participant-7471, 2:38 PM, May 6
It would be interesting to understand how Interagency Arbitration should operate in cases of conflict between legal systems within polycentric law (or, as frens like to call it, anarcho-capitalism)
participant-7471, 2:53 PM, May 6
It seems inevitable that one legal system will have to override the others. For example, a system inspired by Roman law that recognizes confusio—and thus co-ownership of the fetus—could accuse the mother of harming the communio; a common law-based system might consider the mother the sole owner; while yet another system with religious influence could recognize fetal personhood and the father’s legal guardianship
participant-7471, 2:57 PM, May 6
In the example, I assume that the father has a different legal service provider than the mother
participant-3927, 5:06 PM, May 6
In laissez-faire capitalism, the system Anthemism advocates – there is a single legal system, and a single law for everyone in the country. There are no “different legal providers”.
participant-3927, 5:07 PM, May 6
This law protects individual rights, and corner cases are decided by the court system.
participant-3927, 5:08 PM, May 6
Here we have rights of the father, rights of the mother, rights of a born child, and the question about rights of a fetus at different stages (which I claim – it has no rights at all until birth).
participant-3927, 5:09 PM, May 6
This is the input to the judicial process, and it will decide the precedents needed for all future cases.
participant-3927, 5:13 PM, May 6
One more argument against the idea that a father has any claim on the fetus formed inside the woman because he contributed a formula (his DNA sample, which the woman’s body clones). Note that the man spends money to feed and house the woman, so that she has the environment to not have a miscarriage. Can it be argued that he contributed to the process of fetus’s growth, and has a claim on it still?
But, the man also spent effort to woo the woman to agree to have sex with him in the first place. That effort cost his resources, which includes money and lost time (opportunity cost of not doing it with some other woman). The man can’t claim that he has ownership of the fetus, anymore that he can claim that the woman owes him sex, because he took her to expensive restaurants.
participant-3927, 5:19 PM, May 6
The woman owns completely the fetus, however, she may voluntarily choose to extract it without killing it. The fetus is placed into an incubator, and in this case, I’d agree that from that point on, both the man and the woman have equal ownership of it. This is, however, only possible in late stage pregnancy, we don’t have yet incubators invented for early stage.
participant-9259, 5:31 PM, May 6
Wait, in the case the kid were moved to an incubator, what do you think would be the criterion of property?
Should it be based on whom pays for the incubator and the survival of the kid or should it be granted to both the mother and the father indiscriminately?
I think this is important to understand that the foetus isn’t an entity on which some may claim property
participant-9259, 5:38 PM, May 6
Because claiming the criterion of property is based on whom pays for the incubator (and the resources thereof) would deny the claim that woman’s ownership over the foetus was due to her “creating” it, and would confirm the theory for which the woman owned the foetus because she sustained it.
But a property does not stop to be one’s own just because one stopped sustaining it (my house cannot be claimed by someone else because I don’t inhabit it anymore).
So, if the kid does, it means it wasn’t woman’s property in the first place, but rather that the right to abortion follows from the principle that the woman is entitled to her body more than the foetus is (not because the foetus isn’t an individual, but because it is and it cannot exploit another one)
Or else one should claim that the woman has ownership of the foetus in even in the case it was placed in an incubator and that she should have the right to terminate the life that, say, only the father was paying to sustain. But that is obviously crazy and a blatant denial of the father’s property rights
participant-7471, 5:49 PM, May 6
I know—it was a question explicitly directed at the ancaps
participant-9259, 6:01 PM, May 6
The question is irrelevant because a foetus cannot be owned as it is a human being. The mother would have the exclusive right to abortion if and only if it’s her the one carrying or sustaining the foetus.
