A fetus cannot homestead it’s right to self-ownership inside the womb of another (since you cannot homestead inside another’s inalienable person)
Ownership of body is not “homesteaded” but aquired by virtue of one’d direct control over his body. Where the baby is located does not effect his ownership of body. (although to say a fetus has any ownership is ridicules, but thats for other reasons)
Ownership of body is not “homesteaded” but aquired by virtue of one’s direct control over his body.
There are no rights which are not property rights. To acquire the right to self-ownership, one must be separate from the inalienable will of another. One must homestead his own body, and such can only transpire when one is not in the confines of another’s person.
PS- It’s ridiculous, not “ridicules.” No offence, it’s just a mistake that rather bothers me. A pet peeve, if you will. It’s like when people use “your” instead of “you’re,” or “loose” instead of “lose.” Just trying to help you out on that one.
Thank you for the correction, my spell checker isn’t working and I don’t fee like openning word ext. Fee free to further correct me, I appreciate it.
As for what you said, though all rights are property rights, this means the rights are a justification for exclusive control, not that they are aquired in a certain way. What I meant by saying body ownership is not aquired by homesteading is that it’s not via an act of original appropriation. Your parents don’t own you. Since this is so, the location of the body is irrelevant.
Gumdy is alluding to what I’ve been saying: it’s a matter of fact; that is, fetuses don’t have rights de facto. Not “well they might in this situation, or they might in another.” No. Fetuses don’t have rights BECAUSE they aren’t individuals. When the umbilical cord is cut, and the fetus is a separate being outside of the mothers body, then it BECOMES an individual and THEREFORE has the right of self-ownership, even thought it STILL ISN’T a self-owner, but only a potential self-owner.
The reason I wanted people to read stuff and quote is so that you could not avoid being reminded that rights are for individual beings—in this case, of the human variety—by virtue of our nature. That is, our NEED for them. As Gumdy pointed out, we need them as a solution for justice in an environment of scarce resources.
None of this is relevant in any sense to a fetus. I don’t know how many times I have to say it.
Hashem-- I was just agreeing with you. Did you read what I wrote? I said that fetuses can’t homestead their property right of self-ownership in the womb, and therefore they have none. That’s why they aren’t individuals.
I agree with you, geeze. And I understand that fetuses (a) don’t have a self-ownership right, (b) aren’t self-owners, and (c) aren’t individuals. Only point (b), on the other hand rationally applies to babies. I simply think this idea that they can’t homestead their property rights (by virtue of not being a separate individual) is key to the question.
Oh lol why didn’t you say so. You may be in complete agreeance with me at this point.
As to homesteading one’s self post-birth, you have foresight into the correct answer. We gain property rights when we act to acquire them, in our person as in everything else.
Gumdy is alluding to what I’ve been saying: it’s a matter of fact; that is, fetuses don’t have rights de facto. Not “well they might in this situation, or they might in another.” No. Fetuses don’t have rights BECAUSE they aren’t individuals. When the umbilical cord is cut, and the fetus is a separate being outside of the mothers body, then it BECOMES an individual and THEREFORE has the right of self-ownership, even thought it STILL ISN’T a self-owner, but only a potential self-owner.
The reason I wanted people to read stuff and quote is so that you could not avoid being reminded that rights are for individual beings—in this case, of the human variety—by virtue of our nature. That is, our NEED for them. As Gumdy pointed out, we need them as a solution for justice in an environment of scarce resources.
None of this is relevant in any sense to a fetus. I don’t know how many times I have to say it.
How am I alluding to something I agreed and argued myself from the start?
I just pointed out one specific argument which was false. Otherwise, as you can see, I agree.
How aren’t you?
allude: to refer casually or indirectly
You said: “by virtue of one’d direct control over his body”
I said: “it’s a matter of fact; that is, fetuses don’t have rights de facto”
What a weird random thing to bring up…
I wasn’t replying to you. Anyway, we agree.
As to homesteading one’s self post-birth, you have foresight into the correct answer. We gain property rights when we act to acquire them, in our person as in everything else.
