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.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ? What if the crook already hired them to not track them down ? These anarchists must have IQ level just above room temperature in an Igloo.

[VRWC_minion]

and I will be re-instated in polite society

How does this re-instatment come about ? Who decides ?

[Architect]

If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ? What if the crook already hired them to not track them down ? These anarchists must have IQ level just above room temperature in an Igloo.

My sympathies, Aaron. Not only do you get attacked by people by principles, you also get it from people with [...] something.

[Architect]

Who decides ?

Igloos, obviously.

[VRWC_minion]

And do they have any rights while be aprehended. Who insures those rights ?

[Architect]

should be people with principles

[VRWC_minion]

Offer an answer. Who pays the agency if you have been robbed of your money and how do you stop the bad guys from buying out the agency first. Who is to stop this agency from running a protection scheme like the mafia.

I cannot believe that anarchists can't see the idiocy in thinking anarchy is a viable "system".

[Dales]

What a wonderful thread.

I would love to know once and for all who the anarchro-capitalists here are, rather than them masquerading as conservatives.

Why not come out and admit what your true beliefs are? This is a website, nothing more. Why not see if your true beliefs can stand up, rather than an act you put on?

[Architect]

I cannot believe that anarchists can't see the idiocy in thinking anarchy is a viable "system".

That's your right. Now go away and let me talk to AJ. He has something to say.

[BluesDuke]

Interesting material. From Libertarians for Life. (Yes - there are more pro-life libertarians than people might other wise believe. And I am such a libertarian myself; though I take my own stance for spiritual as well as rational reasons, I believe it ought to be none other than the individual states which should be restricting or outlawing abortion, and that the federal government had no proper business in the issue in the first place.) At least one rock and roll star whose brains haven't gone, if you'll pardon the expression, entirely to bed...

[ Home ] [ The Library ] [ Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll ] [ Links ] [ Order Literature ] [ Contacting Us ]

Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll Gary Cherone Asks Eddie Vedder Some Questions

"My hope is to introduce as many who will listen, regardless of where they stand, to Libertarians for Life. For their arguments are persuasive, reasoning from science and philosophy. Anyone with an objective mind will find them hard to ignore."      -Gary Cherone    For some time now, Eddie Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam has spoken out in favor of abortion choice. In June of 1999, the rock world heard a different take on the issue when Gary Cherone (at the time, lead singer of the band Van Halen, formerly of Extreme) penned an Open Letter to Vedder. That pro-life letter caused a stir, and in November of 1999, Cherone discussed the matter on Fox TV's "O'Reilly Factor." Vedder has yet to respond, but the issue remains.  Here's a second Open Letter. "I feel like I know every angle of this issue," said Eddie Vedder. "I know the adoption angle; I know what it's like to be fifteen and be in a situation and have to make a decision. Terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing." —Eddie Vedder, Rolling Stone 11/12/98 #799 What About the 98.6 Degree Angle? Another Letter to Eddie Vedder by Gary Cherone The vast majority of people who support abortion take that position with the firm conviction that life does not begin at conception That being said... If one personally felt "terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing" but was the right of the individual to make that "decision" Is the life within the mother's womb a human person? If the answer is no, it is not a human person Why would one feel it "is not an easy thing" to do? If the answer is yes, it is a human person Why would one advocate "terminating" it? If the answer is I don't know, if it is, or isn't a human person How many more "decision(s)" would one make in an uncertain "situation"? If the unborn is not a human person No justification for abortion is necessary However... If the unborn is a human person No justification for abortion is adequate. Nearly all arguments for abortion are based on the faulty premise that the unborn are not fully human. Respectfully, Gary Cherone (1/22/2001) Copyright ©2001, Gary Cherone Credit for source must be given to Libertarians for Life. one of life's many choices Rose Vista a home for pregnant women P.O. Box 66879 Mar Vista, CA 90066 donations appreciated An Open Letter to Eddie Vedder When is a woman not a woman? Therein lies the only clear refutation of a woman’s rights. A woman’s rights — seems a mere tautology, a redundant catch phrase. Are not rights self evident? Intrinsic assumptions of the inalienable? So, when is a woman not a woman, a right not a right? When she doesn’t exist. When does a woman become a woman? Is it when her first ballot has been cast? Or when she graduates from her class? Is it when she makes a wish on her sweet sixteenth? Would I be amiss if it were her first kiss? Is it when she’s diagnosed by the boy next door? Or as ambiguous as the cutting of the cord? Is it the time it takes to travel the distance through the canal? Or when she’s kicking and becomes viable? Is it when her sex is discovered by a sonogram? Or after eight weeks when the changes in her body will be mainly in dimension? Is it when her brain waves are detected after 40 days? Or is it around three weeks when her primitive heart beats? Can there be only one true line of demarcation? One finite measurable point in time that differentiates life from non-life? Womanhood from non-womanhood? Rights from no right? Is it the moment of conception — that point when all of the above is set in motion? That precise moment when "a separate human individual, with her own genetic code, needing only food, water, and oxygen, comes into existence"? Indeed, It is at that point, "like the infant, the child, the adolescent, that the conceptus is a being who is becoming, not a becoming striving toward being. She is not a potential life, she is a life with great potential". She is not the mother, she is an other — a somebody other than the mother. A woman, however beautiful, however complex when fully grown, begins life as a single cell, a zygote — that stage in human development through which we all pass. She fulfills "the four criteria necessary to all life — metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Her genetic makeup is established at conception, determining to a great extent her own individual, physical characteristics": her eyes, her hair, her skin color, bone structure, her gender. So let us not be confused, "she did not come from a zygote — she once was a zygote. She did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo. She did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus". She did not come from a little girl — she once was a little girl. When is a woman not a woman? The answer is absolute, non-negotiable. To argue against would be to ignore the innate, the fact of the matter. The answer can never be a matter of opinion or choice. This is not a metaphysical contention. This is biology 101. The answer is scientifically self-evident — as inherent as the inalienable. Therefore, the ability to pursue happiness is contingent upon liberty — her liberty, and her freedom is solely dependent upon the mother of all human rights... the right of life. Respectfully, Gary Cherone (June 1999) [Quotations by Francis J. Beckwith] Copyright ©1999, Gary Cherone Credit for source must be given to Rock for Life.

