Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
|
No you said : "murderers were never punished for their crimes."
You classified the women getting the abortion as "accomplices," not murderers. The abortionist is the murderer in this case. And they certainly were punished in the past.
However Mr. Lallier, whom you cited, was concerned exclusively that abortion cannot be illegal because it would inevitably lead to endless legal entanglements of women as accomplices in abortions. Despite the fact that you may think it unjust, since women were never prosecuted as abortion accomplices when abortion was illegal, Mr. Lallier's contention is refuted by the facts.
You now seem to be raising a new objection to illegal abortion: If all guilty parties cannot be punished, no guilty party may be punished. In other words, if you cannot punish both the abortionist and the woman who procures his services, you ought to let both off scot free. Have I accurately stated your position?
In law enforcement and the military, there are certain economies of scale. It takes one guard for one prisoner, but it also takes one guard for perhaps ten prisoners. Similarly, if defensive points are widely separated, each such point will require its own garrison, its own lines of communication and supply, and its own support (such as artillery). Consequently, if society were to break into little enclaves, each owning its own defensive/retributive agency, there would actually be MORE armed functionaries and the military/police presence would be even greater.
And eventually, I can foresee alliances among these Free Companies in order to implement economies of scale and scope. So, in time, we would re-build the nation-states on the basis, initially, of alliances of mercenary bands. In other words, we would re-enact the late medieval to Renaissance period and end up back where we were in the first place - big nation, small police force.
There are many, many things wrong with our current establishment, but returning to A.D. 1400 may not be the answer. I rather like 1787 myself.
A lot of people are momentarily--or perhaps permanently--caught up in the intellectual anarchism that accompanies the realization that we are losing---everything. The re-arrangement of thinking about the universe is always a messy, often irrational, sometimes even intelligible thing. Sort of like the creation of the universe.
Some of us will elect the ausonian solution and try to live quietly and well in our little corner of the world. Some will go out in a blaze of--well--if not exactly "glory", at least in a puff of smoke or something.
Others will re-allign their affections so as to pretend to themselves that they are still having an effect upon the Great Game. Observe the contortions of the various Libertarian Think Tanks as they discover previously unknown penubra in what passes for libertarian thought supporting the State of Permanent War. After all, bazaars are opening up all over Afghanistan now, selling a variety of toys not available under the grim gaze of the Taliban.
For others we probably shouldn't speculate upon their final intellectual and spiritual landing place, because, as we are all overjoyed to know, Homeland Security is omnipresent (if not yet omniscient--but give it time!)
So be kind to Mr Sobran and his ilk. History hasn't been. It's the least you could do....
Respectfully -- and with due credit to Susan B. Anthony for her recognition of this fact -- there have been far too many under-age girls throughout history who have been essentially *forced* into abortion by parents, or wives/girlfriends coerced into abortion by abusive mates, to wave our hands and pretend that there are no such things as "mitigating factors".
Now, in the case of some brazen "Cosmo Girl" who is simply seeking to dispose of the child, conceived by her own irresponsibility, who "endangers" her career -- or worse, who has gotten herself preggos for "breast-enlargement-on-the-cheap" -- I do regard such a one as the commissioner of a hired assassin, and believe that, if the case is properly established by Biblical evidentiary standards, she should be treated as such.
But that isn't always the reality of the situation. In fact, it often isn't. The abortionist is always a murderer; but the woman is sometimes a co-conspirator, sometimes an accessory, and sometimes exculpated entirely -- dependent on the particulars of the situation. Because sometimes, there are mitigating factors in the woman's case.
It would be unrealistic to write law as if there aren't.
I brought up the argument of immorality in post 17,which I stand by.
You don't have to use biblical references to understand that prostitution and drug use should remain illegal. Just look at Holland and view what has happened to their culture after they legalized drugs and prostitution. While everyone is getting high and degrading themselves, their government passed doctor assisted euthanasia laws. They've slipped into complete socialism and have embraced the culture of death. I don't want to live in a society like that. If you legalize these vices then many more people will engage in them. I don't encourage vices, I fight against them.
