person), then you should be considered alive (for the purposes of personhood) when the brain starts. Abortion ONLY before that period is 'acceptable' in the sense that Block is right, viability. Evictionism at a later date, when the baby becomes viable enough to survive, minus significant degradation of life, is acceptable.

    The problem I have found, in my long harrangues with $#@! 'pro-choice' feminists on other boards (one of whom is a nurse) is they will not even REMOTELY consider this option. Its abortion on demand, at any point, no questions. To even consider a compromise is a defeat. I have tried the implicit contract, the non-aggression axiom and every other method I can think to try and cajole them. At least in my experience, nothing works. It could also be because of their age (mid-40s and up) that they have this so in-grained into their beliefs.

    I might also add that these people balked (reported my posts) when I posted images of dead Libyan children (called it unconscionable) to show exactly whom the targets were of their unflagging support for Obama's Libyan Air War. They, apparently, have qualms about seeing the horrific results of their actions.
    "Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken

    Μολὼν λάβε

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt


  9. #8
    Here's the conclusion of one of the appeals to authority that were in the OP. Since this is Ron Paul forums and we are in the middle of an election, it should be noted that this runs contrary to Ron Paul's stance. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and believes life begins at conception.

    We have attempted to explain the pro-life and pro-choice positions and to discuss their strong and weak points. We described a compromise, called evictionism, and showed how it is a true intermediary between the two more well-known positions on abortion. We have demonstrated how it can be justified, while they cannot.

    The key to the solution is to focus on the private property rights in question. In this case, it is the mother's womb;given that the fetus is unwanted, it is in effect a trespasser, or a parasite. The mother, then, has a right to evict it - in the gentlest manner possible - but not to kill it, if technology permits her not to do so.

    What remains, on a practical level, is to enact legislation based on this libertarian philosophy. That, in our opinion, constitutes the last best hope for saving millions of innocents from merciless slaughter, without in the slightest violating the rights of any pregnant woman.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    The entire OP is an appeal to authority. heh
    You must have missed the part where I linked to the arguments contained in the journal article... or those put forward in the video.

    Your entire post is an accurate portrayal of your ignorance when it comes to logic and fallacies. heh

    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    Why can't you spell out the basics in a nutshell for those of us with too little time to check all the links and watch the video?
    Because I don't think I'd do the argument justice... i.e it wouldn't be as good you actually reading said article where it is all spelt out.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Here's the conclusion of one of the appeals to authority that were in the OP. Since this is Ron Paul forums and we are in the middle of an election, it should be noted that this runs contrary to Ron Paul's stance. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and believes life begins at conception.
    I understand this is not Ron Paul's position... yes, hence me making clear I'm not interested in any appeals to authority, which is a fallacy. I'm interested in the truth. And yet so is Ron Paul!

    I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

    So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 04:51 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    You must have missed the part where I linked to the arguments contained in the journal article... or those put forward in the video.
    No, I saw them and they were nothing more than your very own appeal to authority. lol

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No, I saw them and they were nothing more than your very own appeal to authority. lol
    Where did I make an appeal to authority?

    Spell it out. Where did I say "because Walter Block says this, as he's an expert, it is right." Where?

    /Let the lesson in logic commence. The irony is; you're the one who is guilty.

    Why must nearly every thread I create; attract trolls such as yourself? Why must I deal with individuals unable to understand basic logic?

    What are your thoughts on the article LE?
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 04:56 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  14. #12
    In summary, Conza believes that fetuses are parasites and believes the law should allow babies to be evicted at any point in time. If technology exists which can keep them living, great; otherwise, let the little sucker die.

    Does that about wrap it up, Conza?
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 08-26-2011 at 05:01 AM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Where did I make an appeal to authority?

    Spell it out. Where did I say "because Walter Block says this, as he's an expert, it is right." Where?

    /Let the lesson in logic commence. The irony is; you're the one who is guilty.


    You prefaced your appeals to authority with the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Chances are you've never heard of it before... so keep an open mind please. It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go.
    .

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    What are your thoughts on the article LE?
    I do not agree with letting the baby die.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    You prefaced your appeals to authority with the following:.
    LOL!

    Yes, because of the arguments contained within the article [which you haven't read]. The logical reasoning put forward there. I didn't appeal to anyone, or anything and you failed to show I did. Apologise please.

    What are you thoughts on the article LE? What is wrong with it? Where does the author error?

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I do not agree with letting the baby die.
    Neither do I. That's why I'm against abortion and for evictionism. I want to try keep the baby alive.

    Do you agree with using force against the mother?
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 05:03 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    LOL!

    Yes, because of the arguments contained within the article [which you haven't read]. The logical reasoning put forward there. I didn't appeal to anyone, or anything and you failed to show I did. Apologise please.
    How funny. You specifically state that you believe that what you are getting ready to post reflects your own belief.
    It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go.
    And then you proceed to provide the links, which are your appeals to authority. Nowhere did you summarize your personal beliefs other than to imply that you agree with them; apparently, preferring to let your authority figures speak for you.

