laurence vance plays proof text poker with rothbard
i know lew rockwell’s losing it, but it’s surprising that even in his declining state he let laurence vance make a joke out of himself to the extent of today’s article “Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?“.
LRC puffs tend to behave as though if they disguise their ad hominem arguments enough it never became ad hominem argument (ad hominem argument not necessarily being fallacious, as i’ve explained more times than should be necesssary). so whereas here you get me calling laurence vance a preening dumbfuck, at LRC you find in one article laurence vance referring to “Dr. Paul” (the usual scam of paulists, attempting to elevate him via guild pronouncement), describing walter block and others who don’t castigate people with laurence’s view as “civil, amiable, and likable”, introducing a quote to which he’s hostile as that of a “radical, pro-abortion feminist”, and introducing an ostensibly vance-buttressing rothbard quote as from “the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of [libertarianism]“.
back to rothbard in a second, but first get a load of what passes for profundity in vance’s eye:
Although I strongly disagree with him on the subject of abortion, a recent writer on this site made what I thought was a profound statement about Ron Paul and abortion: “Perhaps Dr. Paul would like to see most, maybe all abortions outlawed. Maybe he has good reason for feeling that way. But so what? The President of the United States cannot unilaterally declare abortion illegal. Who would want to live in a country where he could?”
federalism 101 is now profound? egads.
He also recognized the non-calamity that would result should a President Paul appoint additional pro-life justices to the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court cannot simply outlaw abortion nationwide. Instead, the Court could simply rule that it has no jurisdiction over state abortion laws, and send the matter back to state legislatures. [...]
got it? you’re supposed to be as stupid as the writer and his lackey, ignoring the despicable contradiction vance was unobservant enough to provide himself in the next paragraph.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion laws were once again made the provision of the states, [...]
so immediately after he announced vicariously that the supreme court “cannot simply outlaw abortion nationwide”, he acknowledges that they damn sure outlawed the illegality of abortion nationwide — another thing they supposedly can’t do. if he was trying to assure and comfort pro-abortionists with that quank, they’d have to be nearly as gullible and blind as he.
back to rothbard. vance intros an anonymous quote with “But some ‘pro-choice’ libertarians make statements that are just as outrageous.” As is the tradition at LRC, you’re apparently supposed to avoid linking to STR, the source of a supposedly outrageous defense of abortion written by LRCer adam young (how much ya wanna bet vance had adam young’s name in his original, and lew axed it in his continued quest to lessen in-house dissent?).
[note that in a single blockquote section asshole vance apparently mixed two paragraphs from young's article and then a snippet from a steven horwitz blog post — all unattributed, all without indication that you're reading bits from two pieces strung together as if from one. if those are the sources, world class fuckbot vance even repackaged the horwitz sentence, picking it up midstream (omitting a mildly pro-paul concession) without the courtesy of an ellipsis or — god forbid — a bracketed upper case start (e.g., "[F]orcing pregnant women”). inexcusable, and not the only example of quote manufacturing in his shit article.]
but here’s the kicker: adam young was arguing the rothbardian position on abortion. vance invoked rothbard as if the supplied quote supported vance’s anti-abortionism, but it was a generic excerpt on the philosophy of liberty from an article that didn’t even mention abortion. well if rothbard’s the king of all that is libertarianism, why not go to the source, laurence? rothbard on abortion:
[...] The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.
It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.
Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.
The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in terms of the fetus’s, as well as the born human’s, “right to life.” We have not used this concept in this volume because of its ambiguity, and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of the “right to self-ownership”—the right to have one’s person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of “right to life” along with the right to own one’s own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the “right to life” doctrine: [...]
rothbard saying it doesn’t make it right, but notice vance’s queer mix of ignorance/dodging and attempts to manipulate. rothbard is lauded as “the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of [libertarianism]“, after which a quote’s hustled up in the service of vance’s position. meanwhile, poor whipping boy adam young isn’t even given the courtesy of a link to his full article — the one in which he basically advances, by name, the selfsame abortion theory of rothbard.
