That’s a surprise. Why?
Sure, why not? I love a good survey.
- Anarchism: Yes, but only if it’s Anarcho-Capitalism
- Praxeology: Yes
- Natural rights: Yes
- ABCT: Yes
- Corporations: No (they’re created by the state, last time I checked)
- Death penalty: No
- Abortion: Yes (It would be permissible: That’s something for the family, woman and the physician, not the state, to decide)
- Democracy: No
- Objectivism: No (well, I guess I’m a post-Objectivist/neo-Aristotelian)
- Psychological egoism: No
- Ethical egoism: No
- 100% FRB: Yes
- Anarchism: Yes
- Praxeology: Yes
- Natural rights: Yes
- ABCT: huh???
- Corporations: Yes
- Death penalty: Maybe
- Abortion: No, but I think pro-lifers should rely on persuasion rather than legislation
- Democracy: Yes (provided you are talking about real democracy, rather than a two-party system)
- Objectivism: No
- Psycological egoism: Yes
- Ethical egoism: No
- 100% FRB: I defend 100% your right to put your money in a bankrupt company
- Slave contracts: not economically viable in a free society
Austrian Business Cycle Theory
Boy I hope people don’t flame you for that one!
ami g just knows it as Business Cycle Theory [;)]
I think he was asking why this is an issue of contention on this forum, of all places.
Frankly, I am surprised that abortion is at about 50/50 in this thread.
stand up: Blockian Evictionists
[Z]
Well so far, it does not appear to be an issue of contention, so if that is the case, then that would definitely be a good question.
I am not. You obviously have not seen the threads about abortion and rights in this forum. A lot of people contend that humans have rights by virtue of just being a human. And they also contend that someone is a human at conception.
minarchistfacepalm.jpg
It’s no to late-term abortions, but yes to first trimester abortions. The reasoning that I conclude that after the second (or within the second) trimester, all bets are off that we got ourselves a being that can think and if given some nominal life support for a limited time, it will be self-sustained (barring nutritional requirements). I take this stance due to personal experience with my first niece who was barely out of the second trimester, but survived to be a nerdy teenager (better than brooding or emo, imho) at present. The fact she not only grew fast to being an actualized being makes me question whether or not abortion should be funded, but not necessarily banned. I personally abhor the destruction of human life as it seems pointless to waste precious opportunities to achieve better (which is why I’m also against the death penalty) in our lives and in this world.
I think abortion will solve itself in terms of both technology and society, which is why I’m still staunchly against State intervention in the issue (both on banning and funding).
- Anarchism: Yes (anything, as long as its voluntary)
- Praxeology: Yes
- Natural rights: No
- ABCT: Yes
- Corporations: Yes (obviously current corporations are a big no, but LL is fine)
- Death penalty: No
- Abortion: Yes (please don’t do it though)
- Democracy: No
- Objectivism: No (Post-objectivism: Yes)
- Psycological egoism: Yes
- Ethical egoism: Yes
- 100% FRB: Yes (Bank however you want, even foolishly)
- Slave contracts: No
Hahah..
I would have answered if the OP had simply spelled it out.
(yes)
You should check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdFt9Xz540 about the subject. What he says resonates with you.
While I do believe that Abortion should only be for a mother, father, and a physician to decide, I also agree that the state shouldn’t fund it, or ban it. The former just gets the special interests going crazy and the latter does is push it into the black market.
I have another question for you. You should that Lysander Spooner was the father of Individualist Anarchism and talked of his argument for it in one of your videos. What was his argument?