What Propertarianism Says About the Morality of Abortion

Propertarianism is a political philosophy, generally traced back to Locke and the Levellers, whose basic tenets have been systematically supported in the writings of Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others. Propertarian analysis produces such statements as “Justice is served when no non-consensual appropriations of property rights or titles occurs,” “One owns one's own body,” and "Retribution and restitution for non-consensual appropriations of property rights (torts) should be proportional."

The most significant attempt to apply propertarianism to the problem of the morality of abortion was Walter Block's Evictionism. Block boiled the problem down to the two propositions below:

1. Life begins at conception, and a fetus is fully-endowed with the rights of self-ownership, including the right not to have one's life non-consensually terminated.

2. A woman is an absolute self-owner and doesn't have to allow her body to be used for pregnancy against her will.

Block argues that in spite of #1 above, the fetus is a trespasser on the woman's property and that abortion of an unwanted fetus would be act of self-defense. According to propertarian theory, violent coercion is permissible in defense of self or property or in legal proceedings based on just legal principles. However, if abortion entails the killing of the fetus, that's a problem for Block (because of #1). Although a woman may evict a fetus from her womb, the doctor performing the abortion is obligated to try to save the fetus' life if technologically feasible.

Wisniewski opined the harm of evicting the fetus from the mother's womb is disproportionately greater that the harm done in requiring the non-consenting mother to carry the fetus to full term (or at least to the point where it can be removed without killing it). So Evictionism is charged with violating the rule of proportionality. 

Justice theory (i.e. political philosophy) is built on the premise that the individuals subject to its analysis are discrete human beings. A woman and her fetus do not fit the criterion of being discrete human beings. Therefore, I conclude that, when it comes to the morality of abortion, political philosophy is the wrong tool for the job. The moral rules that apply to the morality of abortion could be the rules that govern one's personal behavior, but not the rules that concern interaction.

Although Evictionism went very far in the application of propertarianism to the moral problem of abortion, it could not overcome the basic unsuitability of any kind of political philosophy for the task.

References

Wisniewski, “Rejoinder to Block's Defense of Evictionism,” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 2, No. 37 (2010).

"Pinal communities set to lose millions as rental taxes banned"

 I recently saw this item in the news that Google thinks I should know about.

 The purpose of this article seems to be to set forth the arguments against recent legislation that banned rental taxes in the state of Arizona. The main concern seems to be that municipalities will lose income:

“As with all General Fund revenues, this money is then used to fund core town services such as Police and Fire protection,” the statement read. “(W)e will continue to evaluate this cut and any other reductions to local revenues to determine the impact on town services and how best to allocate these resources once this law becomes effective in 2025.”

 In other words, if municipalities lose money, services that taxpayers value most, such as fire and police protection, might not be able to be provided!

  Furthermore, the ostensible motive for eliminating rental taxes is to give renters, who may be young and poor, a break. But it turns out that this motive may be wrong-headed:

"But she [Governor Hobbs] said there is no “enforceable mechanism’’ to ensure that landlords, who remit the tax to cities and towns, actually would pass along the savings to their tenants."

No "enforceable mechanism." Doesn't that mean that cheaper rents is just pie-in-the-sky?

Hobbs may have gone through the education system and graduated with a Master's in Social Work without ever having been exposed to the concept of market forces. They function as an organic outcome of the aggregate of everyone's consensual agreements to exchange property. So they don't have to be "enforced," like legislation.

What this means in terms of rentals is that a landlord seeking to reduce vacancies has more incentive to lower price. This may not be enough "ensurance" for politicians and voters, but legislation that raises costs definitely affects ROI, which is a big factor in whether or not something gets built. But I guess a lot of people in Arizona don't actually want anything to get built? 

"And Senate Majority Leader Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said there was a more practical problem. She said even if landlords no longer charge the tax, they will simply raise their rates knowing that’s what tenants are willing to pay."

 Landlords do indeed want to charge all that the market will bear. But the downside of raising rents is vacancy. Successful landlords fear empty properties as much as they lust after higher rents. It's a judgement call, and landlords who judge correctly do well. Landlords who charge more than the market will bear don't do so well. Market discipline, it's also called. The larger and more un-hampered the market, the stronger the discipline.