Libertarianism Fails Logical Scrutiny - A Proof

[jmdrake]

WHEREAS CHILDREN DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN;

Actually, you do know that sperm fight each other for the chance to fertilize the ovum right? So....technically children DO choose to be born. Oh, and the fertilized ovum could "choose" not to attach itself to the uterine wall. For all you know, every miscarriage is the result of a baby "choosing" not to be born. So those who actually go full term made the "choice" to be born. Technically your argument only applies (maybe) to artificial insemination (parents choose which embryos to implant) and possibly only to babies that may later be grown in an artificial woman. (No chance for a baby to "choose" not to attach itself to the uterine wall). So your conclusion should be "Libertarians may not use artificial means to have children". It's still a stupid conclusion, but it at least could be argued.

[Ronin Truth]

Stupid argument is stupid. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, society it justified in making the most rational choice based on the available evidence. No libertarian has ever argued, for example, that it's a violation of NAP to give the property of a deceased person who didn't leave a will or set up a living trust to that person's closest living relative. Now, if you found a will, and that person made his wishes known, to violate those wishes, even if you didn't think those wishes were rational, is a violation of NAP. If a millionaire dies and leaves all of his money to a stripper instead of to his wife and minor kids, he may be an $#@!, but according to NAP, and according to U.S. law, he has a right to do that. (I don't know if someone can posthumously be hit up for child support). But if he didn't leave a will, the stripper wouldn't be able to say "Not fair! You don't KNOW he wouldn't leave me anything. Therefore you are violating his rights!"

I think the OP's problem is he's trying to apply idiotic liberal thinking of "helping people who haven't asked for it" (the hypothetical unborn child who may not want to be born) to reality. That and he believes that using all caps and repeating the same stupid argument over and over again somehow makes it right.

Are any provisions being made for the unborn child that doesn't want to be aborted? Or the 50 million since Roe v. Wade, that probably didn't. Just curious.

[jmdrake]

Are any provisions being made for the unborn child that doesn't want to be aborted? Or the 50 million since Roe v. Wade, that probably didn't. Just curious.

True. Apparently in the OPs twisted mind it is only wrong to force children to live but perfectly okay to force them to die.

[idiom]

No libertarian has ever argued, for example, that it's a violation of NAP to give the property of a deceased person who didn't leave a will or set up a living trust to that person's closest living relative. Now, if you found a will, and that person made his wishes known, to violate those wishes, even if you didn't think those wishes were rational, is a violation of NAP. If a millionaire dies and leaves all of his money to a stripper instead of to his wife and minor kids, he may be an $#@!, but according to NAP, and according to U.S. law, he has a right to do that. (I don't know if someone can posthumously be hit up for child support). But if he didn't leave a will, the stripper wouldn't be able to say "Not fair! You don't KNOW he wouldn't leave me anything. Therefore you are violating his rights!"

Rothbard, among others, has pointed out that a dead person can't be party to a contract or the NAP.

Its a problem with property defined as that which is actively being homesteaded. Once you're dead, all bets are off.

[presence]

Dude this thread $#@!in' rocks!





DO YOU EVER SEE IT...
FROM OUTSIDE YOUR FEARS?
THINKING ABOUT YOUR LIFE!!!
THINKING ABOUT YOUR INNER FEARS!!!

WHEREAS CHILDREN....
DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN!!!

WHEREAS A PARENT'S CHOICE...
TO HAVE A CHILD!!!

AMOUNTS TO A FORCEFUL MANDATE...
ON A CHILD'S LIFE!!!

DURING HIS/HER PERIOD...
OF DEPENDENCE!!!

WHEREAS LIBERTARIANISM...
REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO NON-AGGRESSION!!!

THEREFORE LIBERTARIANS...
CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN!!!

I WANT TO SEE THE LIFE YOU HAVE DISGUISED
THE WORLD OF THINGS THAT HURT YOU
KEPT ALL THESE USELESS LIES
I WANT YOU TO FEAR,
FILL YOU ON UP INSIDE
ONCE I TOOK YOU IN,
I'LL THROW YOU OUT NEXT TIME

I TRIED,

YOU WIN

[osan]

WHEREAS CHILDREN DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN;

Assertion of fact no in evidence. Über-FAIL.

