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
-------:*Bailouts
-------:*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).

Comment viewing options

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

If it's any consolation, he's

If it's any consolation, he's horribly misunderstanding and misinterperting both Missesian and Rothbardian arguments.

It's basically an "Octobox special".

Evan: "horribly misunderstanding" of Mises and Rothbard

----really?

Maybe you could make a slightly simpler argument?

If I say that Mises called Rothbard a socialist or that his ideas would lead to socialism -- you would say? What?

If I said that Mises did not agree with NAP or any value-added ideologies -- you would say? What?

Everything I said about Rothbard and Mises can be challenged and veryfied, so rather than proving me wrong via insults why not take a chance and debate.

Under Corporatism you could get away with murder -- is that a true statement or not?

So; under Free-Markets you can get away with it too (that's what I said).

The only difference is that in a free-market no one stupidly pays for out 96% of the value of their assets in protection schemas. 96 cents off the dollar is what RP says our currency is worth since 1930.

Take it up with RP if you disagree.

What you guys are saying is that your gang will tell the Demo-Gang and the Repub-Gang what they can consume and what they can't.

They are laughing at how none of your consumptive-choices ever pass into law -- hahahaha.

Good Luck with Perpetual War
---RP says free-trade and not war is how you gain free-markets
---RP says voting and lobbying is ideological warfare

Hmmmmm? What can you draw from those statements -- what are your chances of gaining a free-society if you insist on using the ballot box and ideological warfare?

"Mises was adamant that a

"Mises was adamant that a free-society must be "value-free.""

not at all.

He merely said that the science of human action, Praxeology, is 'value free' but that his ideology of 'liberalism' does have values (he's using liberalism in the classical sense).

I agree with your "correction" -- However

if everyone used value-free analysis on market trends how long would Corporatism last?

Would laws need to be written if everyone had perfect value-free analysis -- as the center point of his logic.

Since everyone does not have this then most will be dependent on economic analysis -- from an expert.

The certified "expert" is how everyone gets duped into various protection schemas.

Thus -- To have a free-society you must have a value-free system of thought.

To get to a value-free system of thought you need perfect information.

To get perfect information you must know consumer-will.

To know consumer-will you must allow for consumer-sovereingty (Mises)

If you have consumer-sovereingty you will not need "laws" to control the action of men -- because value will be known.

I believe all abortions are

I believe all abortions are homicide that is the taking of human life. Most moral codes, religions, community standards, statutes, common laws and ancestral cultures have permitted the taking of another human life for various and sundry reasons, ex self defense, infanticide, gladiators etc. But in the case of abortion, make no mistake it is the ending of a human life, the stopping of a beating heart, terminating the life of a complete self-building human genome. Those cells, that genetic material does not need instruction from the mother or the father anymore; it requires only a place to grow to manifest itself by it's own genetic will-to-live.

In my view, the proper questions therefore is not "would abortion exist in a free society?" but 'would homicide exist in a free society?' and what would the response if it occurred.

Mises' consumer sovereignty

Octobox,
Which of Mises' books or articles do you recommend to learn more about consumer sovereignty?

Google: Consumer-Sovereignty or Consumer Sovereignty

Also Google: "Gunning Consumer Sovereignty"

I do not recommend you read "all" of Mises and very little of Rothbard.

You will get lost in the minutia.

Meditate on Consumer Sovereignty alone -- it is the best "offering" Mises ever made and it is un-meditated and undervalued.

Mises did NOT agree with Rothbard and called him a Socialist (as he called Friedman as well).

Mises Consumer-Sovereignty is a "value-free" analysis and perspective -- whereas Rothbard tried to create an "anarchist" / "value-added" philosophy which is OXY-moronic.

Why not just pick up "Human

Why not just pick up "Human Action" and start trudging through it.

It's very approachable. While people completly unfamilar with economics terms may have to use a dictionary to look up very basic things like "demand curve" and "real" vs "nominal" intereste rates.

However based on the level of discussion here, most people would be able to work through it without too much of an intellectual problem (thought it may take a time comitment due to its 1,000 pages).

Also, between Bob Murphy's study guide, www.praxeology.tv and other helpful sources available, any sticking points can be overcome quite efficiently.