Haha, I thought “OK man, you win,” would clue you in that I had largely lost the debate. >_>
Anyway, to my point. I was trying to help make your stance more cohesive, as just repeating the “individual” explanation doesn’t explain what I am convinced is the deeper reasoning. Fetuses have neither self-ownership nor are self-owners. (Two different things). This is because they cannot homestead their property right to self-ownership, and cannot homestead further to become a complete self-owner. (This being due to the fact that they are in another’s inalienable person). Now, that should make sense as to why they have no rights. With regards to newborns, they have a right to self-ownership but are not full self-owners, according to Rothbard. Keep in mind that all rights are property rights, and, as such, must be derived from homesteading. Now, a coherent explanation, in my view, is that the fetus is homesteading its right to self-ownership, by virtue of being separate from the inalienable will of the mother. (i.e., It becomes an individual with a right in itself). As it grows older and more independent, it can further homestead property and become a full self-owner, not restricted to the rules of its parents property, etc.
I’m simply proposing this theory that I came up with as a rational explanation behind why the separation constitutes when the newborn acquires its right to self-ownership. I think it could be an important point to you and Rothbard’s point, which neither you nor he (to my knowledge) brought up. It’s the reason why the parents only own the child “fee simple.” Without this reasoning, as far as I know, the claim seems (yet isn’t) unsubstantiated and arbitrary. i.e., That one potential self-owner has no right to self-ownership, while another has the right of self-ownership. With my new theory of the homesteading of birth, however, this makes perfect sense. If I hadn’t thought of this, I would never have been able to be convinced of your chain of logic.
What do you think?
So Rothbard is against abortion. What if catholic landowners decide that no-one can’t abort in their property? Is it anarcho-capitalism? If it’s not, what it is then?
Oh, ofc we think that you can outlaw abortion on your own property. People do not have a “positive right” to aggress upon your property as landowner and abort. But they are free to do so on their own property or the property of those who consent, ALWAYS. People are always free from aggression, the essence of negative rights. As someone who is morally against abortion himself, I would support property owners voluntarily outlawing it on their property, actually.
Also, I’m going to assume you meant Rothbard is for legal abortion.
PS- I noticed you have an issue with Rothbardian legal structure theory. Let me explain why you shouldn’t. All Rothbardian law says is that laws are universal. The law that you cannot murder is universal; no one can EVER change this, not even on their own property. No one can EVER enforce a law that says you can initiate force against others. In short, no on can make/enforce law which violates the Non-Aggression Axiom. We’re not saying people can’t determine the rules for their own legitimate property. Quite the contrary. But people NEVER have a right to initiate force, in any scenario. Period.
Yes, he is for legal abrotion, my mistake. English is not my first language. But what do you think about this quote from Rothbard:
The free bankers accept a kind of David Friedmanite anarchism, where there is no law, only people engaging in exchange and buying people out. If you have a group that wants to kill redheads, the redheads will have to buy them off if they value their hair. I think this is monstrous; that kind of anarchism would indeed be chaos. Just because there is a demand for something doesn’t mean it should be fulfilled.
It seems that Rothbard was against ‘polycentric’ law, in which property owners can decide what laws they choose. Later Austrians (like Robert Murphy) are with you and say that they can choose, but Rothbard seems different.
I’m against polycentric law, in a certain sense, and I completely agree with Rothbard in that passage.
Property owners cannot legally choose to aggress against people on their lands, who have not violated their own property rights. Also, when property owners retaliate against aggression, it must be (as a maximum) proportionate to be legal. So, in a Rothbardian society, it would be illegal to shoot and murder someone who places one foot over your property boundary, presuming they were not trying to kill you.
In being against polycentric law, I simply mean that I believe in a universal Non-Aggression Axiom. For instance, that people are NEVER legally allowed to initiate force and choose to murder redheads. That’s what I mean. That people are NEVER allowed to steal. That people are NEVER allowed to enslave.