While “weebies” makes several overall good points, he could be mistaken for an advocate of the statist aggression of outlawing abortion, which I’m sure isn’t his intention. However, in his attempt to refute the arguments of Rothbard and Block, he undermines the sanctity of property rights, particularly the inviolate right of self-ownership over one’s own body, even when you are on another’s property.
two possible reasons vance didn’t take on “the king” but rather pissed on messenger young, who was defending rothbard’s attempt to compose a whole fabric for the institution of righteous violence against others: 1) vance has been living in a closet, unaware of one of rothbard’s most controversial positions, or 2) vance is a lazy, dishonest pussy.
funny how lew’s apparently willing to stab laurence vance in the back if it feeds the RP propaganda dickwad grinder. hey, i’m all for it!
January 29th, 2008 at 11:55
I’m less concerned about the lack of attribution and more to the shocking intellectual inadequacy of Vance’s citation. He cited Young and Horowitz with only this introductory comment:
But some “pro-choice” libertarians make statements that are just as outrageous.
There was no commentary after the citation. Frankly, I did not find them outrageous at all. Indeed, Young’s position is essentially my own. While I disagree with much that Horowitz wrote (thanks for the links), I’m spot on with his portrayal as forced pregnancy as slavery.
More broadly, I remain uneasy about abortion and the implications that Young’s (and my) arguments make. Having a four month old baby in my home, I can tell you that children are as much (if not more) of a parasite after birth as they are prior. The extension to my philosophy on the matter is that my wife and I ought to be allowed to abandon our child to starvation. We should not be forced to care for it. [I do agree that a market in children is quite acceptable and would help to avoid circumstances in which a child would simply be abandoned to die.]
Whatever my philosophy on the matter, I can tell you that I might choose to use aggressive violence against people so cruel as to abandon a child in such a way. In an ideal world I would not, however, ask government thugs to do it. I’d do it myself and stand accountable for my own acts of violence.
Just curious, what is your stand on abortion? You refer to it as “righteous violence”. I’m not sure whether to take that as sarcastic or sincere.
January 29th, 2008 at 13:05
no sarcasm; rothbard was trying to find a line for righteous violence. i think he failed, but only barely — through trying to tidy up the subject overmuch, as with his view of contract (which i hope to refute in detail eventually).
and i guess that’s the only part where i disagree with him on abortion — fuzzy situations tied in with contract.
don’t want to get into thinking about all this now, but here’s my theory synopsis: rothbard failed in his contract theory by not respecting the myriad forms of currency. it was all dollars and completion penalties in dollars — or gold, silver, whatever — some traditional currency agreed upon. however… fuck, this isn’t the day for me to get into this, since i haven’t thought it all through, but i don’t see anything wrong with forcing somebody to deliver in the currency to which he agreed. not going to review it right now, and i may be missing something, but my understanding of rothbard’s contract theory is that he agrees to the forcible detention/labor of someone to pay off a contracted debt in traditional currency. IMO there’s not a damn bit of difference between that rightful coercion and a similar arrangement in other currency (or whatever you want to call something with value fixed and agreed to by two or more parties) that was agreed to explicitly. in short, i’m probably not on board with the ol’ controversial thing that one can’t contract himself into servitude. in essence, that part of rothbard’s theory of contract is just a weasally way to pretend that there’s some significant delineation stemming from the commonality of traditional currency. can still lead you to be enslaved physically/personally. has always struck me as complete and cutesy bullshit, frankly.
perhaps i’m relying overmuch on instinct there, since i’ve not tagged it through to finality. if you want to slam my theory, go ahead. might save me some cogitating time. har har.
my direct opinion on abortion is that it’s damned disgusting, but my vague contract theory above intact or not, i’m not too far off the rothbardian abortion view. it’s not generally a subject for force. then again, neither is “child support”. liberty would be enhanced (and, secondarily, plenty of problems solved) by adopting rothbard’s view on children as outlined in the linked chapter of EOL. needs a fuzzy bit though.
