Тег: Abortions

Blitz-4

Some guys from Reddit bought a bunch of shares in dead companies and ruined “greedy” hedge funds for shorting those companies. Who is more in the right in this situation?

Anal Magician

Those who leave the casino and go play chess are more in the right.

I have already analyzed the topic of market manipulation, and even more specifically, the pump and dump scheme. My reflections boiled down to the fact that if traders are doing this, it is a strategy as risky as any other. And attempts to regulate it are exactly the same kind of market manipulation. So, if a trading platform in principle implies the possibility of closing trading to prevent someone from making a profit, then there is no point in being on such platforms. It’s not surprising that the Reddit guys eventually ignored the stocks and went to trade crypto. Over time, the smartest among them will even understand which crypto is better for buying and holding, and which is only for speculation. But on crypto exchanges, at least their toy won’t be taken away, even if there is a danger that they might upset someone with it.

I am reading the translation of The Mechanics of Freedom. Very interesting, thank you. My English is at the level of reading an English-Russian dictionary, so this will not be criticism, but rather a question. At the end of the chapter Rare means exhaustible, the “problem of abundance” is mentioned. This really triggered me. Abundance is the best thing humanity can hope for, and calling it a problem is blasphemy.

Then I remembered that “false friends” of the translator exist, and the meaning of “problem” is much broader than the Russian “проблема” — it can be a task, a question, or even a situation.

I’m still triggered. I want to understand: is this just a translation inaccuracy, or does the author really think that abundance has some kind of problems?

Dnar

From the text, it seemed quite obvious to me that the author is being ironic about leftists who claim that the emergence of abundance will cause problems for the existence of private property. Yes, indeed, many things that were once paid will become free, and this only means a transition to other monetization schemes, as we see, for example, in the case of copies of texts. Property as a concept will not disappear. It is precisely competition in the production of goods and services that drives their price down so much that it can even become zero. But in order for the problem of how to get money for something cheap and easily accessible to arise in the first place, capitalism is exactly what is needed. This paradox is, in fact, the theme of the chapter.

Should abortion be banned or not?

I have analyzed this topic — once and twice. I can only add to what was previously stated that the question of whether one should have an abortion is as unpleasant as the question of whether one should perform anesthesia by hitting the back of the head with a mallet. As long as we do not have available methods of anesthesia that do not cause a concussion as a side effect, there are a huge number of situations in which such a barbaric method would be better than none at all. But when science has already stepped far enough forward, mallet anesthesia may only be required in a very exotic situation. The same goes for preventing the birth of a child. Should it be banned to surgically remove it from the body without a chance of survival for the fetus? As long as there are no less barbaric methods at hand, there are a huge number of situations in which it is better to do it this way. But when science gives us a wide variety of contraceptive means, surgical abortion becomes a much rarer procedure than it could be.

How should one treat those who, on principle, force people not to use protection and to give birth? Offer them appendicitis treatment without anesthesia.

New video from Libertarian Band – about abortions

The long series of videos about libertarianism on the Libertarian Band channel, for which I wrote the scripts, had a rather blurred ending. The series consisted of sections that—as it happened—contained exactly five videos each. The first section told about libertarianism in general, about different approaches to building a libertarian society, and about ancap as the goal of the movement. The second examined the basic concepts used by libertarianism and their interrelationship. The third discussed the mechanisms operating in a stateless society. Having analyzed law and morality, I wanted to finish by showing how they intertwine when applied to a topic as slippery as children. It was intended that this would conclude the ancap section and shift the focus to agorism.

However, the script was rejected by the rest of the team and completely rewritten, narrowing the topic to abortions alone. Further on, apparently, instead of agorism, an entire series on the NAP will be deployed, but also with a different scriptwriter. And you’re telling me about some split in the LPR. Who even cares about a split in some LPR?

The video turned out well—thorough and rich in factual detail—but it looks somewhat like a book being finished posthumously by the deceased’s heirs. But since I haven’t actually died, I now have the wonderful opportunity to present this video to you.

Responsibility for Conception

Recently, on a stream, Svetov rashly claimed that a woman has the right to dispose of her own body and get rid of an embryo that causes her discomfort, but in the case of a voluntary and conscious sexual act, doesn’t the responsibility for conception and for the child ending up in such a dependent position lie with the parents?

Margo

As I have already written on another occasion, a right is a claim that is tolerated. A prenatal child does not make claims, therefore “the rights of prenatal children” is a claim made by third parties, which the parents of such children either acknowledge or they do not. Each side can present its own arguments.

