Posted by Zeo285 on 01/13/10 Last updated 01/18/10
Here is Walter Block giving a brief overview of the libertarian theory of abortion
Evictionism is a libertarian theory of abortion, based on the writings of Murray Rothbard, then developed by Walter Block. The theory states that:
A women dose not have to keep a fetus in her, that she has the right to evict the fetus at any time because, when it is unwanted, it is infact a trespasser, and not only that, also the fetus is, in point of fact, acting as a parasite. Now Evicting, of any sort must always be dose in the gentlest manner possible. If a eviction is done in the gentlest manner possible, and the fetus dies after such eviction , the fault of the child dieing dose not fall onto the mother, but to no one. Because the mother has the absolute right to evict at anytime.
Let us take a fetus at 1 month, the mother has the absolute right to evict the fetus when ever she pleases, because she owns her body.
But then if we take the case of a fetus that is say 8 months old. When a fetus could be vible outside the womb, The women still must evict in the gentlest manner possible, and thanks to medical technology, the fetus can be evicted without any harm coming to it, and in fact it must be evicted in that way.
And if medical technology continues on its current path. A women will eventualy be able to evict at any time, without any harm to the fetus.
One objection to this theory witch I will attempt to elaborate on is as such, lets say, I have a baby, can I just evict it buy putting it in front of my house, on the sidewalk or something to that effect? And just let it to starve, because that would be after all, evicting it in the gentlest manner possible.
I believe that this objection is caused by intellectual laziness. By not even looking into the theory into any further detail causes people to read a brief summery, like the one I have just presented, without accusaly looking any further. But I understand that most people don't want to read a 40 page article, or listen to a hour and a half long lecture on the subject, (both of which I will provide links to at the bottom of this page for all who are interested) But in any case I will try and give a brief answer to this all inporent questen.
Walter Block has this theory of Forced Stalling. Now lets suppose I, or any person has Homesteaded area of land that looks like a bagel. Where the physical part of the bagel is owned, and the empty space in the middle is unowned, Lets say that the land that is owned is represented by "Y" and the unowned land is represented by "X"
I will get back to this in just a seconded, but, lets look at how homesteading relates to babies. Now the libertarian view of babies is that, you cannot own another human being. But you can have the rights to homestead children, and one dose this by feeding it and taking care of it.
Now back to the bagel, Block says you cannot homestead land in this way. Because in doing this, you are preventing people from getting to the unowed land "X". And you must announce to the world that there is land that is unowned, and not only that, but you also must allow an access route to the unowned land.
Now to the baby you do not want to keep, and you are in-effect giving up your right to homestead the baby, which is fine acording to libertarianism (because there are no positive obligations), but if you simple leave the baby in the back room and don't feed it, you are Forced Stalling other people from homesteading that baby, by not allowing other people to get to the child and allowing them to homestead the child that you have given up your the right to.
Now you must notif other people and the world, that there is a baby you do not want to take care of, you must in some way alow other people to homestead the child, other wise your engaged in Forced Stalling.
(I gladly welcome any and all criticisms to this theory)
Abortion by Walter Block [1:37:47] Part of the Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism seminar (my favorite lecture series of all time) This lecture maybe weird to non-libertarians, I know to me it was very radical first time i heard it, even though I am a radical libertarian, but that's the kinda stuff I find fascinating.
*The Theory presented here, I get entierly from Walter Block, I take no credit in coming up with any of this genuis theory that I have atempeted to present to you. I am attempting to develep my theories of abortion and hopefully, they will become my small contribution to the theory of Evictionism. Which I will be attempting to post here within the next couple weeks.
I haven't read the article nor have I watched the lecture. And while this theory is, as presented, internally consistent, I must wonder about the rights of the child. Trespassing can only occur if the trespasser is making a willful act of aggression upon the property holder. A fetus/unborn child is unable to make a willful act of any kind. Trespassing can also occur by way of an accidental wandering onto property. Again, an unborn person cannot be the cause of this accident.
Perhaps the child was not conceived on purpose. In this case we might call the child an accident, but the child cannot be considered to be at fault. Only the pair of individuals who engaged in sex can be considered to be at fault.
The aggression that is taking place is not fetus against mother, but actually mother against herself. She is harming herself by having ill-advised sex knowing full well that even with the best methods of birth control she could still get pregnant.
It is impossible to construe the baby as the aggressor because a baby cannot create itself on purpose on its own, which would be the only way the baby could be considered the aggressor and as such liable for eviction.
In the case of rape this changes because the man was the aggressor and to evict the baby would be eviction of an aggressor or a trespasser.
Otherwise, if the baby was conceived by mutually consenting partners knowing full-well that the possibility of creating a new person existed, then the baby cannot possibly be held at fault for trespassing therefore justifying eviction.
