Anarchy vs. the Right to Life

Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

[A.J.Armitage]

Joe Sobran, as evidenced by his recent columns, seems close to being convinced, if not already convinced, by Hans Herman Hoppe's book, Democracy: The God that Failed. As you might have guessed from the title, Hoppe thinks democracy was a bad idea, but he goes further than that; he thinks government, in any form, was a bad idea. He's an anarcho-capitalist. In an anarcho-capitalist society, instead of using police and an official court system to punish criminals, individuals would hire defense agencies, in much the same way we hire insurance agencies now. Then, if you're robbed, your agency would try to track down the guilty party, and, when they catch him, bring him to trial, probably before a judge agreed to by both your agency and his.

I don't know if Sobran realizes this, but anarcho-capitalism sits poorly with his pro-life views. The unborn, and for that matter born children, will be unable to hire an agency to protect them from their own parents or, in the case of some already born children, step-parents. It's not an accident that Murray Rothbard, the founder of anarcho-capitalism, was pro-choice. In chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty, he defends the legality of abortion, as indeed he had to, because if abortion is a crime and an abomination that ought to be punished - and it is - that constitutes a fatal weakness in anarcho-capitalism.

But it extends beyond abortion to child abuse and neglect. Continuing, he wrote that parents, specifically mothers, since pater incertus est, have property rights in their children because they made them. But then he pulls back, and inconsistently advocates limits on parental authority, both by ending it at adulthood and by excluding physical abuse from the things parents can do (but he does not exclude neglect). If, however, you apply the labor theory of property to human beings and not merely the non-human world, neither of these restrictions makes sense. If mothers own children the same way they would own a statue they carved or acorns they gathered, there's no logical point at which the ownership ends, not at 18, not at 21, and not when the kid moves out (Rothbard's own suggestion).

In the case of abuse, his position faces an even greater problem. Not only is his insistence that parents lack the right to "aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc." inconsistent with property rights over the children (why can't I mutilate my own property?), in an anarchist society, there's no one to enforce a prohibition against torturing or murdering one's own children.

Locke himself, the originator of the labor theory of property, did not consider children the property of their parents, and for very good reason; it would've been half way to Filmerism. What he said instead was, "The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their children, during the imperfect state of childhood." (Second Treatise, para. 58)

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. This certainly has the advantage of doing away with non-crimes like drug possession and prostitution, but, by the nature of how the system operates, it must also leave unpunished real crimes against those other than paying customers. Children, especially unborn ones, are out of luck, and they aren't the only ones. Protection of those outside the charmed circle of paying customers would be based only on charity, and it's easy to imagine pro-life agencies emerging to punish abortionists, but there would just as certainly be pro-choice agencies, and the two kinds of agencies would necessarily exist in a permanent state of war. Once you've gone beyond the model of agencies simply selling protection, there's nothing to prevent agencies from "altruistically" punishing the smoking of marijuana or, for that matter, the drinking of alcohol. An anarchist society can only be peaceful if all force-users other than purely profit-driven defense agencies are excluded and punished (which would mirror the exclusion of other force-users anarchists criticize the state for), and if they are excluded, the unborn will be left with no protection at all, and legal abortion will be more secured by the legal system than any Supreme Court ruling could ever make it, because it would be secured by the structure of the system, and not merely by a changeable rule.

[Hank Kerchief]

Instead of taxes we have insurance. Instead of gov't we have agencies.

I am not an arnachist, even though I beleive there is no moral justification for government. But, there is an obvious difference between an insurance agency and government which you neglect. An insurance agency cannot force anyone to by insurance, a government always forces you to pay taxes. The difference is essential and moral, one works by offering you a value you may choose or reject, the other is the offer of, "your money or your life".

Hank

[MHGinTN]

A.J., I deeply admire your patience to read this crap and make such cogent remarks on it! Your assessment deserves more accolade than the bilge about which you've written. But one would expect such from a thinking mind such as yours, as opposed to the deranged ravings of malcontents.

[jmp702]

Thought you may get a kick out of this humorous passage.

____________

PEOPLE DON'T KNOW AND HAVE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO ANYWAY
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (1856-1950), ANGLO-IRISH PLAYWRIGHT, CRITIC. BOANERGES, IN THE APPLE CART, ACT 1.

I talk democracy to these men and women. I tell them that they have the vote, and that theirs is the kingdom and the power and the glory. I say to them "You are supreme: exercise your power." They say, "That's right: tell us what to do;" and I tell them. I say "Exercise your vote intelligently by voting for me." And they do. That's democracy; and a splendid thing it is too for putting the right men in the right place.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So you believe that justice as described in the Bible is what ought to be instituted in the USA. So, if by intention or accident someone causes someone else's eye or tooth, hand or foot, to be lost, they should loose theirs: Deuteronomy 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This prescription is stated at least two more times in the Bible, Exodus 21:24, and Leviticus 24:20

Yes.

