9 votes

Would Abortion (exist) in a Free-Society?

All you anti-abortion folk are fighting for a free-society so this is an important meditation

Would Abortion (exist) in a Free-Society?

The Short-Answer is YES as "medical information / procedures" are "truly" private in a free-society. The only reason you know about how many abortions are performed is because of "gov't invasion" (census, licensure, certifications, accounting, and IRS).

The Long-Answer (and this is important for you "meddlers").
---having an opinion on a topic or "appealing" to people's virtue is great; but think of the leviathan you must un-bridle to even "know" that one abortion has occurred, it is the end of privacy regarding medical procedure.

Since RP is an Misesian (not a Rothbardian) Scholar, by his own admission -- it is important to understand what a Misesian Society would look like.

1st the NAP (non-aggression principle). This is a Rothbardian concept that Mises was VEHEMENTLY against. The NAP is a value-added philosophy and Mises was adamant that a free-society must be "value-free."

Value-added (long story short) requires some levels of "force" and "intervention." It is ideological, which according to all world history leads to "bigger gov't intervention" and never toward self-rule.

2nd in a Mises-style Free-Society the consumer-rules -- He called this Consumer-Sovereignty.

For the consumer to rule the consumer can be the ONLY influence on the corporation and he can be the only economic "salvation" as well.

Under Corporatism you have 3 possible revenue streasm:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Consumers-who-Abdicate (Vote and Lobby)
---Abdication Gives Rise to Gov't Intervention
----->Gov't Intervenes (historically) on behalf of Wealthy Interests
-------:*Predatory Lending (to turn consumers into borrowers)
-------:*Regulatory Advantages
-------:*Barriers to Competitive Entry
-------:*Taxes and Tax Loopholes
-------:*Currency Monopoly
-------:*Price Setting

Under a Misesian Free-Society:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest

Abortion -- would it exist in a Misesian Society

Yes -- There would be no Gov't Monopoly on Information, No right-to-kidnap (so how do you try in court), Census, Certification, or Licensure.

How would you know the practices of a business (I'm thinking "mobile" anonymous doctors to avoid murder from anti-abortionists) if there was NO gov't tracking, forced accounting or IRS, etc etc?

Women would have these abortions without your knowledge -- that's it.

The reason you know about how many abortions there are is because of Gov't Census, Licensure, Certification, and Accounting and IRS databases etc.

Would the numbers be as high (as today)?

I would argue NO.

There is greater value (since entrepreneurial-ism is the ONLY revenue vehicle for profit-bursts -- no gov't intervention) in Women and "potential adults" (fetuses).

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ding Ding Ding Ding -- Stroberg for the save!

Well said!

"I get the feeling though, that many pro-life individuals, are more tied to the punishment than the abortion reduction goals"

That is it.

Most pro-lifers are religious so hell-fire and damnation if they don't focus on the Old Testament more than the New, hahaha.

I am not "religious," I am a Christian

and do not consider any abortion except to save the life or health of the mother to be morally justified. I wonder though, how many of the ardent self described pro-lifers on this site would take sides of the following deal:

You have two choices:

1. Keep the current system, with its economic chaos, murderous wars, provoked terrorist threats, etc. with one difference: Abortion would be outlawed (at the state level, of course!).

2. Eliminate any trace of government, including any legal system which could be enforced by violence.

I get the feeling, from my conversations and debates on the Daily Paul, that there would be a non-trivial number of site readers who would take #1. Why do I say this? Just examine this statement: "If you don't get it on the life issue, you don't get it on the issue of liberty." Haven't we all heard that line many times on the DP in the last 5 years? What is implied, of course, is that unless one supports violently enforceable criminal laws against all abortions, one is somehow pro-abortion! As I have stated many times in other threads, I have met many libertarians over the years, some self-identified as "pro-life" and some self-identified as "pro-choice", and I have yet to meet one who did not think an abortion was an unmitigated tragedy. Harry Browne had one of the greatest quips on this issue:

"Given the record of its War on Poverty (which has escalated poverty) and its War on Drugs (which has expanded drug use and crime), a War on Abortion would probably result within five years in men having abortions."