Since we have been blessed to live in a self-ruling society, we have a responsibility to do our part in governing and standing for the moral principles of God. And, if we are to stand for God, we should be committed to do everything possible to promote a government that recognizes moral truths. The effect of legalizing prostitution and drugs, coupled with our replacement of Judeo-Christianity with moral laissaz faire relativism, would destroy our country. It would end up strengthening the state.
LOL! One time when I was in high school, one of my friends told another guy (a boxer), "I'll pay you a nickel to him him." The guy slugged me on the shoulder. (It hurt.)
I told him, "I'll pay you a dime to hit him back." He did.
My friend complained: "You hit me harder than you hit him!"
"Well, yeah. He paid me more."
Which is a real-world example of your observation: The only kinds of crimes that could be punished in a pure anarcho-capitalist scheme are ones directly harming paying customers of a defense agency.
I guess the real point here is that one will not be able to guarantee moral behavior -- in the sense of people behaving according to an agreed-upon set of standards -- will not be gained simply by exchange of money.
And, as you point out, other than "who can pay the most for the best goons," it does not provide any mechanism for dealing with cases where contending sides do not share a common set of standards (e.g., pro-life vs. pro-abortion).
What about Islam?
Not a Vice?
You're not answering my original question: Why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory? (Or at least, the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell is treated as being not nearly so bad as a Nevada "bunny ranch", about which the State simply must do something, post-haste!!)
Any moral consistency of thought here? Not a jab, honest question.
Since we have been blessed to live in a self-ruling society, we have a responsibility to do our part in governing and standing for the moral principles of God. And, if we are to stand for God, we should be committed to do everything possible to promote a government that recognizes moral truths. The effect of legalizing prostitution and drugs, coupled with our replacement of Judeo-Christianity with moral laissaz faire relativism, would destroy our country. It would end up strengthening the state.
I agree. But then again, I'm in favor of replacing (by moral suasion and evangelism) our bland "Judeo-Christianity" with the Calvinism of our Colonial Forefathers, not with moral laissez~faire relativism.
On the matter of "Government recognizing moral truths", though.... again: why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory?
Where's the Biblical Basis for such a regime of Law? Where's the moral consistency of thought in such a view?
The freedom to practice one's religion is in no way comparable to legitimizing prostitution or drugs. Prostitution and drugs would have a direct effect on local neighborhoods. Other crimes would escalate because that environment is conducive to violence, sexual abuse and exploitation...crime in general. Would you really want a whore house being run next door to your family? How about a crack house? Is that the type of environment for raising children?
You're not answering my original question: Why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory? (Or at least, the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell is treated as being not nearly so bad as a Nevada "bunny ranch", about which the State simply must do something, post-haste!!)
See previous paragraph.
Any moral consistency of thought here? Not a jab, honest question.
If I have an Islamic neighbor who lives by the moral standards and laws of this country, then I have no quarrel with him. I'd be interested in having a thealogical discussion with him, but that is different from having him run a drug or prostitution business out of his home.
On the matter of "Government recognizing moral truths", though.... again: why should the State go into a conniption fit over the matter of some burnout toking wacky-weed in his basement, but regard the open preaching of false gospels which send millions straight to hell, as being hunky-dory?
You keep asking the same question! Its not just about some burn-out, its about society at large and how it will affect our neighborhoods and the atmosphere our children will live in. Take a look at Holland! Now THAT is a regime!
In either case, your objection is the standard objection to anarchy, that supposedly nothing prevents people from hiring a criminal gang instead of a protection firm. There is nothing in your objection that is specific to abortion. You could just as easily said that I can hire goons to do my murdering, then choose judges that believe in murder.
The question is, is independent and competent adjudication possible in the environment where multiple independent law enforcers exist? I haven't read the book, but I don't see why not. Here is
Annalex-Hoppe Theorem. In a multiple law enforcer environment, independent judiciary will reflect the community standard of justice.
