Libertarianism and Abortion

[thoughtomator]

The question this thread aims to answer:

Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion?

This discussion aims to sort out a difference of opinion between myself and tpaine on the subject. I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights.

[traditionalist]

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

Of course. Conservatism has always recognized the importance of the community, the legitimacy of its power to regulate individual behavior, and the obligations of the individual to the community. It's all there in Acquinas, Burke, Weaver, Kirk, Straus, etc. At a more intuitive level, it's there in the writings of Madison, Washington, Adams, and the American founders. It's also there in the preamble to the Constitution.

Ignoring the communal nature of man is the fundamental error of libertarianism.

[JohnGalt]

That is the defintion of liberal-tarianism.

'the conventional definition denies any mandate to further, or even the existence of the common good'

Most left libertarians are perfectly comfortable with the supra-state using violence to achieve ends (be it Iraq, or the War of Southern Independence.)

I don't affirm government, I believe it is a useful tool in protecting liberty, less you have a judicial tyranny or a 'Church' tyranny (that is to say the actual members of the church-- not church doctrine-- hope are clear on meaning.)

However, I am also curious about anarcho-capitalist arangements with insurance companies providing services, nationless soveriegnty/citizenship as practiced in the Middle Ages. Your mistake is assuming the left-libertarians, who range from supra-statists to left-anarchists, account for the distincly different right libertarians you clearly are more familiar with.

[traditionalist]

Oh, dear me! I forgot to mention Aristotle, from whom Acquinas derives much of his political philosophy.

[MrLeRoy]

Ignoring the communal nature of man is the fundamental error of libertarianism.

Restricting government to protection of individual rights does not ignore the communal nature of man.

[traditionalist]

However, I am also curious about anarcho-capitalist arangements with insurance companies providing services, nationless soveriegnty/citizenship as practiced in the Middle Ages.

So do you hold feudalism as your ideal?

BTW, this is the first I've heard of insurance companies existing in the early middle ages. I say early middle ages because later middle ages (after 1100) could not possibly be described as nationless. By 1100 national monarchies were ruling most of Europe.

[traditionalist]

Restricting government to protection of individual rights does not ignore the communal nature of man.

If a man has real moral obligations to the community, and even his private vices harm the community, upon what basis do you restrict the government from enforcing those obligations and restricting those vices?

[MrLeRoy]

If a man has real moral obligations to the community, and even his private vices harm the community, upon what basis do you restrict the government from enforcing those obligations and restricting those vices?

Not all "moral obligations" and "harms" are the proper business of government.

[traditionalist]

Not all "moral obligations" and "harms" are the proper business of government.

Are some? Which ones? Upon what basis do you decide which are and which are not?

[MrLeRoy]

Harms that violate rights are the proper business of government, as are voluntarily accepted obligations, including one's obligations to one's children, born and unbron.

[traditionalist]

Harms that violate rights are the proper business of government,

Why this restriction? What about vices, such as pornography or prostititution, that harm public morality? What about drug use, which has a detrimental effect on the social environment, and tends to create public charges?

as are voluntarily accepted obligations, including one's obligations to one's children, born and unbron.

So there are no involuntarily accepted obligations? What about the obligation to care for one's parents in their old age? What about the obligation to those incapable of fending for themselves? What about the obligation of defending the community? What about the obligation of fostering a benevolent social order?

[MrLeRoy]

Harms that violate rights are the proper business of government,

Why this restriction? What about vices, such as pornography or prostititution, that harm public morality? What about drug use, which has a detrimental effect on the social environment, and tends to create public charges?

From man's nature as a free-willed reasoning being capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, it follows that it is wrong to use a man as a means to another's ends. To force a man to uphold "public morality" or the "social environment" is just such a misuse.

as are voluntarily accepted obligations, including one's obligations to one's children, born and unborn.

So there are no involuntarily accepted obligations? What about the obligation to care for one's parents in their old age? What about the obligation to those incapable of fending for themselves? What about the obligation of defending the community? What about the obligation of fostering a benevolent social order?

None of these obligations are properly imposed by force, as to do so would be to use a man as a means to another's ends.

[traditionalist]

From man's nature as a free-willed reasoning being capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, it follows that it is wrong to use a man as a means to another's ends. To force a man to uphold "public morality" or the "social environment" is just such a misuse.

You've expressed the error of libertarianism perfectly. If a man were a hermit, pursuing his ends in isolation, your argument would be flawless.

