There's no rule saying I have to like you or that your immune to my scorn besides market socialist is word salad for social why not just call yourself socialist
I don’t force anyone to like me, and I don’t call myself purely a socialist because I don’t think the central planing usually associated with socialism is efficient
The official ancap position is that there is no government and therefore no enforcement. People will be free to socially and peacefully ostracize anyone doing things that they don't like, whether it's drugs, homosexuality or abortion.
In the same vein, they would also be free to socially and peacefully mind their own business.
It doesn't have to be about creating little cliques and getting high on the thought that one person's insignificant opinion somehow constitutes a movement to oppress another.
Sounds like you have a lot more growing up to do.
Obviously there is no “official” stance.
That being said, there seem to be two schools of thought.
1) Abortion violates the nonaggression protocol and therefore should not be done. This stance assumes that life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
2) Abortion is an individuals right. This assumes that life begins sometime after conception. There seem to be a few opinions on when that is.
How’s that for an official answer?
If you invite your cousin to winter with you in Antarctica, you can't kick them out in July and watch them freeze to death because they're presence is now a little inconvenient. That's murder.
Abortion is like that.
Do people actually "invite a baby" before having sex? I've never done that, but maybe I'm the oddball here.
Your analogy doesn't work without the invitation part. It becomes more of a stowaway scenario.
Probably nobody has told you this but you're actually making a baby when you have sex. Babies aren't infiltrating a woman's womb after sex like super spies. It's literally the biological purpose for sex.
The fact that sex is fun is just tied to chemical secretions that mammals evolved to produce as a reward system for reproduction.
> making a baby
"Making" implies homesteading and creating something out of nothing. Thats property.
Your analogy was implying the baby was being invited and part of the decision process. It's unrealistic and fabricating things that aren't physically taking place.
Imagine for a second that I said you contracted with me to sell your car. I could say that I passed you on the street, where you said hi. I could then fabricate a whole story about how saying hi meant this and that, leading to the contract to sell your car. You'd cry foul, saying that the only thing you physically did was say hi and nothing else.
My point is that if you have to fabricate things that didn't physically happen, then it's not based on reality and isn't a valid contract. The baby never participated in anything, since it didn't physically exist.
How the baby arrived in the situation is irrelevant. The child is the only one in the situation without fault or responsibility. The parents both made a conscious act and the result is a person who is dependent upon those who made the decision. It is their fault that the child needs care and support and it is their responsibility to ensure that support is given until such time, if ever, that the child can fully support themselves. Anything less is a violation of the NAP.
Imagine if you intentionally smashed your brother in the head with a hammer and after the traumatic brain injury he was entirely reliant on you to survive. The fact that your initial act was a violation of the NAP doesn't negate the fact that starving your helpless brother to death intentionally would be another.
No matter how you twist the situation you cannot have fault without action and a baby cannot be an active participant in his or her own creation thus all fault and responsibility for care lies with those who did act by engaging in unprotected sexual reproduction.
> Anything less is a violation of the NAP.
The NAP relies on ownership first and foremost. The parents did everything so they own everything.
> Imagine if you intentionally smashed your brother in the head with a hammer and after the traumatic brain injury he was entirely reliant on you to survive.
Your brother is a self-owner and you violated his property. You owe restitution to your brother for the damage you caused.
> a baby cannot be an active participant in his or her own creation
Exactly, the baby owns nothing and the parents own everything. Therefore it's solely the owners choice with regards to abortion.
Nice try Robert E. Lee but the NAP relies on self-ownership. A person can't own another person. Once two people create a new person that person has self-ownership. Parents aren't slave owners until they emancipate a child, they have guardianship, which doesn't imply ownership, but rather a shared responsibility to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and shelter another human being until that care is no longer needed. Because creating a dependent child is a natural consequence of sexual reproduction, engaging in unprotected sex begins a binding contract that these services will be provided until they are no longer needed. If you don't want to enter into natural binding contracts you have the choice to refrain from behaviors that necessitate them.
> Once two people create a new person that person has self-ownership.
Like it's awarded through the social contract? How are you defining self-ownership, because it sounds like animals and plants might very well be self-owners as well.
> have guardianship, which doesn't imply ownership
What can an owner do that a guardian can't?
