Monday, April 5, 2010

Children, Adults, and Choice For Men!

Once again I find myself horking out a missive that's much too long for Blogger's "comments" - so another post is born.

In comments to a post at Sipsey Street, a couple of issues/questions were raised by others.

Take a moment to read the original post and the comments - it will make the rest of this easier to follow.

@ Dennis30: The distinction you're looking for, and coming so close to finding, is simple -- It's Adults vs. Children.

Adults - us - know that we're responsible for our lives and actions.

The Enemy - them - have ever grown up.  They FEAR responsibility, they loathe anyone who is truly self-reliant, they NEED someone to tell them what to do.

Best of all, just like all the REAL teenagers in the world, they believe they know EVERYTHING, and absolutely despise true adults who try to tell them that their juvenile plans and theories are unworkable.

They're perpetual adolescents.

@ PioneerPreppy: You too are ALMOST there.

Our current system - with universal access to abortion on demand and literal slavery for the poor, unsuspecting sperm-donor - ENCOURAGES irresponsibility.

"If I get pregnant I can get an abortion.  I can make him pay for 18+ years.  I can get food/clothing/shelter/etc. for FREE!"  What part of this encourages responsible behavior?  NONE - obviously.

I too am morally opposed to abortion.  IMHO when it's still a "blob" of cells, it's just that - not a "human."  The small-l-ibertarian in me also believes it is morally wrong to try to force my opinions on others at this point.

When it develops the ability to feel pain however, no reasonable person can describe an abortion in other than horiffic terms, and I lose all restraint in opposing it.  If you were to rip the arms, legs and head off a puppy before feeding its remains through a grinder, you'd be jailed -- and rightly so.  How can we tolerate this being done to a tiny being of ANY species?!

Still, I agree that it's a slippery slope to a VERY big problem.  We simply cannot legislate morality.  We CAN however - with properly composed legislation - accomplish some serious reductions in abortions and still be 100% in line with Libertarian and Constitutional principles.

This would need 2 laws to be passed: 

(1) Any abortion process must inform the mother of the details of the chosen procedure.  This may be accomplished in any format from printed literature to one-on-one tutoring, so long as she's fully informed of exactly what level of development her child has reached, and exactly what she's choosing to do to it.  This would - no doubt - cause a drastic reduction in abortions all on its own.

To REALLY reduce the problem however, all we need to do is SOLVE an existing unfairness and Constitutional crisis -- the unfair, disparate treatment of men.

Women are granted a minimum of 60 days from the time they know (or SHOULD know) that they are pregnant, to avail themselves of a relatively safe and legal procedure to absolve themselves of the life-long consequences of an ill-conceived sexual union.

All we need to do is provide men with the equal protection under the law.

Obviously for men to be able to force or deny an abortion to a woman is unacceptable for a whole host of reasons - so what we're discussing here is a "virtual abortion", or a "legal abortion" if you prefer.

In essence, it would grant men access to a safe, legal procedure by which they too can absolve themselves of the aforementioned consequences.  In sum, men would be given 60 days from the time they are informed of the pregnancy, during which they could avail themselves of the services of an attorney to sign a document absolving themselves of any possible rights or responsibilities as regards the unborn child.

This would IMMEDIATELY reduce the rate of both abortion and bastardy, because women would no longer be guaranteed a paycheck.

Any reasonable person would agree that this would force women to be MUCH more careful, and reduce "accidental" pregnancies to the nearly infinitesimal rate of true accidents where properly-used precautions have failed.

A near 100% of what we call "accidental pregnancies" are in fact negligent, or - as happens much more often than we know - a deliberate act on the part of the woman to "trap" a man into a relationship or simply allow her to steal a large part of his earnings for 18+ years by first fraudulently stealing his DNA.

I - personally - was once the victim of such a woman.  She insisted that she was "allergic" to latex, and to some component of all the non-latex condoms.   She swore there was "no possible way" she could get pregnant due to previous surgery, and that - even so - she was on "the pill" for other medical reasons.

My daughter was born 10 months and 2 days from the night I met this woman, and she's flatly confessed that she lied because she wanted another baby, believed I'd make a pretty one, and that I had the potential to also provide a much higher amount of "child support" to her.

She's made life a living hell for nigh on 2 decades because I refused to pay up and go away.

