Does opinion on abortion discriminate libertarians

Abortion is a topic that polarises people. And while there is significant variation I suspect that there is an association between conservatives and opposition to abortion on one hand and liberalism and permissibility of abortion on the other.

The state needs to make a decision about whether abortion should be addressed in law. It can make it an issue and actively oppose it, or it can decline to rule on it and thus abortion becomes theoretically permissible to a pregnant woman with access to a consenting abortionist. Refusal to legislate does not intrinsically imply that abortion is considered morally neutral; it may be considered by legislators as either amoral, or immoral but legally inconsequential.

The state could take an active position for abortion by funding it, increasing access, or by coercing and forcing pregnant women to abort against their will. I am not going to discuss these latter possibilities here other than mention that most people on any side of the debate should consider positions statist.

So the question is: since forbidding abortion requires the hand of the state to actively ban it, and/ or police it; and permitting abortion is possible with no action from the state; is opposition to allowing abortion statist? And is allowing each woman to choose her preferred pregnancy option libertarian?

No.

One could argue that those who favour women choosing are less libertarian as it coincides with their underlying preference (as per my recent post). But that is not the main problem with this issue.

The problem with this argument is that it is framed this way by people who think abortion is acceptable—morally neutral behaviour. However opposition to abortion (regardless of whether the position is correct) is based not on the desire to control what other people do with their own person and property, nor the desire to for the government to have that control. Opposition is based on the view that there is another person involved; a person that the mother does not have the right of life over. The libertarian position allows people to do what the wish with their own property (and varyingly their own person) so long that such activity does not directly negatively affect another. It is a principle of negative rights.

If the fetus is not a person, then the pro-abortion position is consistent with libertarianism. But even it that is the case, the anti-abortion position is hardly statist if the anti-abortionists do not know this. This is because their stance is not based on controlling individuals but protecting them, and protecting them from the ultimate infringement of rights—unjustifiable death. Their position is not at odds with libertarianism it is consistent with it. And if the anti-abortionists are correct about the personhood of the fetus then their libertarian fight against abortion may be one of the most important.

Until the status of the fetus is agreed to by both sides of the debate, opposition to abortion cannot be considered anti-libertarian.

Libertarian lefties?

The right-left political divide has been extended to other axes. Some place right and left views into moral and economic categories and plot them orthogonally. Others compare economic views versus degree of state oversight. Some have several axes for several positions. What has surprised me is how frequently I see traditionally left wing groups plotted as relatively libertarian and traditionally right wing groups plotted as quite statist on two-dimensional political scales (see here for an example). Surprising because conservatives (right wing) tend to argue more for limited government than liberals; and socialism seems intimately wedded to the state.

It appears that the problem relates to who is authoring and interpreting the questions as applied to various positions. Left leaning authors give greater credence to left views of liberty, and vice versa, presumably?

The reason for this seems to be that groups give themselves libertarian credence for positions that they intrinsically favour. If you think something is acceptable behaviour you view legal opposition to this behaviour as statist; but if you think something is unacceptable behaviour then you view legal opposition to such to be reasonable.

Of course this does not address the focus of libertarianism which seeks small government in general and allows for behaviours you disapprove of so long as they do not directly affect you.

Consider drug use. The libertarian position is quite liberal in allowing people to use intoxicating drugs and opposes legal prohibition. Some on the (far) left think such drug use is morally acceptable behaviour (as do some on the right no doubt). But to argue against illicit drug laws when you favour drug use is hardly libertarian. But to argue against illicit drug laws even though you think drug use is morally wrong is very libertarian.

So the questions addressing statism and libertarianism depend significantly on what you otherwise think is moral or appropriate behaviour. How much are you prepared to allow people you disagree with do without government involvement or intervention?

I think a good question to ask in teasing out the libertarian-statist axis is: How much money do you allow the citizens to keep? Do you permit people to use their own money foolishly? Even though you can think of many ways you would spend their money for their and others' benefit if it were up to you.

---

I am not commenting here on the wisdom of having or not having illicit drug laws, nor the centrality of drug laws to the libertarian position; I use the example illustratively.

Monday quote

Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.

Thomas Aquinas

Fathers as priests

Derek Prince (1915–2003) considered fatherhood to comprise the roles of priest, prophet, and king. His take on these three roles is standard. A priest represents people before God; a prophet represents God to people; and a king governs people before God. Thus a father represents his children before God, represents God to his children, and governs his family on behalf of God.

Prince considers the priesthood duties of the father for his family to include thanksgiving, intercession, leading toward salvation, and exercising faith on behalf of his children.