Of course, many modern Christians misunderstand this passage. I could go into some depth here, but maybe a quick "squib" from our Messianic Jewish brethren will serve to re-connect our understanding to the original Hebrew wording of, and meaning of, the Text.

Christians / Messianics have slammed the Jewish people with what they term "The Law Of Restitution." Our Torah states: {Compensation of} an eye for an eye, {of} a tooth for a tooth, {of} a hand for a hand, {of} a foot for a foot. {Compensation of} a burn for a burn, {of} a wound for a wound, {of} a bruise for a bruise." Exodus 21:24,25

There are several issues here.

Do you understand what this passage means? It provides just compensation. An individual who is a great doctor receives different compensation for the loss of an eye, G-d forbid, than a janitor. A doctor who loses sight in one eye may not be able to continue his practice whereas a janitor should be able to continue in his profession. That being the situation, the doctor is compensated for every year of his normal working life at the normal rate of pay for an individual of his profession. The janitor would be compensated but not to the same extent because he would probably be able with some difficulty to continue on with his profession. However if he were unable to continue on with his profession then he too would be compensated for every year of his working life at his normal rate of pay. However the rate of compensation for the doctor would be much greater than for the janitor.

Torah compensation HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POKING OUT A PERSON'S EYE BECAUSE THEY CAUSED SOMEONE TO LOSE AN EYE, G-d forbid! This holds true for every issue.

One must understand that G-d as the Eternal Judge, judges fairly. G-d rights every wrong. NOTHING escapes his Divine Judgment!! G-d balances measure for measure. I cannot explain the extent to which G-d balances the scales, but in the end all scales are balanced. Everyone will receive their just reward or their just punishment. That is how the Creator of the universe established this world we live in. -- Parshas Mishpatim {Exodus 21:1 - 24:18} An Eye For An Eye by Akiva G. Belk

As Protestants, we are Sola Scriptura Christians. But this does not prevent us from working back from our somewhat-fallible English translations to attend to the original sense of the Text.

God forbid that we should understand these passages as the Pharisees understood them. But we are not remiss in our duty to Scripture if we seek to understand them as MOSES understood them!!

And you believe this, even though you know the Bible clearly teaches that God determines who the rulers of countries are, and chooses the basest of man as those rulers: Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Or maybe you only believe those parts of the Bible you like pertain to the government today. Hank

The basest of men may govern, but they are still under God's Commands to organize the State according to Biblical Principle.

Recognizing the temporal power of the Magistrate, and exhorting him to conform his Government to Biblical Authority (and, by the example of Jehu, to slay the King if he will not Repent!!), are not mutually exclusive concepts. They are mutually necessary concepts.

[RLK]

This article loses me. It sound like someone is so dedicated to a single facet of ideology that they contort everything around them in sacrifice to it.

[VRWC_minion]

I don't neglect but I believe unrestrained the insurance agency will have at a minimum the same problems as we do with our government. An insurance agency needs to set rates, it needs to specify what is covered and what is not, it needs to spread the risk, it needs to be governed by some mechanism. All of these issues will be faced by whatever entity one wants to name it.

Its juvenile thinking that just because an entity has been renamed we remove all of the problems. The aspect that such an entity would grow into a huge repressive government is so basic to me I am overwhelmed that such otherwise intelligent people cannot project what would happen.

This whole anarchy idea is so off the mark from any sense of reality it is breathtaking. My only way to explain it is those who wish to use drugs without fear of arrest are willing to believe anything just to continue.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian A Church is a form of gov't. Anarchists think they can construct a society without one. They ignore practical realities. Having to invoke another form of gov't to make up for the impractical aspects of anarchy proves it doesn't work. 78 posted on 2/12/02 8:03 PM Pacific by VRWC_minion

A Church is a "form of Government".

What a Church is not, is a STATE.

For all but an extremely limited number of cases (actual crimes of aggression), a covenantal Church is a far better, and more Biblically appropriate, form of Government, than the coercive State.

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian True, but as William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." 79 posted on 2/12/02 8:07 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage

Yes.

The world is imperfect -- for now. Blackstone's maxim is one of those "best we can do, this side of Glory" type things, and is "true" -- at least for this Time, and this Season.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This article loses me. It sound like someone is so dedicated to a single facet of ideology that they contort everything around them in sacrifice to it.

Life.
Liberty.
Property.

Where's the contortion?

[VRWC_minion]

I have no problem with your suggestion. What you suggest is rational and would work. I don't think the anarchists would go along though because the Church is likely to be unsupportive of drug use and would impose their will on the poor drug users.

This isn't the solution these folks are looking for. Their only hope is in believing anarchy is a workable system.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Egads... Avika Belk is not a Messianic Jew. I apologize for the botched attribution on my part.

HOWEVER, Orthodox Messianics will agree with Belk's theonomic reading of Exodus, as Orthodox Messianics read Exodus in the same way that an Orthodox Rabbinic like Belk would read the passage. That, despite my botched attribution, was my point. Mea Culpa... it's late.