^Make sure to see the fully edited version of my last reply. =)
Yes, I saw it. When you say that property owners are never LEGALLY ALLOWED to do un-Rothbardian things, what does that mean? That Rothbardians are going to call him and say ‘Dude, that’s not right according to our NAP-theory’ or something else? Does it just mean that it’s not ‘legal’, but they can still do it? I belive that anarcho-capitalism would lead to a society, where property owners decide their laws and only Rothbardian libertarians(10% maybe?) would use 100% version of his ethics in their property.
Violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom means that people legally can and probably should respond with retaliative force…of course, they do not have to and cannot be forced to respond in this fashion, for that would itself violate libertarian ethics. But, the idea is, if you murder redheads, you can be killed or jailed yourself by someone who retaliates, whether they be vigilantes or private police or whatever.
In the ideal world, all violations of the Non-Aggression Axiom would be enforced against as best as possible. But that’s unrealistic. For instance, someone could murder and run away, and never be found again. But the Rothbardian idea is that (ideally) they should be found and brought to punishment for their crimes.
Yes, Libertarian society is all about pushing for the most enforcement against Aggression as possible.
I took the “redhead”-quote because it was only one where I have seen Rothbard commenting Friedman’s version of ancap. But what if 80 % of property owners allow circumcision, ban abortion and start to jail people who break contracts? I can’t think that it would be unrealistic consequence if current monopoly of law breaks up and power of decision moves to the property owners. I can’t think Rothbards “generally accepted legal code” to become global standard and expect it to become only a minor set of laws in anarcho-capitalistic society.
And another question, would Rothbard be against a stateless society, where property owners can choose their laws by themselves? That quote seems to show so.
EDIT:
Hmm, so David Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism? 
Well, this is one answer:
“This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression. However, in David D. Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism, “the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market”,[39] which he believes would lead to a generally libertarian society if not an absolute one.” So global stateless anarcho-capitalism doesnt mean global libertarian society, if libertarian society means pro-abortion, pro-drugs, anti-circumcision etc.
No, Friedman’s a libertarian, I’m simply a Rothbardian. No big deal. Also, I’m an Anarcho-Capitalist too. I simply don’t believe in “polycentric” law, e.g., one law which says it’s OK to murder redheads.
And I’m afraid you’re not getting the point. The point isn’t to impose a rule that property owners should allow abortion on their lands…The point is that property owners can NEVER aggress against peaceful people who want to abort on their own lands or on the lands of others who consent. Hence my point. The point is that there can be no laws which violate the NAA. There cannot be a law which says it’s OK for me to burn down grocery stores against the various owners’ consents. That’s my point. And, to be legal, all punishment AGAINST peoples’ crimes must be proportionate, e.g., I cannot shoot you for poking me.
You have to understand what the universal Rothbardian Non-Aggression Axiom means, first. By the way, the reason you are not allowed to abort on someones’ land who doesn’t allow it is that that would be trespassing. You would be aggressing against them. And, according to Rothbardian Universal Law, this would be illegal. So, in summary: it would be universally illegal to trespass on someones’ lands and abort there against their consent. Non-Aggression and negative rights are the universal laws in Rothbardian theory.
EDIT- Also, I should add that, as a traditionalist anarchist, I am morally opposed to drugs and abortion. But I’m not legally opposed to these things.
I think I understand the point. I just don’t understand why Rothbard himself was so hostile towards polycentric law, and I mean when refers Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism as a ‘chaos’.
I don’t think he was being overly hostile: simply emphatic. For example, if I wanted to hire a hitman to kill you, there would be a very good argument that my demand is illegal and hence should not be fulfilled.** Even if a “law” hypothetically says it’s OK. It would indeed be pretty chaotic to say that my demand can be legally fulfilled and you can be shot in your sleep by my hitman.
And I don’t think he’s saying that Friedman’s whole conception is chaos, but rather that particular legal point of Friedman’s. If that makes sense.
**Presuming you’re not the one who initiated force by murdering someone, of course.