I didn't want to be a Father, but when forced into the role I determined to be the best Father I was able to be - which has been my overriding life-goal for nearly 2 decades.  Nobody's perfect, but I give my all to the attempt - and I possess no delusions as to the rest of us.

Frankly, this responsibility is what made a good man of the worthless POS I was before.  I would not be capable of turning my back on my offspring, and would gladly go through all the hell I've lived 10 times if its avoidance  meant losing the people I love most in the world.

Still - those were *MY* choices.  The fact that thousands of young men are forced into slavery every day is the worst sort of travesty.

Why "slavery"? Simple.  The average child-support order ranges ~1/3 of a man's income for 18+ years - this means *ALL* of his income for 6+ years.  SLAVERY.

Further, he's robbed of all choices.  He cannot accept a lower-paying job, even if he's doing so due to grave and obvious medical concerns.  Any lapse in payments - even through no fault of his own - will result in his being stripped of his right to travel, any licenses he may hold, even of his very freedom.

This truly is SLAVERY - there's no better word for it.

Bottom line:  Remove all the rewards and return all the risks, and "unplanned" pregnancies will return to their previous rarity.

Ensure every woman wishing to kill her child must face the ugly reality of what she is about to do, and abortions too will become a rarity.

This leaves us with the problem of unwanted children.  They are *NOT* "society's" problem - they are the responsibility of their MOTHER, and then their extended family and community. 

As in times past, people *WILL* GLADLY step up and do whatever is require -- be it adopt the child or provide other needed assistance -- but not when they're being robbed at the point of a government gun.

Sorry for another excessively-long response, but this is a deep and important subject, and I can't let the opportunity to educate pass...




Nanders said...

Caught your link from sipsey street.

I do have a question(s) that about something that you allude to in your post. It's not the main point of your post, but I have not spoken very many libertarians, and the few that I have spoken to arent very articulate.

I have heard libertarians state that libertarianism consists mainly of 2 ideas 1. Nobody tells you what to do and 2. you don't get to tell anyone else what to do.

I think you kind of invoke that idea when you said that "The small-l-ibertarian in me also believes it is morally wrong to try to force my opinions on others at this point."

But is it wrong for you to tell me (or anyone for that matter) that I shouldnt steal from you? or to burglarize your neighbor? Doesnt a person have the right to say, Hey, sir you really shouldnt murder me today? I believe that we do have the right to tell folks those things, and this is why I am not an official libertarian (and i reject the 2 principal fundamentals of libertarianism listed above). I have many libertarian leanings, but it seems like true libertarianism is anarchy by another name.

That said, I believe in natural law. As a consequence I do believe that we need some laws. Further if you look at any law that exists it is nothing more than legislated morality. Indeed all laws are legislated morality. This doesnt mean I think we need even one tenth of the laws that we have, but I certainly do not believe the myth that "morality can't be legislated". Do not confuse this with passing a law makes a person magically moral, but since I beleive that some laws are needed, and all laws are legislated morality, it follows infallibly from those premises that legislated morality is needed.

I am curious to get your insights on this. By the way I appreciate all of your posts on mikes blog. I have been reading his blog for 1.5 years now, and rarely if ever post. Just to let you know that I am not some fly by night libtard or a guy unfamiliar with the current situation we find ourselves in. I hesitate to post on his blog for two reasons 1. paranoid that the alaphabet soup organizations will get interested in everybody they encounter on "extremeist blogs" 2. I don't have enough intelligent things to add to make the comment sections better.

Mike D. said...


Your framing of the issues is as good as any I've seen, and would generate political traction if anything can. Very good.

As a libertarian, I've arrived at the practical but unsatisfying conclusion that a) abortion is immoral, but b) the issue cannot be legislated until we have the "consent of the governed." Something like the supermajority required to pass a constitutional amendment asserting human rights for the unborn would be a reasonable standard.


Your difficulty stems from misunderstanding of the core principle of libertarianism: you may not initiate force against anyone else. That's the more appropriate way of phrasing "you don't get to tell anyone else what to do."

The use of force in self-defense is entirely appropriate when you are faced with aggression.

The phrase "You can't legislate morality" applies to attempts to limit consensual behaviors in the absence of force, fraud, or coercion, such as drug use or prostitution, or to enforce "moral" behaviors, such as charitable giving or energy efficiency -- at the point of a gun. It is not intended to contradict the key moral prohibition on aggression.