But it is only possible for a man, because of his social nature, to pursue his ends as a member of a community. Hence he has the obligation to further the common good of his community since he cannot acheive his ends without it. Ergo it is legitimate for the community to compell its members to work toward the common good.

As I said, the fundamental error is to ignore the communal nature of man, or put another way, to ignore the fact that no man can acheive his ends without the benefit of membership in a community.

[MrLeRoy]

he has the obligation to further the common good of his community since he cannot acheive his ends without it.

Non sequitur. A man is free to value the ends that are contrary to the common good over the ends served by furthering the common good. Most men will probably not choose that way---but the ones who do must be free to do so.

[tpaine]

Ignoring the communal nature of man is the fundamental error of libertarianism.

The so-called "communal nature of man", much touted by communism, has been a dismal failure as a base for government..
Attempting to say its an error of philosophy for libertarians to 'ignore' it is nonsense..

--- Most here actively oppose communitarian efforts to restrict individual freedoms under our republican form of government.

You've shown yourself to be just another socialist troll, wrapping yourself in a conservative banner in order to bash libertarians, & disrupt FR.
-- I'm surprised you've kept such a low profile to date.

[sheltonmac]

As long a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, liberty requires that the mother be free to do with it as she pleases. Forcing someone to undertake inconvenience, effort, discomfort, or expense on behalf of another is the antithesis of liberty.

If you found someone unconscious, helpless and bleeding lying in your front yard, would you be within your rights to shoot that person for trespassing? Abortion is very much analogous.

What abortion boils down to for the libertarian is a conflict of rights: property vs. life. When that occurs, how do you decide which set of rights prevails?

[JohnGalt]

Hardly feudalism.

I just don't believe Consitutional Republics work in populations over a couple hundred thousands.

I'd say the city-state arangment is my ideal.


Anarcho-capitalists (i.e. extreme rightwing libertarians) would argue that there is no need for the state that the marketplace can provide all the services that are needed; I left out the word coupled with nationless soveriegnty as seen in the Middle Ages, though Switzerland still offers it today. For a fee, they will provide you state protections for your contracts and what not.

[tpaine]

GovernmentShrinker:
"As long a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, liberty requires that the mother be free to do with it as she pleases. Forcing someone to undertake inconvenience, effort, discomfort, or expense on behalf of another is the antithesis of liberty."

---

What abortion boils down to for the libertarian is a conflict of rights: property vs. life. When that occurs, how do you decide which set of rights prevails?
335 -S mac-

---

No conflict ~of~ rights:
-- Early term abortion boils down to a conflict ~about~ rights:

The womans rights vs societies imagined 'powers'.
When that occurs, we decide that the womans individual rights prevail.


It's the constitutional way

[GovernmentShrinker]

No, abortion is not analogous at all. If someone is bleeding to death in my front yard, I can allow someone else to help them, without incurring any effort or expense myself. That's not an option with a fetus inside the mother's womb.

A better analogy would if you were the only known match for someone who needed a bone marrow transpant in order to surive. Would it be virtuous of you to undergo the painful and slightly risky procedures needed to donate some marrow? Of course. Should the government compel you to donate your marrow? I think not.

[MrLeRoy]

A better analogy would if you were the only known match for someone who needed a bone marrow transpant in order to surive. Would it be virtuous of you to undergo the painful and slightly risky procedures needed to donate some marrow? Of course. Should the government compel you to donate your marrow? I think not.

If you had voluntarily performed actions whose foreseeable outcome was the need of that person for your bone marrow, I think the government should compel you to donate.

[traditionalist]

The so-called "communal nature of man", much touted by communism, has been a dismal failure as a base for government..

LOL. Every functioning government in the history of mankind has recognized that man has obligations to his community, including our government, from its begining. Recognizing the importance of community does not make one a communist.

--- Most here actively oppose communitarian efforts to restrict individual freedoms under our republican form of government.

That's a downright lie. Freepers, like the vast majority of convservatives, believe it is perfectly legitimate for the government to outlaw prostitution, restrict access to pornography, and close to half support the drugwar.

You've shown yourself to be just another socialist troll, wrapping yourself in a conservative banner in order to bash libertarians, & disrupt FR.

Ah yes, anyone who's not a libertarian is a socialist, the ever present epithet libertarians love to throw at anyone who disagrees with them.

You have some maturing to do, I see. Most libertarians are as obcessed with their system and ideology as are the left. Libertarians are the right's equivalent to the Utopian Socialists.