Does it somehow make me immoral because I don't think that retaliatory violence is always justified, or practical? The NAP (which we differ on Octo) does not mean that all retaliatory violence is justified. There is nothing wrong with the NAP being the value system most people in society voluntarily adhere to. It is, after all, a call for self-restraint with regard to violence, which is, when it comes right down to it, the definition of liberty.

To those of you who (as I do) truly believe the vast majority of abortions are morally unjustified, please, be open minded enough to think of the possibilities for more closely achieving your values once this monstrous leviathan, with its cult of punishment, is finally thrown into the abyss for good. The alternative is to wait, and wait, and wait... for the government to outlaw all abortions (there ought to be a law!). You guys who trust the government, you're on the wrong team!

"The Short-Answer is YES"

"The Short-Answer is YES" <--- This.

"As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." - Albert Einstein
"Now, more than ever, the choice between Obama and Romney will be which one do you want to ruin your country?" ~ Wead

If by a "free society", you mean one without any form of

civil government, then, yes. Abortion would exist legally. If you mean a free, classical liberal society, which is what I believe in in which there is civil government and that civil government protects people from other people who wish to do them harm, I would argue NO.

Women had abortions in 1790 and if the abortion-tech

were as simple as it is today there would have been more of them.

The 1.2M abortions had every year are not had by conscious-atheists -- they are being had predominately by people who claim to be religious.

People committed fraud in 1792, however,

with increased technology, there are telemarketing scams today. There would have been in 1792 if they had the technology we have. Should we legalize fraud since it's going to happen anyway?

Abortion, like any other crime is going to happen anyway. Slavery is illegal, but, it still happens. Rape is illegal, but, it still happens. Murder is illegal, but, it still happens. The fact of the matter is if we arrested abortion doctors and put them in prison, there would be a LOT less innocent babies getting their brains crushed.

So you do not believe in 100% free-markets -- you believe

in limited free-markets.

"Crime" -- Requires Force-Agency

Why can't people defend themselves; because the market on self-defense is defined and highly regulated by gov't.

This is why the fetus is in danger.

How is your philosophy (of limited self-defense) working on the War on Drugs?

Slavery happens because people do not have free-market on self-defense.

Same with rape.

A free-market would not reduce these numbers to zero, but if there was no police station people would take self-defense more seriously.

So true.

So true.

"As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." - Albert Einstein
"Now, more than ever, the choice between Obama and Romney will be which one do you want to ruin your country?" ~ Wead

The question isn't whether it would exist

But would it be publicly funded and more importantly would it be seen as a socially acceptable practice? To which I would answer No and No. It would still exist in the back rooms where so much of today's "accepted" deviance should stay.

There is no "public vs private" debate in a free-society

So it would exist as it has always existed based on free-association.

Just as murder for-hire happens in the real world -- it is FAR FAR more available then one might think.

Is it moral -- Is it "legal" -- Who cares!

If you want to NOT get murdered then you must learn to wisely defend onself.

If you want to SAVE fetuses then you must become a "wise" defender.

In a free-society, given that profit-bursts only happen owing to innovation and not by gov't theft, there would be a GREAT value in the population size of future generations.

Thus WOMEN and Fetuses have great value.

I could come up with a solution to reduce abortion by 40 to 60% in TODAYS society and it's implementation in a free-society would be FAR FAR FAR easier.

Offer pregnant women $2K per month and pay for all their hospital costs to bring the baby to term (adopt it out or keep it).

120M religious+atheist pro-life working class could pay $60 per month and could save 40% to 60% of fetus life.

Why has this NEVER happened on a large scale and why do these folks spend billions per year on a PROVEN failed system and save ZERO fetuses?

Because WAR (voting and lobbying) is ADDICTING!

I believe you--

so far very few people have been able to 'think outside the box' with regards to abortion--

it's been enough for a candidate or even an individual to say, "I'm pro-life" and move on, not doing anything meaningful--

but expecting 'someone' to take care of the problem--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

reedr3v's picture

Octo, thanks for beginning this "meditation"

on a deeply complex question. And thanks to most in the thread who took the challenge to rise above emotional sound bites, to consider abortion rationally, with liberty as a guiding principal.

Octo, I hope one day you'll also begin an exploration of your objection to the NAP, which to me is foundational for libertarian philosophy. I don't immediately see it as a value-added principle. I won't divert this thread by stating my objection to your view here.

