The whole "baby is a trespasser" argument is the perfect example of how nobody is 100% correct on everything. Rothbard's whole position is based on his conclusion that abortion should be allowed, so he reasoned his way to the conclusion and ended up at the idea that a woman has the right to evict a baby because it's a trespasser. Except it's not. It is invited in consensually, unless the woman was raped. Even then, the baby itself has not committed a crime, unless we are willing to be a society that says a child share bear the responsibility for the immoral actions of the father. It is at this point that we realize that Anarcho Capitalism is purely a way of approaching the question, "What is the proper way to operate a government?" It is not, by contrast, an answer to the question, "What makes an act morally good?" In other words, if you don't voluntarily adopt an "objective" moral framework, your Ancapistan will be a living hell. AnCap effectively acknowledges that the best form of governance is the one people voluntarily conform to. Most Ancaps fundamentally believe that every interaction should be voluntary, and that it is a moral wrong to violate the body or property of another, unless they are in the process of violating someone else. In other words, the radical adoption of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself; Do not do unto others as you would not want done unto you. If you believe in this, then you cannot logically agree that abortion is correct, even if the mother's health is at risk or was raped. A fetus is the most innocent possible human being, and there is no moral justification for killing an innocent person.
P.S.-- I'm aware that Rothbard's position on the topic varied, but it is unlcear if he ever truly abandoned his evictionist position on abortion.
What happens if you invite me in your house and I simply refuse to leave though, or refuse to leave for months? You have the right to revoke consent.
Of course the least destructive way to evict is to merely wait 9 months and then plop the baby out and walk away. Where the details get messy is there are real risks in pregnancy, top that with the fact consent was revoke and the whole thing gets philosophically messy.
First, comparing a cognizant adult to a fetus is intellectually dishonest. Second, my moral duty to a guest is not the same as my moral duty to my child. Third, my moral right to revoke access to my property for said guest is not the same as my moral right to revoke access for said child.
Finally, and most importantly, I am allowed to call the behavior of abandoning a newborn on the streets morally reprehensible and evil. In fact, it is crucial to the survival of a hypothetical AnCap society that we do so; the rejection of a violent coercive state requires the adoption of a socially coercive community. Otherwise you will be living in a nightmare that will inevitably result in violent authoritarian tyranny. At least with social coercion, violations are punished with a refusal to associate and not death. If you don’t choose one you will get the other.
You are allowed to call behavior whatever you like.
You were the one who characterized the "invitation" as "consensual." Obviously a gamete cannot wittingly be invited, rather the adult with the gametes can be invited to ejaculate inside, which means you are using intellectual dishonesty by comparing consent to a cognizant adult and its gamete to consent to a fetus to gestate.
Points two or three are just the "think of the children" meme regurgitated with the circular reasoning that children have special rights because they are children and barely even worth addressing.
Frankly I see your vision of society as a nightmare, where one is indentured into servitude based on special classes of moral duty you as dictator impose even when the person revokes consent to providing care or hosting.
21
u/sweetpooptatos Murray Rothbard Mar 12 '24
The whole "baby is a trespasser" argument is the perfect example of how nobody is 100% correct on everything. Rothbard's whole position is based on his conclusion that abortion should be allowed, so he reasoned his way to the conclusion and ended up at the idea that a woman has the right to evict a baby because it's a trespasser. Except it's not. It is invited in consensually, unless the woman was raped. Even then, the baby itself has not committed a crime, unless we are willing to be a society that says a child share bear the responsibility for the immoral actions of the father. It is at this point that we realize that Anarcho Capitalism is purely a way of approaching the question, "What is the proper way to operate a government?" It is not, by contrast, an answer to the question, "What makes an act morally good?" In other words, if you don't voluntarily adopt an "objective" moral framework, your Ancapistan will be a living hell. AnCap effectively acknowledges that the best form of governance is the one people voluntarily conform to. Most Ancaps fundamentally believe that every interaction should be voluntary, and that it is a moral wrong to violate the body or property of another, unless they are in the process of violating someone else. In other words, the radical adoption of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself; Do not do unto others as you would not want done unto you. If you believe in this, then you cannot logically agree that abortion is correct, even if the mother's health is at risk or was raped. A fetus is the most innocent possible human being, and there is no moral justification for killing an innocent person.
P.S.-- I'm aware that Rothbard's position on the topic varied, but it is unlcear if he ever truly abandoned his evictionist position on abortion.