Actually, though they don't tend to think of it in these terms, my libertarian friends and colleagues are the most moral people I've ever known. At least, when I'm around them, I know I am NOT in a room full of people who would willingly see me murdered rather than permit me the least non-conformity to their idea of morality.

You're a libertarian if you believe in live-and-let-live. A good introduction to the subject can be found at:

Be well,

Mike D.

Dedicated_Dad said...

thanks to both of you for the comments and kindness.

@ Nanders: Mike explained the "non-initiation (of force) principle very well.

I often say "You have the right to do anything you like - including swing your fist - but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose!"

On the "Constitutional Amendment" thing, frankly you're a bit off.

A Constitutional Amendment cannot rightly fix everything - especially if it's not in keeping with the letter and spirit of The Constitution.

Suppose we somehow ratified an Amendment that all red-heads could be killed on sight? Or that Congress COULD restrict the press, or (insert obvious but not too outlandish point here...)!

As soon as Dear Reader& his minions add 30 million new voters, they could EASILY pass an amendment allowing "re-education camps" for anyone expressing opposition to the .GOV, or banning all private ownership of firearms.

Would that be legit?



Mike D. said...


You're welcome!

My point re: abortion is that, without the broad consent of the governed, you'd have a situation no different than the one we have now; a plurality of those in control forcing a moral standard on an unwilling population of similar size. As I see it, the issue won't be fully resolved until the prohibition of abortion is nearly as uncontroversial as the generally accepted prohibition on murder.

I see something like the level of political consensus necessary to amend the constitution as a reasonable minimum standard of consent, whether or not an amendment is the appropriate way to implement the change.

Mike D.

Nanders said...

Mike and DD,
I appreciate your clarifications.
If I understand correctly, a libertarian isn't necessarily opposed to having some laws, just as long as those laws revolve around use of force. An example might be if the legislature passes a law against robbery or murder. While on the other hand, a libertarian believes laws against prostitution and drug use are unjust. If I am on the right track with that, then I can certainly understand it's (libertarinaism's) appeal. It sure would eliminate the nanny problem we have now.

I would like to bounce two more questions off you guys if I could.

1. Libertarians seem to be opposed to any and every type of war. I hit up once and awhile and get the feeling that all wars including WW2 are unjustified in their view. (I realize that lew rockwell does not represent all libertarians) I have also heard other libertarians speak as though war is never justified. My question is, do you guys feel the same way? Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war? If the answer is "no, there is no justifiable war" I would ask the followup about the Revolutionary war and WW2, I cannot imagine better causes for war.

2. This last question comes from issues of practicality (pragmatism I suppose). I realize that most arguments from pragmatics are nothing but red herrings. If we didnt have laws that dealt with non-aggressive issues (ie eminent domain, all forms of taxes, and laws that deal with enviroment) wouldnt we as a country be just like any other third world hell hole? I am thinking of the river in Ohio that caught on fire in the 60's (pollutants), the idea that our roads would be terrible and we would not have a standing army to deter our enemies.

Thanks for you guys' time in helping me through these issues. I wish you all the best.

P.S. Keep your powder dry...

Mike D. said...

"If I understand correctly, a libertarian isn't necessarily opposed to having some laws, just as long as those laws revolve around use of force."

Right. From another angle, we're very much in favor of the notion that government exists to secure individual rights, and nothing else. If no-one's rights are violated there can be no crime.

"1. Libertarians seem to be opposed to any and every type of war... Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war? If the answer is "no..." I would ask the followup about the Revolutionary war and WW2, I cannot imagine better causes for war."

If somebody attempted a military invasion of our territory, I'm sure most libertarians would be right there fighting to defend the homeland.

The war had been going on for over two years before the attack on Pearl Harbor and our declaration of war against the Axis. Though we had been providing material support to our allies, until that point the public had resisted going to war. The US embargo of Japan and even speculated foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, are seen by some people as evidence of a calculated strategy by FDR to draw us into the conflict.

In that light, I think those libertarians you're reading believe that we could have remained neutral and dealt with the victors when it was all over.

I think Jefferson's "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none..." expresses the overriding principle here.

I have to think about this some more in the context of the American Revolution...

"2... If we didnt have laws that dealt with non-aggressive issues (ie eminent domain, all forms of taxes, and laws that deal with environment) wouldn't we as a country be just like any other third world hell hole? I am thinking of the river in Ohio that caught on fire in the 60's, the idea that our roads would be terrible and we would not have a standing army to deter our enemies."