Here are examples of arguments from the attacking side:

  • abortion is murder
  • childbirth is beneficial for the body
  • childbirth is beneficial for demographics

And for comparison, here are examples of arguments from the defending side:

  • my body, my choice
  • the embryo violates the NAP
  • there is no money to live on
  • the marriage has fallen apart, so the “child” project is no longer relevant

Generally speaking, people tend to present similar arguments to parents whose child has already been born, but whom they, in the opinion of critics, are raising in an improper manner.

Svetov’s arguments boil down to the fact that in any case, the resolution of such conflicts cannot be entrusted to the state. But the state cannot even be trusted to take out the trash, so let’s immediately imagine that it has long been gone, while people’s claims toward each other regarding the treatment of children, born or unborn, remain, and they must be resolved in some way privately.

So, some outsider crosses a woman’s path and demands that she not do what she considers her right. She, naturally, asks how this concerns him at all. Any arguments along the lines of “you are responsible for the conception” are dismissed with the objection “yes, I am, but not to you.” Attempts at forceful coercion lead us one way or another to a picture of a legal proceeding, where the defendant has to prove why, specifically in the matter of abortions, his opinion as an outsider on what a woman should do with her own body is valid in any way.

The only argument against abortion that would sound convincing in a free market society is “if you kill the child, I won’t be able to buy it from you.” Only after such an answer to the question “what business is it of yours?” can the woman breathe, take her finger off the trigger, and begin to bargain. Ultimately, a transfer of parental rights occurs with the drafting of a contract for gestation services, and the rest is just a matter of technique. The woman trades the possibility of an immediate exit from pregnancy for compensation, and the moralist acquires guardianship duties over the child and that very responsibility for its further upbringing.

Of course, the moralist would be better off hiding his desire to buy a prenatal child at any cost, otherwise getting pregnant and crossing his path with a brochure for an abortion clinic would become a temptingly profitable business—no one cancelled the cobra effect. So it is more likely that various charitable organizations will mainly rely on non-material motivation, such as “do not commit a sin, give birth to God’s child and give it to be raised in the church of witnesses to the commandment Be Fruitful And Multiply.”

One way or another, anyone who hopes to talk a woman out of an abortion with words about responsibility to the child must be prepared, at the very least, to take that responsibility upon themselves, and ideally, also to compensate the woman for the costs associated with agreeing to their persuasion and condemning herself to several more months of pregnancy.

Of course, abortion is bad and all that blah-blah-blah, but we are not discussing anyone’s moral character here. Only responsibility for one’s decisions.

The clip has no direct relation to the topic of the post, but watch it anyway

How will things stand with abortions under ancap?

анонимный вопрос

I have already answered the question regarding the legitimacy of abortions from a libertarian perspective, but now the topic is slightly different.

Despite the fact that most libertarians see nothing blameworthy or punishable in a woman having an abortion, there will clearly be significantly fewer abortions in a society dominated by anarcho-capitalism than there are now.

It is very simple. An abortion is not a benefit for a woman. It is always a kind of forced evil that a woman resorts to because she views continuing the pregnancy as an even greater evil. But under ancap, she will have far more alternatives to abortion.

Judge for yourself. One could place an advertisement stating that a child is being carried, the approximate birth date is such-and-such, and she is ready to sell guardianship rights and waive her parental rights. Of course, this advertisement could be phrased using various euphemisms, but the essence would be roughly the same: I am willing to endure pregnancy and childbirth if I am sure that my problems end there, although I would also like compensation for the costs incurred.

Of course, a commercial surrogate motherhood contract can be concluded now, although in a number of countries this practice is prosecuted by law. But even where it is legal, the subject is fraught with a heap of regulations, which greatly increases the costs of the procedure; consequently, many women will still prefer abortion as something more guaranteed and less troublesome. Moreover, processing paperwork is a lengthy matter, and the sooner an abortion is performed, the less damage is done to the woman’s body.

Finally, there are also medical grounds for abortion, such as when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, or the child is proven to be a carrier of a hereditary disease. Removing bioethical barriers to research could somewhat accelerate the resolution of problems in this area compared to current reality, but that is already starting to be guesswork.

The picture is blissful, like Jehovah’s Witness brochures. Choose ancap, save the children!

Is abortion justifiable from a libertarian perspective?

анонимный вопрос

The topic of abortion is the subject of heated debates that flare up from time to time within the libertarian community, and I get the feeling that the cause is not the acuity of the problem, but rather that it is a convenient scholastic exercise allowing one to examine the phenomenon from various positions while continuing to be considered a libertarian.

