2 votes

More Ethical Absurdity of We

Bill3 makes a big todo about Rothbard's observations that rights are a negative concept demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with and no man can therefore have a ‘right’ to compel someone to do a positive act. Bill objects to an extension of this logic to children summed up in this quote:

"should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."


However, let's take a look at what Bill3's precious and sacred We have already determined they will coerce submission to:

We have determined it is unreasonable for men and women to have equal autonomy in reproduction.

We have determined that only women may choose parenthood.

We have determined that a woman may choose parenthood before or after birth by 1) abortion, 2) adoption, or 3) dropping it off at a location approved under baby safe haven law.

We have determined that if a man has unprotected sex without a condom he "put it in" and takes on some kind of obligation irregardless of any conception contract whereas if a woman has unprotected sex without a diaphragm she gets to establish and enforce the terms of her own conception contract and make it binding upon a man without his consent.

We have determined that there ought to be a safety net for children which everyone pays into in the form of federally collected Title IV monies, doled out to states, which are doled out to counties but even if you pay into this system a county will come ask you to pay more in the form of child support.

We have determined that in addition to Title IV programs it is just to coerce non-parents to pay for other peoples kids public education and a plethora of other public programs for children.

We have determined in international treaties that slavery is defined as having control over ones property but forced fatherhood is not slavery.

We have determined constitutional prohibitions and a Civil War to end indentured servitude does not apply to forced fatherhood.

We have determined personal jurisdiction is not a requirement for an administrative, non-judicial family court to sanction the standing of ones name.

We have determined that children have no legal obligation to parents for coerced elderly support because parents do not own their child's labor because it benefits society not parents the same way that when Bill Gates invented Windows it benefited society.

We have determined that while parents have no right to a child's labor parents have a responsibility to pay for property their children damage.

I could easily go on making several more points but there is an obvious absurdity when Bill3 ridicules Rothbard when his precious and sacred We have already determined women can kill unborn children because of the same exact principle elaborated on by Rothbard in that no one has a right to force a woman to do a positive action such as give birth because it is the woman's body.

Comment viewing options

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

"forced fatherhood."

LOL! thats a new one for me, you have some good points though.

jus cause they can

don't make it RIGHT
ours is a gubbermint for a just and righteous people

started out it were
where have all the flowers gone

hey is this a new cult? it

hey is this a new cult?

it has oft been noted by historians of religion that when one cult idol or reigning deity is toppled,and a community attach themselves to another, the mythology is adjusted to incorporate the old displaced deity as a Demon. the conquering idol is raised to the divine status.

i was recently likened to the Trinity on another thread, by my original adversary - dwalters, who has spent much time contemplating the Mystery, and is convinced I, myself, 27 years old, am three people, one Elder, one younger, one perhaps a Ghost.

could this be the start of a new cult migration from Murray Rothbard to bill3?

you are 27?

I thought you were a grumpy old grandpa

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

no young grasshopper, I am a

no young grasshopper, I am a scion of the dark enlightenment spawned by the internetz

old folk can't hang w that.

I don't think new cults form

by one person asking another person if they would like to have a conversation like the invitation I sent you by PM.

After I never received a response, I noticed all the threads you were creating. I was thinking to myself, this guy or gal is an attention whore. Instead of just responding in some of these threads this individual creates a new thread as their response.

After observing this behavior and noticing the result it got, I said to myself this attention whore might be on to something and maybe I should copy what they are doing to get a better result for whatever meaningless nonsense I feel like babbling about.

i hadn't checked that email

i hadn't checked that email account, but feel free to draw conspiratorial conclusions from that.

the reason i sometimes extend a response into a thread is because it takes effort to write a long detailed response, and sometimes it seems meritorious of becoming a post in itself if extended a bit and cleaned up.

i think there's plenty of bytes on DP for everyone, and surely there's no shortage of downvotes.


pr0b the finale post in this particular series of exchanges starting last month w me and dw.

one thing i don't appreciate is being treated as a newcomer, i have as long a posting history and as many people know me as most of the people i've been scrapping with.

and i like ya all anyway... so hugs 4 u.