WHEREAS A PARENT"S CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD AMOUNTS TO A FORCEFUL MANDATE ON A CHILD'S LIFE DURING HIS/HER PERIOD OF DEPENDENCE;

This is just stupid, but why don't you regale us with the mandate in question?

WHEREAS LIBERTARIANISM REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO NON-AGGRESSION;

THEREFORE LIBERTARIANS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN.

It seems apparent you have never studied logic, formally. If you have, you need to seek out the instructor and shoot the life out of them... or perhaps yourself, I cannot quite tell for sure. Your syllogism is pure FAIL. If you want an analysis of why and how, send me a check for $1000.00 and I will oblige you.

[jmdrake]

Rothbard, among others, has pointed out that a dead person can't be party to a contract or the NAP.

Its a problem with property defined as that which is actively being homesteaded. Once you're dead, all bets are off.

Okay. Change my example to someone who is non responsive but alive. The person doesn't have a living will. His prospects for recovery are decent at this point. Most sane people would assume that giving such a person medical treatment does not violate NAP. The OP, apparently, would disagree.

[idiom]

Okay. Change my example to someone who is non responsive but alive. The person doesn't have a living will. His prospects for recovery are decent at this point. Most sane people would assume that giving such a person medical treatment does not violate NAP. The OP, apparently, would disagree.

Its a bit of a soft spot in NAP theory. Its sort of just assumed that unconscious people who will be conscious again still have NAP protection.

From first principles though, the NAP seems to only apply to people who are awake at the time.

[Spikender]

Only six posts and already my favorite troll so far.

This one is a keeper. I'll take him over 56K or that guy whose name starts with a B, that's for sure.

[ProIndividual]

WHEREAS CHILDREN DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN;
WHEREAS A PARENT"S CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD AMOUNTS TO A FORCEFUL MANDATE ON A CHILD'S LIFE DURING HIS/HER PERIOD OF DEPENDENCE;
WHEREAS LIBERTARIANISM REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO NON-AGGRESSION;

THEREFORE LIBERTARIANS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN.

This whole thing assumes all libertarians adhere to the NAP. Some are amoralists, like Stirner Egoists, some have various other theories (like me, and the Path of Least Coercion - or PLC, for short). However, there is a difference between not giving consent when capable of it, and not giving it when you are capable of it. You can justly govern others if they are unable or unwilling to govern themselves, even from an anarchist perspective. These circumstances often arrive when a child is present, a family member is severely mentally disturbed or handicapped, and when someone forces us to defend ourselves. You can say this violates the NAP, and that is one argument you're hashing out here, BUT to say invalidating the NAP invalidates all libertarian ethical theories and libertarianism as a philosophy is totally incorrect. Libertarian philosophy is centuries old and has many different ethical theories (and amoralist theory) within it.

You aren't disproving a entire philosophy built on the opposition of unjustified coercion (and how coercions are justified or not) by simply going after one ethical justification for it.

Besides, there are few philosophies in the world more likely to see individual humans as assets and not liabilities...so I doubt more misanthropic ideologies that oppose radical notions of liberty will be more conducive to procreation.

[BUTSRSLY]

Must have his Caps Lock key on.

sorry guys!

[BUTSRSLY]

I think you got it wrong with children. It is a bit different when it comes to something that is created. It is your choice to create whatever you want as long as you are not aggressing on someone else. So to that extent, the choice of a couple to create a being does not violate the NAP. You have to prove that the child or his/her guardian/parent in question somehow objects to he/she being created. Good luck with finding that out.

whereas an honest look in the mirror brings rise to the thought 'those poor children must view me as the default standard of parenting for years' and have no choice in the matter;

therefore eugenics.

[acptulsa]

whereas an honest look in the mirror brings rise to the thought 'those poor children must view me as the default standard of parenting for years' and have no choice in the matter;

therefore eugenics.

