Abortion and the Libertarian Conscience

[robrecht]

No it is not. A positive right is something that places an obligation upon another person to fulfill. I have no positive duties to do anything for you to fulfill your right to life. I have only a negative duty to refrain from killing you (unless in self-defense).

For example from the LP Platform:

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right."

Thanks. So would libertarians deny that all are endowed by their creator with, or otherwise possess, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[Darth Xena]

Thanks. So would libertarians deny that all are endowed by their creator with, or otherwise possess, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

No. Those are negative rights. I have no obligation to do anything to provide those to you other than not to interfere with your peaceful exercise of same.

Remember this line "Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."

Born with them.

[robrecht]

No. Those are negative rights. I have no obligation to do anything to provide those to you other than not to interfere with your peaceful exercise of same.

Remember this line "Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."

Born with them.

So the unborn have no rights according to libertarians. But if some libertarians recognize this right, on what basis do they respect such a right?

[Raphael]

IMO every Christian is already a kind of libertarian,

ummm no, I'm a monarchist (favouring constitutional monarchy).

And not every Christian is pro-life, I think?

While you are correct. this completely baffles me as to how a Christian could be anything but pro-life.

[Darth Xena]

So the unborn have no rights according to libertarians. But if some libertarians recognize this right, on what basis do they respect such a right?

That statement was not intended to be a mutually exclusive claim, but rather typical language. But the metaphysical question is indeed at what point rights invest. That is the debate. And that debate would be the same as any pro-life v. pro-choice personhood debate in any philosophy. With one crucial difference. Some Libertarians would argue that even if rights invest at some point prior to birth, you cannot be forced to be the life support system for another person. Then the debate gets a bit hairier. I speak of the point in the footnote about positive rights. In short, the pro-life Libertarian would say that just as you can be responsible for the support of another person if you injure them, if your body causes another person to be in an inescapable helpless condition, you have a duty to mitigate, and since your body is the efficient cause of them being in your body and not able to escape, the minimization of aggression corollary requires you to deal with it in the gentlest means possible.

Naturally there are no positive rights. You can create a positive right through aggression or negligent acts, through other acts for which you are responsible, including acts of your own body, or through contract. Particularly for those Libertarians who would invest rights at say the second trimester, they would further claim that the failure to do something about it early on, is a binding commitment to carry through, in the same way that a pilot taking someone up in their plane binds them to a commitment to not change their mind halfway through the flight and tell the passenger to get out.

[robrecht]

That statement was not intended to be a mutually exclusive claim, but rather typical language. But the metaphysical question is indeed at what point rights invest. That is the debate. And that debate would be the same as any pro-life v. pro-choice personhood debate in any philosophy. With one crucial difference. Some Libertarians would argue that even if rights invest at some point prior to birth, you cannot be forced to be the life support system for another person. Then the debate gets a bit hairier. I speak of the point in the footnote about positive rights. In short, the pro-life Libertarian would say that just as you can be responsible for the support of another person if you injure them, if your body causes another person to be in an inescapable helpless condition, you have a duty to mitigate, and since your body is the efficient cause of them being in your body and not able to escape, the minimization of aggression corollary requires you to deal with it in the gentlest means possible.

Naturally there are no positive rights. You can create a positive right through aggression or negligent acts, through other acts for which you are responsible, including acts of your own body, or through contract. Particularly for those Libertarians who would invest rights at say the second trimester, they would further claim that the failure to do something about it early on, is a binding commitment to carry through, in the same way that a pilot taking someone up in their plane binds them to a commitment to not change their mind halfway through the flight and tell the passenger to get out.

It seems to me that libertarians over-emphasize the rights of individuals, especially conscious adult individuals, and do not sufficiently recognize responsibilities to, for, and of the community. Thoughts?

ETA: After reading your article, I recognize that libertarians generally do recognize some rights or responsibilities of the community. As you state in your post:

"As Libertarians, we generally believe that the State (or in an anarchist view, the community law—however enforced/enacted[2]) does have a compelling reason to prevent and punish homicide. It is one of the few duties of the State/Law about which Libertarians can agree. However, while the current Platform recognizes that many members will oppose abortion, it asks them to abandon the inherently Libertarian belief that homicide is a proper province of the State/Law.

[2] I hold to a voluntaryist/anarchist view. I prefer my State non-existent."

[Darth Xena]

It seems to me that libertarians over-emphasize the rights of individuals, especially conscious adult individuals, and do not sufficiently recognize responsibilities to, for, and of the community. Thoughts?

Only individuals have rights. The focus of libertarianism is on the individual.

Rights-bearing individuals voluntarily assume responsibilities for communities in mutual aid. We reject force in that respect. No one has an enforceable duty to another that is "owed." They may feel they have a moral one, but the political view deal with just uses of force for duties and rights. Once the state is removed from the paternal figure, as seen in amorist and "free state" projects, the communities are strengthened to more natural and free interactions with other people.

ETA: After reading your article, I recognize that libertarians generally do recognize some rights or responsibilities of the community. As you state in your post:
"As Libertarians, we generally believe that the State (or in an anarchist view, the community law—however enforced/enacted[2]) does have a compelling reason to prevent and punish homicide. It is one of the few duties of the State/Law about which Libertarians can agree. However, while the current Platform recognizes that many members will oppose abortion, it asks them to abandon the inherently Libertarian belief that homicide is a proper province of the State/Law.

[2] I hold to a voluntaryist/anarchist view. I prefer my State non-existent."

That is not the community as you defined it before, it is a system to defend violations of negative rights. Force may be used to protect life, liberty and property. Such defense is the only proper use of a government. The word "community law" there was used as shorthand to describe a non-state system of justice, such as an anarchist would propose. There is no good term for that.... other than the discordant-sounding "anarchist law."

