Seven Libertarian Nutjobs


Abstractions aside, we have come so far from the schoolyard!

Truth might be a bitter pill to swallow, but we are all better off with it. There are truths which many of us do not feel compelled to go overboard in stating, while some others state it cheerfully, as these are brutal facts their taste wouldn’t conceal. The economist David Friedman called the former ‘wimps’ and the latter ‘boors’. While wimps keep away from stating truths like that of the high rate of teenage pregnancy and criminal tendencies among blacks, boors state it with much enthusiasm and delight.

Like Friedman, I too have mixed feelings. It must be obvious that if rightly analyzed and interpreted, knowing all the Non-Politically Correct (Non-PC) facts will have a positive impact on the way many people look at economic policy in particular and the world in general. But, an incurable obsession with such issues is more often than not a sign of bigotry.

An excessive focus on gender, race, sexual orientation and nationality, whether legitimate or not, while turning a blind eye to war and immigration restrictions is like complaining of one’s mother-in-law’s nagging when someone is raping your wife and mugging your children. Needless to mention, it only means that your hatred for your mother in law trumps your hatred for explicit violence by a wide margin.

Continue reading “Seven Libertarian Nutjobs”

My Facebook Updates

But, why am I not impressed?

Given my kindness and compassion, the last thing I want is to hurt another person’s sentiments. Sometimes I feel that I should have laughed at their faces or at least slapped, but it all goes unrewarded. Does truth hurt as much?

With age, comes wisdom-and humility! Hopefully, I won’t be an exception. Certainly one reason I prefer a dowdy old hag who understands my insults to a pretty young girl who can’t tell Satire from Sartre, to make a general categorical statement not intended at anyone in particular. More than common honesty and common decency, I prefer common sense. One should at least cringe in shame. Continue reading “My Facebook Updates”

The Morality Of Abortions!

All of us believe in the right of one to possess ones own life. No sane person would argue against the right of one to possess his own life & no sane person would argue that he prefers death to life. If one does he contradicts himself through that statement. Even the fact that he exists to utter those words is an apparent proof of the fact that he prefers life to death. One, after all, is free to die!
One’s right to live-which means: to possess one’s own body is impossible in a society where aggression is a rule? If freedom to aggress is accepted as a rule, most of us would have a hard time holding on to own ones own property–And one’s own body is the most important of ones possessions. Most thinkers and philosophers, though not opposed to the above argument, usually attempts to rationalize abortions by trying to fit it into some moral framework.

The most cited argument is as follows- “A child, yet to be born is just a potential newborn child. It has no reasoning power and resides in the mother’s body. It can have no rights at all.” A newly born child too lacks reasoning power, is incapable of most actions & is dependent on his parents. It is only that it has the power to acquire those skills-In the similar manner a potential new born child is capable to grow into a born child. If a newly born child has the right to his life as it is a potential adult, why is it that an unborn child, which is a potential newly born child doesn’t have it? Needless to mention, the argument contradicts itself.

Let’s hear what the Brilliant Economist Murray Newton Rothbard has to say on this topic: “Most fetuses are in the mother’s body 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.” Murray they go on to argue that a mere promise is not a legal contract & one can’t have any legally enforceable contract with an unborn child.

I’ll draw an analogy to refute the above argument? Let’s assume for the sake of an argument that an implicit contract has moral & legal validity. I am driving my car through the highway. I meet you in the middle of the journey & am offering you a lift. The vehicle reaches near an abyss & I am now speeding up the car and shouting at you-“How dare you invade into my property? Get down!” Is it right or wrong? If not, why? There is an implicit contract here and one can’t have any such contract with an unborn child, you say? Very well! Imagine it is your new born child that I am giving a lift-with your consent, of course. What if I am doing it to him? This is very much similar to a mother deciding to abort the child. There is an implicit contract with you, you say? Very well! Imagine now, that you agree to me that I can force him to get down from the driving vehicle whenever I want. Am I wrong in doing so? If so, in what sense? Our contract was that I am free to do so & the child, apparently is not capable of making any such contract. This is very much similar to both parents deciding to abort the child. Do I not have the perfect right to aggress against that invader? One should further keep in mind that Murray & other libertarian thinkers do not agree to the legal enforcement of implicit contracts & promises. None of the counter arguments I made above has any validity under such premises.