Or just start an ongoing "reading Human Action" thread in here, get a bunch of DPers to read the same few chapters every weekm, and have discussions about the reading on a weekly basis or something.

abortion exist because evil would still exist

In a free society murder and robbery would still exist because sometimes people do evil things. No society can eliminate these things. No society could completely eliminated whatever people insist on doing behind closed doors. The will be no paradise on this earth no matter the governance.

So certainly abortions involving third parties - ie surgical abortion could be investigated and prosecuted.

Vickie

So, OctoBox...

Would it be morally wrong for me to shoot a man who is in the process of attempting to murder someone?

No. It would be my responsibility to do so. I would have no legal obligation, but there would be a most definite moral obligation.

If I see someone being mugged, is it wrong for me to "intervene" and fight off the mugger? After all, it's not my business, any more than a woman killing her unborn baby is my business.

There is no "moral" authority -- There is moral-observance

in the moment.

Under Capitalism there was no compulsion to kill in defense of others.

Under Corporatism there is no compulsion to kill in defense of others.

Under Free-market it is obvious that there is no compulsion to kill....

In a Free-society you do as you please -- as it is in this society now.

The difference is that in a free-society no one stupidly pays for protection-schemas (as we do not) that DO NOT prevent evil.

A red-light does not stop someone from going through -- the thought of punishment might. But in a free-society you would look at the light and decide if it was clear or not.

How many times have you sat for 2mins or longer at a light with no traffic around -- how many times have you run such a light?

How many times has someone died while texting or running a light.

The prevention-schemas do not save you -- common sense and self-reliance is what saves you.

Self-Defense is a Market.

If you believe in Free-Markets why do you want this one market so heavily regulated.

I came up with the abortion solution -- it could be implemented in THIS society and EASILY implemented in a Free-One.

Actually a Free-Society would have great value on women and their products -- owing to the Misesian reasons I argued elsewhere.

Cyril's picture

Well, I have complete moral authority

Well, I have complete moral authority

... over myself and my 3 year old son. And only these two PERSONS.

So does my wife, with herself, and our son.

And so does my 20 year old step daughter.

The most interesting challenge as a parent, and an exciting one at that :

figure out how many more years you need, AT THE MOST, before letting your beloved kids live their own endeavors, on their own and for themselves.

Even the law, when beyond the Bill of Rights, has no INTRINSIC moral authority over ANY OF US.

But this is OUR DUTY, as FREE men and women, to have OUR OWN AUTHORITY over and for OURSELVES and our little ones, ONLY, before they can fly with their wings.

Yes, NOT EVEN the Law :

For the law can, and often is, HARSH or UNJUST.

However :

"Dura lex sed lex."

Hence :

let us FIGHT against the UNJUST laws. With our sweat and tears.

For Liberty.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

How exaclty would you intervene?

If no government existed, how would you enforce it? Would you go door-to-door forcing women to take pregnancy tests? Would you sequester them at your home for the duration of the pregnancy under constant supervision?

Just curious.

Simply put...

...full ban on all abortion. Any "back alley" abortion "services" that are found are shut down by local police. The fact is, when all the nice, clean, friendly-looking murder clinics get shut down and their "doctors" jailed, the vast majority of women are not likely to risk a horrible death to kill their unborn kid.

You've inserted government..

The premise was that no government existed, hence a "free society."

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

abortion would not be allowed because that would be taking away a person's right to live.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Who would disallow it?

In a free society, there would be no government.

No laws against murder means

No laws against murder means no laws against abortion.

interesting . . .

primitive cultures welcomed babies. There may have been exceptions, but they were rare.

It is the making of human life a commodity by the combined force of governments and corporations that has made unborn life of less worth.

But I read the OP and see the points and think you make them soundly--

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

Primitive cultures

also sacrificed virgins, used children as slaves, and practiced child/adult relationships.
Most primitive cultures had a way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy.

some, not all--

and most of those things are happening in non-primitive cultures, as well--

And I agree that there were ways of dealing with a pregnancy that somebody decided was not to end in birth--

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

My hope is in technology and the market.

It is not infeasible or improbable that one day we will advance to the stage of being able to transplant a foetus or zygote at any stage and freeze it or allow it develop in an incubator, that perfectly replicates the womb. Granting all humans the place in this universe, the existence and life ordained upon them by nature... It's far fetched but I'm here because I'm an idealist and dream of a better future.

I do think that we need value and protect all life and if such technology is available it aught be illegal to end a pregnancy whilst terminating the foetus.

