Tag: walter block

Correcting the Terminology of Abortion, Part 2

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

[Editor’s Note: This is the second part of an article which was originally published in one piece. None of the content has been changed, except to facilitate the split. See here to view Part 1.]

Section II: Trespassing

A Legal View of Trespass[i]

Murray Rothbard, a major contributor to modern libertarian thought, stresses the “legality” of abortion in the quote shown below. He appeals to law to validate his claim that a woman has an absolute right to have an abortion.

“What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion”[ii]

Well, all right, then. Let’s look at this from a legal perspective. As you will see below, I argue that a fetus is not a trespasser based on the legal aspect of what it means to be a trespasser. I state firmly and unequivocally that a fetus CANNOT be a trespasser because there is no legal justification for the attribute. Trespassing is a criminal act, punishable by law! A fetus cannot be tried and convicted, by law, for the crime of trespass, therefore, a fetus is not a trespasser.

I will go further. Saddling a fetus with the pejorative label of “trespasser” or “parasite” is nothing more than an attempt to justify the pro-abortion position. It is in the same class as calling the fetus “a clump of cells”, “fetal tissue”, “product of conception”, “blob of protoplasm”, or “uterine content” and seeks to obfuscate the real meaning of what an abortion is–the deliberate killing of an innocent, unborn human being.

Dictionary definitions of ‘trespasser’ can be seen here.

“One who has committed trespass; one who unlawfully enters or intrudes upon another’s land, or unlawfully and forcibly takes another’s personal property.”

and here.

“In the law of tort, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who commits the act of trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. Being present on land as a trespasser thereto creates liability in the trespasser, so long as the trespass is intentional.”

In these descriptions, the emphasis is on unlawful entry, forceful taking, and intentional action. This is about as far from a newly conceived zygote or a four-month old fetus as anything could get.

Let’s break this down. Trespassing is a criminal act, prohibited by law and punishable under law. It is embedded into the legal code. Trespassing may be done willfully, ignorantly, or mistakenly, but it always involves the crossing of a previously established boundary. The trespasser always intrudes on someone else’s space (property) from some other location or position. If there is no transgression of boundaries, there is no trespass.

To intrude on someone’s property by mistake or out of ignorance should not be (and usually is not) considered criminal unless damage is done to the property. More likely than not, trespassers who are confronted will remove themselves promptly, with the knowledge that behavior of that sort will not be tolerated. Trespassers who offer a sincere apology will probably be allowed to vacate the property without any further trouble and that will be the end of it. “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1) An honest, contrite confession of a mistake or lack of knowledge will go a long way in defusing a potentially violent situation.

An example of this might be that a young woman from the city visits her uncle, who lives in a heavily forested part of the country. While there, she decides to venture out and explore the wilderness. Since there are no fences or signs, she has no idea that she has left her uncle’s property and is now walking through his neighbor’s forest. The neighbor sees her, confronts her, and warns her that she is trespassing and must remove herself from the property. In response to this, she confesses her mistake, asks for direction back to her uncle’s place, and leaves without further ado.

Under this scenario, the neighbor whose property boundary was violated would likely do nothing more, unless he called the uncle and asked him to inform the niece of the property lines. Legally, he probably would not be able to make a case for the arrest and trial of a young woman who had simply made a mistake.

Intentional trespass, on the other hand, requires deliberate action and knowledge. It is done with the understanding that a boundary has been placed around the property by the rightful owner. The trespasser would have to consciously violate that boundary without regard for the will of the owner. Such a violation could and might result in a penalty being assessed against the trespasser, if the property owner was inclined to push the issue.

Suppose that this same young woman, while walking through the forest, came to a place where there was a four strand, barbed wire fence, arrow-straight and fiddle-string tight. In addition, there was a “No Trespassing” sign fastened to a fence post at fifty-foot intervals. There could be no mistaking of the intent. This would be a clear indication that she was not allowed to go any further, under penalty of law. The choice then would be hers–to obey the injunction and turn back or to willfully climb over the fence in a deliberate act of trespass, which would be considered criminal if discovered and prosecuted.