Pollution hurts people and infringes property rights. Libertarians would look to a strong judiciary as the best means to deal with such problems. If any individual could expect to effectively sue Dow Chemical, for example, and actually shut them down if they pollute the river or groundwater, then it would be possible to keep such abuses under control.

The people, armed and ready, voluntarily trained, with access to local armories for heavy weapons, would be a formidable alternative to a standing army, especially if you aren't engaged in foreign "adventures."

If the government was pruned back to its essential and important functions, and no more, you'd find that tax rates would be miniscule and most costs could be covered by surcharges for specific services, voluntarily paid.

In my experience, private toll roads are better maintained than public highways... Why?

If the governments of those "third world hellholes" magically became committed to defending the rights (life, liberty, property) of their individual citizens, wouldn't the standard of living explode in response to the industrious efforts of those people to improve their own circumstances and make a better life for their children?

In short, the classical liberal philosophy expressed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, is pretty close to an ideal statement of our beliefs.

It's a long way from where we are to where I would like us to be. On any given issue there is an, often unrealistic, ideal solution and, at the same time, any number of small, practical, if imperfect intermediate steps to move us in the right direction. In every case, however, you can trace their origins to our core principles by clear logic and reason. That's one of the things that's most satisfying for me.

I suggest the writings of Ron Paul as a good way to gain perspective on the issues from a mostly libertarian point of view. A good resource for this is:

Be well,

Mike D.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Asking what libertarians believe is like asking what christians believe.


See, all are different, being humans and stuff...

To me, it's all about Liberty.

What better example could possibly exist than to choose what to do with one's own body, or what to ingest, smoke, or...?

Why is that *ANYONE* else's business?

As a comedian put it - "If a guy who really needs some attention happens to meet a woman who really needs some money - why is that "society's" business?

As to war? Well... There are just wars IMHO. Nobody ever said we'd all agree - in fact the biggest reason the big-L Libertarian party is a joke is because it's like herding cats.

Personally, I believe that our Founders were guided by Divine Providence and created the single best system of government in human history.

NOTHING is so perfect that determined people can't screw it up - but the problem is with THE PEOPLE in question...


nova said...

Abortion is murder. Pretty simple really.

Dennis308 said...

I like your story about your daughter my first born is my daughter also.
But can you please tell me how these two peoples(actulally more like four or five)different peoples live together.
I don´t see how personaly the burden has become to much and is robbing my familly of their futures.


Dedicated_Dad said...

Sorry that I missed the last 2 posts until now.

NOVA: I agree, once the fetus develops the ability to feel pain or becomes a recognizable human form (whichever is first) it **IS** murder.

Unfortunately we live in a VEEeery twisted society where removing a child feet-first so the Doc can stick scissors through the base of its skull and suck out its brains (before tossing it in the trash like soiled tissue) is acceptable.

Well... Acceptable so long as Doc doesn't allow the head to exit Mom's vagina before said murder occurs. If he slips and has to do the same thing on the table then we call it murder.

As to "how can we continue to live together" - I frankly don't see how we can.

Essentially we have "irreconcilable differences."

WE want our Federal Government to live within its proper bounds, leaving all other matters to the states or the people as the Constitution demands.

THEY want a government without limits, where those savvy enough to win an election are permitted to do anything they please, magically elevating them to a state of infallibility equalled only by - for example - the pope.

This is an inaccurate comparison, because since they recognize no G*d but "the majority", papal infallibility is a cruel joke whereas anyone chosen by The Majority is vested with G*d-like wisdom and power once known only to kings.

The other major fallacy is the concept of "somewhat limited government." As others have said many times, if the government is allowed to decide limits of its power, then there *ARE* no limits.

There is simply no way to reconcile our proper, Constitutional, "Tightly-limited government" with their "unlimited government." It's as if trying to compromise light and darkness -- anything NOT darkness is - by definition - lit!

The question then becomes "division or restoration"?

Do we divide into two separate nations or do we stamp out the evils of collectivism by whatever means may become necessary?

Personally I'd rather see them go -- and may G*d have mercy on their souls -- but that's not going to happen.

Still, I hope they'll get the opportunity, and I KNOW they'll use maximum force to attempt to stop our movement -- at which point we'll be justified in doing what must be done.

God help us -- and God Save Our Republic!!