[robrecht]

Only individuals have rights. The focus of libertarianism is on the individual.

Rights-bearing individuals voluntarily assume responsibilities for communities in mutual aid. We reject force in that respect. No one has an enforceable duty to another that is "owed." They may feel they have a moral one, but the political view deal with just uses of force for duties and rights. Once the state is removed from the paternal figure, as seen in amorist and "free state" projects, the communities are strengthened to more natural and free interactions with other people.

That is not the community as you defined it before, it is a system to defend violations of negative rights. Force may be used to protect life, liberty and property. Such defense is the only proper use of a government. The word "community law" there was used as shorthand to describe a non-state system of justice, such as an anarchist would propose. There is no good term for that.... other than the discordant-sounding "anarchist law."

I don't recall offering a definition of a/the community. To what are you referring? I do think that individuals have not only rights but also responsibilities, yes moral responsibilities, to, for, and of the community. "Anarchist law," that is indeed humorous.

[Darth Xena]

I don't recall offering a definition of a/the community. To what are you referring? I do think that individuals have not only rights but also responsibilities, yes moral responsibilities, to, for, and of the community. "Anarchist law," that is indeed humorous.

I was deriving your definition from context. I was using community to simply mean collective agreement at that point... again an awkward way to avoid using "anarchist law" --- though there is such a thing. Soley moral responsibilities are not enforceable in justice and are peculiar to individuals. Again, there are no positive rights. I may have a moral duty to help you if you are starving. You do not have a positive right against me. You have no right in justice (remember this is a political theory) to come and force me to feed you.

Like a preterist will always go back to "this generation"-- you will not get away from the word "force" when speaking with a libertarian.

PS Morality and justice often coincide, but not always. Charity is moral. It is not enforceable in justice. Not killing someone is moral. And that IS enforceable in justice.

Libertarians hold to completely voluntary community cooperation and the inviolability of individual negative rights.... even if the violation of them leads to some "good" for others.

ps: I am an anarchist

[robrecht]

I was deriving your definition from context. I was using community to simply mean collective agreement at that point... again an awkward way to avoid using "anarchist law" --- though there is such a thing. Soley moral responsibilities are not enforceable in justice and are peculiar to individuals. Again, there are no positive rights. I may have a moral duty to help you if you are starving. You do not have a positive right against me. You have no right in justice (remember this is a political theory) to come and force me to feed you.

Like a preterist will always go back to "this generation"-- you will not get away from the word "force" when speaking with a libertarian.

PS Morality and justice often coincide, but not always. Charity is moral. It is not enforceable in justice. Not killing someone is moral. And that IS enforceable in justice.

Libertarians hold to completely voluntary community cooperation and the inviolability of individual negative rights.... even if the violation of them leads to some "good" for others.

ps: I am an anarchist

I figured I must have been using an implied functional definition but am not aware of any contradiction. Perhaps you could make that explicit for me. Do you think that libertarian political theory focuses too much on the individual and gives insufficient positive attention to the community?

[robrecht]

I was deriving your definition from context. I was using community to simply mean collective agreement at that point... again an awkward way to avoid using "anarchist law" --- though there is such a thing. Soley moral responsibilities are not enforceable in justice and are peculiar to individuals. Again, there are no positive rights. I may have a moral duty to help you if you are starving. You do not have a positive right against me. You have no right in justice (remember this is a political theory) to come and force me to feed you.

Like a preterist will always go back to "this generation"-- you will not get away from the word "force" when speaking with a libertarian.

PS Morality and justice often coincide, but not always. Charity is moral. It is not enforceable in justice. Not killing someone is moral. And that IS enforceable in justice.

Libertarians hold to completely voluntary community cooperation and the inviolability of individual negative rights.... even if the violation of them leads to some "good" for others.

ps: I am an anarchist

I figured I must have been using an implied functional definition but am not aware of any contradiction. Perhaps you could make that explicit for me. Or were you merely saying that you and I have differing functional definitions of community? Do you think that libertarian political theory focuses too much on the individual and gives insufficient positive attention to the community?

[Darth Xena]

I figured I must have been using an implied functional definition but am not aware of any contradiction. Perhaps you could make that explicit for me. Or were you merely saying that you and I have differing functional definitions of community? Do you think that libertarian political theory focuses too much on the individual and gives insufficient positive attention to the community?

No because the community is individuals and individuals are the only ones with rights. The individuals then are encouraged to go and help the community. Since it is not forced help, I actually find that libertarian political theory focuses more healthily on the community than any other view. There is no such "thing" as community in the sense of rights, and since libertarian political theory deals with rights, it can only focus on the individual. When rights-bearing individuals get together and cooperate that would be the community, but it is always the individuals in view. In the type of libertarian society envisioned, one must have an extraordinary level of cooperative actions with others, without the nanny state, so the community in that sense gets much much greater attention than in any other view. So I would answer unequivocally no to your question.

I was only saying the word community is equivocal and we were using it in two different permutations. I was using it in the piece as a word for "custom" or "group understanding" rather than a collection of individuals.

[Darth Xena]

From our LP preamble: this is the foundation for building a society/commmunity:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Amazing peaceful communities spring up from people following these principles. Check out the Free State Project New Hampshire.

[Darth Executor]

I would define "libertarian" as one who follows the No-Aggression principle. Do you and Xena know the principle?

Yes. And no, you don't need to follow it to be a Christian. I don't (I find it repulsive, actually, but that's probably for another thread).

[Darth Xena]

Not this thread, thanks.