Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

[Conza88]

Chances are you've never heard of it before... so keep an open mind please. It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go. Save the appeal to authority fallacies please, as well as the appeal to emotion.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

— Unknown​

​

Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block).

This is a brief introduction to the theory of Evictionism. Evictionism is the abortion "compromise". I have no strong feelings on this issue, I go where the logic goes. Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you first read the below... or you will more than likely appear foolish & arrogant. Why? Because the objection you just took a total of 10 seconds to think up, has more than likely been addressed in the article.

• Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (pdf).
  *Pg 14 - IV. Introduction to the Compromise*
  *Pg 21 - V. Evictionism*
  *Pg 24 - VI. Compromise*
  *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*
  - Present tactic not working
  - Eviction is a compromise position
  - Moving from the present law
  - Eviction has not failed
  ​
  *Pg 33 - VIII. Implications*
  *Pg 35 - IX. Objections*
  - Transplant analogy misses the mark
  - Positive obligations
  - Returning stolen property
  - Endangerment
  - Plucking
  - Parental Rights​
  *Pg 44 - X. Conclusion*
• Also closely relevant is: Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: Children's rights (pdf)

Edit:

​

I’m not at all emotionally invested like those of the “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” brigade, I’m predominately interested in the logic of it - which position is to be considered just. As it stands - neither of those positions are, they are both partly ‘right’ and partly ‘wrong’. The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism [video]. For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article (where all your inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:

• A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
  B. Eviction (pro property rights)
  C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
  
  1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
  A. no
  B. no
  C. yes
  
  2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
  A. yes
  B. yes
  C. no
  
  3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
  A. yes
  B. no
  C. no

I don’t think there’s any conflict between Hoppe’s position -he is simply giving the private law framework- and Block’s, where he is specifically giving what he considers to be the ‘libertarian law code’ response. Here’s a great diagram that encapsulates what is meant. There need not be just one ‘law code’ that individuals voluntarily sign up to adhere by, but the libertarian principles of ‘self-ownership’ and ‘original appropriation’ naturally lay the foundation.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Do we really need to rehash the abortion argument for the 9 billionth time and why does there have to be a "correct libertarian position"? Why can't people just believe what they want to believe on the issue?

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

//

 

[Conza88]

To answer your question: Read the first line of the OP.If you're not interested in the discussion; then don't participate. Thank you for your useless contribution.

Why put forward a solution to the problem of 'abortion'? Because this position is the answer to the demonic political 'debate' between two false 'solutions'. Irrational A versus irrational B. A third way, the libertarian way - imo, solves the issue. As a result it trumpets the awesomeness of libertarianism - it brings people together. That's what liberty does.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The entire OP is an appeal to authority. heh

 

[asurfaholic]

Why can't you spell out the basics in a nutshell for those of us with too little time to check all the links and watch the video?

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Chances are you've never heard of it before...

I fall on the same side as Penn Jilette. First, there has to be symmetry in the law. If you are fucking deader than Fanny's Fried Chicken when your brain stops (and therefore no longer a person), then you should be considered alive (for the purposes of personhood) when the brain starts. Abortion ONLY before that period is 'acceptable' in the sense that Block is right, viability. Evictionism at a later date, when the baby becomes viable enough to survive, minus significant degradation of life, is acceptable.

The problem I have found, in my long harrangues with asshole 'pro-choice' feminists on other boards (one of whom is a nurse) is they will not even REMOTELY consider this option. Its abortion on demand, at any point, no questions. To even consider a compromise is a defeat. I have tried the implicit contract, the non-aggression axiom and every other method I can think to try and cajole them. At least in my experience, nothing works. It could also be because of their age (mid-40s and up) that they have this so in-grained into their beliefs.

I might also add that these people balked (reported my posts) when I posted images of dead Libyan children (called it unconscionable) to show exactly whom the targets were of their unflagging support for Obama's Libyan Air War. They, apparently, have qualms about seeing the horrific results of their actions.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the conclusion of one of the appeals to authority that were in the OP. Since this is Ron Paul forums and we are in the middle of an election, it should be noted that this runs contrary to Ron Paul's stance. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and believes life begins at conception.

We have attempted to explain the pro-life and pro-choice positions and to discuss their strong and weak points. We described a compromise, called evictionism, and showed how it is a true intermediary between the two more well-known positions on abortion. We have demonstrated how it can be justified, while they cannot.

The key to the solution is to focus on the private property rights in question. In this case, it is the mother's womb;given that the fetus is unwanted, it is in effect a trespasser, or a parasite. The mother, then, has a right to evict it - in the gentlest manner possible - but not to kill it, if technology permits her not to do so.

What remains, on a practical level, is to enact legislation based on this libertarian philosophy. That, in our opinion, constitutes the last best hope for saving millions of innocents from merciless slaughter, without in the slightest violating the rights of any pregnant woman.

