Walter Block: Cheered at Paul Festival, booed at official Ron Paul rally

[S.Shorland]

Evictionism (prenatal adoption) can't mean remove at any harm excluding death.He is right in saying that in two hundred years there will be the technology for artificial wombs for even the earliest evictee/adoption applicant.

 

[AdamT]

It was somewhat moronic on Block's part to broach that particular subject at that point in time IMO.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Right time. Right place. Wrong phrasing. One of the things holding this movement back is that we don't actually work out our differences.

Having differences is a strength. The sheep get behind their candidates 100%.

Walter's proposal bridges the gap between the pro life and pro choice sides.

Meh! I also like the argument that government big enough to stop abortion is too big, too intrusive, too powerful.

Instead of thinking of a loving, childless couple coming to the rescue of a distraught mother and child, it brought up the image of a heartless mother throwing her child out on the street.

And consider the practicality. If one were to adopt a soon-to-be evicted baby, they would want to offer a sufficient sum of cash to take the child to term or as close as possible. Even if they paid $25,000 it would be far less than the anticipated costs of $50,000 to $250,000 to $1,000,000+ associated with a premature delivery.

With present law, there are more complications if the custodial parents are not biologically related (adoption process instead of a surrogate mother process).

I suspect it would be like organ "donations". Ideally we should own our bodies, body parts, and have the full right to dispose of for cash in the event of our death. In reality, people like to attach a sacredness to this - i.e., state control - so that the only people paid for organs are the doctors, nurses, orderlies, hospital maintenance/vendors, insurance agencies, et cetera.

'Evictionism' as a theory could be used to delay abortion too. E.g., tennants often have legal rights that can delay the process. If it takes three months to get an eviction approved, this may prevent third trimester abortions.

Like with other issues, government out of the picture is best.

 

[erowe1]

His choice of topic doesn't seem very well-thought-out to me (unless it was to save prep time by doing the same talk twice).

That said, when he says that the Paul staffer who claims he was clearly told to talk about monetary policy is wrong, and that he was never told any such thing, I'm willing to bet he's telling the truth.

 

[jbauer]

Having differences is a strength. The sheep get behind their candidates 100%.

Meh! I also like the argument that government big enough to stop abortion is too big, too intrusive, too powerful.

Like with other issues, government out of the picture is best.

I'm all about it your body do what you want. Smoke dope go for it, wanna marry a dude go for it. I do however, think there is a place in mondern humanity to speak for those who can't speak such as a child. I view an unborn child the same way I view a new born. Both need "us" to get them to the point where they can survive on thier own and thus need protection. In my opinion a womans body is a womans body until you bring a 3rd party into the mix. That is what makes abortion a tough subject.

 

[July]

Walter Block is fantastic, but as has been said, wrong time and wrong place. I think libertarians should feel comfortable discussing any subject in any situation, but we aren't at that point yet. And maybe it's a lack of awareness or perhaps a bit of naivety on his part in assuming he would be warmly received.

He shouldn't have been booed. This doesn't really change my opinion of him.

Yeah. I was not offended at all, but it was awkward...I don't think the Mises crowd is used to that kind of large and mainstream exposure. But they are going to have to get used to it, as the ideas become more popular.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron told me that he wanted me not to speak about present day politics...

Uh, hello, McFly. That means don't talk about abortion. It's too bad Ron wasn't more clear, but anyone who thinks that abortion is not "present day politics" is not in touch with the present day. This couldn't be more relevant, as it is nothing more than another Akin-style blunder, right in the midst of the fallout from that. The mainstream media and the establishment love this. It's exactly what they want.

But it's red, it's smelly, and Walter apparently couldn't resist chasing it.

 

[sailingaway]

His choice of topic doesn't seem very well-thought-out to me (unless it was to save prep time by doing the same talk twice).

That said, when he says that the Paul staffer who claims he was clearly told to talk about monetary policy is wrong, and that he was never told any such thing, I'm willing to bet he's telling the truth.

Yeah, I suspect he just used the same speech and the staffers THOUGHT he would discuss monetary policy, given that is what he has in common with Ron.

 

[danda]

I do not agree with evictionism in its entirety. I do not believe it is compatible with libertarian philosophy, and is a bad compromise.