As why a foetus cannot be owned, read my previous texts
participant-9259, 6:02 PM, May 6
No Ancap legislation may accept ownership of human beings as it is slavery
participant-7471, 6:03 PM, May 6
I would argue that it’s a sui generis situation—one where co-ownership exists due to genetic reasons (a kind of right over one’s own DNA). In the context, evictionism makes a lot of sense, especially with the advancement of artificial incubators
participant-7471, 6:03 PM, May 6
Then why did Rothbard support it?
participant-9259, 6:04 PM, May 6
Please, define departurism. The right over one’s own DNA as you are describing it is basically intellectual property: the right to an arrangement of patterns, which is ridiculous in a situation like this
participant-9259, 6:05 PM, May 6
If I am correct, he stood against the alienability of life, but I don’t accept claims on an authority basis (TL;RD: Idc what Rothbard thought)
participant-7471, 6:05 PM, May 6
Read The Ethics of Liberty
participant-7471, 6:09 PM, May 6
It’s more like personality rights
participant-7471, 6:11 PM, May 6
Who determines that?
participant-9259, 6:11 PM, May 6
This is exactly the stance I’m supporting: thanks to you I’ve just found out Rothbard and I have the same opinion (I quote from the link):
This theory is built upon the earlier work of philosopher Murray Rothbard[1] who wrote that “no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body” and that therefore the woman is entitled to eject the baby from her body at any time.
participant-9259, 6:12 PM, May 6
I’ve been arguing for that this whole time. You may accept or reject my arguments
participant-7471, 6:13 PM, May 6
Who determines that in the context of an anarcho-capitalist society?
participant-7471, 6:16 PM, May 6
You don’t have a statute
participant-9259, 6:27 PM, May 6
In the case of an Ancap society, the NAP (or, as Ayn Rand called it: the axiom of non-initiation of force) ought to be upheld by everyone. Those who don’t are those who may legitimately be considered criminals (tho I have to think it through)
participant-7471, 6:29 PM, May 6
Rothbard’s NAP establishes that “aggression” is defined as the violation of property rights
participant-9259, 6:29 PM, May 6
I see @participant-6112 tends to agree with my stance, tho I’d love to hear his (I hope I got the pronoun right, if not, I apologise)
participant-9259, 6:30 PM, May 6
Yeah
participant-7471, 6:31 PM, May 6
Do you understand that there’s only one valid legal system… there’s a monopoly on the legitimate use of force?
participant-7471, 6:34 PM, May 6
If there are multiple providers each offering different laws, then the application of the NAP is relative. If there’s only one legal system, then it isn’t—but that requires a coercive territorial jurisdiction
participant-9259, 6:46 PM, May 6
You’re claiming that there can actually be a “perfect” government, while there can’t: no government and no society is free from the threat of tyranny and this is due not to an ideal-concrete dichotomy, but to the fact that human beings are free to make mistakes and governments are made by men.
Secondly, every government by its nature violates the NPA
participant-7471, 6:48 PM, May 6
You keep dodging the point. Explain to me how, without a monopolistic statute, you can enforce a single legal system
participant-3927, 6:54 PM, May 6
Once the fetus is in the incubator, it’s a matter of title, not who is paying for it. It’s like homesteading – you have the title of nobody’s land if you were the one to cultivate it first. The fetus is a new “real estate,” and both father and mother have title to it, provided that they “homestead it.” Definitely, one parent can’t terminate the fetus without the other parent’s agreement. That’s in the normal case that both parents are taking care of the fetus. If one of the parents went to a la-la-land, the situation should be analyzied by a court.
participant-3927, 6:58 PM, May 6
Also, this makes sense only for early stage pregnancy. In a late stage pregnancy, if a fetus is removed, it’s stops being a fetus, but is a born baby who needs help in the incubator. A baby already has rights, and he is nobody’s property.
participant-9259, 7:05 PM, May 6
It’d work like this:
a) you break in my property, I kill you;
b) you manage to get out, I shoot you from the distance
participant-9259, 7:06 PM, May 6
Since I couldn’t understand, I’ll rephrase my question: if a third party (a perfect stranger) were sustaining the life of the foetus, could the parents (who in this scenario aren’t spending a cent on the foetus) claim property over the foetus?
participant-3927, 7:08 PM, May 6
They should be able to, at least for a while. But, if they just abandon the foetus and go on living their lives, they can’t. Let’s say the hospital is the 3rd party, and the parents abandon the foetus. The hospital can give the baby to foster parents.
participant-7471, 7:09 PM, May 6
Yeah, because most people live out in the countryside like survivalists
participant-3927, 7:12 PM, May 6
This means that no one will ever visit anyone’s house, in this system. It will be a kind of futuristic dystopia that we see in movies of life after some disaster, in which no one trusts anyone. Have you seen the TV series “The 100” ?
participant-9259, 7:27 PM, May 6
Nope
participant-9259, 7:30 PM, May 6
Ok, then it’s no use discussing this topic further: if you believe that, even when away from the woman, it may still belong to her, there’s no way I can convince you of the contrary, just like you cannot convince me of your idea
participant-6112, 7:38 PM, May 6
From a legal perspective, the intent factor is also significant. If a person enters your home with the intention to harm you, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. However, if it’s a random person who happens to be there, you don’t have the right to take their life, even if they are sleeping on your bed.
I believe it’s clear that the embryo did not enter the woman’s body with the intent to harm her. In fact, the opposite was true - she wanted the embryo inside her. Abstinence is a good way to prevent unintended pregnancies. Therefore, the woman has no right to terminate an embryo’s life. We also cannot treat the embryo as a parasite, as it is not a separate biological species that can take up residence in a woman’s body. There is no biological classification of “embryo parasites” that exist in humans. These are simply manipulations of concepts to create negative emotions.
Pregnancy and childbirth are part of the human experience, independent of property rights, biological symbiotic relationships, or parasitic interactions.
Therefore, this area of human life is governed by separate laws, as each society has its own unique set of laws at any given time. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and there can be no universal approach.
participant-7471, 7:49 PM, May 6
The fact is, a lot of the ancaps I talk to haven’t actually read their own theory. Authors talk about this society where canon law, common law, and Roman law all apply—without any law of the land. And when you point out contradictions, they start throwing around some Sovereign Citizens nonsense and misinterpretations of the castle doctrine
participant-7471, 8:08 PM, May 6
So aside from inventing scenarios where they live in a cabin in the woods and shoot anyone who comes near, or implicitly accepting the State like Robert Nozick and Auberon Herbert, they have no arguments
participant-9259, 8:08 PM, May 6
Interesting, but, so, what’s your position?
participant-9259, 8:09 PM, May 6
Not that you have them anyway to justify the existence of any government whatsoever. And one first asks the reason to erect a building, then goes on with laying the foundations, not the other way around. There’s no such thing as a moral government, therefore we must get rid of it
participant-7471, 8:10 PM, May 6
Of course I do: eudaimonia
participant-9259, 8:11 PM, May 6
Eudaimonia is just the concept of Happiness in Virtue Ethics. What’s your point?
participant-7471, 8:11 PM, May 6
I mean “dividing in a good way”
participant-9259, 8:12 PM, May 6
What are you talking about? Eudaimonia doesn’t mean “dividing in a good way”
participant-7471, 8:13 PM, May 6
The word comes from
daíomai
participant-9259, 8:14 PM, May 6
The word comes from
eu (good) and
daimon (demon, spiritual guide). For reference: see Socrates’ nonsense-talk about his demon in
Apology of Socrates, which in every other respect it’s a masterpiece
participant-7471, 8:17 PM, May 6
Yeah, I know, but it was to convey the idea that you live happily, physically separated from others
participant-7471, 8:18 PM, May 6
Different jurisdictions
participant-7471, 8:29 PM, May 6
Sui generis
participant-7471, 8:31 PM, May 6
@participant-1802 I’d like to understand your arguments against the state as proposed by Robert Nozick or the one envisioned by Auberon Herbert
participant-3927, 8:33 PM, May 6
It doesn’t matter if she wanted to get pregnant or not. It’s her body that’s being used by a biological process. The embryo has no rights, as is no different from any other part of her body. She can do with her body what she wants, including to cut it out.
participant-9259, 8:38 PM, May 6
I don’t know any of them. If you’d like to explain their opinions to me, I shall be grateful /gen
participant-7471, 8:41 PM, May 6
State, no taxes.
participant-9259, 8:44 PM, May 6
That’s impossible! /ref
@participant-3927, this place is sad with no GIFs or images
participant-7471, 8:44 PM, May 6
Why?
participant-9259, 8:44 PM, May 6
No, seriously, is that possible? Are you fr?
participant-9259, 8:45 PM, May 6
How? Tell me and I’ll convert myself right away
participant-7471, 8:47 PM, May 6
Write in the constitution: no taxes—period—and make it unchangeable. If absolutely necessary, include a clear definition of “property” for that purpose
participant-9259, 8:48 PM, May 6
Are you f-ing serious? How the heck is a government supposed to work with no funds?