Eugenics, is it?

Whereas liberals think they know better than everyone;

Whereas liberals think they are smarter than those who are smarter than they;

Whereas liberals foam at the mouth about civil liberties but refuse to admit that the world is a better place when everyone tends his or her own business;

Whereas, as Will Rogers said, you can only get as much liberty as you give to your neighbor;

Liberals are the very sort of totalitarian who gave power to Stalin the Purger and Hitler himself.

This doesn't make progs dangerous, mind you.

It just makes those who are stupid enough to pay any attention to them dangerous.

Not that I'm advocating liberals themselves be purged. I'm just advocating that people be inoculated against their abject foolishness.

Whether they believe in God or not, they believe they are God. And this leads us to the far greater wisdom of the first Democratic Party president...

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

And history has. The government was entrusted with elastic money to better 'smooth out' economic dips, and now we have inflated ourselves out of a middle class as the value of the currency drops far faster than the poor can ever hope to talk themselves into raises. We have an underclass which has been out of work so long in this 'engineered economy' that they've forgotten what self-reliance and self-respect feel like. We have feared corporations so much that we gave the government owned by those corporations enough leeway to pass a warehouse full of regulations designed to ensure that every business must hire three lawyers and seven CPAs, be that business Wal Mart or the local mom-n-pop candle and bead shop (and can't understand why we have to buy our candles and beads at Wal Mart). We have spying, we have jails overloaded with about a freaking quarter of our adult population (and most of them are being used as slave labor), we have a more stifled public debate than at any other time in our history, we have war and more war.

'There is one rule that works in every calamity be it pestilence, war or famine, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor even help arrange it.'--Will Rogers

And the progs in all their misdirected desire to micromismanage can always be counted upon to help the corporatists and tyrants do it by running about screeching that there is a calamity where none exists.

In all your liberal compassion, you recommend that those who refuse to goosestep in lockstep with you euthanize ourselves. Well, now. Please, bwanah, forgive your slave for being underwhelmed by your much-overvaunted 'humanity'.

"A liberal is a man who wants to use his own ideas on things in preference to generations who he knows know more than he does."--Will Rogers 1923

And if you don't agree that replacing a charity that draws funds from 40% of the people and gives 100% of that to the poor is far, far inferior to a government that steals from 100% of the people and, after kickbacks and waste, manages to give 30% of the take to the poor, then (in my overwhelming compassion I say) JUST $#@!ING DIE YOU BASTARD!!!1!!1!

All right. I will. But I was raised to have a modicum of manners. So, dear heart, after you.

[otherone]

^^^^^wut he said ^^^^^

[osan]

You can justly govern others if they are unable or unwilling to govern themselves

The semantics of your sentence are problematic. Firstly, what do you mean by "justly govern"? The meaning is by no means clear as I can immediately identify at least two possible interpretations:

1. you may govern in a just manner, and
2. you are authorized to govern

Secondly, you do not give a sufficient notion of what it means here "to govern". As I am sure you well know, people are capable of a very broad range of ways in which to govern others. Because you do not offer a minimal set of parameters, a reader has naught to go upon but his own (possibly and perhaps likely tacit) assumptions. Based on what those assumptions may be, the reader may agree with you, or not.

[T]o say invalidating the NAP invalidates all libertarian ethical theories and libertarianism as a philosophy is totally incorrect. Libertarian philosophy is centuries old and has many different ethical theories (and amoralist theory) within it.

Once again, this depends on how one defines "libertarianism". If the NAP is non-severable, then your assertion fails. Otherwise, you could be correct.

Besides, there are few philosophies in the world more likely to see individual humans as assets and not liabilities...so I doubt more misanthropic ideologies that oppose radical notions of liberty will be more conducive to procreation.

Progressive liberal philosophy and all of its relatives are positively hostile toward it. The gamut of viewpoints and policies on that issues range from active promotion of abortion by the milder activists of that ilk to the forced termination of pregnancies by entities such as the Communist Chinese government.

