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.

[hocndoc]

Good comments.

The mother actually has a duty - parental obligation -to the child who she has created in his or her dependent state.

The dependent state is a factor of our biology, but there are consequences to our actions. Even when we try to avoid a certain outcome, if that outcome occurs due to our actions, we are responsible for protecting anyone who might have been harmed. The child isn't harmed or in harm's way by existing unless the mother moves to intentionally abort or abandon and neglect him.

[exodus]

I've always considered a belief in the concept of Rights to be a defining tenet of libertarian philosophy.

You're the first libertarian I've met who claimed the title of libertarian while saying there is no such thing as a Right. Usually folks who say Rights don't exist are socialists who support full government sovereignty over an individual's life.

[hocndoc]

No one, including or especially a mother has a right to kill anyone else that is not a threat to her life.

[thoughtomator]

That's odd... I also consider myself a 'right-wing' libertarian, but my point of view on this is most influenced by Enlightenment/American Revolution-era natural-rights philosophy (as opposed to, say, Rousseau). I derive the pro-life position from the recognition of the inalienable rights of man, and the clear evidence that a child begun is as fully human (and thus a possessor of inalienable rights) as any other.

Why do you choose to call agnostically derived libertarianism 'right wing' and deistic (for lack of a better term) libertarianism 'left wing'? I always viewed it the other way - that systems that come from consideration of the individual's rights were right-wing and those that are based in a society's rights were left-wing.

Either way, it's interesting how we ended up with the same conclusion, reasoning from what appears to me to be two strongly contrasting points of origin.

[exodus]

I agree. Good post, hocndoc.

[exodus]

Here's a discussion you might enjoy, William Creel.

[thoughtomator]

I see that we will end up disagreeing based on our differing concepts of when and how a human being is invested with rights. I thank you nevertheless for engaging in this discussion, as it is most refreshing to talk about the issue without the Left-Marxist social engineering point of view distorting everything.

[exodus]

"I have a theory on self-government and a love for a version of liberty conceptualized by the Welsh-Irish-Scottish as opposed to the French libertarians and their ideological libertarianism."
*********************

I'm fasinated, JohnGalt.

How does the Welsh-Irish-Scottish version of libertarianism differ from our libertarian Founders' version, which was based upon God-given Rights?

[JohnGalt]

The Enlightenment Era philosophers drew as much as they could from the Christian and classical traditions but out of arrogance long to write a story that did not include God and namely Christ. They seemed comfortable with the Creator of All Things, but many of them (Jefferson) struggled with the issue of faith in Christ.

The divide comes on theories of self-government, the nature of government, and the pragmatic 'then how shall we live?' I continue to believe that liberty is best protected through the smallest political units possible through a system of checks and balance, and see little value in an exercise of Libertarian ideology that can only generate political support for one side or the other based on whose side has the better wordsmiths at that moment in time.

One of the useful tests on this subject is local control. Recently, the Supreme Court determined that Texas could not have a certain set of laws in their town-- left-libertarians cheered a great victory. The government should not be in the bedroom, they said.

A rightwing libertarian abhors the process, a supra-state over-ruling a local political entity, a microcosm for almost all that ails us.

As a rightwing libertarian, what is your view on Lincoln?

(These 'things' can get heated, but try to imagine us sitting on the bar stools in an honest attempt to try to better understand each others position.)

[Eagle Eye]

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.

And this is compatable with 'not initiating force' in what way?

Bottom line for this libertarian is that ultimately the woman has to answer for her choices to God and Jesus Christ. Abortion is the only routine medical proceure I know of where success is defined as half of the participants being killed.

[JohnGalt]

There are no Rights in the abstract sense.

I may respect (and I do) your right to own a firearm of your choice, or I might respect your right (and I do) to injest substances of your choosing, but that does not mean the 'state' does. Thus if a right only has abstract meaning, it for all practical purposes has no meaning.

The question becomes, how does one get their culture to respect certain rights that you and I hold dear? Patrick Henry argued it was through institutions, Jefferson seemed to believe a revolution every now and then, and still others like Lincoln, believed total war committed against civilians was how rights were preserved-- you see how perverse it gets.

