Comment: The libertarian ideology IS consistent. Some of it's proponents

(See in situ)


The libertarian ideology IS consistent. Some of it's proponents

however do not articulate it in consistent fashion.

You see, the right to "property" or "self-ownership" is NOT the basis for everything else.

Rothbard et al fail to address WHY it is NECESSARY for you to have that basic right. Where does it come from?

It comes from the Law of Personal Responsibility.

You do not have responsibilities because you have rights. You have rights because you have responsibilities.

A "right" is that sovereign authority you have to take an action to fulfill a responsibility.

It is no accident that the term "right" with respect to "liberty" and the word "right" with respect to being "correct" or "proper" are spelled and sound alike - they are the same word.

It is only "right" "proper" or "correct" that you have such authorities. This list of authorities to act, constitute your "rights."

The Law of Personal Responsibility is that ONLY you are responsible for yourself - no one else is.

If someone else was, you would be a slave, or their master. For they would be the ones tasked to take action to sustain your life and protect it, or you theirs.

Such leaves either you or the someone else, not in a state of Liberty.

Thus the only way for all to be at Liberty is for all to be self-responsible.

If you aren't responsible for you, then there is no reason for you to have authority to take actions on your behalf. In fact, it would be absurd. The one who IS responsible for you needs that authority so they can accomplish their tasks without being hindered needlessly. Otherwise - you are in jeopardy.

The same works in reverse.

This is why I drew the point of being a slave or a master.

Is a woman, by having consensual sex, which is WELL KNOWN to result in pregnancy, taking an action which she has the authority to take?

Yes.

Does aborting the child constitute an act which she has the authority to take? NO. Why? Because not only is she NOT fulfilling any responsibility by the act, the act itself is a shunning or responsibility for a previous act she had the authority to take.

She took on the responsibility of caring for another person's life until that individual could do so on their own.

She can't change her mind once the act is begun because it isn't a simple instant act - it lasts for several years to a decade and a half at the least.

So when posed with a question of "does a right exist?" Remember what a right is - it is that authority to take an action that is proper for you to have that authority because you have some responsibility ONLY you can fulfill by that action.

This doesn't mean there can't be another way to fulfill the duty. It simply means this action should be available to you if you see fit to use it.

But if there is no responsibility being fulfilled, and particularly if that action either causes direct harm, not to even speak of death, to another, or shirks or shuns or in some way abdicates responsibility for a previous action taken under right, then THAT action cannot be one "of right."