Arguments for abortion

  1. According to the principle of self-ownership, a woman has property rights over her own body, including the embryo that appeared there, regardless of whether this happened by her will or against it. The embryo is thus viewed as a part of the woman’s body, possessing no legal personality. At the same time, however, the interests of the father or other parties may be taken into account: if they provided the woman with resources from the moment of conception under the promise to carry the child to term, and she has an abortion, they are then entitled to require her to pay the agreed-upon liquidated damages.
  2. Even if the embryo is considered a person and its legal personality is recognized, its presence inside the womb is lawful only with the mother’s permission; otherwise, it must leave the organism upon first request, or else the woman has the right to remove it from the organism by force. As is easy to see, the discussion here is raised to a more abstract level, where the relationship between the woman and the fetus in her womb is interpreted as a relationship between two independent subjects, which may be considered a certain kind of casuistry.

Arguments against abortion

  1. If abortion is prohibited in a community with a free exit, the rules of which the woman accepts by virtue of her presence in it at the moment of conception, then the act of abortion will be a breach of contract on her part, and therefore the agreed-upon sanctions should be applied to her. The legal personality of the embryo is entirely irrelevant in this case. This position, however, is vulnerable to the woman’s claim of her right to freely leave the community and only then have an abortion, and therefore it is mentioned infrequently in disputes.
  2. By the fact of conception, parents commit violence against the child, because, firstly, they change its state from non-existence to existence without its consent, and secondly, they forcibly cast it into a state of helplessness. This entails an obligation for them to compensate the child for the harm caused, that is, to ensure an unobstructed birth, and then to provide resources until the child acquires the ability to exist independently. This position is vulnerable to the thesis that if changing the state from non-existence to existence is violence, then the reverse change of state back to non-existence would be quite adequate compensation; also, if conception is violence, then it is the duty of every responsible citizen to prevent such violence, meaning the very fact of unprotected sex should already be considered an attempt at conception and punished with the full severity of the law for violators of the non-aggression principle. It is not hard to guess that a community consistently practicing this approach would survive for exactly one generation.

An attempt to reconcile the parties

If you consider abortions to be aggressive violence against prenatal children, then you presumably would want children not just to be born, but also to grow up in love and affection. But it is easy to guess that if a woman wanted to have an abortion, and she was stopped only by the fear of your harsh sanctions, it is not a given that she will feel warm emotions toward the child, not to mention the temptation to use various ways to starve the fetus or kill the infant in such a way that the causes of death seem natural. Therefore, it would be very ethical on your part to offer a desperate woman, ready to get rid of an unborn child, financial assistance and your guarantee to take the child into guardianship immediately after birth in exchange for a firm promise to carry the child to term and give birth to it. In this way, you will not only prevent what you consider a crime, but also ensure the child a truly loving and responsible family.

If, however, you prefer to remain in the position that your business is to demand punishment for crimes rather than prevent them, then be prepared for the fact that quite a few will consider this bad faith behavior; for if you know that a helpless prenatal child died, although a shred of your effort could have saved it, then according to the principle of estoppel, you cannot demand punishment for another person who also allowed this death, although a shred of their effort could have saved the child.

You didn’t take the child into guardianship, how could you!

Why is it that among Russian-speaking libertarians, unlike their predecessors from the AES/USA, the majority of non-economic theses are close to neo-Marxism: pro-choice, LGBT, Christianophobia etc? Do you consider this correct?

community @laorleans

As Mikhail Svetov, who actively pushes his own cultural agenda, likes to claim, libertarianism itself carries no cultural agenda. Therefore, if a particular local libertarian community has its own cultural characteristics, it is simply a reaction to local cultural phenomena.

Where does the christophobia of Russian libertarians come from? From the ROC, which acts as the state’s primary ally, postulates that all power comes from God, and demonstrates legal nihilism. If Protestantism were more deeply rooted in the RF, Russian libertarians would have a less suspicious attitude toward religion. As it is, of course, a libertarian says: we, supposedly, are neutral toward a person’s right to believe, but please get these bearded men in dresses with crosses away from me—they stink.

This is also where the attitude toward abortion comes from. For libertarian ethics, this is a disputed zone where there are arguments for both positions. But the ROC is against abortion, and this position already becomes aesthetically repulsive.
I think there is no need to elaborate on LGBT—it is all the same. A libertarian may dislike these minorities, but in a situation where the state uses all the power of its violence to persecute them, the moral condemnation of LGBT becomes indecent.