A free society supports individual rights, these right include the right to be left alone. They also include the right to life.

"Free-Society"?

Does "Free-Society" mean that you get everything for free?

The definitions would be nice to have, that of, free society, liberty, freedom. With freedom and liberty comes responsibility not immorality.

Hate to be square but the quest for freedom started with freedom from a over demanding government not with a "we can do whatever we want society" attitude.

Now, time for the responsibility and immorality definitions.

Would it be fair for a woman to take her own child's life, would the option be for me to take her life?

Cyril's picture

I'm glad to read this.

I'm glad to read this.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

I have a very simple view on abortion

I have a very simple view on abortion :

Abortion is getting rid of an unborn fetus : so, it's technically manslaughter. AT MINIMA.

Unless some of us insist on nitpicking about when is the magic date/time where "that" cease to be just a cluster of cells (a non-person) to turn into a full blown human being (a person). A debate which always puzzled me, btw, but anyway.

Either way, even the next question is irrelevant :

if it is manslaughter is it ALSO murder ?

I say : irrelevant (though I'd tend to call it so, yes).

But, still : IRRELEVANT, really.

Why ?

Well, because even ANIMALS, mammals, sometimes do some "selection" on BORN little offsprings, thus killing them AFTER birth, as babies.

Hence :

If abortionists are FINE to consider themselves "no different" (so to speak) than the other mammals who kill some of their kids in times, e.g., of scarce resources, with a reasoning providing the JUSTIFICATION, that is STILL fine with me.

However.

This is what I KINDLY ask, though I am also UNWILLING to negotiate, sorry :

1. do NOT expect me TO ENDORSE ABORTION for ANY DESIRED SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC outcome

2. expect me TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE of using abortion for the point in (1) ; because Ron Paul for example is a living example that he, as a doctor, could deliver 4,000 babies WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A SINGLE ONE ABORTION ; what does that tell you ? I let you ponder on that ; it's an interesting reflection to have for yourself, in regard to previous point ...

3. expect me TO VOTE AGAINST ABORTION AT THE STATE LEVEL ... well, assuming I could vote, which isn't the case, anyway

4. do NOT expect A CENT from me to fund any "family planning" program that would implement abortion

THOUGH I would PROUDLY DONATE to voluntary charity associations that take care of unwanted kids, etc. Those kids who HAVEN'T BEEN aborted/killed in the womb, precisely.

STILL, if the people vote in majority for abortion being legal, I'm fine with it, though very sad. The point is :

I do not want to HAVE ANYTHING to do with it.

Abortion isn't a social issue.

It is not even an economic issue. See points (1) - (2) above.

It is a HUMANITY AND PHILOSOPHICAL issue :

Where do you place the bar between LIFE, with Big "L", and the other dimensions of our material lives and freedoms.

Is LIFE above everything or do you accept the compromise to put it lower for PRACTICAL or SOCIOLOGICAL reasons and an intended outcome in the society ?

In the latter case, again : if you do so, then DO NOT EXPECT A CENT FROM me to support it (it is more symbolic from me than it is about keeping my money, btw)

John 8:7

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Likewise, I'd go with phrasing :

"He who endorses killing a child in the womb, let him be the first to pay for it with his money."

Fair enough ?

Bear with me.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

you could not possibly be more pro-life than I . . .

or more against the killing of the unborn (or of anyone, and there are SO many ways of killing people!)

But how does one find out that a person has killed an unborn child? Look at people like MR; he profited from processing the bodies of unborn babies--
*shudder and groan*

and look at him; look at all his money, and he says he is pro-life. There is no energy behind his pro-life stance, when he profited from it--

How does anyone know a woman has had an abortion? That is the problem; that is why this is such a horrific issue.

If a person is truly pro-life the best he/she/they can do is to work long and hard to see that no tax money ever goes to pay for abortions, that no medi*-whatever the acronym is* goes to pay for abortions for anyone, that no doctors benefit from abortions out of the 'public' coffers, that no scientific studies paid for by government grants that use unborn babies as *can't think of the word, and I used to use it all the time*

for research--

to see that no money that comes from unwilling people who do value life . . . goes to take away life--

by abortion, by war, by the CIA, by dangerous drugs (mostly pharmaceutical), etc.--

don't fund the 'bad guys'; don't fund destruction--

if this funding could be stopped, then Romney could not have made as much money disposing of dead babies--

the rat!