It seems to me that this is just a method that seems internally consistent enough for a libertarian to justify ending the life of an unborn child. Really what this theory does is make a more compelling case for adoption. First of all, the argument that a child is a trespassing parasite as a fetus is only augmented once it is born. It can only survive on the benefaction of the parents and if the parents consider it a trespasser then it is still using their resources against their will therefore it is justifiable to kill it under these rules. The bagel analogy is definitely pointing to adoption as well, it is fundamentally saying that killing the baby would be with-holding it from people who want it so why kill it in the first place?
If every person is entitled to their own bodies and lives equally, and it can be established as I believe I have done that we cannot consider the fetus to be at fault for trespassing, then the only way we can still consider abortion on the table is by saying that either the mother has more implicit value or that the baby, by virtue of not yet being born, is not fully human and therefore not entitled to the same rights as the mother. But that is a very different conversation than this one.
This is exactly where Rothbard and I parted company. For those of us that believe that our unalienable rights come from our creator then it would seem to me that our responsibilities stem from the same source. In other words, there is a higher standard. On that basis the unborn should not be deprived of their civil rights by men in black robes.
And, afterburn13's arguments are persuasive as well.
Well in the case that a fetus can't, choise to trasspass, I can draw many analogies on this, but lets take this one: Imagen a sleepwalker, a person that cannot choise to go onto someone's property, but just kinda dose. Is he tresspassing? Offcorse he's a tresspasser. Surely you wouldent deny a person there right to evict someone off ther property in such a situation.
To what you say that a baby or a fetus is not an "aggressor". I agree with you, I hope you would notice that, I have not used the word at all.
As to babies having rights, and the case of birth, This is were I disagree with Block. He takes the view that a fetus is a human life, I have a diffrent view, which I will be puting up, as I said, in the next week or so.
Posted by Zeo285 on 12/18/09 Last updated 12/18/09
I'm a fan of Schiff, He's great on economic issues! But I know nothing of his views on social issues, witch bothers me, makes me think he's playing politics, since he's running for senate as a republican, and so he might be keeping his views on drugs pretty quiet, wich I can kinda understand. But his Foreign Policy views... wow...
I would like for him to exsplain his views, on his campain site, there is nothing there of Social issues, or Foreign Policy, only of economics like the TARP bill and on the Heath Care Reform.
I thought he was a Libertarian, I have never heard of an Austrian economist thats not a libertarian, sure there are some that are Anarchist, but non that are neo-cons. I thought non-interventionist Foreign Policy is key to libertarianism, so I dont know if he's a Libertarian a Neo-Con, or somthing inbetween.
I'd like to say, I dont think Schiff is a neo con, but I dont know what he is, His site Campaign site barly has any issues, I dont know what's his views on things like drugs, and free speech, I'm guessing he's a libertarian, but I'd say the same thing about his Foreign Policy if you asked me just yesterday. I dont think he's a neo-con I think he might be playing Politics, wich is almost as bad.
I don't know. He sounds like Rand Paul right now. He's using a lot of "might have's" and "maybe's." It sounds more like political double talk, i.e. pandering to the republican in the video. Remember, he has to win the votes of the 250,000 Republicans that'll go to vote in the primaries. If he can't appeal to them then he can't win and we all know that mainstream republicans are big on the whole pro-war thing. Some of you might be disappointed that he's doing that, but remember, this is the system as it is now and it's stacked against us. Sorry, but the whole world isn't all sunshine and farts. If you want to win you have to play a little dirty. Besides, it's not really what he says that counts, it's what he does.
I have spoken personally with Schiff at the Freedom Fest. On social issues, the way I interpreted it was It is not for the Federal Govt to get involved in social issues, ie. abortion. He believes it is for the states to decide.
Well that may be true that it donsn't matter schiff says, its what he dose that counts.(which is true for all politicans) But if those two actions are not the same, and we must infact lie inorder to get into office, then we are not any better then the neo-con, of both the right and left variety.
Next time he is interviewed by our movement or on freedom watch, we need to seriously question him. We CAN NOT afford holes in our movement like this. This is how movements fall apart. Everybody needs to get in contact with him as soon as possible. We either get him to change his opinion, make him be more honest to people about his views (in the case that he really isn't for these interventionist things), or kick him out of our movement through a change in popularity.
I have been listening to Schiff for years now and this is the first time I heard any discussion on his foreign policy. He said maybe he would have gone into Afghanistan non- militarily to find Bin Laden and maybe Iran to find WMD but he really needs to be coached on his responses for consistency. If the US had sound money which he heavily indorses they would not have had the money to start these wars militarily to begin with. I do think he is a strict constitutionalist and believes economic freedom leads to personal freedom.
Nice hatchet job.
I have viewed the video several times and each time hear IF action was warrented we should handle the problem swiftly and get out and nothing that says he believes action is warrented.
