posted
Haven't read all of it, obviously. But I read the abortion section and that part didn't seem well thought, IMO, which made me give up on the rest of the site. The Freedom Force looks at the issue as a simple one of whether you believe life begins at conception or not. From the stand point of the individual visa vis the state, i.e., how free and independent are we of state authority, I think the issue is more complex than that. I believe that anti-abotion laws by their nature reduce freedom. (This isn't a judgment call on whether abortion should be illegal. I'm not an anarchist so I believe that, in order to live in functioning society, we must give up some freedoms and that democratic societies can and should make moral judgments.) However, I also think that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that that type of judicial activism also reduces freedom because it is anti-democratic and presents a greater threat to personal freedom than banning abortion.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: No problemo, there are others who are willing to fantasize for ya.
I hope to get the graphic novel at some point, and I loved the book, but I wouldn't want their system in real life. That's anarchy, and Smith is an anarchist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig: When Life Begins *is* the major issue on abortion. It's the issue that makes me see both sides, because if you believe life begins at conception only a MONSTER would think abortion is ok.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.
This claim is ambiguous in its use of the word "better." Does "those in need are better served by charity... than by welfare" mean those in need will get more actual help/money from charity than from welfare?
That sounds to me like a question for social science to answer with some sort of study, and I don't see any such thing cited.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Mig: When Life Begins *is* the major issue on abortion. It's the issue that makes me see both sides, because if you believe life begins at conception only a MONSTER would think abortion is ok.
This is the kind of thinking that makes people think it's cool to bomb abortion clinics. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Mig: When Life Begins *is* the major issue on abortion. It's the issue that makes me see both sides, because if you believe life begins at conception only a MONSTER would think abortion is ok.
Maybe not "okay", but I can imagine cases where even someone who does believe that could consider it a necessary choice without being a monster.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe that life begins at conception and that abortion should be illegal. I agree that when life begins is the critical issue in deciding whether to ban abortion. My point is that freedom requires that the people, not the courts, through a democratic process should decide whether they agree with this conclusion. My criticism of the Freedom Force is that it fails to link the issue of abortion to the question of "freedom," which I equate to the democratic process.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never did find out why joining this organization would make any difference. Suggested activities: public info, membership expansion, training, networking, mission (not defined).
I'm also unsure how well the model will work. It's nonhierarchical, so weirdness in the leadership should be less of a problem; but it also means we can expect more weirdness, since you apparently can't be booted out for claiming collectivism is a plot by space aliens, or such.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mig: When Life Begins *is* the major issue on abortion. It's the issue that makes me see both sides, because if you believe life begins at conception only a MONSTER would think abortion is ok.
Recognizing it as "life" is not the same as recognizing it as being a living human being, with all the rights that carries with it.
Edit: I recognize that I destroy "life" on a genocidal scale every time I use a disinfecting hand soap, but that doesn't make me a monster.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there's a surprisingly thorough article on just this distinction here .
The summary being:
quote: Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong. However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.
The article also has a good summary of the arguments/counter-arguments.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting argument, Mucus. I've trained myself to be generally suspicious of argument by thought-experiment, but there's something compelling about that one. I'll have to think on it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with the example, is that the person hooked up to the violinist was done so against his will and without his knowledge or consent.
A woman who knowingly and willingly engages in sexual intercourse (and for the sake of argument I'm deliberately leaving out rape victims here) accepts the risk that she may become pregnant so the two situations are not analogous. A person who has consensual sex and gets pregnant can't claim their body has been hijacked by the fetus against their will the same way the person in that hypothetical situation can say their own body has been kidnapped hooked to the violinist against their will. Personal responsibility has to come into play. Yes, I know some people are raped and some are victims of incest, but the large majority of abortions are people who know very well that babies come from intercourse and engaged in the activity willingly.
The analogy would be better if the violinist's life is in peril because of something the person has done or a choice that person has made, just as a fetus is conceived because of a choice made by two people to have sex. So if it's your actions that have led to the violinists' situation, do you have more of a moral obligation to protect and preserve his life for nine months?
And after I post this I read the link and see the objection I make is covered there. Sorry. Should have read it BEFORE I posted.
Personally I don't think the author addresses the objection convincingly, but then as I'm a staunch pro-lifer I'm sure that is not surprising to anyone.