    What are you thoughts on the article LE? What is wrong with it? Where does the author error?
    I already posted what I thought about the article.

    You, however, have not responded to my summary of it.

    Edited to include Conza's latest edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Neither do I. That's why I'm against abortion and for evictionism. I want to try keep the baby alive.
    But, if it is too young for technology to keep them alive, too bad, so sad, eh?

    Do you agree with using force against the mother?
    Of course not. However, if she commits murder, she should be held accountable for her actions.

    Do you not believe in accountability for murder, Conza?
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 08-26-2011 at 05:22 AM. Reason: Edited to include a response to Conza's latest edit.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

    So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.
    Doubtful, since he believes life begins at conception. lol

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    How funny. You specifically state that you believe that what you are getting ready to post reflects your own belief.

    And then you proceed to provide the links, which are your appeals to authority. Nowhere did you summarize your personal beliefs other than to imply that you agree with them; apparently, preferring to let your authority figures speak for you.
    A link = authority figure? Hahaha , that is your contention? Do you not understand what an "authority figure" is? Do you not understand basic English? I let the arguments I referred to in the OP speak for me yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I already posted what I thought about the article.

    You, however, have not responded to my summary of it.
    You asked a question about what I thought of your summary. The summary you provided was gleaned from the video only was it not? Hence the non existence to any reference of text.

    You didn't offer a response to the article, you didn't offer a rebuttal or critique. You didn't offer your thoughts as to why it is right, or wrong.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  22. #19
    Yeah he absolutely right

    I've used this arguement before but never so succinctly

    It is the true libertarian position

    But it'd classify it as pro choice

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Doubtful, since he believes life begins at conception. lol
    "Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.137 But the fertilized egg most certainly would become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.138 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.

    So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species.139" ~ Excerpt from article, pg17, Walter Block.


    So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying? Don't say I didn't warn you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you first read the below... or you will more than likely appear foolish & arrogant. Why? Because the objection you just took a total of 10 seconds to think up, has more than likely been addressed in the article.
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 05:34 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    A link = authority figure? Hahaha , that is your contention? Do you not understand what an "authority figure" is? Do you not understand basic English?
    lol. Typical Conza. Insult, if all else fails.

    I let the arguments I referred to in the OP speak for me yes.
    Yes, we know. lol

    You asked a question about what I thought of your summary. The summary you provided was gleaned from the video only was it not? Hence the non existence to any reference of text.
    Wrong.

    You didn't offer a response to the article, you didn't offer a rebuttal or critique. You didn't offer your thoughts as to why it is right, or wrong.
    Oh, yes I did. And guess what, they were my own words. I didn't have to provide a link to express my own views.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Wrong.
    Wrong? Imo, you're a liar. Because if you had actually read the article; you wouldn't have made this most basic error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

    So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Doubtful, since he [Ron Paul] believes life begins at conception. lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    "Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.137 But the fertilized egg most certainly would become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.138 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.

    So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species.139" ~ Excerpt from article, pg17, Walter Block.

    So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying?
    Explain that thanks... Ron Paul believes life begins at conception; so do evictionist supporters... / Walter Block... so tell me again why you doubt Ron Paul may not be swayed on the issue? Let the spin commence... lol

    A suggestion: actually read the article this time before commenting.
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 05:43 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying? Don't say I didn't warn you:
    Warn me of what? That you would use more quotes as a substitute for putting your own views into words? No surprise there. lol

    The difference in what Block believes is that he apparently thinks it is fine to let the baby die, if technology does not exist to keep it alive and continuing to develop outside of the womb. To my knowledge, technology does not exist that will keep an embryo alive. Are you aware of any, Conza?

    How would that square with Paul's belief that life begins at conception and should not be ended?
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 08-26-2011 at 05:42 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Wrong? Imo, you're a liar.
    Yes, wrong.

    How very surprising. Another insult from Conza.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    It only took 4 seconds --- The power of the rationalizing mind is amazing!
    an evictionist: I'm not killing the baby,look, its just squirming around on the floor, it can do as it pleases, and it is...can't you see?
    That mans mind is diseased with selfishness.

    TMike
    Last edited by TruckinMike; 08-26-2011 at 05:49 AM.
    “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yes, wrong.

    How very surprising. Another insult from Conza.
    No argument, just a baseless assertion contrary to all evidence. LE, you didn't explain... you just asserted, as if that is enough - it isn't. How embarrassing...

    How very unsurprising... another dodge. LE; if someone actually is lying, then calling them a liar is merely a statement of fact. I've provided evidence that results in the conclusion that you didn't actually read the entire document; because if you had - you wouldn't have made such a foolish mistake. Explain that.

    There is no value judgement on my behalf... if however, you value the truth.. as do I.. then it's not good to be a liar.

