EvictionismSubmitted by His American Majesty on Sun, 04/27/2014 - 10:50
This thread is to discuss the logic of a conflict of two principles. The self ownership principle and non-aggression principle. If self ownership is taken to a logical conclusion it leads to a woman owns her body and abortion is permissible. If non-aggression is taken to a logical conclusion it leads to a woman does not own her body because a fetus has a higher right to her own body than she does.
That is the conflict and those same principles taken to extremes can be easily applied to any other issues where they conflict.
I will use a logical NAND gate:
Q = NOT ( A AND B )
Refer to truth table at source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic
For my discussion Q = Result, A = Evict, and B = Abort
Result = NOT ( Evict AND Abort ) [ie. Answer = NOT ( Non-Violence AND Violence )]
Now for the question:
Is it permissible to Abort (ie. or use violence)?
Now for the statements in months 7-9:
A = Evict = Is eviction possible? (ie. non-lethal means) = TRUE = 0
B = Abort = Is abortion possible? (ie. lethal means) = TRUE = 0
Referring to the truth table the result is 1 or false so the answer to the question in this scenario is it is not permissible to abort.
Now for statements in months 0-6:
A = Evict = Is eviction possible? = FALSE = 1
B = Abort = Is abortion possible? = TRUE = 0
Referring to the truth table the result is 0 or true so the answer to the question in this scenario is it is permissible to abort.
How does this equation apply to say ... trespass? It says that if non-violent methods are not possible when there is a conflict with self ownership then it is permissible to use violence. That is it. Is it perfect? No, but for all of the criticism I see no one offering any alternatives to reconcile any conflict between the two principles of self ownership and non-aggression.
Some people are outraged at the notion of it being permissible to use violence against a trespass where there are no non-violent alternatives. Fortunately, the market is a really good platform to solve problems. In the same way it will eventually be possible to safely evict all fetuses should any other instances of a trespass where non-violent means are not possible ... there will be a solution.
Grandstanding on one of these two principles (ie. self ownership for pro choicers and non-aggression for pro lifers) to an extreme is not going to cut it. The very existence of fetuses proves there will be times these two principles intersect. Foreign policy could greatly benefit from eviction theory application. Violence is only permissible if no non-violent options are possible. Self defense uses the same logic ... when there is a conflict between self ownership and non-aggression and non-violent means are not possible it is permissible to use violence.
The same equation can also be applied to uses of violence:
Is it permissible to use lethal means?
Answer = NOT ( Non-lethal Means AND Lethal Means )
Which would result in it is never permissible to use lethal means when non-lethal means are possible. Incidentally being a reason there is a lot of police backlash because despite plenty of non-lethal means available, especially when they show up in a gang, they still pull out guns and shoot people or pets all the time.
One final thought about burden of proof. He who claims proves. The burden of proof ought not be upon he who is accused of excessive means. If the accusation against one is unnecessary violence was used the burden of proof ought to be upon he who claims non-violent means were appropriate.