The Libertarian Stance on Abortion

What can a libertarian philosophy professor teaching in a small, private, Roman Catholic college say about abortion? Good question! Although, there is no single libertarian stance on abortion we do offer a common approach to the issue. The first step in that approach is to personally decide whether the non-aggression axiom applies to early life: sperm, ova, zygotes, fetuses, and/or neonates. But even if abortion is deemed an “other-regarding action,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that abortion is unconditionally wrong. There might be circumstances when abortion (like killing in general) might be justified: beneficent reasons (euthanasia), rape, incest, or self-defense (save the life of the mother). Some libertarians defend abortion based on self-ownership and argue that sperm, ova, zygotes etc are “private property:” body parts that we ourselves “own.” Hence, one might argue that sperm and ova are “personal property” while zygotes are “joint-property.” Or one might argue that a zygote is the private property of the female owner of the uterus. But there is no single libertarian dogma that elucidates any of these issues. Libertarians also disagree as to whether abortion ought to be legal or illegal. Obviously, if a zygote is a “person” morally equivalent to an adult, then abortion could be viewed as a crime comparable to manslaughter, homicide, or even genocide. Even if post-conception abortion is outlawed, some libertarians would argue that the law itself would be much more difficult to monitor and enforce than other laws that relate to killing. What would it actually take to monitor every pregnancy in the United States? Would women be subjected to monthly uterine examinations to insure the safety of zygotes? Should these extraordinarily invasive laws be monitored and enforced by local, state, or federal government? Moreover, if government decided to expend the time, energy, and resources necessary to effectively protect early life, it would almost certainly lead to unregulated “black market” abortions. If you think black markets are easily controlled, check out the ongoing drug war. But the most compelling argument against outlawing abortion outright is that it becomes an arcane “legal debate” dominated by lawyers, judges, and juries. In fact, today the political debate over abortion has been co-opted by the Supreme Court, therefore most of the debate now centers on whom the next president will appoint to the court after the next judge dies of old age. My views on abortion politics are pretty straightforward. Abortion is an enormously complex moral issue that invariably invokes deeply held religious, political, and cultural debate. Rather than expending time, energy and resources lobbying government, I prefer rechanneling those efforts. If you have serious moral concerns for the well-being of ova, sperm, zygotes, and fetuses, then you have a personal moral obligation to work to reduce the number of worldwide abortions. As moral individuals, we can more effectively reduce that number by donating our time, effort, and resources to non-governmental organizations that focus on strengthening marriage and providing child care for the poor. Therefore, strategically, pro-life libertarians (in the John Stuart Mill tradition) prefer active participation in the moral debate coupled with personal voluntary action. The old strategy of paying high-priced lawyers to argue cases before a Supreme Court stacked with “old white men” has done little to reduce the number of abortions performed worldwide.

The Concept of Health Care

What is health care? Well, let’s start with the basics. First, it involves the exchange of a products and services between buyers and sellers. Second, the health care industry employs an imponderable number of sellers including research scientists, physicians, insurance professionals, malpractice lawyers, allied health professionals, product manufacturers, educational institutions, hospitals etc. For those that are willing (or able) to invest in the requisite education, these are all good paying jobs. Third, our understanding of health care has been masked by a longstanding cultural tradition that obscures its economic basis. Much of the obfuscation takes place within our language: "buyers" become "patients," "sellers" become "providers," and "health care" becomes "whatever health care providers are willing to sell you." Thus, most of us believe that “health” is something that is provided by others and that we cannot be healthy apart from a "health care system." Similarly, the concept of “disease” has become synonymous with “needing” the products and services offered by the health care industry. So a state of disease is anything that attracts buyers to sellers. Modern medicine is based upon the ever-increasing malleability of the concepts of health and disease. Even if you believe that you are presently “healthy” you still might have an undiagnosed disease, a predisposition for a disease, an early stage of a disease, or a previously “cured” disease might be coming back. Therefore, in order to remain healthy you must maintain an ongoing relationship with a health care system and its legion of well-paid providers. One of the more striking features of the American health care has been the exponential expansion in the number of actual and potential “diseases” and “providers.” Today we routinely consult with “licensed” health care providers to lose weight, fight depression, quit smoking, break an addiction (drug, alcohol or gambling), have a child, not have a child, eliminate a potential child, or die peacefully. Critics of the American health care system argue that it provides too much and that it must be refocused on providing “basic health care,” which is even more malleable than the concept of “health care.” Basic health care is whatever politicians say it is. This means that in order to keep their good-paying jobs, providers must lobby congress and persuade legislators to officially decree that their products and services are “basic.” Fortunately, if we wait long enough, every health care product and service currently on the market will eventually become “basic.” But in a free market, the concept of “basic health care” is vacuous. It is a blunt political instrument that governments use to deny some individuals direct access to specific products and services. So what can we conclude about the concepts of “health” and “disease?” Libertarians prefer to let the free market sort that all that out. The first thing that the free market will do is help us sort out what actually works and how much we’ll have to pay for it. Viva Viagra!

