(January 22, 2012 at 9:40 am)Tiberius Wrote: Just because you have rights over your own property does not somehow override the rights of those who are inside your property. If you kill a person inside your property, you've still breached their right to life, and should pay for the crime. Same with abortion in some cases. Yes, the mother owns her body, but if there is another human life inside her, does that not have the same right to life as she does? I say "some cases" because there are obvious circumstances where killing a human in your property isn't immoral or against their rights. If such a person was going to kill you for instance.
What if the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest (i.e., the woman did not herself wish to become pregnant)? That represents a very small percentage of the cases but, since it does happen, how do you respond to her plight? An unfortunate bit of luck, that? Since the human life inside her has the same right to life that she does, she must carry it to term regardless? (I am assuming arguendo that carrying to term will not kill her.)
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Thanks, Ryft. Never thought I would find myself agreeing with you.
Don't worry, you still don't agree with me. I am firmly against abortion. All I am doing is asking Adrian some questions to find out how he might square his view on abortion within a libertarian framework; it is my questions you agreed with, nothing more. Your views and mine are antithetical here too. It's all good.
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So basically, Ryft, as far as Tiberius is concerned a white man who owns a store can hang "whites only" on his premesis...
Right. The property-owner certainly would be within his rights to do that—as would a property-owner hanging a "blacks only" sign and so forth. It is difficult to imagine who would wish to do business with such flaming racists and bigots, except other racists and bigots, and it would not bother me at all if they were unable to maintain economic viability (particularly in the 21st century with mass media and social networking which would ostracize them with shamed exposure, boycotts, and protests).
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: ... and even have the police forcefully remove non-violent blacks from the store who merely want to buy a sandwich and have them imprisoned.
Not exactly. He would be forcefully removed by reason of trespass, which is a tort offense ("wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property"); but if he is indeed violent, causes a breach of peace, or injures property, then it rises to a criminal offense. And yeah, you sort of expect law enforcement officers to, well, enforce the law.
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Tiberius doesnt care if blacks are unable to buy food because of all of the "whites only " signs everywhere. It's okay if black people starve to death in the name of property rights.
You know, I reviewed what Adrian has posted in this thread so far and didn't see him say that anywhere. Are you attempting to mind-read?
The fact that you think there even could be whites-only signs "everywhere" suggests an unfair and unrealistic view of the people of the United States, extending the flaming racist and bigoted views of those in certain southern localities to everyone in all fifty states (or at least the continental U.S.); it also suggests a rather naive view about the remarkable power of the internet and mass media to impact socially and economically such racist business practices using shaming exposure, economic boycotts, and visible protests. From my 21st century vantage point I believe there is good reason to think that "whites-only signs everywhere" is a practical impossibility.
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Yeah, Tiberius, we have gone your way in America before.
Actually, no you haven't. You went from having laws that enforced mandatory segregation to laws that prohibited it. The libertarian proposal has not been attempted.
(January 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: If you are not a racist for supporting a person's freedom for kicking blacks off their property, then abortion is not murder because the woman is merely kicking the unwanted phoetus from her body.
Correct, Adrian is NOT racist for supporting libertarian property rights—because, first, Adrian is strongly opposed to racism, and second, property rights is not racist. But how do you conclude from this that therefore abortion is not murder? In the first case, Adrian is not the property-owner at issue. In the second case, the woman is the property-owner at issue. Apart from some very crucial and necessary steps missing from your argument, it is an extraordinary non-sequitur.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