I do however agree that the rights of the woman to her body (property) must be balanced against those of the fetus. I also believe that murder and torture are worse transgressions of an individual's rights than trespassing.

So an unwanted fetus is trespassing on the woman's property. The woman that aborts the fetus is sometimes causing great harm/pain/torture to the fetus, and then killing it.

The second part is the point that I believe evictionism fails to address adequately.

To me then, the key question becomes: At what point should the fetus be considered a human being, and be afforded all the rights that libertarians generally agree upon?

My answer to this question, is that the fetus should be considered a human being when its brain and nervous system have developed to the point where it can feel pain. I do not know what age this is. It may even be different for each fetus. So I would advocate that scientists and doctors define that policy, which may not be one-size-fits-all.

Anyway, to my mind, before this cut-off point, the woman should have every right to rid her body of the unwanted organism (parasite) via day after pill, surgical procedure, or whatever available technology. After the cut-off, it is legally a feeling human being, and the woman should be held accountable for murder (lowest degree) if she aborts it.

It is the woman's responsibility then to monitor her body after engaging in intercourse, so that she becomes aware of the pregnancy before the cut-off point. Failure to do so would be considered negligence, and therefore not a justification for committing murder after the cut-off point.

This assumes of course, that technology is available that can inform the woman she is pregnant before the cut-off point is reached. I am not a doctor and the cut-off point is undefined in this argument, but I do believe that today's technology is sufficient and affordable for most women.

I actually believe that the same notions about "can feel pain" can actually be applied towards our treatment of animals also. I think that is a related, but tangential discussion, and any comprehensive libertarian answer regarding abortion should address both from the same root principles.

thoughts?


I actually heard Walter's speeches, and wanted to talk to him about my approach, but other great speakers were lined up after him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

thoughts?

Sounds fairly reasonable. But it's much more fun to debate circumcision, if we want to debate medical procedures.

 

[cjm]

Thanks for the post. Very good read. Actually his position makes perfect sense. But I think it would be more palatable if he called it "prenatal adoption". In fact that would be a very good soundbite. I bet most pro-lifers would rally around the idea. And it would separate the pro-choice from the pro-abortion crowd.

I agree. "Prenatal adoption" is a much better name for this concept. If the baby lives and there are no permanent side-effects, I'm ok with this theory.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I do not agree with evictionism in its entirety. I do not believe it is compatible with libertarian philosophy, and is a bad compromise.

I do however agree that the rights of the woman to her body (property) must be balanced against those of the fetus. I also believe that murder and torture are worse transgressions of an individual's rights than trespassing.

So an unwanted fetus is trespassing on the woman's property. The woman that aborts the fetus is sometimes causing great harm/pain/torture to the fetus, and then killing it.

The second part is the point that I believe evictionism fails to address adequately.

To me then, the key question becomes: At what point should the fetus be considered a human being, and be afforded all the rights that libertarians generally agree upon?

My answer to this question, is that the fetus should be considered a human being when its brain and nervous system have developed to the point where it can feel pain. I do not know what age this is. It may even be different for each fetus. So I would advocate that scientists and doctors define that policy, which may not be one-size-fits-all.

Anyway, to my mind, before this cut-off point, the woman should have every right to rid her body of the unwanted organism (parasite) via day after pill, surgical procedure, or whatever available technology. After the cut-off, it is legally a feeling human being, and the woman should be held accountable for murder (lowest degree) if she aborts it.

It is the woman's responsibility then to monitor her body after engaging in intercourse, so that she becomes aware of the pregnancy before the cut-off point. Failure to do so would be considered negligence, and therefore not a justification for committing murder after the cut-off point.

This assumes of course, that technology is available that can inform the woman she is pregnant before the cut-off point is reached. I am not a doctor and the cut-off point is undefined in this argument, but I do believe that today's technology is sufficient and affordable for most women.

I actually believe that the same notions about "can feel pain" can actually be applied towards our treatment of animals also. I think that is a related, but tangential discussion, and any comprehensive libertarian answer regarding abortion should address both from the same root principles.

thoughts?


I actually heard Walter's speeches, and wanted to talk to him about my approach, but other great speakers were lined up after him.