Social Safety Net

Recently, there has been a lot discussion in the media concerning our increasingly porous “social safety net.” Let’s take a look at that under a libertarian microscope. Let’s all admit from the outset that “Mother Nature” has equipped most of us humans with feelings of sympathy that motivate us to assist others in time of need; and that those feelings are stronger toward relatives, friends and other groups with whom we identify, than toward strangers. These feelings are embedded into the moral structure of all human societies. In the Judeo-Christian moral tradition “need” implies a "right" to assistance by others and a "duty" on the part of others to assist. So we have a society where “need” inspires “providers.” When our relatives and friends are in need, we are more likely to willingly assume responsibility for either providing direct assistance or for paying expert providers. As we become increasingly dependent upon strangers to fill our needs we must inevitably deal with the question of compensation. Our growing reliance upon “assistance providers” has generated vast industries: health care industry, social welfare industry, education industry, child care industry etc. Given that all of these “providers” earn paychecks, it makes sense to at least look into “how much providers are paid” and “how providers are paid.” Well, all of the official providers cited above must, by law hold a license before they can provide, which requires at least a college education. A college education requires years of study and hefty tuition payments. Suppose you graduated from a medical school with a debt of say $150,000., and have $10,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums. Say you have two kids that “need” braces on their teeth, an elderly parent that “needs” living assistance, and you have a spouse that “needs” a reliable automobile to transport those children and parents. As a provider, how much will you charge others for providing? My answer: I’d rather be paid more than less. If payment is too low I won’t provide anymore. I'll change occupations. Now, “how are providers paid?” Well, in our society, we have systematically delegated most of our personal responsibility to government to pay for our providers: physicians, social workers, teachers, etc. We like to pretend that governmentally subsidized providers are free, but we pay for those services indirectly via taxation. When we get the tax bill from those providers we, invariably, complain about the high price. At a bare minimum, libertarians acknowledge that in the real world someone must pay for the providers that comprise our social safety net and that a publically-funded “net” is less cost-effective than a private net. There are no cost-free safety nets in the real world. Unless we either empower governments to force providers to involuntarily work for free, or convince providers to take an “oath of poverty” and voluntarily work for free, we can expect providers to earn paychecks. Anyone that seeks to bolster our sagging “social safety net” must face this reality head on.

Corporate Bailouts

What can a libertarian philosopher contribute to the ongoing debate over the government’s response our current economic malaise? In positive terms…not much! But here are a few questions that might lead us to a more enlightened conversation. First of all, why do we Americans continue to embrace deficit spending as a way of life? Why do we discount the value of a distant future on behalf of the immediate present? Why do all levels of government, all corporations, and almost all Americans live in debt? Why do we demand that our politicians nurture an economic environment marked by easy credit so we can borrow money from the future so we can live in spacious homes, drive new cars, and attend college now rather than later? Why do we max out our credit cards today, knowing full well that we’ll pay more for those goods over the long run, and perhaps even face foreclosure and/or bankruptcy next year? Why do so many of us risk our hard earned income on lotteries, and casino and online gambling? Pay day loans? Underfunded pension funds? In short, why do we believe that the only way for us to maintain our current standard of living is to perpetuate access to easy money, deficit spending, and to live our lives in debt? That’s a lot to digest in one blog! Simply put, here’s my short answer: We Americans have become excessively bound by tradition. We’ve become so dependent recycling old solutions to old problems that we’ve lost the ability to come up with new solutions to new problems. Why? Because centralized governmental structures have undermined our capacity for ground-level innovation via: legislative barriers, tax incentives, and corporate subsidies. The examples are legion: the persistence of transportation technology based on 19th century fossil fuels, employment-based health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, etc. Libertarians argue that government has a perverse tendency to support the status quo at the expense of innovation. Economic legislation tends to pursue equilibrium rather than change. Legislation such as professional licensure, institutional accreditation, and building codes tend to protect the status quo from external competition by erecting artificial barriers to innovators. How else can we explain the otherwise inexplicable fact that most of the high-level discussion on economic recover centers on bailing out old, large, tradition-bound corporations like AIG, General Motors, and Ford? The arguments in favor of these wholesale bailouts usually hinge on a collectivist, utilitarian premise, “too large to fail.” But why do we continue to believe that old, big, inefficient, and inflexible institutions are better than young, small, efficient, and flexible ones? So if the “Big Three” fail, what happens to all those workers? Well, they’ll probably have to wait for Honda, Toyota, and other younger, more innovative corporations to build newer, smaller, more efficient, and more flexible factories. But those workers will probably have to relocate to other states and go back to school and become more efficient. In a nutshell, when upholding tradition and the status quo no longer works, we must be willing to change. But first, we’ll have to overcome our government’s institutionalized preference for everything that is old, big, inefficient, and inflexible.