Indeed, if a judge consistently allows verdicts that do not reflect the community standard of justice, a coalition of enforcers will form against him, and it will be stronger than a coalition of enforcers in his defense.
So, in a way, you are right that pro-abortion verdicts are possible under a multiple enforcer system, if the community standard of justice is pro-abortion (or pro-murder, pro-credit card fraud, etc), but that is no different from a single enforcer system that we have now.
How about a Mosque, or a Hindu Temple? Do you really want your children exposed to pagan idolatry which endangers their eternal souls? Why shouldn't the State do something about these kind of environments?
If I have an Islamic neighbor who lives by the moral standards and laws of this country, then I have no quarrel with him. I'd be interested in having a thealogical discussion with him, but that is different from having him run a drug or prostitution business out of his home.
What about the Imam who is calling your impressionable young child to pray to a pagan moon god, while you're away at work?
I mean, if (certain) drugs were legal, I imagine they generally would be sold where legal drugs are usually sold -- liquor stores and pharmacies. At least those institutions would card your kid for age if he came looking for some vodka, or some "happy pills", as the case may be.
But what about the false-gospel pushers on the street corners? A trip to Hell lasts a lot longer than a bad trip on lysergic acid; shouldn't the State do something about these purveyors of addictive, soul-destroying poisons? Isn't that the State's job?
You keep asking the same question! Its not just about some burn-out, its about society at large and how it will affect our neighborhoods and the atmosphere our children will live in. Take a look at Holland! Now THAT is a regime!
So is Saudi Arabia. All very moral (outwardly, at least), and most of them going straight to hell.
And you're willing to let Wahhabist Islam pushers operate on our street corners, marketing their addictive, soul-destroying poisons to impressionable children!
Where is the moral consistency in banning "bunny ranches", but permitting Mosques to proselytize children straight to Hell in every city in America?
Shouldn't the State do something? Shouldn't it outlaw both?
Or maybe... just maybe.... that's not the State's job. In either case.
How this is comparable to running a whore house or a crack house next door to my family is beyond me. I have laid out my argument and there is nothing more I can add. We will have to agree to disagree because I don't accept your premise.
I thank you for showing civility toward me. Have a very nice day. =)
I certainly don't have the right to kill someone on my land who's there through no fault of her own, and if I do, it's not outside the government's jurisdiction because it happened inside what I own. It happened to someone I don't own, and that's the key issue. (Or, rather, I did it to someone I don't own, and would therefore deserve punishment.Do you or do you not have the right to expel the tresspasser (and to use lethal force if the intruder refuses to comply)? What is different when someone is tresspassing on your body?
Is the foetus a trespasser in the womb?
Hasn't he/she been invited into the womb by an explicit act of the possessor of that womb?
In the vast majority of cases, does not the possessor of the womb in question know that by performing said act, she is explicitly inviting a foetus to take up residence in her womb (for a period of time known beforehand to be approximately nine months)?
Does not the possessor of the womb know, and is she not responsible for the actions of her body, which, after she has invited the foetus to take up residence within her, begins an explicit process of nourishing and sustaining the foetus during its nine month sojourn, which is designed to culminate in the the safe passage of the fully mature foetus from her body to the outside world?
Is not abortion the reneging upon of a contract (agreement) made by the woman and her body to house and sustain the foetus for a nine-month period?
Isn't this analogous to the implicit contract society presumes is made between parents and their BORN children, such that parents have the ultimate responsibility for providing for and developing their children until such time (legally 18 years) as those children assume responsibility for sustaining themselves?
Drinking produces un-virtuous results too. Should we ban it? Wealth can produce a lack of virtue. Should we ban capitalism?
Give me a break, A.J. By the term "object" I mean dehumanizing to base level. Prostitution helps create a moral and social climate conducive to sexual abuse and expoitation.
They're not "dehumanized", and do not become objects. Sin, in fact, is a characteristically human activity.
I do believe that fornication is immoral, but I would like to stay on the topic of prostitution and drug use. The last question is too silly to answer.