It seems you have misstated the evictionist position. The evictionists generally argue not that the fetus is the mother's property, but that it occupies the woman's body which is her property.

 

[danda]

in my view, circumcision is not worth debating amongst libertarians because it is so obviously property damage without consent. also trespass and torture.

The only way I could see it reasonably argued amongst libertarians is if you somehow made a case that a newborn baby is not yet a human being worthy of rights, and I personally do not buy that argument.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

in my view, circumcision is not worth debating amongst libertarians because it is so obviously property damage without consent. also trespass and torture.

The only way I could see it reasonably argued amongst libertarians is if you somehow made a case that a newborn baby is not yet a human being worthy of rights, and I personally do not buy that argument.

Everything is worth debate, but most things are not appropriate for political debate or campaign planks.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

in my view, circumcision is not worth debating amongst libertarians because it is so obviously property damage without consent. also trespass and torture.

The only way I could see it reasonably argued amongst libertarians is if you somehow made a case that a newborn baby is not yet a human being worthy of rights, and I personally do not buy that argument.

I agree. However, it's generally conservatives who make the pro-circumcision argument rather than libertarians. The pro-mutilation (circumcision) argument violates all the major principles of libertarianism (and classical liberalism).

 

[erowe1]

It seems you have misstated the evictionist position. The evictionists generally argue not that the fetus is the mother's property, but that it occupies the woman's body which is her property.

I think that's the problem. In truth, children own property in their parents. The mother's body is not entirely her own. It also belongs, at least in part, to her baby. Sometimes people get caught up in this self-ownership dogma and forget that.

And for a similar reason, I don't think the libertarian case against circumcision holds, because just as the child owns property in the parents, so the parents also own property in the child.

 

[cjm]

To me then, the key question becomes: At what point should the fetus be considered a human being, and be afforded all the rights that libertarians generally agree upon?

Libertarians don't generally agree. That's the problem. Some use first heartbeat, some use brain activity, some use arbitrary dates (first trimester, second trimester), some use conception, etc.

 

[misean]

I can't believe the negativity toward Walter Block. I think he is a GREAT speaker. He is a great writer. He is a great mind. Who the hell boos Walter Block? Even if his talk was horrible (which I doubt because I have yet to hear him give a bad talk), I would be thankful that I got hear one of the world's great economists in person while he is alive. Walter Block knew Mises. He knew Rothbard extremely well. He associated with Ayn Rand and Henry Hazlitt. If you are booing Walter Block, I would question what you are doing at Ron Paul rally.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I agree. "Prenatal adoption" is a much better name for this concept. If the baby lives and there are no permanent side-effects, I'm ok with this theory.

I also agree that this is much better label for presentation. I haven't had enough time or thought to decide I like the philosophy, but that is a much better way of putting it. (and it was still a bad topic for the place I first heard it.)

 

[jmdrake]

I think Ron would take exception with it. I think anyone with any medical background would be against forcing the baby out early unless there was a health concern for the mother or baby. There's a reason humans have a 9 month gestation period....because it takes babys that long to get to the point where they'll likley survie outside the womb.

Actually Walter Block addresses that pretty well. His proposal is already quite workable for the third trimester as he explains:

But it is very important in the last trimester; were eviction, only, the law of the land it would mean life for these young human beings while abortion (eviction plus killing) spells death. And, as medical technology improves, more and more such lives will be saved. For example, perhaps in 10 years from now, doctors will be able to preserve the lives of all fetuses removed from the womb in the last four months of pregnancy, and then, maybe, by 2030, they will be able to save all those in the last five months of gestation.



Premis born at 6 months gestation routinely do fine. (See: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/tc/premature-infant-overview) And as technology improves this date will be pushed back further. Maybe if the policy of the land was to try to move toward this the gestation survival clock would be pushed back faster? Being against WB proposal due to technological grounds is like being against interstellar space travel just because we can't do it yet, or like being against flight years ago just because we hadn't done it before. Also, while the safest place for a fetus in inside the mother, the most dangerous place for a fetus is on an abortionist's table. It makes no sense (to me) to say "Let's not even consider an option that may give millions of otherwise discarded fetuses a chance to live because some of them may die."