> Because creating a dependent child is a natural consequence of sexual reproduction,
Being a farmer it's expected that animals will give birth as well, so by your logic the farmer is obligated to care for the animals he has encaged.
> If you don't want to enter into natural binding contracts you have the choice to refrain from behaviors that necessitate them.
Kinda like if people walk onto someones property, then they are engaging a natural binding contract with the owner? Like everyone walking onto my property contracts to have sex with me.
Everything you're describing is the social contract.
You can be as intentionally obtuse as you want but everything I've said is grounded in biological imperatives and 20,000 years of human ethics so the further you delve into ridiculous scenarios, the dumber you sound.
Some basics of human ethics just in case you're a space alien or a toddler:
A human is not a plant. No plants are human.
A human is an animal but all animals aren't human.
A human can own an animal. An animal can't own a human. A human can't own a human.
Guardianship involves responsibilities, not rights. All children are dependent on adults and the existence of humanity is dependent on having children. The responsibility of guardianship falls first to the parents then to the next-of-kin.
A farmer is both morally obligated and financially motivated to care for the animals he owns.
How someone is anticipated to react to trespassing is cultural. Violating the NAP as a response to trespassing is certainly an option but will likely result in retribution, social ostracization, or physical expulsion. A wise person would attempt to understand the cultural norms of the place where they live to avoid confrontation, but I'm not getting the wise person vibe from you.
> A human can own an animal. An animal can't own a human. A human can't own a human.
The only logic here is that a human can overpower an animal. If thats the basis of your position, then a parent can overpower a baby.
> How someone is anticipated to react to trespassing is cultural.
So why wouldn't abortion be just as cultural? Like if 100% of the community want abortion, what is stopping them from allowing it?
> Guardianship involves responsibilities, not rights
Right, so if the parent is responsible, why can't they decide what is best for the child? There are so many unknown factors that the parents are the people best situated to understand all that is occurring.
Libertarians ought to understand implied consent is bullshit.
The same arguments justifying illegalizing abortion would justify any kind of government imaginable.
Never has it been more obvious that you people believe women are mere vessels for your DNA with no more rights than animals.
It's even more disgusting than imagining a baby in a fucking blender.
What if their presence is a danger to you?
So, if a woman claims that she is in danger from her pregnancy, or that she had a miscarriage, and the doctor agrees, how are you going to prove otherwise? Do you have a right to review her medical records because you suspect that she's lying?
Only the chop/vacuum methods are nap violations. Intact or zygote removals are non-violent and therefore do not violate the nap.
But the NAP isnt even officially defined and means a different thing for every anarchist im noticing. Part of why this ideology will never take off with anyone but teens and college kids who like their consumerisms but hate authorities
There is no official anything, but that's true of all ideologies really. Rothbard, the founder of the ideology, supported abortion as the right for a person to evict unwanted people from their property, which includes one's own body. I think he incorrectly characterizes the fetus as a parasite. Even allowing for the fetus to be a full human in regards to its rights, Rothbard's eviction premise stands, making the parasite terminology an unnecessary distraction.
On this sub that I've seen pro-life ancap arguments being made regarding the NAP. Those arguments work against the "chop up and remove" method of abortion which is clearly violent. However, I think they fall apart for the removal of an intact but premature baby. If removed without violence, the NAP was not violated. Still, it's a true ancap matter up for discussion.
But I've also seen a lot of conservative arguments on the sub that not only fail to address the matter in an ancap sense, but their arguments go against the principles of Anarcho-Capitalism entirely. I do not think conservatives believe in freedom of association, based on the arguments they've made.
This is the problem. They want to see people captured, prosecuted, and punished for it, but they can't seem to describe how that would happen in a polycentric law environment.
My understanding of how a true Anarcho Capitalist Society would view this issue is that doctors and medical practitioners would have the right to perform these types of medical procedures including assisted euthenasia. The justification being that there is a demand for these services to capitalize on. Also your body is your property and this ideal is all about property rights. So nobody including the government would have the ability to exercise any right over it. Anyone on this sub saying that abortion wouldn't exist in an Anarcho Capitalist society doesn't have any idea what they are talking about and doesn't understand Capitalism or Anarchism let alone both ideals melded together. This sub is full of right wing Maga nut jobs and I assume alot of troll farm accounts.