The Drug War

The easiest target for a libertarian public policy critique is the ongoing Drug War. From the outset, let me state unequivocally that I do not know of any libertarians that advocate drug use or abuse. However, the distinction here is important. Drug use becomes drug abuse, if and only if, it violates the non-aggression axiom or the property rights of others. In those cases, we expect government to punish offenders. So if you are stoned, don’t get in a car wreck and harm others! Drug use that is merely self-destructive and/or destructive of personal relationships must not and cannot be effectively controlled by government. You’ll have to pay the costs of your drug use. So don’t expect us libertarians to pay for your hospital bills when you pick a fight with a three-hundred pound NFL player in bar, and don’t expect us to pay for your rehabilitation and/or marriage counseling. You and your family can pay for it all. Put it on your Visa or MasterCard, take out a second mortgage on your home, or cash in your retirement funds! Libertarians prefer to let the free market work solve these kinds of problems. If you’re too stoned to work, then you simply cannot afford to be a self-sustaining drug addict or alcoholic. If you choose to steal from others, you’ll go to jail. Life is full of choices! But in the final analysis, the Drug War has been its own worse enemy. When you make drugs or alcohol illegal, and expend vast public resources monitoring and enforcing drug laws, you invariably raise the risk associated with selling and buying drugs and therefore raise prices. Because the government does not enforce contracts within the illegal drug trade, buyers and sellers enforce those contracts on their own through the use (and threats) of violence. If you plan on selling illegal drugs, you better be willing to beat up and/or kill non-paying customers. If you don’t, your buyers simply will not pay for their drugs. If you buy drugs that you can’t afford to pay for, you better have a loaded gun ready to protect yourself. If you would prefer to avoid shooting it out with a ruthless, well-armed drug dealer, you’ll choose to steal from your non-violent neighbors to pay that debt. (But don’t steal from a libertarian because he/she probably has a loaded gun waiting for you!) Hence, the illegal drug market attracts armed, ruthless buyers and sellers that are willing to violate the non-aggression axiom. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, and government began enforcing those risky contracts the most violent transaction costs would disappear. For a while, non-violent drug dealers would enter the market in search of profits, which may temporarily increase the supply of drugs , but dramatically reduce the market price. Now, let’s talk about long-term employment opportunities. Would you rather be a drug dealer that sells marijuana or cocaine for $1 a pound on the free market, or work at McDonalds for $8.00 an hour? At these prices would you bother to drive or fly to Columbia to pick up your inventory? Would you even be willing to pay Federal Express delivery charges? Moreover, at those prices you could afford to buy all the drugs you want on your McDonald’s salary and you wouldn’t be tempted to risk stealing from your unarmed, non-violent neighbors. In short, legalize drugs and soon the supply of drugs will be drastically reduced, and all of those ruthless former drug dealers will move into another illegal trade such as prostitution or gambling. If we make abortions or guns illegal we can expect them to move into those potentially lucrative markets too. In short, unlike social conservatives and bleeding heart liberals, libertarians understand how black markets work. Free markets are much more efficient enforcers of personal morality than the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States Government.