Well ...

you know how Us non-comformists, misfits, conspiracy theorists, kooks, crazies, and generally uncivilized people not deemed acceptable to society are. Our minority just goes off the deep end babbling about non-sense for hours upon hours. Facts are so foreign to Us, Our tribe should decree them to be aliens.

Hugs back at ya, I may not like the implications of some of the ideas you espouse but I like your wit.

Is this the "WE" as in

"We used to own slaves" I don't like that one.

"We (My Sports team) kicked their butts!" I like that one

ob·ses·sion (b-sshn,

ob·ses·sion (b-sshn, b-)
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.

its only natural that as i topple your former idol yalls begin to worship me.



Awesome post, great detail and insight. I can see the wagons circling the area already. Be prepared, it's going to be a good debate!

Fist bump for your Majesty(as I roll out the red carpet, lol)!

Sounds Great!

Does it include VIP treatment? lol :)

Um, those "we's" are based on

Um, many of those "we's" are based on hundreds of years of common law necessary to order society. Part of that is the fiduciary duty of a parent to not murder their child via gross or willful negligence. Rothbard is challenging more that just the ability of society to have abortion(which he supported) but saying that the entire common law system lacks merit.

Ventura 2012

I would be more than happy to have a conversation about law

and your assertions. I would be more than happy to discuss how what were perceived to be procedural defects of rigid common law forms led to a system of uniform code where there is only one form of action, a civil action. I would be more than happy to discuss the relevance of common law in the modern legal system such as the elements of a writ of trespass must still be met and proven in a civil action involving a trespass. I would be more than happy to discuss parental duties dating back to Roman law or the Institutes of Justinian where the pater familias ruled the family. Fire up a thread with a point ...

"the elements of a writ of

"the elements of a writ of trespass must still be met and proven in a civil action involving a trespass"

I enjoy your "WE" poetry in satire of BILL3, and perhaps it is apropos, but something even more basic confounds me about the man. It's something that affords him the penchant to look in the future and imagine endless hypothetical scenarios of potentially criminal behavior and dream up laws to preventively address them. It also aligns him with the current trend in the way in which our legal system is unfortunately being transformed. That which is most beneficial in common law is being faded and repainted with the color of pre-crime. I haven't yet seen it, but people regularly suggest I watch the movie Minority Report. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been a wonderful concept and slogan, but it exists as an extension of something deeper. "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does is make a sound?" Common law doesn't answer one way or the other. It doesn't even pretend to rationalize answering "No". Common law avoids the question altogether. It is unconcerned. It says, "I don't give a hoot! Next question?"

Whether he just doesn't get it yet or chooses not to, BILL3 apparently does not accept the traditional working model of "crime" as a legal construct. I can walk onto my neighbor's property without permission. I can even [or not] think in my own head to call it trespassing, but it is not a "crime" until someone accuses me of breaking the law [and henceforth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I have done so].

BILL3 will continue to insufferably overblow Rothbard as more than academic until he gets this. Perhaps the future does hold a revolutionized concept of "crime", sad to think. Yes, and in that day we'll look back to Rothbard as a mere fossilized dinosaur. Our methods of enforcement and automated systems of accusation are increasing rapidly. Our varying perspectives on the use of the term "crime" seem to underlie to some degree most every debate I can think of currently...

Uh, your point is that it's

Uh, your point is that it's wrong to have the laws that you listed, was it not? A court is going to be taking one side or another on all of those issues, and always has. Allowing babies to be killed just because you don't like family law is ridiculous. Furthermore, law is the enforcement arm of rights and the baby has the right to not be killed in tort via gross negligence by the parents. It is like you are saying to have the right to kill someone because you don't owe them a duty of care. Well, you can't kill them and you can't kill your child lawfully, PLUS you owe them a duty of care.

Do you want to get rid of tort law or not?