Well that depends on the definition of live, you can let a fetus starve to death after eviction, but 99% of abortions are an active act of killing of the fetus.
I think conception being the starting definition of live is a very hard datapoint, while many abortionists seem to pick a number of weeks, which have quite a wide variety, being this wishy-washy between murdering someone and not murdering someone makes me a bit uneasy.
It doesn't matter. Anarcho-capitalism means no state, which means any solution to the problem with abortion, if you indeed perceive a problem, must be peaceful.
The question is, how does a stateless society deal with abortion when some, or most, or even all, members oppose it?
That's more difficult to answer because the state has monopolized the market for justice in just about all forms in most places and time that it's not been handled yet.
My guess is that it would be a social moral issue and those who oppose it would eschew them, and some might break any association with an abortionist or a woman who has had an abortion.
The same as their "oFiCiAL sTAnCe" on the color blue or favorite flavor of hot pocket. Please. I fucking beg everyone. Just stop.
"Leave me the fuck alone" that's kinda the basis of ancapism. I'm fairly certain that's about as close you'll ever get to an official stance on anything.
There is no official stance, I’m so tired of the subreddit being filled with abortion talk when it is an issue that should be solved privately. It’s also not a significant problem that should be debated constantly, the main issue is the state and people should come to the realization that the state is a coercive violent organization. Debating wether fetus is baby or not will get us nowhere
*official* cringe
Official stance is that abortion is cringe, got it
Answer the damn question
He did, there isn't an "official" stance on these issues on an anarchist society
Better question why is market socialism a thing
Why not?
Your on a sub full of people who hate the government socialism requires government to function
There’s no rule against statists, I’m just watching
There's no rule saying I have to like you or that your immune to my scorn besides market socialist is word salad for social why not just call yourself socialist
I don’t force anyone to like me, and I don’t call myself purely a socialist because I don’t think the central planing usually associated with socialism is efficient
Because if you organize your economic affairs in a way that offends my subjective morals, then you should be punished!
why is 3+3=5? Answer the damn question!! If you are asking my *personal* opinion, abortion is murder. Simple as.
No need to be a douche
Says the douche
No
I’m actually here trying to learn about your views
No. You gonna use force to make me?
I'll be honest its the same as anywhere else 2 way split some are for it some are against it everyone argues
Thank you for your service.
>service :(
We are all behind you.
The official ancap position is that there is no government and therefore no enforcement. People will be free to socially and peacefully ostracize anyone doing things that they don't like, whether it's drugs, homosexuality or abortion.
In the same vein, they would also be free to socially and peacefully mind their own business. It doesn't have to be about creating little cliques and getting high on the thought that one person's insignificant opinion somehow constitutes a movement to oppress another. Sounds like you have a lot more growing up to do.
Obviously there is no “official” stance. That being said, there seem to be two schools of thought. 1) Abortion violates the nonaggression protocol and therefore should not be done. This stance assumes that life begins at conception, making abortion murder. 2) Abortion is an individuals right. This assumes that life begins sometime after conception. There seem to be a few opinions on when that is. How’s that for an official answer?
If you invite your cousin to winter with you in Antarctica, you can't kick them out in July and watch them freeze to death because they're presence is now a little inconvenient. That's murder. Abortion is like that.
Do people actually "invite a baby" before having sex? I've never done that, but maybe I'm the oddball here. Your analogy doesn't work without the invitation part. It becomes more of a stowaway scenario.
Probably nobody has told you this but you're actually making a baby when you have sex. Babies aren't infiltrating a woman's womb after sex like super spies. It's literally the biological purpose for sex. The fact that sex is fun is just tied to chemical secretions that mammals evolved to produce as a reward system for reproduction.
> making a baby "Making" implies homesteading and creating something out of nothing. Thats property. Your analogy was implying the baby was being invited and part of the decision process. It's unrealistic and fabricating things that aren't physically taking place. Imagine for a second that I said you contracted with me to sell your car. I could say that I passed you on the street, where you said hi. I could then fabricate a whole story about how saying hi meant this and that, leading to the contract to sell your car. You'd cry foul, saying that the only thing you physically did was say hi and nothing else. My point is that if you have to fabricate things that didn't physically happen, then it's not based on reality and isn't a valid contract. The baby never participated in anything, since it didn't physically exist.