January 29th, 2008 at 17:11
The reason why this is difficult is that Rothbard and you are attempting to impose your moral valuations on the rest of society. This goes back to our recent exchange about natural law. Beyond the recognition that living things select means to achieve chosen ends, I still say that there are no natural laws regarding social interaction. As much as you and Rothbard would like to demonstrate, there really are no absolutes regarding what is right behavior.
Regarding contract observation, it is an absolute that parties do voluntarily engage in contracts. Most people think this is a good thing – that it contributes to social order. I agree, but it is an absolute only to the extent that it has previously been demonstrated to be behavior that humans have chosen. It need not be true in the future.
It is also an absolute that humans may fail to fulfill contracts (intentionally or otherwise).
It is an absolute that I may resist slavery even if I previously agreed to it.
It is an absolute that if I am stronger than my would-be master, or more clever, or have stronger friends that I may be able to succeed in avoiding slavery despite what any contract may say.
So, it may seem that I am advocating (or least acquiescing to) the rule of might-makes-right. By my own chosen values, I do not.
I believe that it is in my best interest to influence the world (small as my influence is) to adopt voluntarist ideals. I value contracts. I do think that there should be some penalty to failing to fulfill.
The first penalty should be to someone’s reputation. In a free society as I envision, credit agencies would be more important even than they are now. Someone who can not or will not fulfill contracts should find few people willing to engage with him. No violence is necessary.
If someone is willing to contract himself to be enslaved upon failure to fulfill, I would say that fewer people would jump to his aid. This is a rational strength to add to a contract.
I’m not discouraging you from working to develop a coherent moral framework. I do think that the framework that Rothbard developed is better than what most people accept today. But he hasn’t discovered some fact of nature. Neither will you.
January 29th, 2008 at 19:58
The reason why this is difficult is that Rothbard and you are attempting to impose your moral valuations on the rest of society.
um… is this the “i’ll be voting for ron paul, but i gotta think about it, maybe i won’t, yeah, i won’t be voting for ron paul” hand wringer joe talking that shit to me, or did i just get transported to the set of a bad sitcom?
you can do your clint eastwood “i’ll take my lumps” shtick and pretend that’s where it ends — pretend that when you talk about bashing somebody’s skull in (or whatever), for abandoning a kid, that you’re not “attempting to impose your moral valuations on the rest of society”. i’ll sit here and laugh at you thinking you’re above trying to figure out human interaction because when you do it you tag on a hearty “fuck it” at the end.
in the middle of something, so i’ll come back later and read the rest of what you wrote, but if that’s the premise for it all… you had the last word.
January 30th, 2008 at 09:36
I’ll offer no defense if you want to bash me because I’m still searching for my footing with a philosophy that is relatively new for me. I won’t claim to never take a mis-step or to act with indecision.
You put a value judgment on my statement where I intended none. I understand that using a word such as impose carries a negative connotation. Perhaps I should have used a different word. Offer might have been a better word.
In fact, I’m not criticizing you for offering your moral judgment and making your best case for it. Neither did I ever deny that I at times try to impose my moral judgment on others.
i’ll sit here and laugh at you thinking you’re above trying to figure out human interaction because when you do it you tag on a hearty “fuck it” at the end.
I’m not at all above trying to figure out human interaction. I might be coming at it from a different point than you. I resist the notion that we can set up supposed absolutes of morality and expect everyone else to say “okay sure”. You know as well as I that no matter how well-reasoned your arguments in support of your proposed morals, some people will reject them in favor of morals that you find evil.
Apply to the self-interest of others, and you stand a much better chance.
I’ll let you react before I go on.
February 1st, 2008 at 09:43
Yea okay. I guess that you decided that whatever you don’t like about what I said warrants letting me have “the last word” (i.e. the silent treatment). This is your place. You can talk about whatever you want. Since you leave your blog open, I’ll be so bold as to have one last last word. If discussing this beyond what I say hear doesn’t float your boat, you’ll see no more comment from me about this.