Criminal trespass cannot happen in the case of pregnancy, because the (supposed, alleged) violator, the fetus, was conceived and has always existed in the womb[iii]. It originated from within the womb. It has never been anywhere else. It has never crossed any boundary. How can something, anything, be charged with trespassing if it began inside the boundaries and never crossed them? The fetus may be unwanted, but it is not a trespasser. Call it a noxious weed if you wish, but don’t call it a trespasser. Assert your right to remove weeds from your “lawn”, but don’t base your claim on trespass law.

Criminal prosecution usually takes the form of arrest, charge, hearing/trial, verdict, and penalty/release, or some variation of this process. Every person who is arrested for a crime should be advised of the charge(s) against him. Not only that, but he should be expected to understand why he has been charged and what the penalty might be if he is found guilty. Moreover, he should have a right to counsel and the opportunity to defend himself. In addition, he should be able to appeal his case to a higher authority. Or at least this is the way it’s supposed to work.

Trespass is a legal concept. It must be handled in a legal manner. In order to prove a case of trespass, these steps (at a minimum) must be followed:

1. Charge or accusation

2. Hearing or trial

3. Evidence presented

4. Verdict pronounced

5. Penalty imposed or case dismissed.

In a case of (supposed) fetal trespass against a woman, this will not be the course of action. Consider:

1. No charges or accusations have ever been (nor will ever be) brought against the “offender”.[iv] If they were, it would not be able to hear nor understand them.

2. There is no trial or hearing in which the fetus is given the opportunity to defend itself nor is anyone else appointed to act on its behalf. In fact, if someone else did make an attempt to speak for it, he could be charged with a crime himself.

3. The only evidence presented at all is that the woman is known to be pregnant. There is no evidence presented to prove that the fetus committed any “crime” of trespass.

4. The verdict is not based on objective proof beyond a shadow of doubt, but solely on the subjective decision of the woman and anyone around her who might benefit from the abortion, either financially or emotionally.

5. The penalty is carried out–execution–without any possibility of appeal.

This sort of proceeding reminds me of the poem[v], A Mouse’s Tale in Lewis Carroll’s tale, Alice in Wonderland.

“…I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury, said cunning old Fury. I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.”

Fetal trespass is a misnomer. There is no law directly forbidding a fetus to reside in a womb or compelling it to vacate the premises. There is no law which orders a fetus to act in a certain manner regarding the violation of property boundaries. None. Nada. Nyet. Nein. There never will be. It would be the absolute height of foolishness to forbid a fetus from trespassing, at least as much as it would be to forbid a dog from pooping on a neighbor’s front lawn.

Identifying a fetus as a trespasser is dissembling. It is incorrect terminology. In today’s social and political environment, it would be equivalent to “fake news.” Calling something what it is not in order to justify a viewpoint is not only false and misleading, it is morally reprehensible. It is irresponsible at best, deadly at worst.

The counter-argument might be presented that, since the fetus is not a person[vi], legally correct criminal proceedings really don’t apply. Even in cases of non-persons becoming trespassers, however, the law still operates in the same way. Trespassing is a criminal act and must be treated that way.

Domestic animals, dogs, for instance, can and do leave their owner’s property and trespass on someone else’s. Sometimes they poop on front lawns, which is a nuisance. Sometimes they are more aggressive, e.g., killing a neighbor’s sheep. A tree can (and sometimes does) fall across a property boundary and cause damage, for example, if it crashes through a neighbor’s garage roof.

In the case of the tree falling, someone would cut it up, clean it up, and remove it from the site. If you wanted to imagine it this way, the tree would be “punished” for its trespass.

In the case of the sheep-killing dog, the dog might be shot by the shepherd, thus “paying” for its crime. It might be imprisoned (kenneled, chained) by its owner to keep it from running wild and causing more damage. Pre-crime, so to speak.

However, no matter how much cases like these can be twisted and contorted, the owner of the dog or the tree is, legally speaking, ultimately the one who is “charged” with trespass and is forced (restitution, insurance, etc.) to make things right. Dogs and trees, while able to “trespass” and cause damage, are not held legally liable. Their owners are.

Dogs and trees can trespass on a person’s property, but they do not understand that they do so. To them, it is a completely natural act. They know nothing else. It is futile to legally charge them with trespass, so we take the more rational step of charging their owner, requiring that he make the situation right and compensating the victim for damages caused.