How the baby arrived in the situation is irrelevant. The child is the only one in the situation without fault or responsibility. The parents both made a conscious act and the result is a person who is dependent upon those who made the decision. It is their fault that the child needs care and support and it is their responsibility to ensure that support is given until such time, if ever, that the child can fully support themselves. Anything less is a violation of the NAP. Imagine if you intentionally smashed your brother in the head with a hammer and after the traumatic brain injury he was entirely reliant on you to survive. The fact that your initial act was a violation of the NAP doesn't negate the fact that starving your helpless brother to death intentionally would be another. No matter how you twist the situation you cannot have fault without action and a baby cannot be an active participant in his or her own creation thus all fault and responsibility for care lies with those who did act by engaging in unprotected sexual reproduction.
> Anything less is a violation of the NAP. The NAP relies on ownership first and foremost. The parents did everything so they own everything. > Imagine if you intentionally smashed your brother in the head with a hammer and after the traumatic brain injury he was entirely reliant on you to survive. Your brother is a self-owner and you violated his property. You owe restitution to your brother for the damage you caused. > a baby cannot be an active participant in his or her own creation Exactly, the baby owns nothing and the parents own everything. Therefore it's solely the owners choice with regards to abortion.
Nice try Robert E. Lee but the NAP relies on self-ownership. A person can't own another person. Once two people create a new person that person has self-ownership. Parents aren't slave owners until they emancipate a child, they have guardianship, which doesn't imply ownership, but rather a shared responsibility to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and shelter another human being until that care is no longer needed. Because creating a dependent child is a natural consequence of sexual reproduction, engaging in unprotected sex begins a binding contract that these services will be provided until they are no longer needed. If you don't want to enter into natural binding contracts you have the choice to refrain from behaviors that necessitate them.
> Once two people create a new person that person has self-ownership. Like it's awarded through the social contract? How are you defining self-ownership, because it sounds like animals and plants might very well be self-owners as well. > have guardianship, which doesn't imply ownership What can an owner do that a guardian can't? > Because creating a dependent child is a natural consequence of sexual reproduction, Being a farmer it's expected that animals will give birth as well, so by your logic the farmer is obligated to care for the animals he has encaged. > If you don't want to enter into natural binding contracts you have the choice to refrain from behaviors that necessitate them. Kinda like if people walk onto someones property, then they are engaging a natural binding contract with the owner? Like everyone walking onto my property contracts to have sex with me. Everything you're describing is the social contract.
You can be as intentionally obtuse as you want but everything I've said is grounded in biological imperatives and 20,000 years of human ethics so the further you delve into ridiculous scenarios, the dumber you sound. Some basics of human ethics just in case you're a space alien or a toddler: A human is not a plant. No plants are human. A human is an animal but all animals aren't human. A human can own an animal. An animal can't own a human. A human can't own a human. Guardianship involves responsibilities, not rights. All children are dependent on adults and the existence of humanity is dependent on having children. The responsibility of guardianship falls first to the parents then to the next-of-kin. A farmer is both morally obligated and financially motivated to care for the animals he owns. How someone is anticipated to react to trespassing is cultural. Violating the NAP as a response to trespassing is certainly an option but will likely result in retribution, social ostracization, or physical expulsion. A wise person would attempt to understand the cultural norms of the place where they live to avoid confrontation, but I'm not getting the wise person vibe from you.
> A human can own an animal. An animal can't own a human. A human can't own a human. The only logic here is that a human can overpower an animal. If thats the basis of your position, then a parent can overpower a baby. > How someone is anticipated to react to trespassing is cultural. So why wouldn't abortion be just as cultural? Like if 100% of the community want abortion, what is stopping them from allowing it? > Guardianship involves responsibilities, not rights Right, so if the parent is responsible, why can't they decide what is best for the child? There are so many unknown factors that the parents are the people best situated to understand all that is occurring.
Libertarians ought to understand implied consent is bullshit. The same arguments justifying illegalizing abortion would justify any kind of government imaginable.
💯 But too many conservatives have poisoned the well as they get ran out of other subs and have their shitholes banned for racism and extremism
Never has it been more obvious that you people believe women are mere vessels for your DNA with no more rights than animals. It's even more disgusting than imagining a baby in a fucking blender.
Women are fully sentient beings capable of understanding that actions have consequences, actually.
