Anarchy vs. the Right to Life

Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

[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).