Some might claim that I have blown my case. If dogs and trees can trespass unknowingly, then so too can a fetus. This assertion collapses, however, under the same point that I made earlier–trespass cannot occur without the violation of a boundary. While dogs and trees can and do violate property boundaries, the fetus never has. Dogs and trees came across the line from some other place. The fetus arrived from nowhere and, from the very beginning, has always existed on the property.

The whole process from sexual intercourse to the realization that a woman is pregnant can be roughly compared to the appearance of alien spaceships from (seemingly) nowhere into Earth’s space without warning.

  1. We broadcast and blast radio waves into the universe non-stop, sometimes with the express purpose of catching the attention of other-worldly entities—sexual intercourse.
  2. We know that “intercourse” of this nature might result in the appearance of a spaceship into Earth’s space and time–possibility of conception and pregnancy.
  3. We understand that this appearance might have repercussions and possibly even prove fatal—pregnancy which adversely affects the health and well-being of the woman.
  4. We also understand that the appearance might produce future benefits which we can only imagine at the time—interaction with the new-born baby.
  5. In the event that an alien spaceship does appear, we have to make a decision either to live with it, cooperate with it, and benefit from its presence, or to use violence to blast it out of the sky and justify that violence in an attempt to maintain the life we prefer and have become accustomed to, regardless of the death and damage that might ensue–to abort or not to abort.

The one discrepancy in this comparison is that alien spaceships, regardless of where they originate, come from another place within the universe, or for those who are really into it, from some other parallel universe. Consequently, they can, according to our code of justice, legally be charged with criminal trespass, found guilty, and “punished”. After all, it is our space! How well that might work out remains to be seen.

Unborn fetuses (and this is the pivot of my argument) do not and never have come from another location. They appear out of nowhere. They do not exist before they arrive. They spring from nothing. They are “created” within the womb by the simple joining of an egg cell and a sperm cell. Before this union, there is nothing but two individual cells. After that, there is a new human being, who has committed no crime and is completely innocent of any charge or accusation against it.

Conclusion

If the unborn fetus is not a parasite nor a trespasser, then what is it? There is only one answer left–a unique, personal, human being which has been placed, through no action, will, or desire of its own, in a vulnerable, dangerous position. It deserves all the protection that we can give it, if we are so inclined. Unfortunately, quite often, we are so NOT inclined, consequently, it ends up dead.

Greg Koukl has written what I consider to be the perfect sentiment to end this article. I couldn’t have said it any better.

“A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment…One trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.” [vii]

[i] I am not a legal scholar, judge, nor lawyer. I could be entirely wrong about this whole train of thought, however, I am willing to stick my neck out and stand according to what I do know and believe to be true. In this sense, I am relying on common sense and moral justice as my guides.

[ii] Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, ©1998), 98.

[iii] I use the term “womb” to include the entire reproductive system of the female body.

[iv] Martin Armstrong writes this which closely parallels what I have outlined above. “In law school, they teach you that the Due Process of Law comes from the Bible. God already knew what happened between Cain and Able. He still granted him the Due Process of Law to (1) summon him providing notice and (2) the right to be heard. We no longer allow Due Process of Law. We presume guilt and condemn people without trial.

[v] I hadn’t read this poem in close to fifty years until I started researching this article, but I still remembered most of it. “Fury said to a mouse that he met in the house…” I wish I could have met Lewis Carroll.

[vi] For my view on this, see here and here.

[vii] https://www.str.org/articles/unstringing-the-violinist#.XEp7os1lBPZ

Drowning Swimmers or Deliberate Murder

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Ed. Note: First published on June 15, 2019 at another blog I wrote at the time, but is no longer available. Some slight changes have been made from the original.

In their article, “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy”[i],  Walter Block[ii] and Roy Whitehead[iii] make the following argument.


“However, just because aborting the fetus is abominable, it does not follow that it should be prohibited by law. Under a just e.g., libertarian law code,136 there are numerous despicable acts, which are not legally pro­scribed, since they do not constitute “invasions” or “border crossings.” Abortion falls into this category. It is a failure to come to the aid of or an unwillingness to become a “good Samaritan.” The woman who refuses to carry her fetus to term is in exactly the same position as a person who refuses to rescue a drowning swimmer. Abortion is not, in and of itself, an act invasive of other people or their property rights, even when fetuses are considered persons.”