NAP is value-added (according to Mises)

Mises was against NAP.

He was against Self-Ownership (the concept anyway) and it's obvious down-stream philosophical rationale.

He was in favor of consumer-sovereignty and value-free analysis.

If you put "value" on a thing -- ideology is born.

Ideology forms into "religious-zeal" (not referring to spirituality) or "organizationalism" as it takes powerful organizations to "en-force" the axioms born from value-added philosophy.

reedr3v's picture

Again I don't want to divert this thread,

since this side topic would take a lot of thinking to hash out. Could you just cite the relevant book and passages that show Mises's argument on this? Or provide a link if that's possible. So many Misesians also accept the NAP, your interpretation is not working for me so far.

No "Misesian" accepts NAP -- Rothbardians and M-Rothbardians

"accept" NAP.

Indulge me here: An "M-Rothbardian" is a person who thinks they are a Misesian because of Ron Paul or because they frequent mises.org but is ignorant to the fact that the Mises institute is run by Rothbardians.

They are un-aware of Rothbard and Mises arguments regarding NAP (for and against - respectively).

I do not believe in hero-worship and I disagree with Mises on certain points, agree with Rothbard on other -- mostly however, I've picked Mises consumer-sovereignty and value-free analysis as my point of meditation and philosophical departure.

That being said I will say the following, but don't hold me to it in absolute terms and I'm trying to write concisely.

The NAP leads one to say (yea or nay) "abortion is murder" or "abortion is parasitic removal" -- He then must move forward from there and determine how "his version" of morality is played out in society.

There at least four first-glance solutions to achieving his "moral decree" (value-added proposition -- NAP):

1) By Physical-Force: Murder Abortion Doctors, Fire Bomb Clinics, and Kidnap Mothers

2) Vote and Lobby

3) Rent-the-Womb: Run an ad that you will give a woman X amount per month and pay for her hospital expenses to give birth (rather than abort).

4) Non-participation: Refuse to participate in any and all gov't cons
---Do not pay taxes
---Do not trade, invest, or save in dollars
---Work under-the-table
---Trade under-the-table

He does #4 until the gov't agrees to make abortion legal or illegal (depending on what his NAP / Ideology dictates).

All of that headache comes FIRST from having an IDEOLOGY that you can ONLY make universal by some sort of gov't force-agency or by risk from non-participation / vigilantism.

Mises Consumer-Sovereignty if logically thought about solves the issue of abortion.

#1 In a free-society there is no currency monopoly
#2 In a free-society there is ZERO abdication of consumer-sovereingty
---No Ballot Box
---->No Ballot Box means "No Theft of Consumption Choice"
---->No Ballot Box means "Zero Intervention in all Markets"
#3 In a free-society there is ONLY self-defense
---These leads to self-defense innovations
---->Housing Association Private Security
---->Booby Traps and Anti-Intruder Innovations
---->Weapons Training (to an un-imaginable level)
---->Weapon Culture and self-possession (poise and confidence)
#4 In a free-society the ONLY profit-bursts come from Innovation
---->There would be a VERY high demand for Innovators
---->Babies have greater value

Conclusion: A Consumer-Sovereignty solves the "value" problem women and fetuses face -- under an Abdication-Society (Corporatism) there is little to no value in a "mother" or a fetus. Women have value, but not as "mothers"

If you have an NAP value-added ideology then like Walter Block (pro-life) or like Rothbard (pro-choice) you find yourself wanting to create laws.

Does the creations of laws (protectionism) lead to more gov't or less?

How can you create laws without a Legislative Branch?

Can you find one point in history where the predominance of elected leaders will never sell out their oath or principles -- In all human history I dare you to find more than one man (Ron Paul).

Washington-Adams-Jefferson -- All circumvented their oaths to the constitution or ignored the document all together; if the "framers" cannot be held to principle why would we 222 years later hold on to such childish notions.

I gave you the tools to answer the question as there is no simple answer; please let me know if I failed or not, smile.

reedr3v's picture

No no no, your gave me your interpretation

of Mises on NAP, not the location to find his relevant words and evaluate them myself.
And I am SURE Walter Block and Molyneaux and Woods and many other Mises-influenced thinkers would not advocate laws to support the NAP. I think you are free winging your answers a little too much. I need actual links and sources if there are any.
It's ok if it's only your theory, but then say that; please don't speak for others without documentation.