I do not know who Kurt Nimrod is but after reading teh 200+ comments on the website it looks like the only common thread with his readers is Shiff is a JEW.
I will stick with Peter Shiff.
Is Schiff related to Jacob Schiff , the Internationalist Banker who helped orchestrate the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913?
I cannot get any information on his lineage because if he is in any way related to Jacob Schiff, he is allied/connected to the Rothschilds.
I guess I am so sick of seeing the United States being destroyed by Elitist Internationalist Bankers I don't care if I ask stupid, embarassing questions of someone with a last name like 'Schiff'.
No I dont think schiff is related. There are 2 "Peter Schiffs out there but the one related to the rothschilds, I think its "Peter J Schiff" or somthing like that, thats related to the barkers. His father Irwin Shiff is in jail for tax evation, so I dont think that gives him some good credablilaty, At least with me. I'm just critizing him for, playing politics. I dont think he's a NWO puppet.
Posted by Zeo285 on 12/08/09 Last updated 12/31/09
This is just a rough draft. Like alot of modern libertarian Ideas, I got this Idea after reading Rothbard. Specifically, Ethics of Liberty, The chapter "The "Rights" of Animals"
&n bsp; Let's Execute all the Wolfs
I believe I can safely assume that the basic animal rights argument is as fallows:
"that since animals have rights just as man, they should be viewed as people, and just as men have no rights to kill other men, man does not have the right to kill animals (since animals have the same rights as people)"
I am forced to continue the argument by saying, that if we can't kill animals because they have rights, just as you are I do, and since we can't kill each other, then what gives one animal the right to kill another.
If one believes in animal rights, that is when a man kills an animal he violates that animals rights, then we must conclude that when a wolf kills a sheep, the wolf is a murderer.
And if we assume that animals are equal to man, then we must assume that animals can be guilty of murder. To say other wises is to say that a man cannot be guilty of murder.
And if a wolf is found guilty of murder, what should be the punishment? The death penalty? Of course not, that would defeat the whole purpose of the pro animal groups. But what would one do as a punishment?
What should happen to the wolf? Would you not allow a wolf or any other meat eating animal, to ever agen eat another animal? If you did do such a thing, you would then be responsible for starving the animal, then you would be responsible for killing the wolf.
But what if the wolf is not found guilty of murder, but just a lesser crime not murder, what should be the consequence?
Would you do as we do with humans for when we commit a lesser crime, lock them up in a small cell? Agen, that goes agents the animal rights groups.
The argument that animals have rights are never followed up by suggestions of what punishment should take place if an animal violates another animal's rights.
But to say animals have rights and should be viewed as people but not suggest any punishment should be enacted by those animals against other animals is completely inconsistent. But if you do believe animals have rights, in order to be consistent in the argument, then you must believe they should be punished as such, you must believe that the wolf (along with all other carnivores) must be wiped off the face of the earth for their crimes against other animals.
But on the other hand, if you don't need to be consistent in your logic, one can believe that animals are both equal to man, and that animals don't need to be punished for when they disregard the rights of other animals.
And If it is to be said that animals only eat what they need to survive, so a wolf is not a murder-er, while man eats far beyond that which is justifiable, I recommend throwing a sheep into a well feed wolfs den at any zoo, (who undoubly feeds their animals well), and see what happens to the sheep.
Or better yet, why don't you throw yourself into a lion's exhibit if you are so confident in your theory.
The simple fact is, If given the choice between, More then what one needs, Only that which is need to survive, and having less than that which is needed. Everybody, be it man the wolf the lion or even the sheep, all would choice to be stuffed rather than starve.
Zeo285,
You presented the idea very well! Your reasoning is sound - much sounder than that of the dunce who suggested that an animal has the right to sue humans. And just imagine, he's one of the leaders of this once great nation.
Keep the posts coming.
Thank you,
Robert Walker
Posted by Zeo285 on 03/28/09 Last updated 03/28/09
Please simpley watch this, back in November, 2007
Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists! WTF?! And his guest says lewrockwell.com is "Islamo Fasest"! I cannot sapport or even remotly respect a man that talks like this, and then later supports Ron Paul right after he can't win the presadental romination. And He's hasent appologized for this!
Now heres a clip of him being a Ron Paul "Supporter". 6:57 he talks about the new wold order, and later says people like this are crazy.
Now Watch this.
And here he says A New World Order is the endgame! It dosent work bothways!
Thats the way double think works, if you critsize it, your crazy. If you dont critisize it, it exist.
This is Alex Jones on Glenn Beck and Fema Camps
Glenn Beck Has Popular Mechanics Investigate FEMA Camps
I tell people all the time that GB is a two face arrogant double speaking jerk and should not be trusted. However, he has had some interesting guest on his show.
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