My paraphrased version of this: Just because abortion is abominable, we should not prohibit it. After all, there are other despicable [abominable] acts which would not be proscribed under libertarian law.

I agree completely with this statement, as it is written. We should not prohibit abortion because it is abominable. Instead, we should prohibit it because it is the deliberate killing of an unborn human being, who has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving the punishment of execution. It is the murder of an unborn, personal, human being; therefore, it should be prohibited. It is a sad commentary on our modern way of life that it is not.

The numerous despicable acts (unnamed in the quote) are not legally proscribed because they do not constitute “invasions” or “border crossings.” Ah, yes, trespass again. In all the imagined acts, however, there is a common thread–all the parties involved MUST be willing participants. If there is even one unwilling participant in any one of these “despicable” acts, then someone’s borders have been crossed. Ask an unborn fetus if she is willing to have her space (the placental sac) invaded. I daresay that, from her point of view, abortion does not, absolutely does not fall into the “despicable action” category which will be allowed under Block and Whitehead’s “just” libertarian code of law.

The woman who refuses to carry her baby to term is NOT the same as someone who refuses to rescue a drowning swimmer. Refusal to act in order to save a person’s life is not equivalent to deliberate action in order to take a person’s life. Not at all, not even close. There may not be any criminal intent in refusing to save a drowning swimmer, e.g., overloaded lifeboats at the sinking of the Titanic, where taking on one more drowning swimmer would have sunk the lifeboat, killing them all. An action such as this could be considered self-defense. Emotionally excruciating, perhaps, but not criminal. Aborting a fetus, though, is not just morally repugnant, but a deliberate act of homicide.

A more appropriate analogy would have been to compare the woman who aborts her unborn fetus with someone who holds a swimmer’s head under water, refusing to allow him to breathe, thus drowning him. Comparing the fetus with a drowning swimmer is ludicrous. A drowning swimmer is in mortal danger, while there is nothing more alive than a healthy and growing fetus. Really now, if you wanted to see it like this, the fetus is swimming laps (no pun intended), preparing herself to become an Olympic champion and is in no danger at all except from the person who “owns the pool.”

Abortion IS, in and of itself, invasive of other people and their property rights, especially and particularly unborn children who are (or ought to be) considered persons with their own set of rights. It is plain to be seen that, in order to maintain the cohesiveness and integrity of the theory of property rights, “rights” MUST be more important than what IS right.

[i] Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45

[ii] Walter Block, an Austrian school economist and anarcho-libertarian philosopher, is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Chair in Economics and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans and Senior Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

[iii] Roy Whitehead, JD, LLM, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas.

An Abortion Argument: Does a Woman Own her Body?

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

[Note: I wrote this some years ago and published it on another blog which is no longer in service. I will be drawing articles from that occasionally and posting them here. R.M.]

One of the most widely used arguments to defend a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child is that she owns her own body and can do what she wants with it. No one has any authority to impose restrictions on her behavior, so long as she is not harming any other person.

It is not my intention to discuss the personhood of an unborn fetus in this article. Rather, I want to explore the moral and philosophical question of the ownership of the human body—irrespective of sex. Male or female is irrelevant. To whom do I belong? That is the question everyone must answer.

“…how can we defend the mother’s right to kill the fetus?

Simple. She owns her own body, and the unwanted fetus growing within it is in effect a trespasser or parasite. This may sound harsh, but when the property rights in question are thoroughly analyzed, it is the only possible conclusion that may be reached.”[i]—Walter Block and Roy Whitehead

If I was asked (I wasn’t) to paraphrase and rewrite the above quote, this is the way it would turn out.

“We can defend a woman’s (mothers don’t act that way) right to kill her unborn child because she owns her body and the unwanted fetus is a trespasser and a parasite. Dastardly things, anyway! Besides, property rights are sacrosanct[ii] so we can reach no other conclusion.”

All I can say about this manner of thinking is that it is abominable and despicable. When “property rights” are the only thing in question, then the end justifies the means and any moral rectitude simply flies out the window.

Who am I? Why am I here? What will happen to me when I die? These are questions which have vexed and perplexed philosophers since people started thinking about things other than how to get and keep their next meal. There are probably just about as many answers as there are philosophers. We ought to also be asking one other question: To whom or to what do I belong? This is a valid question and there are only two possible answers: we belong to ourselves or we belong to someone/something outside of and beyond ourselves.

