“…Abortion is really a complex word. It’s eviction plus killing. We have to separate those two. The libertarian compromise, as I see it, is, you have a right to evict but not to kill…”
— Dr. Walter BlockFor those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article [1],[2] (where all the inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
Adding a fairly common ‘objection’ that gets raised against evictionism (which Walter Block already preempts in the journal article that hardly anyone offering critiques has bothered to read—given they’d discover their objection has already been refuted).
“This case is not analogous to the one where an individual is invited on an airplane trip, and then halfway, while he is up in the air, the owner states that the invitation was only for fifteen minutes and that the time is now up… so stop trespassing and leave forth with, sans parachute. There is an implicit contract in force in that instance.[147] In contrast, there can be no such contract in the case of pregnancy, at the very least because there is simply no child to have a contract with at the point of intercourse when the child is created.”[148] The fetus does not yet exist, and even when it does, it is impossible to have a contract (implicit or otherwise) with a one-week- old baby.[149]
147. One must of course tread carefully through the minefield of implicit contracts, but it would appear that here we have a paradigm case of this type of “agreement.” Surely no one would ever enter an airplane (or a car, train, etc.) if he were liable to be pushed out while at full speed.
148. We abstract from the possibility of the mother having a contract with the father to raise the child.
149. One could of course have an obligation to a small child, but cannot be bound by an implicit contract to such a person. This is because explicit contracts with babies (without parent or guardian consent) are impermissible, and an implicit contract is merely the embodiment of an explicit one.
Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another person, e.g., Thompson’s by now famous violinist, through your kidneys. You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an operation connecting that person to your kidneys through a sort of umbilical chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the permission or even knowledge of either “patient.”
What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist?
First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent. Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were “raped,” but this was not done by your bed-mate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have since vanished from the scene. What you are confronted with is the result of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your kidneys completely dependent upon you for his life.
What can you do with this person? Suppose he goes back to sleep and is thus totally helpless. Can you just slit his throat? That would be murder and must therefore be opposed. Killing him is aggressive; it constitutes initiatory violence. Even if you can get away with it on practical grounds, it should certainly not be allowed on the basis of legal principles.
What can you do? Do you have to let him stay attached for nine months or for any particular length of time? Instead of slitting his throat, can you sever the connection between the two of you - which would also cause his death? If you did that, you would still be guilty of the initiation of coercion, surely a crime, specifically, murder. What you must do is notify somebody - the association “Friends of Kidney Victims” or a hospital or the Salvation Army or the Church and have them sever the connection between you two, without thereby killing this dependent.
— Walter Block,
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (pdf).
“…Abortion is really a complex word. It’s eviction plus killing. We have to separate those two. The libertarian compromise, as I see it, is, you have a right to evict but not to kill…”
— Dr. Walter Block
For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article [1],[2] (where all the inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
“…Even on a pragmatic basis, the frontal attack on abortion simply does not work. Anti-abortionists have long pleaded with the political process to stop this unconscionable slaughter - all to virtually no avail. The popularity of the present law, as revealed by numerous public opinion polls, indicates, moreover, that this state of affairs is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
The mistake has been to confront the problem totally and directly; e.g., to insist upon an end to abortion. This has not worked, will not work, and at least on the moral grounds we are now defending, should not work. All is not lost, however, in the fight to save the poor children who have had their lives cruelly snuffed out through this process. There is an alternative that may prove successful. (Given the vast amount of good to be attained by saving the lives of fetuses, anything may well be better than current efforts).
How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance ("test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred - in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?
What will abortion law be like on that day? If there is little or no change from what prevails at present, the fetuses of the future will face the same fate as those today, despite the advances in medical technology that could otherwise have saved their lives.
— Walter Block
(Source: conza)
“…Abortion is really a complex word. It’s eviction plus killing. We have to separate those two. The libertarian compromise, as I see it, is, you have a right to evict but not to kill…”
Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Justifying Libertarianism
The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Romania, on November 8-11, 2011 presents a colloquium with the author of “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the legacy of the private Mises Seminar in Bucharest. This is an excerpt where Hoppe talks about justifying libertarian norms and the a priori of argumentation. Those who attempt to defend anything but libertarian norms are engaged in a performative contradiction.
Regarding the ability to engage in argumentation, there are three possible states:
- “none” (inanimate object, dead)
- “potential” (babies: part of their nature), (knocked unconscious, coma patient, mentally handicapped: those that have shown at least once to be able to engage in argumentation, and may be able to do so again)
- “always” (children, adults etc.)
So therefore, and this is both logically rigorous and accurate.
- No Rights
- “Guardianship” or “Trustee” Rights, until they show and claim 3.
- Full self-ownership.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Abortion
A colloquium with the author of “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, at the private Mises Seminar in Bucharest (LvMI Romania), followed by questions from the audience. This is an excerpt where Hoppe talks about children, abortion, the states role and guardianship rights.
This is essentially what I asked Hoppe at lunch several weeks ago, but didn’t record it. I’m glad someone else has now asked the same question. His response is very similar. As I explained, I’m not at all emotionally invested like those of the “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” brigade, I’m predominately interested in the logic of it - which position is to be considered just. As it stands - neither of those positions are, they are both partly ‘right’ and partly 'wrong’. The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism [video]. For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article (where all your inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:
- A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
I don’t think there’s any conflict between Hoppe’s position -he is simply giving the private law framework- and Block’s, where he is specifically giving what he considers to be the 'libertarian law code’ response. Here’s a great diagram that encapsulates what is meant. There need not be just one 'law code’ that individuals voluntarily sign up to adhere by, but the libertarian principles of 'self-ownership’ and 'original appropriation’ naturally lay the foundation.
Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block).
This is a brief introduction to the theory of Evictionism. Evictionism is the abortion ‘compromise’. I have no strong feelings on this issue, I go where the logic goes. Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you read the below.
- Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (pdf). *Pg 14 - Intro to the Compromise*
Interestingly enough this completely validates Block’s medical/technological point. In 2007, viable at 23 weeks and has survived. Who knows what it is now?