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.

[A.J.Armitage]

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?

Attempts will still be made to enforce what people think ought to be laws. Those attempts will be viewed as crimes by others, who will try to act on that perception.

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).

Violent chaos doesn't mean local control, it means lots of factions shooting at each other.

There is largely a consensus on things like partial birth abortion, but not on abortion as abortion. Both of these facts come from the same source, polls, so you can't accept one and reject the other.

[A.J.Armitage]

I've already answered the questions you've asked.

If you have I missed it.

That simpy isn't true and if you were honest with yourself you would admit it.

Human nature isn't warped by sin?

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."

So if there is love and respect fornication is fine? Your attempt to make prostitution worse than any other type of fornication simply doesn't work.

[A.J.Armitage]

Now why would you take out all of tex-oma's posts?

[harpseal]

The evolution of legal systems was in response to clans avenging the wrongs against their members (warrior clans are perhaps the first defense companies). An alternative to the warrior clan was the fuedal lord who originally was a man who was wealthy enough to build a fort therby have a facility for offering protection to others. Sonce a fortress needs more than one defender part of the price of the security of the fort was defendng said fort. Now since a fortress and a defensive group (men carrying arms) need a leader and a division of labor to achieve the best efficiency some people specialized in the trade of warrior and were supported by those who engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry. By going to defensive companies we are walking down the path to fuedalism. While it might be personally beneficial to those who see themselves as warriors and are recognized by others as effective warriors (in such an envirornment skill in the use of arms is quite valuable) I would think that going this road is not something we as a society really should want to do.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[annalex]

Looks like tex-oma got canned. It is a shame. Soon there will be no one to converse with. Will the last one remember to turn out the lights, please.

[annalex]

lots of factions shooting at each other.

In the abortion controversy, we have too much shooting to my taste already. Attempts are made to enforce what people think ought to be laws. Those attempts are viewed as crimes by others, who act on that perception.

Yours seems to be the vulgar critique of anarchism as "people shooting at each other". In fact, any law is enforced by a balance of power, where most people know how to avoid a shootout. With a single enforcer most people know that if they rob a bank, a shootout will ensue. They decide not to rob banks. With multiple enforcers, most people will know how to avoid a shootout as well, and when a conflict of interpretation of natural law presents itself, they would prefer to submit to a judge. When a recalcitrant party refuses adjudication, that party would face a coalition consisting not only of its opponents in the controversy on hand, but also of its former allies. For example, those who shoot abortionists are condemned not only by pro-abortion people, but by the overwhelming number of pro-life people.

[A.J.Armitage]

"Vulgar" or not, it's what anarchy would lead to. I don't share your optimism about judges; too many things have to go right for the kind of cultural norms required to back the judges up to come into place and stay in place.

[annalex]

That's what a transition to anarchy lead to, like any revolution, -- if it ever happens. My point is that the anarchist system will converge to stability, when judges reflect the prevailing morals, but I can't predict how rapid the conversion will be.

[lzzrdgrrl]

The relationship that is pregnancy between 'mother' and 'fetus - preborn baby, whatever' is not a contractional arrangement, but a biological one and is, therefore, involuntary…

You have two conflicting claims or 'rights', and you have to priviledge one claim over the other, either the 'mother' or the 'baby'…

However you decide the issue, and whatever values you may claim to support your decision - it comes down to just… a… decision…

Consider also, that while 'viability' is a 'soft' boundary, pregnancy is not. I would support the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy over the 'baby's' right to live. You draw the line in the sand and you defend it…

Incidently you can guarantee a 'right to life' for the 'baby' if you would do one thing, and I would support the radical feminist TiGrace Atkinson on this one: take human reproduction out of the human body…

How close is science to making this a fact?

[spodbox]

Interesting. I take a sort of off-handed approach to abortion: dump Roe v Wade and let the states decide individually. Then, you need to discourage and marginalize abortion so much that few would ever be performed - and yet it is still legal in some places.

This is proper way to combat other such immoral non-crimes. No force required.

About prostitution: what F seems to not understand is that many of the drawbacks to these sort of activities arise solely because they are illegal. Legal prostitutes would most likely go through a thorough licensing process (mostly to avoid STDs). This sort of practice has already taken shape in the porn industry. Besides, mainstream dating boils down to prostitution in many cases - it just isn't upfront about the transfer of money. Is he against mere *dating*? In addition, where he is failing is he advocating that certain immoral behaviors need to be punished by the state and that legalizing these behaviors implies promoting them. Say prostitution is legal. Would you then want to engage in prostitution? Not likely, because of the self-imposed moral restrictions.

Also, one has to be careful when making moral absolutes. In reality, there are no moral absolutes in a complex world. There are always exceptions (example: self defense for murder).