If we conclude that a woman belongs to herself, then she also owns herself, every part of herself, including her body and everything in it, over which she exercises full and complete control. No one and nothing can dictate to her what she may or may not do with her body. If a woman owns her body, then there should be no restraints placed on her, so long as she does not initiate aggression against other people who also own their bodies[iii]. If this is true, then the whole argument about abortion is moot, null, void, and utterly useless, deserving to be scrapped. It is a waste of time, energy, and resources–if this is true!

But, is it? Or is there another way of looking at the question? Michael Rozeff puts it this way[iv].

” 3. Property is what belongs to you. It’s circular to say that a person belongs to himself or owns himself. You only seem to become property when you become a slave, partly or wholly, and belong to someone else. Even in that case, they have property in your body, in the product of your labor, but not in YOU. In other words, to resolve this problem of definition and starting point philosophically or religiously, we need to specify what a human being or person IS. What IS this “I”? What is the BEING that “I” am, and that you are? That BEING exists outside the domain of human notions of property. That’s my unprovable assumption or postulate about life and existence.”

I brought this up to make the point that no one owns themselves. No one owns their own body. No man, no woman, no exceptions. With nothing more than pure logic, I can make my case using a common libertarian argument.

You and your family live in a nice house on a piece of land which you own. You borrowed money to pay for it, scrimped and saved, did without, and worked side jobs to pay the mortgage, eventually receiving the deed free and clear. It is yours. At least that’s what you think.

One day, while in a discussion with your friend, he points out that you really don’t own the property, you only rent it. He explains that if you don’t pay the taxes which the county determines you should, you will find out within the space of a few years who the real owner is. You will be looking for another place to live and all the effort you have put into this property will accrue to someone else’s benefit.

You will lose your property if you don’t pay the declared property tax, but the fact of the matter is, you can live in the house and control the property, even profit from it, without (much) interference from the county–so long as you pay the tax! Libertarians everywhere understand this argument immediately.

In the case of a woman’s (or man’s) body, however, there will come a time when your “property” will be taken away from you. There will be no grace period, no time to pay the back taxes, plus costs, plus interest. There will be no extension. Begging, refusing to consent, getting angry, making deals (Daniel Webster[v], where are you?) will not help. As the rock band Kansas[vi] put it, “…all your money won’t another minute buy.” When the Grim Reaper crooks his finger, you will go, with or without warning. Willing or unwilling, it doesn’t matter. Off you go. You are going to die.

If we grasp the point that we don’t own our real estate because it CAN be taken away from us, then why shouldn’t we also understand that we don’t own our bodies because they WILL be taken away. In fact, ownership of real property is a far more feasible concept than ownership of body because the rules concerning taxation can always be changed for the better. At least it’s theoretically possible to change them. People may someday live in a society in which there are no property taxes. About the end of life, however, there is nothing to do except to understand that it is coming and to prepare for it.

We are conceived, we live, we die. Everything that we accumulate in this world will belong to someone else after our death. “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will leave this life.” (Job 1:21) “We didn’t bring anything into this world, and we won’t take anything with us when we leave.” (1 Timothy 6:7)

If immortality becomes practicable in this world, I will have to eat my words. Until then, they stand. This side of Heaven (or whatever you believe lies on the other side of death), everyone will die. That is an absolute certainty.

Since you are going to die and your body is going to be taken away from you, then you do not own it. If you do not own the body you live in, then it belongs to someone or something else: God, a higher power, the Great Spirit, cosmic truth, weird space aliens who seeded our planet, et al, any one of which might actually have something to say about the way that we are abusing, destroying, and killing those “properties” entrusted, but not belonging, to us.[vii]

Let’s bring Michael Rozeff[viii] back into the conversation.

“I contend that libertarian theory is too narrow. I make the following statements of where I stand.
1. Property is too narrow a basis to build an entire law and society on. The moral principle of no physical aggression is too narrow a basis. They are good as far as they go, but taken too far, they run into problems by ignoring the non-physical. Libertarianism has an impoverished social theory by this restriction to property and physical aggression. It gains by definiteness, but it loses by restrictiveness. In some cases, as in defamation, it leads to conclusions that go against thousands of years of law and history. “

Rozeff is correct. Libertarianism with a fixated view on property rights will not work. It needs to incorporate what he calls “the non-physical”, which I have no problem referring to as spiritual and moral. When spirituality (the understanding that we are more than just body) enters the picture, it brings with it a sense of morality: what is right and what is wrong. When right and wrong come into play, it becomes evident that a monstrous wrong has been perpetrated on the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society for a long, long time.