What I found interesting is Prince suggests that the role of priest is foundational: men will struggle in their roles as prophet and king if they do not assume the role of priest. He claims that success as a priest generally leads to success as a prophet and king, and failure as a priest makes the other 2 roles difficult.

Though this somewhat surprised me, on reflection it does seem to make some sense. As fallen creatures we struggle to perform our roles. We represent God imperfectly to our children. We admonish, discipline, and encourage them inconsistently. To be a good prophet and king we need God's help, and to get it we go to God. We read his Word and we pray to him. And this approaching God for his help to be a better father is part of what it means to be a priest: pleading for our children and for our own selves, that God may transform our children and us into his likeness.

Though I have thought the roles of kingship and prophet important, and they are, I need to value the role of priest more highly.

Monday quote

Satan is the father of lies; thus we expect his kingdom (including modern secularism) to promote beliefs that are both false and dangerous.

John K. Reed

The meaning of sovereignty

In Tabletalk magazine, 1992 November edition, in an article titled "Before the Omnipotent's throne," Maurice Roberts defines sovereignty thus,

Sovereignty refers to that absolute predestination of God by which He has from eternity chosen some sinners to eternal life and passed by others.

Several dictionaries differ

• Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state
• Royal rank, authority, or power
• Complete independence and self-government
• Supreme and unrestricted power, as of a state
• The position, dominion, or authority of a sovereign
• Supreme power
• The quality or state of being sovereign
• The status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty
• Supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
• Rightful status, independence, or prerogative
• Supreme power esp. over a body politic
• Freedom from external control

The English word derives from the idea of authority and rule. KJV and ESV Bibles do not have the word "sovereignty". It occurs 7 times in the NET Bible (Psa 68:34; Isa 11:9; Jer 49:38; Dan 2:7; 7:14; Mic 4:8; Rev 17:18 NET) translating terms like mamlakah, malkuw, kicce', basileia. "Sovereign" appears 3 times  in the ESV (Act 4:24; 1Ti 6:15; Rev 6:10 ESV), each time meaning king. It does not appear in the KJV.

That the word "sovereignty" relates to kingship in English does not mean Roberts' position is scripturally incorrect, it does however mean that he has to demonstrate his position, and redefining words is not an argument.

Arminians agree that God is sovereign. He does rule over the earth as a king his subjects. Arminians do not need to be convinced that God is in fact sovereign (in the usual meaning of the word). But Arminians understand what it means for God to be sovereign in a different way. Yes, God can do whatever he wills, but does he do so in all things deterministically? Mike T explains this succinctly

The first error of Calvinism is that it defines divine sovereignty as a thing God does rather than something God possesses. God's sovereignty is a pre-existing fact. It is not possible for God's perfect will to be thwarted because there are none like him. We don't say that when a human king expresses a passing wish that a subject not do X that his sovereignty is violated when that subject does it anyway. Yet Calvinists argue precisely that would be the case if humans had the freedom to disobey God's will and act autonomously.

Inducing premature labour in cows

A press release from the Green Party of New Zealand condemns the practice of inducing calving so herds can calve together and to maximise milking times. TVNZ News reports

Dairy farmers deliberately birth thousands of calves prematurely each year in a practice known as "inducing". The vet gives the cows two injections, so their calves will be born 8-12 weeks premature. It's done to get all cows in a herd to calve at the same time, and produce milk earlier. It means many calves are born dead, but some are born still alive and have to be euthanised.

...The issue has become an ethical dilemma for New Zealand's $6 billion dairy industry, with approximately 200,000 cows induced in New Zealand each year. Farmers say it's a valuable management tool, but are divided on its use.

The Green Party calls for banning of the practice

Dairy farmers in New Zealand routinely inject cows in order that calves are born – dead or alive – months early. This practice is used so that milking can start earlier.

“This inhumane and cruel practice could put our international dairying reputation at risk,” said Ms Kedgley.

...“Under the Veterinary Code, vets have a specific duty to protect animals and alleviate their suffering.

“By dispensing drugs that allow induction to take place for economic rather than animal welfare reasons, vets are deliberately inflicting suffering on healthy animals.

“This surely is a breach of their code.”

Here is a description of the technique; why and how it is done. It is used maintain seasonal patterns for future calving.

Interestingly the Green Party supports induced abortion in pregnant women, and as part of their women's health policy promote increased access to abortion. Women's Policy point 6.26 states the Green Party will

Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.

Elsewhere on the website Kedgley speaks approvingly of the battle to legalise abortion.