[ December 09, 2006, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but think that in any case of an unwanted pregnancy its a rape of a different sort for the unborn baby.
"I didn't ask to gestate within this uterus, I was just sort of placed here."
I wish sometimes there was birth control in pill form for men. I could see even many rapists taking it to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Not that thats ideal, but its better then how things are now IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The analogy is pretty skewed. To make it more accurate, we'd need the personal violition (no pun intended); we'd need the sick violinist to be a family member, and a child; and we'd need those crazed music lovers to be absent from the story, since pregnancy doesn't result from a conspiracy of outsiders.
Back to Freedom Force. The abortion sidetrack shows one major problem this org will have: getting sidetracked into left-right issues. Left-right issues are important, but so are other issues.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's funny watching idiots pat each other on the back.
I don't think I'd consider the dozens (hundreds, maybe?) of published objections to the Judy Thompson article, or the numerous rejoinders, to be either idiotic or back-patting.
Ethics is a thriving field of study that attracts a lot of the world's best minds, some of whom are personal friends of mine.
edited for undue harshness
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the main topic of this thread goes...
I think the future of the libertarian tradition lies not with uncompromising hard-liners like this "Freedom Force" -- who seem no different from the Harry Browne types who've been wasting their money and time for decades -- but with pragmatists such as the Libertarian Reform Caucus.
posted
I haven't heard a libertarian yet who wasn't, at his/her core, mostly concerned with how high taxes are. It's all about how much of what is "theirs" that they get to keep. To wrap it up in something resembling high-minded ideals like 'freedom' is just putting a veneer on something pretty basic.
Their solution for "the poor" is "keep your hands off my money."
Their solution for pollution is "keep your hands off my money."
Their bottom line solution, if you keep pecking away at it long enough, for every issue or problem is "keep your hands off my money."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, Bob, you're drawing a distinction that libertarians don't recognize. To them, freedom is all about "what's mine" ... indeed, freedom just means the ability to do what you want with your property.
For my own part, I disagree with that last bit. The notion of property is, it seems to me, a socially constructed one with no moral importance of its own. Freedom is the ability to do what you want -- period.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that "my money" should be replaced with "what's mine" in my earlier post. It is a more generalized thing than just money.
And yes, I think that the notion of "property rights" is a social construct. As is "money" for that matter.
Most of the libertarians I've heard say that they aren't in favor of anarchy, but don't really see the need to guard against it. Just so long as the government isn't after their stuff, they think everything will work out just great.
Police should simply magically appear when a property crime occurs and solve the problem once and for all, and then dissolve so as not to be a financial burden to the property owner.
They don't see the need for public education, for example, even though it's pretty clear that without a "public" education system, we'd be relying on charity to be able to educate the poor. The result would be a rapidly declining earning potential for folks who are already poor. Their recourse (for many) would be crime. But that wouldn't need to result in more prisons or police because, they'd be "free" and that's all that matters.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They don't see the need for public education, for example, even though it's pretty clear that without a "public" education system, we'd be relying on charity to be able to educate the poor. The result would be a rapidly declining earning potential for folks who are already poor. Their recourse (for many) would be crime. But that wouldn't need to result in more prisons or police because, they'd be "free" and that's all that matters.
Except that supply-siders only stand to gain from a creative, educated workforce. And one with as few people in prison as possible for that matter.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I haven't heard a libertarian yet who wasn't, at his/her core, mostly concerned with how high taxes are.
Well, now you have.
I haven't met libertarians who *are* primarily concerned with taxes. The ones I have met, me included, tend to be more concerned with the activities that tax money will be used for.
This isn't the only blanket condemnation of libertarians for some supposed motive, but it isn't one I'd heard before. (The one I usually keep hearing is that we want the war on drugs stopped because we want to toke up.)
What I'm primarily concerned with is freedom, and primarily others' freedom, because I don't have as many restrictions as others. I haven't been unjustly imprisoned; I'm not poor enough that the government sends social workers regularly to decide whether to take my kids away; that sort of thing. I feel a lot more outrage for a handicapped man sentenced to 25 with no parole for possession of his own pain medication, than I do for a proposed property tax hike. Judging by the reactions on the blogs, others feel the same way.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Should have read it BEFORE I posted.