Women do NOT own their bodies and they certainly do not own the unborn children who are temporarily residing within them. Any law which allows a woman to kill her unborn child, based on her ownership claims, is simply building a house on shifting sand[ix]. Eventually it will crumble and collapse.

[i] Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45

[ii] It seems to me that, in some quarters, property rights have taken on the attributes of religion, complete with high priests, a “gospel” message, worship services, and dedicated followers who will die before they change their beliefs.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrosanct

[iii] Excluding unborn children, of course.

[iv] https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/harm-to-the-person/

[v] Just one of the stories I read a long, long time ago and have never forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_and_Daniel_Webster

[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ

[vii] An example of this can be seen in the Holy Bible, Psalms, Chapter 2.

[viii] https://mises.org/profile/michael-s-rozeff

[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Wise_and_the_Foolish_Builders

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎

Abortion and the non-agression principle, Part II

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“…libertarianism is not at all a philosophy of life. Rather, it is a very, very, very limited philosophy. It pretty much asks only one question: “when is violence against another person justified?” and pretty much gives only one answer: “only in response to a prior use of violence, or threats.” That is, violence may properly be used only in defense, not offense. When the latter is engaged in, the perpetrator should be punished. That’s libertarianism in a nutshell,…”

Is Libertarianism A Philosophy Of Life? No.

Gasoline on the fire!

Although many people might think otherwise, the debate over abortion is centered on one question—is the unborn fetus a person with an inalienable right to life? Or not? Women’s rights are peripheral to this.

If it is true that a fetus is a person, then Walter Block has exposed a contradiction of the NAP on this issue. Any attempt to terminate a pregnancy through abortion would be an act of aggression against an unborn person.

Of course, the opposing view is that an unborn fetus is not a person and can be treated in any way desired by the woman, without interference from anyone else. If this is true, then there is no inconsistency within the NAP.

This is the question which must be answered. Either the fetus is a person or it is not. Either/or, but not both. There are no other choices. If it can be shown that a fetus is a person with the innate right to life, it will be impossible to defend the “right to choose.” On the other hand, if it can be proven to NOT be a person, the pro-life argument collapses into a quivering pile of nothingness.

If Zager and Evans were correct in their prediction, “…you’ll pick your sons, pick your daughters too, from the bottom of a long, glass tube…”, the personality of the child will be visible from the very beginning. As technology improves, viability will be pushed to an earlier and earlier date, which will erode any claim that the fetus does not become a person until an arbitrary point in time is reached. The use of ultrasound, imaging, and medical science will continue to support and bolster the pro-life position that a live, human, individual with a personality all its own exists. These are going to be extremely difficult hurdles for politics and rationalization to clear, regardless of judicial orders.

The burden of proof rests heavily on the pro-abortion side of this debate. It has the more difficult task of proving its point. Efforts to show that fetuses are not persons will prove, in the long run, to be futile and insurmountable.

The difference between these two positions cannot be reconciled. It will never be settled nor agreed upon. It is an “all or nothing” war of conflicting ideas. The NAP is skewed toward “women’s rights” and, as a consequence, does not allow the right of life to be extended to all unborn persons, only those who are “wanted”.

If libertarianism is a horse carrying its riders to freedom and the NAP is the saddle those riders rest on, then the abortion issue is a burr under that saddle. It will always be there, irritating and counter-productive, until it is removed and ceases to be a problem. When will that be? How will it happen? I don’t know. I can’t predict the future, but I believe it will have something to do with individuals gradually and peacefully changing their minds and then changing their ways. Repentence, in other words. Hopefully, libertarianism won’t end up as Bob Seger put it so brilliantly, “…caught like a wildfire out of control, til there was nothing left to burn and nothing left to prove…”

Where do we go from here? My answer, short and simple–keep moving. Don’t allow this single issue to tear us apart. A solution will appear, sooner or later, and it might be quite a lot later, maybe not until the year 6565. Doesn’t matter. Keep moving.