Ventura 2012

The point:

is that Rothbard is being ridiculed over a principal that exits in the American legal system which is that no one has a right to force someone to do a positive action and Rothbard is being ridiculed for extending the logic of that principle to children when there is an obvious hypocrisy for criticizing Rothbard over children starvation when unborn killing is allowed.

Hell, legal commentators in the Trayvon Martin case pointed out police dispatchers do not order people not to follow. It might sound cute to ridicule Rothbard for making a case to apply a principle but it is pretty absurd to criticize the principal when not only do the We's use it with regards to abortion but for a plethora of absurdities with regards to the family.

There was a todo about the citizenship of Obama because only one parent was a citizen. I find the comment you made about common law interesting because there was a radical distinction between England and France on whom the protections of the crown fell upon and whether it derived from where one was born or the allegiance of one's parents. One of the points over Obama's citizenship was that under the common law system the citizenship status of children derived from a condition of the father. This was confirmed following the Revolutionary War and the prohibition in the constitution on the office of president to prevent foreign occupation of that office with the natural born clause.

No state constitution delegates any power to the state to regulate the family. This is because of some notion of common law and that a man rules the family. You try to defend the poor ethic's of We citing it derives from common law but I doubt you would argue women shouldn't vote or have any rights or a common law system which recognized the rights of men as superior to that of women. I doubt you could argue a modern legal system where women's rights are superior to men derives from a common law system where men's rights were superior to women.

" Rothbard is being ridiculed

" Rothbard is being ridiculed over a principal that exits in the American legal system which is that no one has a right to force someone to do a positive action "

Wrong. The principle is that you do not have to help a person to which you owe no duty of care. You owe your children a duty of care. Period.

Ventura 2012

And that is why We determined

killing unborn children is permissible, because one owes them a duty of care. :/

Instead of feeding me BS that does not presently exist in the American legal system perhaps you should go advocate for coerced elderly support since the inverse, children owe elderly parents a duty of care, must also be true.

Oh wait, we have it. It's called Social Security where the children pay into a system in which their parents will get more benefits than they do. Do you advocate ending Social Security because children do not have a duty of care to their elderly parents?

Actually, unborn children

Actually, unborn children must be (wrongly) defined as NOT children the way Rothbard did in order for killing them to be allowed.

Children don't have a duty of care to their parents. But if you decided to take care of your old parents and then you decided to stop and let them die you would be negligent and violating your duty of care. That is what you do when you have children and then kill them.

Ventura 2012

Would a reason for this alleged duty of care

that apparently doesn't inversely apply or consistently apply be because one can't not logically take care of themselves and there logically exists a relationship between a parent and child?

Not everything in life is a

Not everything in life is a yin/yang which much inversely and consistently apply, lol. Actually there used to be a duty to care for parents in some jurisdictions the old common law but not today, possibly due to social security. The point is that there is GENERALLY not a duty to care for others, and like you said there is a logical relationship between the parent and child.

Ventura 2012

I am not talking about everything in life.

I am specifically and precisely addressing the notion of all men and women are equal before the law which appears in every constitution and which I suspect is something you support or advocate?

I hear the minarchist variety throw around the phrase "rule of law" all the time. If there is law in which men and women can not be equal before how can it justly coerce or compel?

You argue men and women can be equal before the law in a perfect minarchist utopia where law is just when We determine the duties and obligations of people. How can that be true when there exists a radical and fundamental difference between men and women in nature which makes it impossible for men and women to be equal before law with regards to "everything in life."

Then you argue Rothbard errors asserting no one has a right to force someone else to perform a positive action. Rothbard would argue positive obligations are determined by individual consent but you would argue positive obligations are determined by whatever We decide they are which can then be coerced.

The entire minarchist worldview then becomes based upon a majorities just authority to define positive obligations for everyone because of some alleged duty of care determined by political majorities with the only bitch being whether that political majority manifests in constitutional or legislative form. The very notion that some people have any just authority to determine and coerce positive obligations upon others without regard to individual consent is the essence of unjust.