I recognise that a large number of secularly minded people approve of abortion. But approving human abortion for the convenience of the mother while at the same time opposed aborting and euthanasing (newborn) calves for the convenience of the farmer is not just morally confused, it is morally corrupt. Of course opposition to such practice reveals Green ideology.

Monday quote

When the skies are sunny and the ocean is flat, everyone is a fair sailor. It is the storm that tests you.

Douglas Wilson

Determinism and the existence of sin

Arminians frequently argue that (exhaustive) determinism implies that God is the author of sin. The argument being that if God causes every event including the actions of sinful men the God is behind such actions and is culpable. Although the reasoning that the instigator of an action is responsible for such action is sound, note David murdering Uriah the Hittite; that God is the author of sin is less immediately apparent.

Moral restrictions that apply to man do not automatically apply to God. God is allowed to remove the life of men at his discretion, for man to do so is considered murder. Therefore one could argue that causing other men to sin would be sinful for man, but not for God. In fact one could argue that it is impossible for God to sin because by definition God actions are not sinful.

I agree with the proposition that everything God does is good. Not that it is good because God does it, but because it is in the nature of God to be righteous and everything he does is consistent with this nature. But I wish to approach this problem from a different perspective.

Let us accepting that God cannot sin (for whatever reason). The issue with determinism is that it makes God the cause and source of every action including those actions we term sin. But determinism also makes the intermediate agents non-culpable. Man can hardly be responsible, let alone guilty for that which he does at the exhaustive, non-resistible control of another. A gun is hardly to blame for the actions of the soldier. I don't see how this is changes if the gun is given consciousness.

This leaves us with God being the author of all activity, man the author of none.

But the Bible states that there is such a thing as sin. It frequently warns us to reject sinful actions. That sin is real is not in doubt for those who agree with Scripture. But if God cannot sin, and determinism means that man is not culpable then we cannot resolve the dilemma.

1. The Bible says that sin exists.
2. God cannot sin
3. Therefore men must sin
4. The Bible teaches determinism
5. But determinism implies that man is not culpable for sin

These cannot all be true. The question is which statement should we reject? Arminians would argue #4, as they do not think this is the case. Calvinists would argue #5 but this is logically and biblically untenable.

If we grant that God can and is permitted to do some things that man cannot and is not, this does not resolve the problem. Even accepting the Calvinist claim that God can cause evil and not sin still leaves the determinism problem unresolved.

Monday quote

Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

C. S. Lewis. "Equality." Present Concerns: A Compelling Collection of Timely, Journalistic Essays

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 4

Part 1 here. Part 2 here. Part 3 here.

There are several lessons from these verses that pertain to personal property. Essentially if a man is responsible for property damage or loss then he is expected to restore or replace the property. Having responsibility demands making restitution and restitution should be to the level of loss. Criminal damage to property requires restitution above the level of loss; the owner of the property should be no worse off and a disincentive is mandatory for the criminal.

Noticeable in these examples is that intention is taken into account. Did the man know his ox gored? Did the thief sell the livestock? Did the person in possession of the livestock request it be in their care. Intent can alter whether you have to make excess restitution, full restitution, partial restitution, or no restitution.

What is important about this intention is that it is to be judged on the basis of men's actions. One is not required to look into the heart of a man and establish his motives—an assessment that is probably limited to God. Rather one establishes intention by the actions of a man. An owner of a goring ox is not identified by his animals looking menacing or having sharp horns, but having an ox with a history of goring. A thief using or selling stolen goods is identified by him having the goods in his possession, or having sold them.

This is distinct from hate crimes where underlying motive is presumed based on the activities of others, or the presumed intolerances within society. A man is judged based on the crimes of other men. The prejudice of a man is assumed without evidence of the man being prejudiced.

Related to this objective judgment of intent is a prospective approach in assessing criminal activity. An ox has a history of goring prior to the event. Not, the ox gored therefore what can we find in the history to support the likelihood of such an event. Something is bound to happen because it has happened before. Of course we know something went wrong after the event, the question is, Did we know this was likely before the event?

Justice would be well served if many of these principles identified in these passages were observed in law including establishing intention of the parties using objective measures of intent.

Monday quote

The secret of managing life is to keep the folks who can't stand you away from the folks who are undecided.

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 3

Part 1 here. Part 2 here.

The third passage concerns establishing responsibility and restitution of property when the persons concerned are not acting dishonestly.

If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.

If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.

If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.

If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep safe, and it dies or is injured or is driven away, without anyone seeing it, an oath by the LORD shall be between them both to see whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. The owner shall accept the oath, and he shall not make restitution. But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence. He shall not make restitution for what has been torn.