Reedr: Use google like I did


This goes into Rothbard's rejection of Mises Economics, by Prof. Gunning.

Prof. Gunning is a "true" Misesian and can articulate best the disagreements between Mises and Rothbard.

He is not popular among the Rothbardians who control the Mises Institute.

I cannot find however (at the moment) Mises specific commentary on the NAP -- I'll keep looking.

[Update] I've been in e-mail communication with Prof. Gunning today and he is having a hard time finding Mises "NAP" quote -- however he said you can deduce his feelings towards it by understanding his view on "value-free analysis"

"I've been in e-mail

"I've been in e-mail communication with Prof. Gunning today and he is having a hard time finding Mises "NAP" quote"

as expected.

Gunning is a wingnut trying to pass off his own idosynchrotic interpertation of Mises as the "standard" Missesian view and construe basically EVERY other Missesian (Block, Murphy, Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe, etc) as the ones who are wrong.

Apparently he has found a loyal disciple in yourself.

Evan -- You are a flame-thrower aren't you?

So I am certified by those I've been in direct conversation with?

Well I've had debates with 3 of the names you mentioned, plus DiLorenzo (via e-mail) -- does that make me their "loyal disciple?"

Have you ever read anything I've written before this OP thread? If you have then you KNOW I'm against hero-worship (vehemently so); which includes Ron Paul and Mises.

I actually (unlike you) believe in individualism, consumer-sovereignty, and free-society -- that's why I debate with professors (and not just Mises Institute Professors either -- I actually debate with Krugman and Chomsky-esque Profs as well).

Are you aware of how vehemently LvM resisted the "value-added" ideas of Rothbard -- have you read Rothbards "critiques" of Mises?

Look I've had these same arguments on mises.org, in the chat rooms, and NO ONE down there argued (including the Mises Profs I had e-mail chats with) that Mises and Rothbard agreed -- they all understand that some of their positions were mutually exclusive.

I've long said that Mises Institute is run by Rothbardians and because they are NOT Misesian (value-free) they've gotten into trouble or have stirred controversial topics: 1) The racist RP newsletter was believed by insiders to have come from Rockwell (Rothbardian), 2) the anti-Lincoln brigade was PURELY Rothbardian in origin, 3) Walter Block's stupid-azz "Evictionism" argument is PURELY Rothbardian, 4) Rothbard's "the fetus is a parasite" commentary (well he built that argument himself, and 5) all the Get Gov't out of Corporations (including the ones we KNOW to take gov't protection schemes) as an argument to free-markets -AND- the Robber-Barons are "good" capitalists (from a free-market standpoint) all come from the ROTHBARDIANS (Woods, Murphy, DiLorenzo, and Rockwell chiefly).

Use Google.

throught all the non

through all the non sequiters, I do feel obligated to respond to a few false claims:

1) " If you have then you KNOW I'm against hero-worship (vehemently so); which includes Ron Paul and Mises."

My initial chiming in on this thread was to correct you from citing your argument as straight-Mises, when in actuality it is your own. This is not an issue of my "hero-worshipping" so much as my calling you out on an attempt to 'argue from authority' by claiming a theory (not fully developed) is Mises' rather than your own.

2) "I actually (unlike you) believe in individualism, consumer-sovereignty, and free-society"

I don't know where you got the false impression that I don't believe in indivualism, but consider yourself corrected on this point. Else, citation please.

3) "The racist RP newsletter was believed by insiders to have come from Rockwell"

This is simply false. I forgot the guys name who wrote them but it's out there. It seems you have an ideological objection to the Mises Institute. Please try to keep it on the ideological level and not via the spreading of rumors.

Hope this helps.

Wow -- Dramatist

You flame then dwindle.

The Individualism commentary

You ask me to "site sources" for why I call you a non-individualist, yet you call me one without siting any sources first -- wow.

I was being sarcastic (by-the-by): However, if you risked an opinion about what the "liberty movement" needs to do next and backed the "why" with some logical premises then I could tell you whether you are an individualist or not; however, it would not be a absolutist indictment as I believe most Rothbardians to be of the same "ilk" (great ponderings with little to no solutions).