A law that ignores biological

A law that ignores biological distinctions is not law, anymore than a law that says the sky is purple is law. Its just nonsense. Common Law comes out of human interaction and experience, and is discovered from them. Equality under the law is constrained by reason and necessity, and always has been. Otherwise, you would have equality but not law.

Here is Rothbard on the Common Law: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/liberta...

"In practice, this means taking the
largely libertarian common law, and correcting it by the use of
man’s reason, before enshrining it as a permanently fixed libertarian
code or constitution."

So basically, Rothbard wants to pick and choose rights. He chooses to remove from children the right to not be grossly neglected and the burden from parents to dutifully care for their children PER THE COMMON LAW.

You need to understand that Rothbard backwards-rationalized his view that you can starve your kids to death(why not just put them out of their misery with a bullet?) from his support for abortion. Not from rights and not from law.

Ventura 2012

The common law

harshly penalized illegitimate children born "fillius nillus" The common law denied illegitimate children rights of property and inheritance.

The English common law you keep referring to recognized no positive legal obligation for something like child support as it was considered a non legally enforceable moral obligation. As a matter of fact the modern legal system which has striven to provide a sense of equality to so called legitimate and illegitimate children all hinges upon the 14th Amendment so to keep saying this all derives from common law is pure BS. Things like child support are an invention of American jurisprudence. If you would like to read a paper on it we can debate the accuracy of this false common law assertion you keep making here is an excerpt from one:

"The American courts that dealt with cases of marital breakdown in the early nineteenth century had inherited a common-law tradition that did not provide for a child support action. Mainstream English law in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had held that a father had only a nonenforceable moral duty to support his children.(57) According to Blackstone, the duty of parents to provide for their children was a "principle of natural law."(58) 'Natural' law meant no more than that: There was no common-law action for the recovery of support furnished to a minor child at English law.(59) There were some hints by the middle of the nineteenth century that English courts would imply a promise of reimbursement if a father refused to support a child,(60) but these cases were clearly in the minority. Even the most generous reading of English precedent left American courts confused as to whether a father who deserted his family could be compelled to pay child support in a legal action.(61) Most American courts read the English precedents as forbidding a third party from recovering child support costs unless a father had authorized such support by contract.(62)
England did have a statutory provision for the recovery of child support in limited circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized local parishes to recover the money they spent in aiding single mothers and children from a nonsupporting father. But this statute was triggered only when the family involved was absolutely destitute; it therefore provided no assistance to single mothers left economically vulnerable after a divorce or separation. Also, the Elizabethan Poor Law only allowed towns to recoup their relief costs. It allowed no recovery for third parties or for single mothers who needed to be reimbursed for child support expenses."


If you prefer we can look up some actual cases implicated by it and cite relevant excerpts from those cases to see how these doctrines formed in American jurisprudence based on the We you are so fond of reacting to social pressures.


we can review the history of abortion and the common law. Under common law abortion was only illegal after "quickening" which was when a woman could feel the movement of a fetus.

Objection, relevance? We're

Objection, relevance? We're talking about infanticide.

Ventura 2012


"Um, many of those "we's" are based on hundreds of years of common law necessary to order society ... "

Why are you talking about

Why are you talking about ancient English common law when I am talking about modern American common law? The Common Law is ever changing and evolving. The Romans used to commit infanticide exactly how Rothbard suggested, why not go back that far? Roe v. Wade certainly did.

Furthermore, as a minarchist I believe that legislation can validly speed up the process of common law evolution (for example, Stand Your Ground laws). Rothbard apparently believes in some initial form of this as well, a fixed libertarian legal code and constitution.

Ventura 2012

Oh I dunno, perhaps it is because you don't know what you are

talking about when you say "modern American common law" as if such a thing exists which you could cite from any code or statute federally or in any state.

Florida Statutes, Title I (Construction of Statutes), Chapter 2 (Common Law In Force).

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.