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

Why Sex Selections Should Be Legalized

Sexual selection & abortions, it is often argued, would break up the natural order and balance in the ‘society’. No one cares to ask the question- ‘Natural order’ and ‘balance’-For whom? The inanimate matter doesn’t have any rights; nor does a ‘fictitious body. What would it mean to state that it is not the individuals as such that matter, but it is the interacting individuals -‘Society’-that matter? If the individuals doesn’t matter one way or another, & the interacting individuals do matter, it can only imply that it is the interactions that matter. Or else, it could mean that the benefit derived by some of the interacting individuals takes precedence over the rights of others.

To begin with, an interaction can’t take place without individuals. Men and women don’t exist to preserve the interaction between them intact. They are to manipulate the interactions to their convenience that they are to exist. It is not the interactions we have to preserve, but the men and women themselves. Surely, one wouldn’t argue that we should save the marriage bumping off both the partners. So, it could only mean that some have to put others right before theirs-No matter what they have to go through for its sake.

Let’s have a look at the implication of those arguments from morality. Let things be as it is. Let the parents suffer. Let the child suffer all her life. Let the ‘society’ suffer as a result.-And let the interactions be preserved-Based on a false theory, a contradiction which has no justification whatsoever. Frankly, I don’t think they would want to let out a horde of bureaucrats to touch and love those children. Morality is not a spoon that hangs on your roof. It’s a set of rules to live consciously and self-responsibly. We shouldn’t forget that the legalization of abortion in the United States brought down crimes unbelievably. After all, it is the ‘Society’!

One often overlooked fact is that couples at risk of passing a genetic disorder that affects males can choose to have only female embryos implanted. They’re able to end pregnancies based on the predicted disability of the child. Who is the one to suffer here? -And why? A parent has every right to decide the gender of the child yet to be born. A newborn child, which is a potential adult, can have rights. A child, yet to be born is just a potential newborn child. It has no reasoning power and resides in the mother’s body. It can have no rights at all.

The Brilliant Economist, Scholar, Historian, Moral Philosopher & Anarcho-Capitalist, Professor Murray Newton Rothbard enlightens us “Most fetuses are in the mother’s body 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.” Professor Rothbard then goes on to argue that there should be a ‘free-market’ for babies that unloving and neglectful parents are able to sell their child off to those ones who apparently, aren’t of that sort. Allowing the zero-price market to be free, he argues, will bring lovable & ‘marketable’ babies onto the scene.

When supply is artificially brought down, demand would go up. It is as relevant for the society as much as it is for the market. Girls would be treated much better when they are scarce. When supply is artificially brought down and demand rises, conditions move towards a state in which girls are more valued. Needless to mention, it is in the very nature of the society to bring about some sort of a balance. We would have to lock all the girls up otherwise, which would certainly be a merciless blow on the long-suffering and frustrated boys. I have a creepy suspicion that rapes & eve teasing would go up, though.

Feminists & Women’s Liberation types are to argue this would bring about ‘gender discrimination’. Discrimination: Against whom? One is certainly being inconsistent when she blames men for women being discriminated against. Parents usually include a man & a woman. Let them ask themselves what best means is there to turn the discrimination other way round than to turn off the supply of the girl child. Let them enter any Chat Room or Social Network in a female profile, find out for themselves how it’s like & let them ask upon their own conscience. There is of course, some discrimination going on. It’s only that it’s the other way round. Such will be our future. Men would not only be supposed to look after their wives, but also to pay up for the marriage. One shouldn’t be naïve enough to believe that these women love us enough not to wish such a thing on us.

If these Liberation types had a tint of honesty left in them, they would have argued for ‘selection’ and not against it. It’s well evident that such is not their intention. Let’s hear what one feminist has to say on it before I pass my final judgment. I shouldn’t, after all be accused of putting in their mouth words how I want them to be. So, I’ll let one of them speak for their sake. Rita Mae Brown let’s the cat out of the bag: “The lesbian is, of course, the woman who has no need of men. When you think about it, what is so terrible about two women loving each other? To the insecure male, this is the supreme offense, the most outrageous blasphemy. To sleep with another woman is to confront the beauty and power of your own body as well as hers.” Good God! There we have it. Is there anything more to be said?

I am to sympathize with boys of the upcoming generation, though. Work hard. Your time’s up!