The racist newsletter

1) Who were The THREE primary ghost-writers for Ron Paul (meaning they used his name)? There were no other known ghostwriters (by-the-by) and Rockwell never claimed otherwise.

2) Who was the VP of RP & Associates (also the chief editor of both publcations there under)?

3) How much did these publications earn -- do you think no-one was proofing content -- that the Chief ghostwriter and Chief editor did not know what was going out?

4) Regarding "racism" what was Rothbard and Rockwell's goal with Paleo-conservatism or Paleo-Libertarianism(the movement they started) -- who was their chief target group?

This one is huge, in this discussion, if you do not know the particulars or who the target group was then I can see how you "opinion" was pre-molded regarding the "racist" newsletters; you're just un-informed is all.

5) What did Rothbard say about David Duke and Joeseph McCarthy?

6) Go read one of the articles: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/RTA.pdf

Can you see the Rockwell-Rothbard-DiLorenzo type logic used in the above newsleter -- can you see the hyporcracy, if you can't then you are likely the kind of person who thought DiLorenzo's book was spot-on accurate and there's little I can do to persuade your thought-tree.

Please site the person to whom you think wrote those newsletters?

The subtext to this type of rhetoric is PURE Rothbardian (it might have been Rothbard himself) but it DEFINITELY was not Ron Paul, regardless.

reedr3v's picture

Thank you for adding a scholar of whom I

never heard, to my awareness. I certainly am not qualified to judge the dispute between Gunning's interpretation and Rothbard's. When heavyweights disagree, mere lay people such as myself need to clear space for their intellectual tussels and wait for the dust to settle.

Gunning's objection, at first scan, seems fundamental and he appears to toss the entire body of Rothbardian work out the window. There are so many wiser than I who would dispute that, I'll have to let it go with my appreciation to you, for increasing my understanding of the term "consumer sovereignty". And thanks for making me a little more aware of some who fault Rothbard's interpretation.

It's a lot like Alice and the Rabbit Hole

I find it akin to when Van Hallen broke up and they deliberately tried to find a David Lee Roth "like" replacement -- "let's just find another wild-eyed big-haired blond -- no one will notice." (I was using Hagrid's voice in my mind just then).


In anarchist/NAP society, you don't have abdication nor voting regarding the enforcement of abortions. The consumer has the choice to pay for this enforcement through their own agency they subscribed to and paid for. There will be some agencies that do not enforce this and some consumers will subscribe to those.

There is no central legislative branch. Law is created on the free market. Disputes are resolved by competing insurance agencies.

In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, any law that one wants enforced has to be paid for by the consumer. You don't have abdication or lobbying in this system.

Rakish -- This is the problem with Rothbardian thought

"Law is created on the free-market"

Okay -- If there is no Census Department, no Titles Dept, no CIA, no IRS, and no DMV (via forced participation) in a free-society then how can there be law?

You will not have documentation on anyone -- you will have no addresses.

Life will be like the internet -- people will be able to take up new usernames and will have complete anonymity.

If you want to be as free as the internet then you must INSIST on anonymity.

No Gov't Databases.

The next strike against your quote: If in a free-society everything is by free-association (as all NAPers claim and I concur) how do you get someone to show up for court, hahahaha?

Now in the case of contracts where you put up an "ante" (a bond of service based on some agreed upon asset) then if one party fails to participate the bond is forfeited to the other -- Now there I can see it.

But if I steal your cow and butcher it and you find out I did it -- my argument is "you should of defended your cow better" (the possession argument) and the Rothbardian argument is what NAP "now I take you to court and the court what?"

The court in a free-association has no address database, but lets assume you know where I live and I get a "summons" -- The court does not have kidnapping authority, they can't force me to show.

The worse that happens is my name gets "smudged" in the community -- if that be the worse offense then I just move and take up a new name.

If you grant a Gov't DMV like authority then you have the potential of abuse of authority, it is a trickle-down kind of event.

Once they can "document" who's an American and who is Not then they can use force-measures against your livelihood.

I like the idea of 100% Self-Defense -- people become very intelligent when they realize Gov't does not prevent crime it only attempts to "resolve" the aftermath and it is HORRIBLY inefficient at it.