    The solution? Don't tell lies.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  31. #27

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by TruckinMike View Post
    It only took 4 seconds --- The power of the rationalizing mind is amazing!
    an evictionist: I'm not killing the baby,look, its just squirming around on the floor, it can do as it pleases, and it is...can't you see?
    That mans mind is diseased with selfishness.
    TMike
    Ad hominem fallacy, quite literally at the end. In terms of your take on what an evictionist would say... wrong & that is a strawman. If you understood the position; you'd know this because you'd have read this:


    "Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another person, e.g., Thompson's143 by now famous violinist, through your kidneys. You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an operation connecting that person to your kidneys through a sort of umbilical chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the permission or even knowledge of either "patient."

    What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist? First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent. Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were "raped," but this was not done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have since vanished from the scene. What you are confronted with is the result of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your kidneys144 completely dependent upon you for his life.

    What can you do with this person? Suppose he goes back to sleep and is thus totally helpless. Can you just slit his throat? That would be murder and must therefore be opposed.145 Killing him is aggressive; it constitutes initiatory violence. Even if you can get away with it on practical grounds, it should certainly not be allowed on the basis of legal principles.

    What can you do? Do you have to let him stay attached for nine months or for any particular length of time? Instead of slitting his throat, can you sever the connection between the two of you - which would also cause his death? If you did that, you would still be guilty of the initiation of coercion, surely a crime, specifically murder. What you must do is notify somebody - the association "Friends of Kidney Victims" or a hospital or the Salvation Army or the Church and have them sever the connection between you two, without thereby killing this dependant.

    If a parent abandons a newborn in the woods or shoves a five-year-old out into a blizzard, he is doing something akin to that of slitting the chord between you and the kidney victim who is attached to you. It is incumbent upon the individual to at least make a phone call to an orphanage, or put the child on the proverbial Church steps,146 or be in touch with whatever organization functions in this capacity in any given society. It is only if no help is forthcoming from any such quarter that these actions can possibly not be interpreted as murder."
    ~ Excerpt, Walter Block, page 20.
    For an extension of this point; see the second article I cited in the OP that should be read. Should have used those extra 6 seconds Mike .

    LE, what is your critique or rebuttal? Read the actual article yet?
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-26-2011 at 06:59 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  32. #28
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3333271

    :P

    A few years ago I was completely unsatisfied with the arguments given on both sides of the isle, and couldn't grasp how to resolve the issue. Not cool with the wholesale thought that a fetus was somehow irrelevant until the moment they pop out, or that women must be forced to carry to term. That was one of the first papers I read when learning about libertarianism, and it really struck me how powerful applying libertarian principles and logic could solve some of life's most difficult problems in what is the most conscientious way possible, as far as I'm concerned.

    It's unfortunate that we don't have the technology to save many fetuses, but we're continually getting better at it.

    It was also unfortunate that children had to work to support their families (and they still do in poorer places), but the more prosperous we grow, the more trivial these problems become.

    We need to work towards market solutions to problems, rather than relying on the use of force to solve them.
    Last edited by noneedtoaggress; 08-26-2011 at 07:32 AM.

  33. #29
    I am staunchly pro-life, and I agree with Block's assessment, but for a reason, and on a condition.

    http://mises.org/daily/4276

    "By 1860, there were more than 55,000 physicians practicing in the United States, one of the highest per capita numbers of doctors in the world (about 175 per 100,000). By 1870, approximately 62,000 physicians were in practice in the United States, roughly about 5,300 of which were homeopathic and about 2,700 eclectic...
    ...Schooling was plentiful and inexpensive, and entry to the most acclaimed schools was not exceedingly difficult."
    "Wolinsky and Brune (1994) report that doctors were firmly in the lower middle class at the time of the AMA's founding and made about $600 per year. "

    Under market conditions, the type of people who would enter medicine - i.e., the type of people who would voluntarily enter a grueling regimen of study that wouldn't stop after entering the workforce, for very little monetary reward - are not the type of people who would choose a profession which involves regularly watching a living fetus suffocate on the floor. The economic incentive for entering the field would not be money. It would be ethics.

    In short, the "correct" libertarian position is not a scenario that would occur - at least not with regularity - if the market pressured medical practitioners to take the Hippocratic Oath seriously.
    Last edited by fisharmor; 08-26-2011 at 07:40 AM.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  34. #30
    When it comes to moral issues, appeal to authority is not a fallacy. The basis of all ethics is the authoritative fiat in phrases such as "Thou shalt not."

    I don't claim to know anything at all about what it means to be a libertarian.

    But it's incorrect to presume that a woman's body is solely her property. Other people also own property in her body, especially her children, for whom she is obligated to care. To say otherwise would not only allow for abortion, but also abandonment of one's children (as Rothbard admits is to be allowed according to his approach to ethics). This is plainly contrary to basic and incontrovertible principles of morality.

    This is a non-fallacious appeal to an authority that every human recognizes, especially those who have kids.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Can Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism Peacefully Cohabit an Anarchic Society?
    By Quark in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:16 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 10:58 AM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 10:09 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •