Toggle navigation

 

2

6

Appreciate

 

16 comments

 

An Allegory In Space

 

By Jake Desyllas from The Voluntary Life Jan 15, 2017

An Allegory In Space

Imagine that I own a spacecraft with a Star-Trek-style teleporter. I roam the galaxy, stopping off to beam down and visit the many planets of the human diaspora, sometimes beaming up guests to visit me on my ship. One day, I am enjoying a game of droneball in the teleporter room, when I accidentally hit the ball onto the control panel, smashing the keys and setting off the teleporter. I hear that familiar noise and see a flash of light, and a woman appears in the teleport zone.

 

I have no idea where she came from. My long-range teleporter (which is now broken) could have beamed her from anywhere. She is babbling in some foreign language that I don’t understand, so at least for the moment she can’t tell me anything useful. It might take me months to track down her homeworld or find a spaceport that will accept her. In the meantime, I will have to feed her and give her lodgings on the ship, which is all going to cost me. She might even be dangerous or pose some risk to my health.

 

I don’t want this woman on my ship. What should I do? I reflect for a while and consider some arguments.

 

Firstly, I never intended to teleport anyone onto my ship, it was just a regrettable droneball accident. This is my ship, my property, and she was not invited. I have a right to choose who gets to stay on my ship, and I never chose her. Doesn’t that make her a trespasser? Having someone else onboard is going to cause major problems, disrupt all my plans, and might even be dangerous. Isn’t it my right, as the owner of the ship, to evict anyone from my property whom I didn’t invite? I can simply open an airlock and eject her into space.

 

On the other hand, it was my fault that she got teleported here, even though I never meant to do it. She never had any say in the matter and is innocent of any role in this mess. I know that if I eject her into space, she will promptly die. Do I have the right to take her life? After all, I do have an alternative to killing her: I can put up with her until I’m eventually able to drop her at a spaceport. I know that I’m not positively obliged to care for any random stranger, but doesn’t the fact that I put this stranger in danger give me responsibility to get her out of danger?

 

Let’s assume that I accept the non-aggression principle and I want to act ethically. If I teleport someone onto my ship by mistake, is it an act of aggression to force them off into space (and certain death)? Or is it an act of self-defence of my rightful property (my ship)? What if somebody else had teleported the woman onto my ship without my consent? Would it then be an act of aggression for me to eject her into space?

 

Whatever your answers to these questions, the same logic applies to the following question: does abortion violate the non-aggression principle?

 

Subscribe to my blog

 

Jake is the host of The Voluntary Life and author of Becoming an Entrepreneur

 

2

6

Appreciate

 

Give a tip:

 

PaypalBitcoin

WRITTEN BY

Profile picture

Jake Desyllas

Host of The Voluntary Life, author of Job Free andBecoming an Entrepreneur.

PUBLISHED ON

The Voluntary Life

Thoughts on entrepreneurship, financial independence, and freedom

NEXT UP

 

New Bike Review, Part 2: Riding The @CriticalCycles Harper Single-Speed/Fixie – Thomas L. Knapp

New Bike Review, Part 2: Riding The @CriticalCycles Harper Single-Speed/Fixie – Thomas L. Knapp

 

Raising Consciousness and Creating New Systems to Create a Freer World – Jeff Berwick – Liberty.me

Raising Consciousness and Creating New Systems to Create a Freer World – Jeff Berwick – Liberty.me

 

A Question For Occupy Democrats – L’Ombre de l’Olivier

A Question For Occupy Democrats – L’Ombre de l’Olivier

 

Recommended by

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

 

16 COMMENTS

 

Profile photo of

 

GoDubaiGo ComJanuary 15, 2017 , 12:29 pmReply

Looking for apartments in a new city? Make sure to reverse image search any images to avoid scams. Just Upload your image or find through urlhttp://www.reverse-image-search.com/ Try Now

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 21, 2017 , 5:19 pmReply0

….

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 16, 2017 , 6:35 amReply

I noticed Jake that you missed The BORG, amongst other things…

 

The abortion issue is a red herring used to divide libertarians.

 

The issue is NOT about abortion, it is about the tyrannical police state–Borg–that WOULD HAVE to be erected in order to outlaw the practice.

 

Some things to consider:

 

“How can you outlaw a thing without taking steps to make sure that people don’t do it?”

 

“There’ll have to be agency regulations that go along with the law and sustain it. To begin with, you’ll have to insist on mandatory monthly pregnancy testing for every female in the country, from puberty to menopause.”

 

“It will give rise to a reign of terror like nothing seen before in America. You’ll be ENSLAVING no less than half the population. It will create a new army of armed and armored nannies [Borg]. It will devour your wives, your sisters, your daughters, and your granddaughters. It will destroy all that’s left of what America was supposed to be about.”

 

There are many more considerations. I hope you will take the time to review them. I have highlighted them in red at the following link.

 

tinyurl (DOT) com/Abortion-from-HOPE

http://tinyurl.com/Abortion-from-HOPE

 

“I’ve not said where I stand on the issue personally, because it doesn’t matter. Outlaw abortion, and—no matter what anybody hopes or thinks or fears— the country’s headed, right into the black abyss of totalitarianism.”

 

Re: “If I [you] teleport someone [sperm] onto my ship [your vagina presumably it is attached and not floating bodyless] by mistake [or by force or by consent], is it an act of aggression [for you] to force them, [sperm, egg…*1*] off into space (and certain death [hmmm])? Or is it an act of self-defence of my [your] *rightful property (my ship)* [meaning your self ownership of your body, meaning there is no other body than your body i.e. not two distinct bodies but according TO YOU, YOUR BODY…*1*]?

 

What if somebody else had teleported the woman [sperm] onto my ship [into your vagina…] without my [your] consent? Would it then be an act of aggression for me [you, EITHER because it was a mistake or force or consent] to [choose and] eject her [penis, sperm, egg…and or EXTENSION of YOURself… *1*] into space?”

 

Profile photo of Jake Desyllas

 

Jake DesyllasJanuary 16, 2017 , 10:21 amReply1

Mal, what would you say to someone who is considering getting an abortion but wants to know if it would violate the non-aggression principle and asks for your opinion? If I understand you correctly, you would refuse to answer the question because you believe that giving the “wrong” answer would mean advocating a police state. Also, you think that we shouldn’t talk about this topic because it is divisive.

 

You are confusing two issues:

1. What is the ethical way to act? (individuals have total control over this.)

2. How can you force other people to act ethically? (individuals don’t have much control of this.)

 

My article is about the first issue, not the second. If decent people want to act ethically, they have to start by deciding for themselves what the right course of action is. In order to do this they need to get clear in their own minds what violates the NAP.

 

How to force others to act ethically is an entirely separate question. Just because something violates the NAP, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be an enforceable violation. It doesn’t say what a proportionate response would be, or who would have a right to respond. It doesn’t tackle questions of restitution, punishment or justice. These questions are entirely separate from the first question that you avoided: does it violate the NAP?

 

Most people will never have any impact on designing a justice system, so their views on enforceability, proportionality, restitution and punishment are largely irrelevant to their everyday lives. Yet a lot of people could face an ethical question like whether to have an abortion. If they want to follow the non-aggression principle, what should they do?

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 16, 2017 , 9:43 pmReply0

The abortion issue is a red herring used to divide libertarians.

 

“And here we all are today, proving it.”

 

“Look:

I shouldn’t have to be the one to tell you that you’re going to have to grow up, swallow hard, and do your best accept the fact that, as fervently as you loathe abortion, a great many other people in this country disagree with you just as fervently.

 

It’s absolutely vital that we shut down this endless, pointless argument, and move on with our real work—fulfilling the promise of the American Revolution.”

 

So what is the proper “libertarian” POLITICAL POSITION on abortion?

 

Abortion should remain legal . But not one red cent of federal tax money should ever be spent on it again.

 

END-OF-HIGHLIGHTED EXCERPTS.

 

REMINDER: There is NO Constitutional authority to control abortion–or drugs, alcohol, guns, Immigration or Emigration.

 

[The full excerpt is available at: tinyurl (dot) com/Abortion-from-HOPE ]

 

Again, Jake The issue is NOT about abortion, it is about the tyrannical police state[–YOUR BORG-USS Enterprise and Federation Ring of Power]–that WOULD HAVE to be erected in order to outlaw the practice.

 

You mean the USS Enterprise crew–of which presumably Jake is a hypothetical member of–and the Federation would become BORG LIKE, asks the woman Jake presumable has in mind ? This is at once highly telling and highly instructive. [Jake wants me to explain what this means]!

 

There are many more considerations. I hope your readers will take the time to review them. I have highlighted them in red at the following link.

 

tinyurl (DOT) com/Abortion-from-HOPE

http://tinyurl.com/Abortion-from-HOPE

 

“I’ve not said where I stand on the issue personally, because it DOESN’t matter. Outlaw abortion, and—no matter what anybody hopes or thinks or fears— the country’s headed, right into the black abyss of totalitarianism.”

 

Profile photo of Jake Desyllas

 

Jake DesyllasJanuary 16, 2017 , 10:36 pmReply0

Let’s assume that the state should never outlaw abortion because it will lead to all the terrible things you say. Furthermore, let’s assume that anti-abortion laws would be senseless anyway, because the matter is unenforceable.

 

Now answer the question: what would you say to someone who is considering getting an abortion but wants to know if it would violate the non-aggression principle?

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 17, 2017 , 8:35 amReply

Jake Desyllas: “Let’s assume that the state should never outlaw abortion because it will lead to all the terrible things you say”.

 

AtlasAikido: Please Don’t take my word for it! Do you disagree? Why do you assume? Where do you address this in your article?

 

JakeD: “Furthermore, let’s assume that anti-abortion laws would be senseless anyway, because the matter is unenforceable”.

 

AA: Well this t’aint nothing. Where do you address this in your article? If it’s senseless then it’s up to the women? I did not see you address this. Is anything else senseless?

 

JakeD: “Now answer the question: what would you say to someone who is considering getting an abortion but wants to know if it would violate the non-aggression principle?”

 

AtlasAikido: Precisely Jake! Bingo! Where does your article have this conversation? I read your subject/title an Allegory in Space. Is this the way you have conversations with woman?

 

Which woman “is considering getting an abortion but wants to know if it would violate the NAP, non-aggression principle?” Did you read her your article regarding your Star Fleet Transporter analog?

 

Break time…

 

Profile photo of Jake Desyllas

 

Jake DesyllasJanuary 17, 2017 , 12:27 pmReply0

It is obvious that you simply refuse to answer the philosophical question posed in my article: does abortion violate the NAP? It is also very obvious why you refuse to answer it: you think it does violate the NAP but you are afraid of the consequences of admitting it. If you could demonstrate to me logically that abortion doesn’t violate the NAP, you would do so. But you can’t.

 

Instead of answering the question posed by my article, you just try to change the subject— telling me I shouldn’t raise this topic, or my article should have been about the politics of abortion law instead of about the philosophical question, or my writing style was inappropriate, and so on. That’s disingenuous time wasting.

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 17, 2017 , 8:22 pmReply

@jakedesyllas “[3.] My [Jake Desellyas] article is about the first issue, NOT the SECOND [EMPHASIS ADDED]”.

 

Re: “…You [AtlasAikido] are confusing two issues:

 

1. What is the ethical way to act? (individuals have total control over this.)”

 

2. How can you [*]FORCE[*] other people to act ethically [as it pertains to abortion]? (individuals don’t have much control of this.)”

 

…JakeD proceeds to grill, I mean Question others on the application of The Non Aggression Principle by authority of his article, YET according to JakeD the issue of “FORCE” is off the abortion table.

 

Oh well…

 

AtlasAikido…

 

Profile photo of Randall Chester Saunders

 

Randall Chester SaundersJanuary 17, 2017 , 9:07 pmReply

Hi Jake,

 

“What is the ethical way to act?”

 

NAP is not an ethical principle, it is a political principle. Ethics only pertains to individuals. The field of philosophy dealing with relationships between people is politics. NAP is a political principle, and a pretty much useless one at that.

 

“what would you say to someone who is considering getting an abortion but wants to know if it would violate the non-aggression principle?”

 

Unless I had a personal relationship with the individual and were certain my opinion was called for, I would not interfere in (by trying to influence) anyone’s personal choices and would regard it immoral to do so. If I did give my opinion? Of course abortion does not violate NAP. Political principles only pertain to living breathing thinking beings, which a fetus is not.

 

Your analogy comparing an adult human being to something that is only a potential is most disingenuous.

 

On the other hand, a pregnancy may not be intended or wanted, but it is never an accident. The act that produces a pregnancy must be performed by choice, and that does have an ethical element.

 

Randy

 

Profile photo of Jake Desyllas

 

Jake DesyllasJanuary 17, 2017 , 10:01 pmReply0

Hi Randy,

 

I appreciate you addressing the questions I raised. If I understand you correctly, you hold that an unborn child isn’t a rights-bearing human because it is not a “living breathing thinking being”. When would you say that it becomes human and acquires rights? I know Ayn Rand’s answer was at birth— is that your view too?

 

Also, in the example from my story, do you think that it would be within my rights to eject the stranger into space? (I know you don’t think the same logic applies to abortion, but I’m still curious to know if you think that would be a rights violation in the space story.)

 

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

 

Profile photo of Randall Chester Saunders

 

Randall Chester SaundersJanuary 18, 2017 , 1:27 amReply0

Hi Jake,

 

Since I don’t believe in the concept of “rights” the question is strictly an ethical one.

 

Ethically every individual is responsible for their actions, ignorance and mistakes do not mitigate that responsibility.

 

The problem with your example (and most hypotheticals) is that it lacks details. If I had made the mistake that endangered the woman and knew she was just an innocent victim of my mistake I would be ethically obligated to save her if I could, whatever the cost; but, I would have to know she was no threat to me and truly an innocent victim. And it would help if she were pleasant and pretty.

 

My view does have an application to abortion. If I’m responsible for initiating the development of a human being I am responsible for that, and ethically I would want the developing child to be born, and to be raised by loving nurturing parents of which I would be one.

 

In most cases where there is a question of abortion, the individuals involved are not moral individuals to begin with, which is why the situation and the question arises. I have no recommendation for what those who are not themselves moral ought to do, and frankly, it is none of my business, or yours, or anyone elses’.

 

Your questions are good and fair ones. I hope my answers are as well.

 

Randy

 

Profile photo of Randall Chester Saunders

 

Randall Chester SaundersJanuary 18, 2017 , 12:22 pmReply

Hi Jake,

 

I realize you might wonder about my not believing in rights. If you’re interested, see my article, “No Such Thing As Rights,” from my Liberty.me blog, Intellectual Renegade.

 

Randy

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 21, 2017 , 5:43 pmReply0

Per JD: “It is obvious that you [AtlasAikido] simply refuse to answer the PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION posed in my article: does [an individual having an] abortion [under the pretext a fetus is an Individual–See Jake Desyllas Allegory in Space Article and Comments] violate the NAP? ”

 

 

Per JD: “It is also very obvious why you [AtlasAikido] refuse to answer it, you think it does violate the NAP [and nothing but the NAP] but you [AA] are afraid of the consequences of admitting it.

 

[…If the fetus were an individual, it would, as… noted see my link, still not have the right to exploit anyone’s body against their will, because none has such a right. An individual’s right to her- or himself cannot be superseded or suspended by any other concern. Indeed, when a fetus is allowed to do this on the pretext that it is an individual, the fetus becomes the *moral equivalent of a RAPIST*, and those who allow the fetus to acquire this status are accomplices to rape – a LONG, continuous rape of nine months… ]

 

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/abortion-machanreply.html

 

JD: “If you [AtlasAikido] could demonstrate to me logically that abortion doesn’t violate the NAP, you would do so. But you can’t.

 

[…Since the fetus is a body part, and not an individual, and has no will (nor anything else) of its own, it can of course not really be a rapist. But this illustrates the absurd premises and logic of the socalled “pro-life” position…]

 

[Those who are against abortion should abstain from having any. They do not have the right to force other people to give birth. They do not even have the POLITICAL right to force anyone to HEAR their case, even that requires the recipient’s CONSENT…something which is alien, foreign, “BABBLING” to Jake Desyllas]”

 

Per JD addressing OTHERS: “Instead of answering the question(s) posed by my article [and comments], you [AtlasAikido] just try to CHANGE the subject—telling me I shouldn’t *RAISE this topic, or my article should have been about the *POLITICS of ABORTION LAW *INSTEAD of about the *PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, or my writing style was inappropriate, and so on. That’s disingenuous time wasting”. [*EMPHASIS ADDED]

 

[Abortion is an individual responsibility and whatever kind of LAW, whether customary, religious…one believes in – MOST ESPECIALLY be it…STATE-made…. – abortion should NOT be placed in its remit.

 

tinyurl (DOT) com/Abortion-from-HOPE

http://tinyurl.com/Abortion-from-HOPE

 

Politics is an ASPECT of ALLEGORY AND Philosophy–the relationship between 2 individuals and JD uses Philosophical Political Concepts AND Contexts WHILST DENYING its use, AND VOICE TO OTHERS I.E. STOLEN CONCEPTS

 

…Much of the trouble with distasteful and/or morally ambiguous matters such as abortion STARTS when OTHER people INTERFERE.

 

I rather RECOGNIZE the basic fact of individual responsibility and focus my attention elsewhere instead of being played on a RED HERRING that DIVIDES Libertarians…

 

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/abortion-CONTEXT.html ]

 

Profile photo of Randall Chester Saunders

 

Randall Chester SaundersJanuary 21, 2017 , 6:53 pmReply

@atlasaikido

 

A simple, “no,” would have done it.

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeJanuary 21, 2017 , 8:50 pmReply0

On further review and more specifically:

 

Per JD: “It is obvious that you [AtlasAikido] simply refuse to answer the philosophical question [1.]  posed in my article: does [an individual having an] abortion [under the pretext a fetus is an Individual–See Jake Desyllas Allegory in Space Article and Comments] violate the NAP [2]? ”

 

And

 

Per JD: “IT is ALSO very obvious why you refuse to answer IT [1.] [2.]

 

“…YOU think IT [3. JD’s tongue in AA’s mouth] does violate the NAP but YOU [AA] are afraid of the consequences of admitting it”.

 

[…The MAIN issue is the sovereignty of self, the most intimate and fundamental of all individual rights: the right to control one’s own body. None has the right to access, use or dispose one’s body against one’s will. Therefore it makes no difference what a fetus is – body part, potential human, individual person, god or goddess – none of these have any right to invade a human’s body against its owner’s will, because there is no such right. The nature of the fetus is irrelevant to the woman’s right to abortion. She has the right to evict it at any time during pregnancy, for the same reason and in the same way that she has the right to end an intercourse at any point of its execution…]

 

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/abortion-machanreply.html

 

Per JD: “If you [AtlasAikido] could demonstrate to me logically that abortion doesn’t violate the NAP, you would do so. But you can’t.

 

[…Those who are against abortion should abstain from having any. They do not have the right to force other people to give birth. They do not even have the POLITICAL right to force anyone to HEAR their case, even that requires the recipient’s CONSENT…something which is alien, foreign, “BABBLING” to Jake Desyllas]”

 

[…If the fetus were an individual, it would, as… noted see my link, still not have the right to exploit anyone’s body against their will, because none has such a right. An individual’s right to her- or himself cannot be superseded or suspended by any other concern. Indeed, when a fetus is allowed to do this on the pretext that it is an individual, the fetus becomes the *moral equivalent of a RAPIST*, and those who allow the fetus to acquire this status are accomplices to rape – a LONG, continuous rape of nine months…

 

…Since the fetus is a body part, and not an individual, and has no will (nor anything else) of its own, it can of course not really be a rapist. But this illustrates the absurd premises and logic of the socalled “pro-life” position…]

 

Futhermore Per JD: “Instead of answering the question[S] posed by my article [and comments], you [AtlasAikido] just try to CHANGE [clarify and keep straight] the subject[S] [1. 2. 3. 4. 5.]—telling me I [JD] shouldn’t RAISE this topic, or my article should have been about the POLITICS [4] of ABORTION LAW  INSTEAD of about the PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION [1], or my writing…was [IS] inappropriate [3.], and so on. That’s disingenuous time wasting”. [*EMPHASIS ADDED]

 

[Abortion is an individual responsibility and whatever kind of LAW, whether customary, religious…one believes in – MOST ESPECIALLY be it…STATE-made…. – abortion should NOT be placed in its remit.

 

tinyurl (DOT) com/Abortion-from-HOPE

http://tinyurl.com/Abortion-from-HOPE

 

Politics [4] is an ASPECT of ALLEGORY [5] AND Philosophy [1.]–the relationship between TWO individuals and JD uses and switches Philosophical Concepts AND Contexts WHILST DENYING their use, AND VOICE TO OTHERS I.E. STOLEN CONCEPTS

 

…Much of the trouble with distasteful and/or morally ambiguous matters such as abortion STARTS when OTHER people INTERFERE.

 

I rather RECOGNIZE the basic fact of individual responsibility and focus my attention elsewhere instead of being played on a RED HERRING that DIVIDES Libertarians…

 

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/abortion-context.html

 

Thoughts? Comments?

 

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

 

Notify me of new posts by email.

 

 

ARTICLES

BROWSE ALL ARTICLES

 

Slander And Calumny Violate Property Rights.

Elizabeth had been working diligently at her job for about ten months. It was her second ‘real’ job and she was gaining … [Read more]

by Bruce Koerber2

New Bike Review, Part 2: Riding The @CriticalCycles Harper Single-Speed/Fixie

So, the Presta to Schrader adapters I was waiting on arrived Thursday. Got the tires aired up as much as I could with my… [Read more]

by Thomas L. Knapp1

You’re Invited to Join a Socratic Seminar on Ayn Rand’s Ideas on Freedom at ISFLC

Free to students attending the International Students for Liberty Conference (ISFLC) 2017 in Washington, D.C. For… [Read more]

by Reason, Individualism, Freedom Institute0

HOMEARTICLESLIBRARYSTUDIOLIVEDISCUSSCHATGROUPSABOUT

navigation

 

 

3

9

Appreciate

 

15 comments

 

Racist Skittles?

 

By Onar Åm from The Ideas of Onar Åm Sep 22, 2016

Racist Skittles?

Donald Trump Jr has been lambasted by the left and its media acolytes for allegedly “comparing refugees to candy.” This, we are told, is an example of the dehumanization and racism which so characterizes Donald Trump and his campaign. Is this true? Let us take a closer look.

 

First of all, using a Skittles analogy is obviously for pedagogic reasons, in order to make a vivid and simple example about what is at stake when you take in refugees from very bad neighborhoods. You will get rapes, you will get murders and you will get terrorist attacks. Perhaps not so many, but more than you would get if you didn’t take in any refugees.

 

So Donald Trump Jr. is not really talking about the plight of refugees at all, but rather about the risks to Americans. Notice how Donald Trump Jr is not saying that Americans should not help Syrian refugees, only that they should not be helped by bringing them to America.

 

Is it dehumanizing, insensitive and racist to use candy as an example to illustrate the dangers of bringing in unvetted refugees from dangerous areas to America? Let us answer that by turning the question on its head. Is it dehumanizing and insensitive to innocent Americans to actively put them at risk from being raped, murdered and terrorized by people from a bad culture?

 

I would argue that it is.

 

If you disagree with this, then there is a very simple way that all the proponents of bringing in refugees to America can prove how sensitive they are: every time a refugee rapes or murders or commits terror, then the politicians who voted for bringing them in have to enter a lottery where there is a certain chance that they themselves will be raped or murdered. If only 1% of the refugees rape women, then for every refugee rape the odds for a politician for being raped is set to 1%.

 

This makes the Skittles example very real for politicians. So what do you think? If politicians had to personally and directly carry the consequences of the rapes and murders they import to America, how many of them would vote for bringing in even a single refugee? I could be wrong, but to be honest I think the number is very close to zero.

 

If that number is near zero, as I suspect, it tells us that these politicians think that inflicting rape and murder on innocent Americans is perfectly ok as long as they themselves are safe. How is that for insensitivity and dehumanization?

 

Subscribe to my blog

 

3

9

Appreciate

 

Give a tip:

 

PaypalBitcoin

WRITTEN BY

Profile picture

Onar Åm

Norwegian philosopher and founder of Free State Initiative

PUBLISHED ON

The Ideas of Onar Åm

philosophical, technological, political and economical ponderings

NEXT UP

 

Book Review: The Invention of Russia – Zeroth Position – Liberty.me

Book Review: The Invention of Russia – Zeroth Position – Liberty.me

 

The Blockchain Matters More than the President – Jeffrey Tucker – Liberty.me

The Blockchain Matters More than the President – Jeffrey Tucker – Liberty.me

 

{Interview} Ross McElroy – Proven People, Award Winning Deposit, Fission Uranium – Maurice Jackson – Liberty.me

{Interview} Ross McElroy – Proven People, Award Winning Deposit, Fission Uranium – Maurice Jackson – Liberty.me

 

Recommended by

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

 

15 COMMENTS

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeSeptember 22, 2016 , 9:37 pmReply1

BOTH this article and the “rebuttal” obfuscate–with excruciating minutia down to Skittles–the goal of LIBERTY.

 

Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control.

 

It is an absurd “tactic” for anyone who’s alleged goal is liberty.

 

If welfare is a problem, abolish government welfare rather than expand government into immigration control!

 

If drugs are a problem, abolish the government drug war rather than expand government into immigration control!

 

If crime is a problem, carry a gun and buy insurance rather than authorize government agents to kill with impunity!

 

If refugees are a problem, stop government from dropping bombs on their houses rather than expanding government extortion of even more taxes to built and maintain walls around this nation-wide FEMA camp.

 

If privacy is a problem, put a fence and locked gate around your own privately owned property rather than advocate government violation of my freedom to travel and to associate with others.

 

“If you want to BE free, you must do things that MAKE you free!” Advocating MORE government is NOT the answer.

“Libertarians” seem to have lost the understanding of the root word: LIBERTY

 

[1] Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. November 10, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona

lewrockwell (dot) com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

 

Hoppe has nearly consistently violated the NAP by calling for closed borders. Here is only one article exposing logical fallacies he commits while doing so.

tinyurl (dot) com/Hoppe-border

 

Lew Rockwell’s “coming out” of the immigration closet[1] and embracing of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s closed-borders position has (once again) split the libertarian community. Every pseudo-libertarian xenophobe, Racist, NAP hater and wanna-be control freak has now jumped onto the bandwagon of this once respected and distinguished libertarian and, like Rockwell himself, they have openly exposed their long hidden, secret prejudices and suppressed contradictions by calling upon government to forcibly close, seal and lock down the borders–so that no one can enter or LEAVE this country-wide FEMA camp without permission from tax supported, armed government bureaucrats.

 

Profile photo of Fernando Di Ramos

 

Fernando Di RamosSeptember 22, 2016 , 11:45 pmReply

Dear friend. I am Brazilian and atheist. So I do not belong to any of the groups involved.

 

Let’s assume that we all lived in a libertarian building. There is no state in a libertarian building. And I would say more, no laws, no hierarchy. However, a foreign group who in a speech promises to overthrow our building must be received joyously or prevented approaching?

 

Remember there is no state or law. I, alone, would be against the approach of this group, much less the entrance, in a building with only libertarians insides. I also have no doubt that many would support my decision and would also be against the simple approach of the group which is known for wanting to destroy us.

 

The freedom of one can not be greater than my freedom to live. Try to preserve his own life does not harm the principle of nonaggression. Nor diminish the freedom, dignity and human happiness.

 

It is completely reckless allow humans who threaten the lives of peaceful people who live within the libertarian building or within the USA.

 

Life comes first than freedom. If we to continue to live have to accept some degree of government, what’s wrong? The government can then be deposed, even after a long time, but life is never recovered!

 

peace and cheers!

 

Profile photo of Onar Åm

 

Onar ÅmSeptember 23, 2016 , 5:38 amReply1

Fernando, I noticed we used almost the same analogy (I used a house on fire). I responded before I read your post, so I did not copycat you. I could not agree more with you that the borders should only be open to peaceful individuals who cannot vote the liberty away. I am glad we are on the same page on this.

 

Profile photo of dL 1337

 

dL 1337September 24, 2016 , 12:50 amReply

@ofernandofilo

 

States are not private buildings…bad analogy

 

Profile photo of Onar Åm

 

Onar ÅmSeptember 23, 2016 , 5:34 amReply1

“Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control.”

 

Not if you allow rapists, murderers, terrorists, welfare recipients and socialist voters who destroy the country into the country. Stopping people like that is the proper role of government. Today the cultural marxists are doing the exact opposite. They are stopping peaceful people from entering the country and protecting the bad guys.

 

“If welfare is a problem, abolish government welfare rather than expand government into immigration control!”

 

Yes, yes, the problem is that there is no time for that. There is a fire burning down the house of liberty, and while we talk about how to redecorate the house the house is burnt to the ground. We need to stop the fire now while there is still something left of liberty to save.

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeSeptember 23, 2016 , 8:34 amReply2

Good ideas do NOT require initiating force.

 

The absurdity here is using tax money EXTORTED from ME–I.E. Pointing a Gun at me–to build border fences and to occupy the border with ARMED forces–24 hours/day, 7 days/week thereby restricting freedom of travel, allegedly to protect MY property when I have issued an invitation to all peoples of the world to come to my property and offer me their products and/or services in trade. Some protection racket that is!

 

Lew Rockwell has abandoned the Non-Aggression PRINCIPLE. (NAP).

 

SELF DEFENSE is a RESPONSE to initiation of force. NAP does not prohibit self defense.

 

If refugees fleeing from war zones are a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT BOMBINGS and FUNDING of TERRORISTS rather than expand government into immigration control!

 

If RAPE and MURDER is a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROLS rather than expand government into immigration control!

 

EXPANDING government powers and programs–see above–does NOT REDUCE government Bombings and Funding of Terrorists AND Victim Disarmenment. (Well, duh! ) But it DOES reduce Individual Liberty.

 

There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The State undertakes. Whatever “results” are desired, using government to achieve them is not justified nor logical.

 

The ends do NOT justify the means! Continuing to Use bad means is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “good” your intentions are and no matter how long you have been forced to participate. No it is not too late. The moral costs of initiated force far outweigh any claimed benefit.

 

As an abolitionist…I already know your position is morally wrong, in the same way that if someone said they weren’t 100% behind freeing Black slaves I would know they are wrong, despite the fact many argued as you do (that freeing a group of people i.e. blacks would destroy the US, with raping, murders etc).

 

Whatever your position is if it isn’t open borders it’s wrong. If it is some partial mix between closed and open borders it’s wrong.

 

You are illogically trying to make the refugee–emigrants fleeing the Govt bombs etc– and those who are being extorted by Govts, out to be the criminal perpetrator so that you can feel better about supporting the government Pointing a Gun at the refugee AND me AND you!

 

So who is actually pointing the gun at you? Is it the refugee? No, it is the government. The refugee has done nothing to you. You have no right to point a gun at them.

 

For all the rational considerations, Lew conspicuous FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, because he tries to step over an invisible, arbitrary line without the written permission of politicians? It’s not. In the midst of all the group think and collective reasoning, I have to assume that Lew Rockwell didn’t mention that question–the only relevant question–for the same reason statists never explicitly describe the VIOLENCE they advocate: because it makes it sound as bad as it is. Whatever inconveniences a mass migration may cause you, each INDIVIDUAL involved is a separate person, and initiating violence against an INDIVIDUAL who has not harmed or threatened anyone, simply because he is part of a *GROUP* that may have an adverse impact on what you want, is immoral.

 

(P.S. I want to stand Lew in the woods, with a gun, at the invisible line between Canada and the U.S., and have someone try to “illegally” walk over that line, and see if Lew can justify threatening violence against that person. If so, he should never wear the label “libertarian” again. If not, he needs to change his position.)

 

Profile photo of Onar Åm

 

Onar ÅmSeptember 23, 2016 , 12:07 pmReply0

“Good ideas do NOT require initiating force.”

 

Sometimes you have no choice. Police is a good idea. They protect you from rape and murder, but given the political climate today, it is impossible to fund them in any other way than with taxes.

 

“The absurdity here is using tax money EXTORTED from ME–I.E.”

 

The extortion of money from you for building a fence is the least of your problems. The fact of the matter is that hispanics vote overwhelmingly left-wing for bigger governments and more welfare (which they do not pay for). 80% vote democrat, 20% vote republican. Those are the facts. So for every 5 hispanic immigrants who come to America, you are importing 4 left-wing voters.

 

In practice this means that when the population of hispanics reaches a certain threshold, the republican party (or the libertarians) will never ever ever ever win another election. The US will then be a third world country with third world barbarian cultures. And they will vote for very very high taxes for you. All the freedoms you today enjoy will be gone, voted away by foreigners.

 

So as of now, the choice stands pretty much between: build a wall, and lose your country. Those are your two choices.

 

“Whatever your position is if it isn’t open borders it’s wrong. If it is some partial mix between closed and open borders it’s wrong.”

 

Open borders plus welfare programs is a form of slavery. Closing the borders is sometimes the right thing to do, because it is the least bad alternative.

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeSeptember 23, 2016 , 10:34 pmReply

Onar your position is the typical Misdirection away from the pillaging and Extortion Racket; and Wars that are the Health of the “Nation” State.

 

It’s surreal much like listening to NPR when it talks about “All things considered” except the ever ratcheting elephant with the gun in the room; and everything but the camel’s head snooping under the tent and sheets of your bed; and two seething wolves and a baby lamb and sheep arguing what’s for dinner?

 

Indeed it is a strategy of enforcing the will of the Political Class via “Prosecutorial Philosophy of Applied Violence”*…

 

As Cantwell points out “We oppose theft, fraud, assault, rape, AND MURDER. We oppose predation of person and property. If you had done a very good job of preventing these things, then we would have no quarrel.”

 

“This however, is not the case. Your agencies have become the greatest PERPS perpetrators of these crimes in the history of mankind.” We are not talking about Matt Dillon, dear reader, we are talking the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men.

 

See Wendy McElroy articles on such and banality of evil. I.e. To Serve and Protect — the State, not the people…

 

Who declared war on who? Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971, and I was born in 1980. I was born into a warzone.” Indeed I was grandfathered in…

 

————————–

 

“Here’s a glimpse at what happens when some really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity.“

 

1. Instead of studying and perpetuating failed government(s) and their continuous divide and conquer Wars with each other and on their people, libertarians, ancaps and anarchists (and even Seastead enthusiasts!) would do well to investigate Gurgaon, India. Additional bonus: English spoken here.

 

Privatized city in Gurgaon, India–this is certainly an example of Living without Government–and for more than 40 years!!

 

In spite of the biased reporting, it looks like private companies DO provide services–otherwise they could not attract paying customers. And the REST of India? Government is in charge there and STILL people continue to VOLUNTARILY move into the privately owned structures in Gurgaon.

 

Instead of thankless wrestling, I have been enjoying myself with my recent discovery and further exploration, via the web, of Gurgaon, India which Dennis Wilson mentions in his article Libertarian Dream City?

http://tinyurl.com/Privatized-City

 

…They’ve beefed up the city’s 4,000-strong police force with an army of 35,000 private security guards. And one of the city’s largest developers, DLF (originally Delhi Lease and Finance), opened the nation’s first privately owned fire station in 2012. The city’s small public [GOVERNMENT] fire station didn’t have hydraulic platforms that could spray water to the top of DLF’s highest towers, so the developer simply purchased two 90-meter platforms for its own state-of-the-art firefighting service.

 

———-

 

2. How Policing Works in a Privatized City

Atlantic Station is a city within a city…by Jeffrey Tucker…

http://tinyurl.com/Atlantic-Station-GA

 

I was walking along and a uniformed police office greeted me good evening. I responded with delight, and we had a nice conversation. She wanted to know if I was enjoying the evening, made a few bar recommendations, we chatted about the weather, and I went on. She was uniformed, yes, and probably armed, but in a non-threatening way. She looked sharp and helpful, as well as official.

 

Then it struck me: the police in the community are privately employed by main stakeholders in the community, which are the merchants, apartment owners, and other service providers. (The streets are also private but public access.) For this reason, the police themselves have a deep investment in the well-being of the community and the general happiness of the consumers who shop there. They are employees of the free enterprise system. In particular, Atlantic Station owners contract with Chesley Brown for experienced service.

 

Sometimes in today’s overly-militarized environment, it is easy to forget: policing is a completely legitimate, useful, important profession. They are there to make sure that everyone is keeping the rules and to apprehend the vandals and criminals who break the rules. You might even call them the thin-blue line.

 

What makes the difference here is the private nature of the contract that employs them. Just as every other employee in this community, they have a direct stake in the value of the space. They are there to serve customers, just as every merchant in this community does.

 

The more valuable the community, the more valuable their own jobs. They have the incentive to do their job well, which means enhancing the experiences of rule keepers while driving out those who do not keep the rules.

 

The rules for Atlantic Station are rather strict, more so than I would have thought. There is a curfew for teens. You can’t wear gang-related or obscene clothing. You can’t carry weaponry. You can’t use indecent language. You can’t smoke. You can’t be boisterous. You can’t shout or be vulgar. You can jog, but you can’t just take off running through streets like an animal.

 

If rules like this were imposed by a city government, people would rightly complain about the violation of rights. So why aren’t these rules violations of rights? Because it is private property and the owners determine them…

 

————–

 

3. ‘”How would things be DIFFERENT,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”’

 

Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the OPPOSITE of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies.

 

This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the Protection of Persons and Property, RATHER than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit…

 

“Believe it or not, violent criminals Hate Video Cameras because it takes away anonymity, and proves that they’re the ones doing something…(1) I slowly changed out, over many years, from guns to cameras. A broke camera was more effective at getting rid of drug-dealing gangs than actual guns.” (2)…

 

“Support Your **Local** Private Peace Officer: He’s Got a Dangerous Job” and he actually has checks and balances and he does NOT Demand help nor does he EXTORT TAXES NOR MISREPRESENT his Jurisdictional Serve and Protect duties, Power and Allegiance*.

 

I address that* and refer to Police Alternatives such as:

 

Our sense of security is fundamental to living an enjoyable life. Nobody wants to sleep with one eye open.

 

As long as there are predatory people in the world, our need for reliable, effective security will be there.

 

Since some of us know we can’t rely on cops to help us in an emergency, where else can we turn?

 

Security is being crowdsourced. Cell411 and Guardian Circle are smart phone apps dedicated to providing a superior alternative to relying on 911 in a crisis. These apps let you instantly alert a chosen network of people (friends, family, or others nearby who use the app) that there’s an emergency, like an accident, altercation, or health crisis.

 

Cell411 also lets you immediately start streaming video. If an aggressor knows that the video you’re recording can’t be deleted even if your phone is destroyed, that alone can be a powerful deterrent.

 

(I am a “fan” of PIIP–Progress by Incremental Improvement and Prototyping.😆)…

 

 

I provide evidence of recent and relevant Grand scale models of INTERPOSITION* and blossoming of Privatized Security and Volte-face by “Nation” states!

 

 

Profile photo of Onar Åm

 

Onar ÅmSeptember 25, 2016 , 4:12 amReply0

Mal, first of all I would have a lot more respect for your opinion if you did something in the real world to promote the things you talk about. What are YOU doing to make sure that there are private cities, private security, new technology that enables freedom etc.? It is easy to sit in your armchair and complain, but my experience with libertarians is that they are mostly not interested in making any effort in the real world, and that their ideology is mostly only a game to be played in the game — and in the armchair.

 

So what we are talking about here is that right now there are murderers and rapists flooding through the border of the United States. Right now. Thousands of young girls have been raped and in some cases murdered because of illegal immigrants crossing the border. So what are you going to do about that? Tomorrow there will be another rape, and another and another. Tick tock. While you are sitting in your armchair and dreaming of utopian solutions, real people need real protection right now. What is your solution?

 

Profile photo of dL 1337

 

dL 1337September 24, 2016 , 12:51 amReply

The skittles analogy is a logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

 

Profile photo of Martin Brock

 

Martin BrockSeptember 24, 2016 , 6:33 amReply

If U.S. politicians “allow” the import of automobiles from China to the U.S., then if an American dies in an automobile accident, due to a defect in one of these automobiles, we pick a politician at random and slam a Chinese automobile into him?

 

Profile photo of dL 1337

 

dL 1337September 25, 2016 , 10:14 amReply1

@restonthewind

 

As an aside, I must say you rarely, if ever, get it wrong. One of the better commentators on this site.

 

Profile photo of simon sarevski

 

simon sarevskiSeptember 25, 2016 , 8:34 pmReply0

Problem is, if you buy the imported car on voluntary basis, it’s you taking x% chances of it malfunctioning (and later getting compensated for X, according to the initial agreement), the insurance company and the car provider, while with the case of immigration, it’s one size fit all, 51% democracy rule.

 

Profile photo of dL 1337

 

dL 1337September 26, 2016 , 9:50 pmReply0

@partyruller

 

Well, if people were involuntarily imported in, you might have a point. The only collective action relevance of democracy in this instance would be to prohibit or restrict the practice. So I would concur with opposing a one-size fit all, 51% democracy rule as a legitimate means to dictate the free movement of people.

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

 

Mal RoarkeSeptember 26, 2016 , 9:41 pmReply0

Call me AtlasAikido,

 

Indeed, feel free to do the responsible thing and “respect” yourself!

 

Onar are you really telling me you need Atlas (An Aikidoist…) to point out to you that its your j o b to protect the women folk around you?

 

More men get “raped” and gang banged than apparently you are aware of. You are not immune.

 

Rape is still committed by locals as well as immigrants but that is less news-worthy.

 

Can you not protect yourself, let alone your women folk? And what of your neighbors? Do you rely on them to protect you, familly, children and friends?

 

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”

—Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

 

See following where Dennis Wilson, Doug Casey, Harry Browne and I responded to you et al, especially the Last comment dated yesterday. Perhaps you will have a new today in an unfree world?