Having read back over our exchange, the only thing I would change would be my use of the word impose. My talk of “aggressive violence” against people who abandon a child to starvation apparently didn’t help me in your eyes, but I stand by it. I only say that if I resort to violence of any kind, it is my moral code that I stand personally accountable for it – that no absolute morality be called upon to sanction the act. I know that you would sanction my employment of violence to defend my person or property. If in rage, I attacked a person who had allowed harm to come to a child and you condemned me, it is no different. In neither case do I make appeal to society or authority. In one case, you’d approve. In the other, you might condemn. In both cases, it would be with me that you would have to take up the issue. I won’t hide beyond any higher power to justify my actions, and I won’t submit to your rules if I don’t agree with them.
It just so happens, I would probably agree with the vast majority of your rules. But while you’re working on your rules, if you want to think that you’re coming up with something universal, I’m only saying that you’ll be frustrated because there will always be people to say “No”.
You can call this a hearty “fuck it” or whatever else you want. I call this actually understanding human interaction. If we want to do more than pontificate about how superior our rules are, we’ll have to appeal to the self-interest in every person. To some, that means simply awakening virtues that they already had. For others, it means stripping away the protections that they rely upon to keep them from having to observes our rules.
Okay. I’ve had my say. I don’t know – maybe I suck at communicating. Or maybe we’re not going to connect on this stuff even if I am communicating. Like I said before, this is your place. I won’t bug you about this stuff if what I say doesn’t do anything for you.
February 2nd, 2008 at 19:34
Joe,
I’ve had my own apprehensions about the universality of the libertarian moral maxim universe recently. Salty knows about this as I communicated it to him in an e-mail recently. I haven’t gotten a response on that particular e-mail yet, I am not sure if he reacted to it the same way you imagine him to be reacting to you now, or if he just hasn’t gotten to it yet.
The way I am beginning to understand things, according to the moral framework everyone else is working with (or at least CLAIMS to be working with) which attempts to designate things as just and unjust according to that which is deemed to be right and that which is deemed to be wrong, the libertarian NAP and everything that flows from it (which is built on a foundation of Lockeian property rights philosophy, so far as I understand it) is the most consistent, most “moral” (to be tautological) moral framework/system people have yet come up with, and it blasts the hell out of any argument anyone else generally puts forth against it in favor of some kind of collective rights theory or violation of these morals/rights that libertarians hold dear.
Unfortunately, where I think the NAP-theory gets hammered is on the subject of subjective value theory, ie., individual utilitarianism… it may be true that in most situations and circumstances the NAP leads to a kind of harmonious interaction amongst reasoning-humans that is to the benefit of all, but there are also situations where, if someone can get away with murder, so to speak, their individual cost-benefit analysis may dictate to them that they do so.
You look at the people in the highest echelons of power in every society in the world and how they blatantly disregard the rules they force everyone else to live by (the brilliant libertarian expose of the hypocrisy of the State being in charge of legislation and law enforcement), and you realize that for a certain class of people throughout history, it has always been in their interest to completely ignore common morality and to simply live how they want. Now… within their own social circles, that “common morality” seems to be re-applied, in a sense… it’s generally agreed to be uncivilized for world leaders to be constantly killing, stealing and raping one another (another libertarian insight, that while people under national governments suffer statism, the national governments themselves exist under conditions of anarchy).
There’s something going on here. And I haven’t quite reasoned it out myself yet why and how humans are separate from lower animals in that they must obey “natural law” whereas in the jungle, where natural law truly reigns, the virtue of the day IS “might makes right.” I know that some ancient Greeks argued that people SHOULD live morally because it’s to their advantage to do so, but that doesn’t prove to be convincing when you think of all the people who live quite advantageously without morality. I have yet, also, to find the rational grounds for why all humans necessarily must obey natural law and natural justice, as in some kind of human condition which makes it necessary much as matter must obey the law of gravity because it seemingly has no other choice. I think some people (maybe Ayn Rand or someone related to Ayn Rand?) had hinted that it has something to do with the fact that man CAN reason, while other animals can’t, but I don’t know…
I am in an active process of looking into all of this, and I hope to find some answers sooner rather than later.
May 7th, 2010 at 10:23
[...] any rothbardian geeks who wander by, i disagree with his assessment of contract scope — especially regarding [...]