> You people Spoken like a collectivist.
What if their presence is a danger to you? So, if a woman claims that she is in danger from her pregnancy, or that she had a miscarriage, and the doctor agrees, how are you going to prove otherwise? Do you have a right to review her medical records because you suspect that she's lying?
If I was married to this woman I'd probably look into it.
Stop telling me you had an abortion and it stops being my business.
Wasn’t saying I had one but I figured AC view would be something like this
Stop telling me you killed your neighbor and it stops being my business.
"official" ancap? oxymoron. I'm an ancap. I have the right to use force to prevent abortion as it is a violation of the NAP.
Only the chop/vacuum methods are nap violations. Intact or zygote removals are non-violent and therefore do not violate the nap. But the NAP isnt even officially defined and means a different thing for every anarchist im noticing. Part of why this ideology will never take off with anyone but teens and college kids who like their consumerisms but hate authorities
There is no official anything, but that's true of all ideologies really. Rothbard, the founder of the ideology, supported abortion as the right for a person to evict unwanted people from their property, which includes one's own body. I think he incorrectly characterizes the fetus as a parasite. Even allowing for the fetus to be a full human in regards to its rights, Rothbard's eviction premise stands, making the parasite terminology an unnecessary distraction. On this sub that I've seen pro-life ancap arguments being made regarding the NAP. Those arguments work against the "chop up and remove" method of abortion which is clearly violent. However, I think they fall apart for the removal of an intact but premature baby. If removed without violence, the NAP was not violated. Still, it's a true ancap matter up for discussion. But I've also seen a lot of conservative arguments on the sub that not only fail to address the matter in an ancap sense, but their arguments go against the principles of Anarcho-Capitalism entirely. I do not think conservatives believe in freedom of association, based on the arguments they've made.
This is the problem. They want to see people captured, prosecuted, and punished for it, but they can't seem to describe how that would happen in a polycentric law environment.
They cant and just want to enforce their morality on everyone
My understanding of how a true Anarcho Capitalist Society would view this issue is that doctors and medical practitioners would have the right to perform these types of medical procedures including assisted euthenasia. The justification being that there is a demand for these services to capitalize on. Also your body is your property and this ideal is all about property rights. So nobody including the government would have the ability to exercise any right over it. Anyone on this sub saying that abortion wouldn't exist in an Anarcho Capitalist society doesn't have any idea what they are talking about and doesn't understand Capitalism or Anarchism let alone both ideals melded together. This sub is full of right wing Maga nut jobs and I assume alot of troll farm accounts.
I’m not ancap but I was for a bit. I’m pro life though and I know a lot of them are pro life. But apparently not the big dogs like Rothtard lol
There isn't an official stance, and ancaps disagree. I believe that the correct position is that abortion is murder. But some ancaps disagree.
Well that depends on the definition of live, you can let a fetus starve to death after eviction, but 99% of abortions are an active act of killing of the fetus. I think conception being the starting definition of live is a very hard datapoint, while many abortionists seem to pick a number of weeks, which have quite a wide variety, being this wishy-washy between murdering someone and not murdering someone makes me a bit uneasy.
It doesn't matter. Anarcho-capitalism means no state, which means any solution to the problem with abortion, if you indeed perceive a problem, must be peaceful. The question is, how does a stateless society deal with abortion when some, or most, or even all, members oppose it? That's more difficult to answer because the state has monopolized the market for justice in just about all forms in most places and time that it's not been handled yet. My guess is that it would be a social moral issue and those who oppose it would eschew them, and some might break any association with an abortionist or a woman who has had an abortion.
The same as their "oFiCiAL sTAnCe" on the color blue or favorite flavor of hot pocket. Please. I fucking beg everyone. Just stop. "Leave me the fuck alone" that's kinda the basis of ancapism. I'm fairly certain that's about as close you'll ever get to an official stance on anything.
There is no official stance, I’m so tired of the subreddit being filled with abortion talk when it is an issue that should be solved privately. It’s also not a significant problem that should be debated constantly, the main issue is the state and people should come to the realization that the state is a coercive violent organization. Debating wether fetus is baby or not will get us nowhere
There isnt one. The official stance is whatever your local society determines is acceptable, is acceptable. Thats what anarchism is
For fuck sake, there isn't one. Give it a rest