participant-7471, 8:48 PM, May 6
Donations
participant-3927, 8:48 PM, May 6
Images are disabled to encourage an intellectual discussion , instead of memes
participant-9259, 8:49 PM, May 6
I mean, the idea isn’t bad, but there’s a problem: what would prevent me from donating to a second institution/organization? Nothing? Then it’s not a State, it’s Ancapistan
participant-3927, 8:50 PM, May 6
Isn’t voluntarism the same as anarchism ?
participant-9259, 8:50 PM, May 6
Yes.
participant-7471, 8:50 PM, May 6
According to Auberon Herbert: no
participant-7471, 8:51 PM, May 6
Read the discussion with Benj. R. Rucker
participant-9259, 8:51 PM, May 6
Probably ‘cause this guy doesn’t agree the government holds monopoly on force or doesn’t agree with Reality that there’s no such thing as a voluntary monopoly
participant-7471, 8:53 PM, May 6
You probably enjoy making trivial objections; the monopoly on the legitimate use of force still stands, the legal system is enforced within the territory (it’s not optional to follow it, and there are no providers competing with alternative laws)
participant-7471, 8:54 PM, May 6
The concept of the law of the land is still valid
participant-9259, 8:56 PM, May 6
You probably enjoy contradictions, but
monopoly doesn’t mean only
the only one in act (e.g. there aren’t any competitors yet), but also **in habit **(competitors cannot even emerge), which means: Taxes as donations is bs
participant-7471, 8:58 PM, May 6
It’s literally the only legal system provider. A statutorily protected monopoly inside the borders.
participant-7471, 10:00 PM, May 6
–Voluntaryism: Unlike anarcho-capitalism, Herbert’s model doesn’t permit multiple, competing legal systems within the same territory.
There is one provider (the Voluntary State), but you opt in or live without its services (at your own risk)
– “Minarchism”: In Nozick’s model, a dominant protection agency inevitably emerges and becomes a de facto monopoly on force and arbitration within a given territory: the “minimal state.”
In the meta-utopia, people can form voluntary communities with different rules and values — socialist, libertarian, religious, etc.
But within each community, there is only one legal framework agreed upon by its members.
Competing legal systems inside the same community are not supported; the diversity exists between communities, not within them.
The meta-utopia presupposes the existence of a minimal state: an entity that protects individuals’ basic rights against force, theft, and fraud.
participant-7471, 10:06 PM, May 6
Objectivism:
participant-7471, 10:14 PM, May 6
Let’s suppose I enter a socialist community—which, in this context, is privately owned land managed by an organization, acquired according to the property acquisition rules of the minimal state. I enter and accept their coexistence contract (and their rules of conduct), but then they deny me the right to exit. At that point, the minimal state steps in to defend me and takes action against them
participant-3927, 10:37 PM, May 6
What’s the difference between this and minarchism?
participant-7471, 11:02 PM, May 6
It’s minarchism
participant-7471, 11:03 PM, May 6
Voluntaryism and minarchism are in the same msg
participant-7471, 11:04 PM, May 6
(minarchism)
participant-7471, 11:08 PM, May 6
The term “minarchy” was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III, Robert Nozick himself never used that term
participant-7471, 11:09 PM, May 6
It would probably make more sense to call it meta-utopianism
participant-3927, 5:47 AM, May 7
Some of you are new to the channel, but note that an anonymized archive of the chat is published on the website. This serves the effect of adding interesting content to the site, but it’s not organized.
participant-3927, 5:48 AM, May 7
However, if you want to write an article about your area of expertise, I can publish it with my inserted comments. The purpose of the comments is to clarify the position of the project with respect to ideas in the guest post.
participant-3927, 5:49 AM, May 7
I am interested in posts about historical events, ancient and recent.
participant-3927, 5:49 AM, May 7
An example about ancient period can be the fall of Rome
participant-3927, 5:50 AM, May 7
For recent case, it can be Freeport, Bahamas or Prospera etc.
participant-3927, 5:51 AM, May 7
The bottom line, I’d like to not do everything myself, while at the same time pushing the project forward.
participant-3927, 5:53 AM, May 7
Another interesting case study, is to take analysis of some area that’s broken due to regulations.
participant-3927, 5:54 AM, May 7
For instance, I think hotels in San Francisco are expensive because companies can write off this expense, but not other kinds.