The War on Terrorism

The so-called “War on Terrorism,” raises serious problems for the Non-Aggression Axiom. The most obvious is that the concept of “terrorism” connotes specific war strategies (e.g. suicide bombing) that many nations regard as immoral. Secondly, most acts of “terrorism” are executed by individuals and small groups (terrorist cells) and are not directly state-sponsored. These terrorist are usually members of decentralized, loosely- knit, (often) religious organizations that seek to upend established governments. Although many of these organizations are international they do not have “international leaders” that are comparable to presidents, prime ministers etc. As far as we know, Bin Laden encourages terrorist activity, finances a lot of it, and might even suggest targets. But he probably exercises very little control over his followers. As we fight the war on terrorism we mistakenly believe that if we kill or capture Bin Laden, the “War on Terrorism” will end and that his followers will surrender and sign a peace treaty. That’s the way wars between centralized nation states usually end, but not the way wars with decentralized groups will end. Many scholars, therefore, argue that a more effective strategy for fighting the “War on Terror” would be to approach it as a “War of Words,” an ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of future terrorists. That will entail spending much more on “words” than “weapons.” One way to control terrorism is to eliminate its main targets: free-standing nation states. Many of us peacenik libertarians look forward to a distant future where nation states are replaced by a single, international minimal government that focuses its energies on enforcing the non-aggression axiom, contracts, open markets, and borders. Can you imagine: a world without nation states: a Middle East without borders, a Europe without borders, an America without borders? Imagine a world where corporations compete without collusion, subsidies, tariff protection, or favorable tax status? Can you imagine a world order where we all rely on free markets to fulfill our wants and needs? Can you imagine a world where acts of terrorism are universally condemned and national armies are replaced by one single police force?

War and the Non-Aggression Axiom

War is an enormously complex human phenomenon. The fact that throughout human history, in all times and all places groups of human males have been engaged in war, suggests a natural foundation. However, the mere fact that war is natural does not shed much light on whether it is good or not. Libertarians argue that violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom can SOMETIMES be justified only as a means of self-defense. However, the precise meaning of “self-defense,” is a bit fuzzy.” Most wars are initiated by the leaders of nations as offensive acts of aggression in pursuit of specific goals such as resources or territory. Some wars are initiated as preemptive strikes against perceived threats of aggression. Others are initiated as retribution for previous acts of aggression. Therefore, peace-loving libertarians must draw clear lines between self-defense and various acts aggression. But that’s not easy. That’s because the concept of “self-defense” is highly malleable and subject to political manipulation by leaders. Nations naturally “defend” themselves against not only harms, but also threats of harm. The clearest example of self-defense is when a nation is actually under lethal attack by another nation. If Canada or Mexico sent armed troops, tanks, and/or launched missiles across our borders, it would be a clear act of lethal aggression and the United States would be justified in violating the Non-Aggression Axiom. Most of the conceptual malleability associated with the concept of a “threat” can be attributed to imperfect information available to pre-emptive defenders. But most wars have been initiated in defense of economic interests and/or in defense of religious, tribal, or national ideological goals. Since the twentieth century, the United States has justified most of its use of lethal aggression in defense of ideological principles such as “freedom” and/or “democracy.” Given the overwhelming worldwide plurality of aggressive, non-democratic, authoritarian political regimes, this stance drastically expands our list of potential enemies. How many despots can the U.S. afford to depose? How much are we willing to spend on these non-defensive wars and the subsequent nation-building? If war is not a very effective means of reducing non-defensive, state sponsored, lethal aggression, what’s left? How can we promote world peace? Most, but not all libertarians, have faith in markets and see warfare through the lens of market failure. Competitive human males that are engaged in mutually-self-interested commerce tend to be more peaceful and avoid war. Therefore, if we hope to minimize the global incidence of human warfare, we need to prevent the formation of coalitions between unemployed young men and leaders of nations. That entails lessening the influence of government and increasing the influence of non-governmental organizations, especially corporations. How do we do that? Well, in democracies, the first step is for wary citizens to minimize their leaders’ capacity to wage non-defensive wars by limiting the number of troops and resources at their disposal. Although large standing armies may deter invasion by some hostile neighbors, they also provide leaders with a powerful incentive to engage in pre-emptive strikes and/or invade their neighbors. In the tradition established by John Stuart Mill, we libertarians are wary of the power of governments: not only the power of the governments of other countries, but also our own.