[pcosmar]

therefore eugenics.

Ah,, the Master Race Bull$#@! again.

marriage Licenses
Forced sterilizations.
Ethnic Cleansing
euthanasia of the unproductive

The pinnacle of Elitist central planning.

/barf

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I have no idea what Buttered Butt is talking about, but he might have some troll potential.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, c'mon...and Fire11 gets banned in seconds???

[ProIndividual]

The semantics of your sentence are problematic. Firstly, what do you mean by "justly govern"? The meaning is by no means clear as I can immediately identify at least two possible interpretations:

1. you may govern in a just manner, and
2. you are authorized to govern

Secondly, you do not give a sufficient notion of what it means here "to govern". As I am sure you well know, people are capable of a very broad range of ways in which to govern others. Because you do not offer a minimal set of parameters, a reader has naught to go upon but his own (possibly and perhaps likely tacit) assumptions. Based on what those assumptions may be, the reader may agree with you, or not.




Once again, this depends on how one defines "libertarianism". If the NAP is non-severable, then your assertion fails. Otherwise, you could be correct.



Progressive liberal philosophy and all of its relatives are positively hostile toward it. The gamut of viewpoints and policies on that issues range from active promotion of abortion by the milder activists of that ilk to the forced termination of pregnancies by entities such as the Communist Chinese government.

When a person attacks you, you have the right according to self defense principles to alter the behavior of the attacker by force (as he is unable or unwilling to govern his own behavior). That is governing the attacker, as I'm using the word. I'm using it as verb (the original meaning), not a noun. I'm an anarchist, so clearly I'm not for institutionalized government. I'm talking about governing others when they are children, severely mentally disturbed or handicapped, etc...these people lack the ability to fully or partially consent, which makes them unable to govern themselves. If this is the case, you are not a tyrant for being a parent, or a caretaker of someone severely hampered by hallucinations or mental retardation. You can justly govern them, as they have shown a persistent inability to govern themselves, either by creating victims out of innocent others, or by victimizing themselves accidentally (or in a severely impaired state, like when overly depressed short term , or plastered drunk and trying to drive, even though you know they wouldn't want you to let them drive in that condition, etc.), or some combination of the two.

I'm all for the right to kill yourself, believe me. I'm all for voluntary assisted suicide. But when someone isn't in their right mind in a very obvious way, if they attempt to hurt themselves or others then you have the right to stop them provided the person would want you to (if in their right mind). Of course, this could lead to some mistakes in stopping suicides, but that's what nonviolent dispute resolution services and remuneration are for on the markets.

I don't think many were confused by what I said, nor do I think they saw it as an excuse for the state or wanton disregard for individual autonomy.

[BUTSRSLY]

wanton disregard for individual autonomy

WANTON DISREGARD FOR INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY

[osan]

WHEREAS CHILDREN DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN;
WHEREAS A PARENT"S CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD AMOUNTS TO A FORCEFUL MANDATE ON A CHILD'S LIFE DURING HIS/HER PERIOD OF DEPENDENCE;
WHEREAS LIBERTARIANISM REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO NON-AGGRESSION;

THEREFORE LIBERTARIANS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN.

I think some of my brain cells just spontaneously combusted for having been exposed to this shining example of maimed logic.

[osan]

Now, how about a logical scrutiny of authoritarianism?

Perish the thought!

Hillary 2020

[osan]

BUT DO THEY WANT TO BE BORN -- TO YOU? NOT YOU, YOU. BUT HOW DOES A PARENT DECIDE. ERGO:

WHEREAS HAVING A CHILD AMOUNTS TO CHOOSING A PERSON"S SLAVEMASTER FOR THEM;
WHEREAS ONE CANNOT ASSUME HE/SHE IS A GOOD SLAVEMASTER WITHOUT BIAS;
THEREFORE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THEMSELVES AS WORTHY TO HAVE CHILDREN.

Two things.

Firstly, have you been drinking?

Secondly, what the hell is up with the caps? No need to yell.