(sorry about the strong language; I hope never to meet the man)--

It can't be done by laws and regulations with regards to private behavior--

oh, and no more funding for educational institutions that tell women that their babies have no value, etc., etc.--

I probably haven't covered it all, but I hope you get my point--

Stopping the funding doesn't terrorize the entire nation--

frankly, I would be sad to think that there would be some kind of monitor on every home in which there lives a woman/women of child-bearing age to make certain that if she is pregnant she keeps the baby--

can you imagine?

Stepford Wives?

1984--

etc.

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

Having an "opinion" on abortion is great

But in a free-society how do you "find out" if a woman is pregnant or if she had an abortion?

In a free-society there is COMPLETE privacy of information there is TRUE doctor-client confidentiality -- how then in said free-society does your "opinion" become a "reality?"

The answer is simple -- education.

Otherwise you'd need to have the authority that once a woman was pregnant, no matter what she said about keeping it (because she could get an abortion secretly then lie that she mis-carried) to kidnap her and keep her under surveilance 24/7 till she pops the kid out.

That's the only way to (as near as possible) "guarantee" the right-to-life of the fetus.

There are currently 6M pregnancies per year -- with over 75M possible momies (14-55).

6M kidnappings per year to "insure"

Since you are NOT in favor of that model and in a free-society there is complete privacy -- WHAT is the point of an RP supporter even talking about abortion as a rule-of-law?

I agree--

even if no M.D. is involved, it becomes a privacy issue--

it would be NDAA and the Patriot Act in slow motion nightmare resolution--

as with igniting the spark of liberty throughout the world nation, somehow the spark of honoring the dignity of human life (unborn, born, civilian in a war zone, 'enemies' in other countries, etc., the elderly, the disabled, the homeless)--

must be encouraged to burn bright--

by getting out the truth--

Abortion is big business; government is aligned with big business, etc.--

social engineering that targets minorities and those who are impoverished or 'defected' is part of government involvement in education and science--

all of these perversions of truth can be exposed.

Someone else mentioned that taking power away from globalist bankers would improve the economy and make those who feel they need to kill their young due to poverty less inclined to do so--

it's at least a better chance--

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

Cyril's picture

Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry for the confusion. It seems you misunderstood my point.

So, to be clear, to answer your post's question, the answer is :

"Yes".

The related point I was making is, if, as you say, in a free society I'm not even supposed to know that someone goes to abort her pregnancy, then, logically, NEITHER the Federal Government OR My State, should force me to fund the programs that allow HER to abort, if any.

They can't have it both ways, can they ?

Wouldn't be very fair to me, IMO. Right ?

So, if such programs exist, they better be funded EXCLUSIVELY BY ABORTIONISTS, because not a cent would come from me.

FREE SOCIETY, right ?

If I have TO GIVE (donation) money to help raise a kid of a rape, that'd be because this kid is precisely, by definition, BORN and STILL ALIVE, and taken care of by some charity.

See : I'd be more than happy to contribute FOR LIFE, FREELY, VOLUNTARILY, rather than FOR DEATH.

That was my point.

Sadly, shamefully, though...

SEEMINGLY OUR SOCIETY STILL THINKS **BACKWARDS**, as of today, compared to my point.

Or I missed something big.

DID I ?

'HTH

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

and when you wrote:

"if I have to give (donation) money to help raise a kid of a rape . . .)"--

there are people who do that all the time; there are those who reach out to rescue young women, give them a safe place, help them with education and find a loving home for a child--

and those who pay to give a home to such a child, yes, even a child born of rape--

I know some of those--

one of the benefits is that if a young woman wants to have more children someday with someone who respects her, etc.--

she will have a better chance of having a healthy child if she hasn't experienced an abortion--

(not to mention the emotional/psychological/mental trauma of abortion, which is a violent act)--

and people who love children will have a chance to give the baby the best any child can have: love, security, healthy food, a safe place to live, education, opportunities to develop talents, etc.--

I've seen this happen; it's not ideal; the best is to prepare a young woman to raise a child and help her have what she needs to do it in a healthy way--

but that's not always possible; what is always possible is for a child to have a loving home; there are plenty of people who are willing to do that, but getting babies to people who want them is a complicated thing made even more complicated in a society that teaches that human life has little value--

I could tell you some stories, but--

it's not for this forum--

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