[xm177e2]

In an anarcho-capitalist society, instead of using police and an official court system to punish criminals, individuals would hire defense agencies, in much the same way we hire insurance agencies now. Then, if you're robbed, your agency would try to track down the guilty party, and, when they catch him, bring him to trial, probably before a judge agreed to by both your agency and his.

Machine-gun libertopian anarcho-narco-capitalism... A very scary prospect indeed. If someone wrongs you, just hire a bunch of JBTs to arrest them, and if they refuse to be taken in, Waco them. Not a society I'd want to live in!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I have no problem with your suggestion. What you suggest is rational and would work. I don't think the anarchists would go along though because the Church is likely to be unsupportive of drug use and would impose their will on the poor drug users.

Yes, it would, it should, and it does.

This isn't the solution these folks are looking for. Their only hope is in believing anarchy is a workable system.

Hedonists will be hedonists, whether Communistic (Green Party) or Capitalistic (some Libertarians).
C'est la vie. God sits in His heaven and laughs... at both Statists and Hedonists. All men everywhere must Repent.

[RLK]

To get into some crackpot discussion over wheth we're going to have the kind of society where I'm going to ned to hire Samuri as a remedy for a crime committed against me is not my cup of tea tonight.

[Demidog]

The unborn, and for that matter born children, will be unable to hire an agency to protect them from their own parents or, in the case of some already born children, step-parents.

Ok. Well-stated. Now. Tell us how you intend to catch women who commit abortions. In your perfect state, let's assume that the state has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn (I'm not so sure this is true but for arguments sake lets say it is.)

What is your plan for catching and trying these criminals? What's the punishment? In the case of a miscarriage, does the state have the right to invade the woman's medical records or subpeona her doctor to "prove" the unprovable?

I await your plan with eagerness.

[JMJ333]

Now prove that drug use being immoral is one of them.

I'll use pot as an example. None of the effects produced by smoking are virtuous. Gluttony, laziness, lowered sexual inhibitions, are all vices. Vices shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing the behavior through legalization.

I've never seen an object do anything sexually base. And there are plenty of undignified people who aren't objects, and there are people who do unsacred things without being objects. Just say that fornication itself is immoral and be done with it. BTW, should it be illegal for unmarried people to have sex without money changing hands?

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. 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.

Society? Too nebulous. If Dope Smokin' Joe takes a toke of the old whacky weed, name the person who suffers an invasion of his person or property.

We were talking legalization and immorality. Normalizing the behavior by making it legal will continue to push our society further away from our cultural foundations. Our kids deserve a better society than what you propose.

You can reinforce something without making it illegal to do otherwise.

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.

No, you're not talking about ideas. You're talking about making it illegal to do what you consider (rightly or wrongly) to be immoral. If something's illegal, you don't counter it with ideas, you use police officers and administer punishments.

Prostitution and drugs are already illegal. I was specifically referring to fighting the culture war in the arena of ideas, which is what I am doing as we speak. Someone has to stand up for our foundation before its lost.

[Demidog]

What's the punishment for the murder of a child or unborn baby?

[Demidog]

None of the effects produced by smoking are virtuous. Gluttony, laziness, lowered sexual inhibitions, are all vices. Vices shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing the behavior through legalization.

This is a blanket statement and you have absolutely no idea that it is true. Smoking is not in and of itself moral or immoral. People who smoke pot to alleviate their pain are no more doing anything immoral than are people taking aspirin.

Secondly, it is not the job of the state to produce "virtuous" members of society. Were this true you and I would have to agree that the state should be scrapped immediately because it is failing miserably.

[Teacher317]

Anarchy vs. the Right to Life

Sounds like a typical polling question from the Left! =^)

Kicking puppies vs. hugs from Mom... you choose!

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks!

GBS is one of my favorites, and his "Notes for Revolutionaries" from Man and Superman is the source of some of the most famous quotes in the world, though, most people don't know it. I particularly like, "Those who can, do; those who can't teach."

It is also the source of the misquoted, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," which is prefaced by, (and this is correct, I beleive), "all men mean well."

Hank

[JMJ333]

This is a blanket statement and you have absolutely no idea that it is true. Smoking is not in and of itself moral or immoral. People who smoke pot to alleviate their pain are no more doing anything immoral than are people taking aspirin.

The effects of smoking are exactly as I said. They produce vices not virtues, and shoudln't be encouraged through legalization because of the toll it takes on society. I'm concerned about the culture our children inherit.

Secondly, it is not the job of the state to produce "virtuous" members of society. Were this true you and I would have to agree that the state should be scrapped immediately because it is failing miserably.

lol...

My whole point has been that if we want less government then we should return to our cultural roots--meaning Judeo-Christianity. However, we still need societal standards that we all live by. I don't want the government to produce any type of citizen. I just want them to uphold the law where it pertains to a clear cut case of concrete moral truth. Prostitution and drug use are indeed immoral and should remian illegal. =)