 

LFL's literature and speakers are available to explain and defend why we oppose abortion. Our reasoning is expressly philosophical and scientific — rather than either religious or pragmatic. A form for ordering hard copies of our literature is available on the Web, or send a self-addressed stamped envelope to:

Libertarians for Life 13424 Hathaway Drive Wheaton, MD 20906

Phone: 301/460-4141 Fax: 301/871-8552 Email: libertarian@erols.com Web Site: http://www.L4L.org

[ Home ] [ The Library ] [ Life, Rights, and Rock 'n' Roll ] [ Links ] [ Order Literature ] [ Contacting Us ]

Copyright ©2001 Libertarians for Life
Logos Courtesy of Lonnie R. Williams

This page was last modified on June 02, 2001.

[Architect]

I don't think we are hiding out. Nor are we masquerading as conservatives. Although we do believe that conservatism is best served by the market, not the state.

[Dales]

I know that it means something completely different than "constitutional Republic" and something completely different than the founding fathers of our country put in place.

I also know that it empowers the charletan and the confidence man and those who refuse to adhere to societal contracts.

It is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.

[VRWC_minion]

Sure, I'll leave you to your madness with a note that anachrists always fail to address any practical applications.

[annalex]

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.

It doesn't follow. An elementary rights analysis would show that it is rightful to come to defense of the rights of others; but it is not rightful to commit aggression on behalf of others. Thus a charity hiring a protection agent to punish abortionists would do so by rights of protecting the unborn, while NARAL hiring another agent to protect the mother's whims would be out of bounds. Your agrument would work in an environment without laws, but it doesn't work in the environment you present according to Hoppe, where the use of force is moderated by judges.

It's nice to have your column back.

[Dales]

I will admit, I never confused you for a conservative.

The question I have for you is, you want us to buy into a system that is predicated on people living up to their agreements more times than not. This is a website for and by conservatives, yet you feel free to peddle your stuff here anyway.

If you can't abide by the simple guidelines as to what this site is about without us hiring some agency to enforce it on you (with your agreement as to a mediator? lol), then why would you anticipate anyone with a brain would agree that anarchro-capitalism is a good idea?

[A.J.Armitage]

I've already established that you are wrong to say that the market only protects people who have hired defense companies.

No, you haven't. The dire threat that a murderer will be snubbed at a church pot-luck isn't my idea of protection, and there's no point in pretending credit card companies, or whoever, will avoid business with people who had abortions; even if a very few do, it's hardly enough to be any any real form of "protection". And in any event, the non-paying debter is known to the creditor. This is not necessarily the case with a violent crime such as abortion; the guilty party might remain unknown. The two situations are different.

Now. Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

Probably for abortionists. I don't know about the mothers, but there has to be a penalty.

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

Inside the mother's body or not, the fact remains that the issue is the baby's body. Aggression doesn't suddenly become a right because of where it happens to be. If it does, why the body, in particular? Why not property in general? If I own land, it's mine just as much as my body is.

Government jurisdiction isn't determined by location (speaking here of government in general, not any particular government), but by the nature of the acts involved, which is why his later objections are mistaken. If banning the initiation of force somehow leads to required genetic engineering, why not genetic engineering to make people more "non-fetus friendly"? If you've already granted jurisdiction over your relations with others, why not?

[JMJ333]

Do they? You can't take their immorality as a given. I certainly don't give it. I don't know about prostitution reducing a person to an object, either. What, exactly, would such a reduction consist of? I've always thought of commerce as a distinctly human activity. No, prostitution is immoral because it involves fornication.

Yes I can, because I don't live in subjective utopia. Concrete moral truths exist. Prostitution reduces a human being to an object because that is what happens when you act sexually base. It strips a person of dignity, and denegrates the sacredness of sex, marriage, family, and human life.

You're right, of course, that abortion is immoral because it kills someone. It's also something else. It's a crime. There's an actual victim, the baby.

There are victims of drug usage and prostitution also. It has a negative effect on society--the society which we have a moral obligation to pass on as healthy as possible for American children. If the "values of morality and legality" are not reinforced among the public and in the media and social institutions, the agreements, declarations, and most sophisticated juridical instruments will be useless. Without a clear conscience of what is right and wrong, our societies will be incapable of being immune to the plague of crime.

I can see fighting for our culture, but not, you know, fighting for our culture.

I don't recall asking you to wage physical war. I'm talking about the arena of ideas.

[Architect]

I simply want to be left alone. Let me take care of me and mine in the best way we know how. Why do you statists insist on taking care of us against our will?

[A.J.Armitage]

If i am robbed, how the heck do I pay the agency ?

The idea is, you've already paid, the same way you've already paid the insurance agency when your house burns down. There are other objections, however.