[thoughtomator]

I also condemned the USSC's virtual elimination of state sovereignity. Sodomy is nowhere a natural right, and thus I believe Texas can constitutionally prohibit it. While I don't necessarily agree that the prohibition is the best solution, the principle of sticking to the agreement that is the Constitution is far more important in maintaining freedom.

As a rightwing libertarian, I am conflicted on Lincoln. Freeing the slaves was undoubtedly just; the slaves were as human as any other, and thus possess inalienable rights that the nation had previously consented to be discarded in their case. However, I know that was not the true purpose of the Civil War, merely a justification for it. In that the Civil War effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments, I abhor that result.

[JohnGalt]

I would say it's very much in line with the Founder's view, and the Anti-Federalist view point. Jefferson, the writer of the DoI, borrowed mostly from French liberals and thus the language must be understood in that context.

Jefferson was later tempted by the supposed 'ideals' of the bloody French Revolution; how could that possibly have been?

[JohnGalt]

A few more thoughts:


Jefferson mostly appealed to abstractions, rather than the cultural experience of the Welsh-Irish-Scottish. In context, one must recall that at the beginning of the 18th Century, England (or anglo-saxons if it pleases to stay on ethnic lines) unleashed strict arms control on the Irish and Scottish that within a few years, led to cultural destruction and passive genocide.

The culture of the day was very keen to the British means of dealing with 'unruly' opposition, and thus in Concord and Lexington the troops began to drill and train for a future conflict a full year before the Brits came for the guns on 4/19/1775. The culture did not much care for the prose of French intellectuals; they cared about staying alive in the very pragmatic sense.

[Abundy]

Thanks for the ping...

[JohnGalt]

That is the essence of the point.

'Inalienable rights' has no practical meaning unless you are willing to shed blood for these rights. If you do not believe violation of perceived rights is a justification for state sponsored violence, then you are essentially arguing from a centrist position, with a leaning towards rightwing libertarianism.

Your last point on the loss of 9th and 10th Amendment protection on the form of government (republic) is why disliking Lincoln's War is the key to American Rightwing Libertarianism BTW.

[thoughtomator]

Well, as I said, I am conflicted about it. Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do; ending the contract of state sovereignty was not. Libertarianism both gained and lost as a result of the Civil War. The essence of my conflict is whether it was really worth it to have the war if the result is a greater number of people without freedom, as it turned out to be. While slavery was ended, it is highly questionable that the blacks were actually freed, in the fundamental sense of freedom, by the war - 100 years later, and even today, the freedom of blacks in America is in doubt.

Are Americans now free? I do not think we are truly free in the USA, although we still stand in a far better condition than most of the rest of the world.

[JohnGalt]

"Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do"


This line jumps out of me as it violates the libertarian non-violence princip.

[exodus]

I may respect (and I do) your right to own a firearm of your choice, or I might respect your right (and I do) to injest substances of your choosing, but that does not mean the 'state' does. Thus if a right only has abstract meaning, it for all practical purposes has no meaning.
*********************

I define Rights as that which makes a man independent; the things that give a man Free Will, the things that define Freedom. Rights are an intristic characteristic of all men.

An example of that is the Right of Self-defense. Even if everyone in your culture agree that no one should use violence to defend themselves, even if you believe that yourself, when that guy starts choking the life out of you, you're still going to grab that rock and hit him as hard as you can. It's instinctive, intrinsic, Right, that you defend yourself.

The Right of Property can be demonstrated by watching a baby with a toy. Take that toy from him, and he'll yell "MINE!!" It's instinctive, behavior not learned, an actual part of all of us, the knowledge that what I'm holding is mine.

The Right of Privacy too is instinctive. Men instinctively protect what they own, and themselves, from those who might take what is ours. That's what Privacy is; the protection of knowledge, property, and personal health or well-being. Privacy is just the application of Property and Self-defense; Privacy is fear, combined with the fact that others might take what you have if they find out about it, or use it to hurt you. Fear is instinctive, too.

No matter what laws your culture makes, no matter your religion, no matter how well you're trained to deny those instincts, those Rights will still be there.

Rights are a part of us, and cannot be legislated away.

[thoughtomator]

Since when are libertarians committed to non-violence? If rights are what we say they are, they are worth killing and dying to defend.