 

[Conza88]

The entire OP is an appeal to authority. heh

You must have missed the part where I linked to the arguments contained in the journal article... or those put forward in the video.

Your entire post is an accurate portrayal of your ignorance when it comes to logic and fallacies. heh

Why can't you spell out the basics in a nutshell for those of us with too little time to check all the links and watch the video?

Because I don't think I'd do the argument justice... i.e it wouldn't be as good you actually reading said article where it is all spelt out.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Here's the conclusion of one of the appeals to authority that were in the OP. Since this is Ron Paul forums and we are in the middle of an election, it should be noted that this runs contrary to Ron Paul's stance. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and believes life begins at conception.

I understand this is not Ron Paul's position... yes, hence me making clear I'm not interested in any appeals to authority, which is a fallacy. I'm interested in the truth. And yet so is Ron Paul!

I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You must have missed the part where I linked to the arguments contained in the journal article... or those put forward in the video.

No, I saw them and they were nothing more than your very own appeal to authority. lol

 

[Conza88]

No, I saw them and they were nothing more than your very own appeal to authority. lol

Where did I make an appeal to authority?

Spell it out. Where did I say "because Walter Block says this, as he's an expert, it is right." Where?

/Let the lesson in logic commence. The irony is; you're the one who is guilty.

Why must nearly every thread I create; attract trolls such as yourself? Why must I deal with individuals unable to understand basic logic?

What are your thoughts on the article LE?

 

[LibertyEagle]

In summary, Conza believes that fetuses are parasites and believes the law should allow babies to be evicted at any point in time. If technology exists which can keep them living, great; otherwise, let the little sucker die.

Does that about wrap it up, Conza?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Where did I make an appeal to authority?

Spell it out. Where did I say "because Walter Block says this, as he's an expert, it is right." Where?

/Let the lesson in logic commence. The irony is; you're the one who is guilty.

You prefaced your appeals to authority with the following:

Chances are you've never heard of it before... so keep an open mind please. It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go.

.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What are your thoughts on the article LE?

I do not agree with letting the baby die.

 

[Conza88]

You prefaced your appeals to authority with the following:.

LOL!

Yes, because of the arguments contained within the article [which you haven't read]. The logical reasoning put forward there. I didn't appeal to anyone, or anything and you failed to show I did. Apologise please.

What are you thoughts on the article LE? What is wrong with it? Where does the author error?

I do not agree with letting the baby die.

Neither do I. That's why I'm against abortion and for evictionism. I want to try keep the baby alive.

Do you agree with using force against the mother?

 

[LibertyEagle]

LOL!

Yes, because of the arguments contained within the article [which you haven't read]. The logical reasoning put forward there. I didn't appeal to anyone, or anything and you failed to show I did. Apologise please.

How funny. You specifically state that you believe that what you are getting ready to post reflects your own belief.

It's the correct libertarian position on abortion as far as my logic and reasoning go.

And then you proceed to provide the links, which are your appeals to authority. Nowhere did you summarize your personal beliefs other than to imply that you agree with them; apparently, preferring to let your authority figures speak for you.

What are you thoughts on the article LE? What is wrong with it? Where does the author error?

I already posted what I thought about the article.

You, however, have not responded to my summary of it.

Edited to include Conza's latest edit:

Neither do I. That's why I'm against abortion and for evictionism. I want to try keep the baby alive.

But, if it is too young for technology to keep them alive, too bad, so sad, eh?

Do you agree with using force against the mother?

Of course not. However, if she commits murder, she should be held accountable for her actions.

Do you not believe in accountability for murder, Conza?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.

Doubtful, since he believes life begins at conception. lol

 

[Conza88]

How funny. You specifically state that you believe that what you are getting ready to post reflects your own belief.

And then you proceed to provide the links, which are your appeals to authority. Nowhere did you summarize your personal beliefs other than to imply that you agree with them; apparently, preferring to let your authority figures speak for you.

A link = authority figure? Hahaha , that is your contention? Do you not understand what an "authority figure" is? Do you not understand basic English? I let the arguments I referred to in the OP speak for me yes.

I already posted what I thought about the article.

You, however, have not responded to my summary of it.

You asked a question about what I thought of your summary. The summary you provided was gleaned from the video only was it not? Hence the non existence to any reference of text.

You didn't offer a response to the article, you didn't offer a rebuttal or critique. You didn't offer your thoughts as to why it is right, or wrong.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Yeah he absolutely right

I've used this arguement before but never so succinctly

It is the true libertarian position

But it'd classify it as pro choice

 

[Conza88]

Doubtful, since he believes life begins at conception. lol

"Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.137 But the fertilized egg most certainly would become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.138 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.

So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species.139" ~ Excerpt from article, pg17, Walter Block.​

So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying? Don't say I didn't warn you:

Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you first read the below... or you will more than likely appear foolish & arrogant. Why? Because the objection you just took a total of 10 seconds to think up, has more than likely been addressed in the article.