The answer to your question is "YES" it would.

Yes it would and so would murder.

The real question: "would it be a better freer, safer, richer, fairer and more just society?"

And the answer to that is "YES, it would be".

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Can I shoot you in the head...

...without any repercussions in a "free society"?

Jeff: That was hillarious to me -- great question.

If you wore a mask, a DNA containment suit, did not bring your cell phone, and had no known connections to me -- you could shoot me now and there would be zero repercussions.

If you mean "would there be repercussions in heaven" -- take that up with your ideology.

In a free-society (HOWEVER), I am responsible for my own self-defense -- actually I'm MOSTLY responsible for my own self-defense in this society as well.

If I saw you coming and had the proper options -- I could kill you without repercussions in a free-society.

The free-society benefits the self-defense minded.

The corporatist society benefits the legal-retaliators and NOT the self-defense minded (save a narrow parameter of "allowable" defense).

Do you want the freedom of 100% self-defense or partial self-defense is the better question.

If you killed me in a free-society (and no amount of private investigation could point to you) it is possible to get away with it, yes. However, if you are found to be "the one" then private retaliation services would reign down on you without warning.

See in a Corporatist society there's little fear of murdering someone -- because when the cops come you just give up (if they can find you). You seldom know in advance if they are on to you; but when they come you can surrender and possibly "get off" if you can prove insanity or some "lesser than" 1st Degree sentence.

In a Free-Society there are no "cops" -- There's Private Mercanaries (guns for hire).

When they come (all quiet like) you will be shot or captured (then killed) or put into some kind of private-hell (torture cell) for an indefinite period.

Kind of strikes the Fear of Remington into "would be" criminals.

The most important aspect is that I can defend myself to the maximum.
---I would train my children to defend themselves as well
---Housing Associations would have all-kinds of Defensive Strategies

A free-society is a VERY just and moral society -- Justice and Morality is not born for consumptive-control it is born from the greatest level of consumptive-freedom.

You're f*&^ing insane.


You are posting this in all seriousness, aren't you? If you're representative of any signficant portion of the liberty movement, God help us.

Whatever happened to the right to a trial? More often than not, the evidence points to several people, and it's entirely possible that it's wrong. Guess what? You can't bring back a guy you shot to death if it turns out he wasn't the one who murdered your buddy. As problematic as government is, there is, in fact, a purpose to a trial. (GASP! I just said that government DOES have a legitimate function! I shall brace for the collective stoning, now.)

You "ignored" the "thrust" of the argument to select tidbits

to use to win a debate you are having with yourself.

My point is that in a free-society: Self-Defense is Rule not the Exception (as it is under Corporatism).

Under Corporatism "they" tell you how much you can defend yourself.
---If you error they can steal your assets, kidnap, and imprison you

Under Corporatism the "false-security" of Cops-will-save me or Military-will-save me is UNIVERSAL.

I've trained cops and military: Ask them yourself. How often do they get there BEFORE the crime is committed? It is EXCEEDINGLY seldom.

Where was the Military and CIA on 9-1-1?

How many abortions does your philosophy prevent per year and how close do you think you are to "ending" abortion -- 5 years or 10 years away? Great so that failed attempt resulted in what 40M abortions (by then)?

There's a role for Gov't in the transition to LIBERTY.

But if you say YOU CANNOT have liberty without Force-Agency then you will ALWAYS have the current mess as EVERYONE will want Gov't to benefit their consumptive-choice and not yours.

I stand on all human history as an example of how Liberty does not come from WAR (Physical War and Ideological War) -- Ron Paul agrees with it. If you are a RP supporter then you agree with that too.

You just are a lazy meditator.

The value of everything in the long-run in a free-society is very low-- owing to perfect competition.

Thus theft and murder go down -- in the long-run.

In the short-run, in a free-society, you are responsible for your own self-defense -- because the self-defense market exists in perfection competition self-defense would be "low cost"

Thus theft and murder go down -- in the short-run as well.

Just meditate on it and you'll see that I'm not crazy that we are LIVING in crazy-town.

I'm saying trust the market economy -- trust that people will chose liberty when they are dependent on self-defense and the illusion of protectionism is revealed as that, an illusion.