If a man borrows anything of his neighbor, and it is injured or dies, the owner not being with it, he shall make full restitution. If the owner was with it, he shall not make restitution; if it was hired, it came for its hiring fee. (Exodus 22:5-15 ESV)

Property damage due to a person's behaviour, accidental or negligent, must be restored completely. The person responsible is expected to restore at least the same level as prior to such damage. Though they may keep the damaged property as seen when an animal kills another. (Exodus 21:35-36)

When property is in the care of a person to whom it does not belong and there is property loss (or damage) responsibility, and therefore restitution, is divided up thus

1. Owner gave goods. Theft of goods, criminal actions of a third party: possessor no obligation
2. Owner gave goods. Theft of animals, criminal actions by third party: possessor obligation
3. Owner gave goods. Death of animals, no criminal actions: possessor no obligation
4. Possessor borrowed goods. Possessor obligation
5. Possessor hired goods. Possessor obligation

The basic structure is that if you have goods in your possession at the request of the owner then you do not bear responsibility. If you have goods at your own request then you are responsible. If you hire them then you are responsible but accidental damage is covered by hiring fees.

The main exception is theft of animals. It is unclear why this should be different from other goods. Looking at the 2 sentences we have

If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe (verse 7)

If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep safe (verse 10)

The word for "keep safe" is "shamar" which implies close guarding, not merely looking after. The NET Bible note for this passage reads

The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.

Thus a stolen animal implies careless supervision. If this interpretation is correct then a person is responsible because he accepted care but did not supervise in an adequate manner. The question could be asked, Why was the neighbour's animal stolen and not the carer's own livestock?

In general we have obligation for replacement of property when person requests use of another's goods but no obligation when requested to care for another's goods. With the caveats that one is expected to take good care of property, especially creatures, and that hiring fees take potential loss into consideration.

Monday quote

The main problem with pettyfogging bureaucracy is that it puts immense power in the hands of people who are constitutionally unfit for it. It is evident from early years in the school playground that some people are destined to be paper shufflers. But give them power and they become drunk with it, wielding it not only unwisely but unjustly.

Miranda Devine

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 2

Part 1 here.

The next passage concerns restitution in cases of theft.

If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. (Exodus 22:1-4 ESV)

Compensation for stolen oxen is 5 fold and stolen sheep is 4 fold in the case of selling or destroying an animal, and 2 fold for keeping an animal. I make this to be

• 1 animal for the stolen animal to restore the situation to the previous state (replace or return)
• 1 animal as punishment for stealing
• 2 further animals as punishment for trading in stolen livestock
• 1 animal as punishment for loss of livelihood

A sheep provides for the farmer in terms of its meat, milk, and fleece. An ox provides in a similar way but is also a beast of burden. It is a farmer's tool, not just provision. The excess compensation reflects a greater offence been committed against the farmer. Not only does he lose provision, he loses the ability to produce.

A second animal as punishment is a deterrent. If a thief paid back solely what he stole then he benefits by gaining the items at times he is not caught. Leaving the thief worse off after stealing means that thievery leads to privation.

Further, to not force the thief to pay excess costs puts him in the same position as the man who inadvertently or negligently destroys the property of another.

If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution. (Exodus 22:6 ESV)

Clandestine removal of property is not to be equated with unintentional destruction of property.

An interesting situation arises here in that if a thief has sold or killed the animal he is punished more harshly. I am uncertain as to the exact reason here but will offer some speculation. Selling an animal suggests a higher level operation at play. The thief is not just stealing for himself due to laziness, his livelihood consists of trading stolen goods. He is becoming wealthy solely by the means of others' hard work, property, and in a way that leaves the owner with less wealth than he started with.

Concerning the increased punishment when stock are killed the interpretation may relate to whether such an action is meant to reflect hiding of evidence, destruction of property, or eating the animal. If the thief has eaten the animal I am uncertain why the payment is 4 fold. Eating the animal severely limits its use. A sheep provides ongoing milk and wool. A short term feast is short-sighted—the man will need to keep stealing to maintain food—and gluttonous—meat was not the mainstay of the diet, it was expensive and a luxury. In the case of the first 2 options, hiding evidence and destroying property, the man is making no use of the property, his thievery is to no end. I don't want your house but I will burn it down so that you do not have it.

What we establish from these verses is

1. A thief cannot just return property, he must pay in excess of what he stole;
2. It make a difference what people steal, stealing a man's method of income affects a man more than stealing his income, and needs to be punished more harshly; and
3. It makes a difference why a thief steals, or rather what a thief does with stolen goods.

Criminal law can take all these aspects into consideration when punishing a thief.