The last question is a perfectly fair question, and so is OP's later question about idolatry. If prostitution should be illegal because of it's immorality, then fornication, which is on the same moral level (and is the immorality in prostitution, not the fact that money changes hands), should be on the same legal level.
You're right that the preaching of a false gospel is not comparable to drugs or prostitution. It's worse! Smoking marijuana is an inherently trivial act. Denying Jesus Christ will send someone to Hell. Selling marijuana will get some people high (horrors!). Selling Islam or Hinduism or any other falsity like that will get people sent to Hell (at this point, "horrors!" would be entirely accurate).
Societal standards are important. Without them the line between relative and concrete becomes blurred. I have already given an argument in an earlier post on this.
You seem, here, to be saying that concrete, as opposed to relative, is marked out by the laws, in which case, some modern invention like Harry Anslinger's selection of pot as the excuse to keep old Prohibition enforcers employed is concrete, while the eternal word of the Lord is relative. That's mixed up.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, "upholding the law", as you put it, would consist of exactly what I said it would: hiring a private agency to enforce your preferences.
I deny that "tresspasser" is a term applicable to a baby in the womb. At what point is the tresspass committed, before or after he's in his mother's body? It can't be either, because either he doesn't exist yet, or he's already there. Since you've already called abortion murder, you can't compare it to forcing an intruder off my land. The only comparison would be to another act of murder, say, poisoning someone I had invited to dinner or killing someone who had come to my door to ask to use the phone because his car broke down, or otherwise killing someone without justification who was inside my property because of no wrongdoing on his part. If murder should still be punished even though it happens inside my property, I see no philosophical difference between one type of property and another.
And you still refuse to answer the question, Aaron. What is the penalty do you propose for this act of pre-mediated murder? Death? Be very careful with your answer, because, throughout history, juries have refused to convict women for infanticide. Never mind abortion.
As OP has pointed out, the mother isn't necessarily at fault, while the abortionist always is. It would also be hard to get enough proof for a conviction, and I can live with that. Any attempt to fully enforce any law would lead to totalitarianism. We've accepted the compromises and limits of the common law procedure in the interest of liberty and avoiding false convictions in the case of other crimes, so I see no reason we can't do the same with abortion.
That said, the answer to your specific question is, any penalty up to and including death, in the worst case scenario. Now, prosecutors might want to go for a lesser penalty, for the very reason you stated, but that's a prudential decision for them to make.
You're right. My objection is that in practice there'd be no way to avoid violent chaos. Abortion is one of the things that will lead to it (or else go unpunished altogether).
Annalex-Hoppe Theorem. In a multiple law enforcer environment, independent judiciary will reflect the community standard of justice.
In the case of abortion (and, no doubt, other issues) there is no community standard. You'd have to have such a standard formed and the exclusion of "wildcards" already in place before you can hope to have a decently functioning anarchist society, and I just don't see that happening. And if it does happen, it could be undone by any number of factors.
I was going to say that. As it happens, I grew up almost next door to a mosque. If you walk out my front door and turn left, before you is another house, and then a street, and then a mosque.
At least those institutions would card your kid for age if he came looking for some vodka
I hate that.
With respect to issues where there is no community standard, how is the anarchist situation different from what we have now with a single law enforcer?
I can tell you how it is worse. Now a single law enforcer, the state, is combined with hierarchical judiciary. Thus we have our Supreme Court Commissars ensuring a sclerosis of the community. In fact, we barely know what the community standard is on abortion. The pro-abortion folks tell us that the point is not worth arguing because the Supreme Court already decided the issue. The pro-life folks point out that while there is no consensus on banning abortion, there is a consensus on banning partial birth abortions, parental notification and welfare abortions, and each time the court is to the left of the consensus. I'd much rather have chaos (another word for which is local control).
They're not "dehumanized", and do not become objects. Sin, in fact, is a characteristically human activity.
That simpy isn't true and if you were honest with yourself you would admit it. Porn and prostitution degrade the woman because the man sees her as a fantasy. There is no love or respect involved and therefore reduces or destroys a her dignity, as she becomes merely a sexual toy....an "object."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.