Libertarians, Marriage and Children

Column by Bob Wallace.
 
Exclusive to STR
 
A pure, “Big L” libertarian doesn’t believe the State has any business being involved in anything. They’d like to see it gone because of the horrors it has perpetrated throughout history. Fair enough. It’s a legitimate philosophical position, and one that I am very sympathetic to. But I am more of a “Small L” libertarian, or perhaps closer to a classical liberal (which has nothing to do with the Commie liberals of today).
 
To a pure libertarian, especially the anarchist variety, the State shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. A couple would merely have to say, “We’re married” and start living together. Why should anyone pay the State to get permission?
 
I can’t remember her name, or the exact quote, but a woman writer in the early 1900s said that if the State didn’t meddle in the relationships between men and women (such as Affirmative Action today), the sexes would fall into their proper roles socially and economically. Overwhelmingly, I agree with her.
 
But there is a problem, and that problem is unmarried single women with children. Specifically, women who decide to have children by themselves.
 
Under a pure libertarian society, would a woman be fully justified in having a child without being married? To accept such a thing is leftist more than anything else. A rightist or a “conservative” would disapprove of it. This split is one of the reasons there are right-libertarians and left-libertarians, although libertarians like to delude themselves that they’re “in the middle.”
 
History has shown the lifestyle of an unmarried single woman with children has been, overall, a catastrophe.  These women have never been socially or economically viable in any culture in the world. They’re not today, in the United States.
 
Currently in the U.S. about 40% of children are born outside of marriage.  Also currently, 25% of all children in the U.S. are on food stamps. So, it’s obvious there are a lot of single mothers on government-issued food stamps.
 
You can argue that in a libertarian society, food, clothing, housing and medical care would be given to them voluntarily by churches and other voluntary relief organizations, and this too is a legitimate position.  But the fact remains these women are still being supported by someone else.
 
We also have to consider the fact that fatherless children, raised by single mothers, are susceptible to a wide array of physical, mental and emotional illness, such as early death, delinquency, criminality, addiction, incarceration, and dropping out of school.
 
To claim that some of these children without fathers turn out just fine is the Fallacy of Composition – assuming that what is true of a part is true of the whole.
 
How then, in a libertarian society, are these social problems of single mothers with children to be prevented? Predominately, by a married couple raising children together.  How is this to be done? Denying welfare to all single mothers? No food stamps? No subsidized housing? No State-provided medical care? Is this not what would happen under a libertarian society? In the past, it would have forced the women into marriage, to be economically dependent on a man--not exactly the most ideal of situations.
 
In the not-so-distant past, men pretty much had control of a woman’s reproductive rights (although many women agreed with what was going on then). Abortion was illegal. In some cases contraception was illegal. If a woman got pregnant outside of marriage, the social pressure was so enormous she was sent away to have the child, which was given to an orphanage.   In a divorce, the children were almost always given to the father.
 
All of it was to prevent single, unmarried women from raising children alone. The result of this is illustrated by the word “bastard,” which has a dual meaning – a boy with no father, and a cruel, heartless man. Which means it has been noticed for a long time that boys without fathers can often grow up to be cruel, heartless men.
 
That now-gone system worked, but it was imperfect and had many flaws. Those days are gone, with legal abortion and widespread contraception, and we’re not going back to them. What we have now is that women have complete control of their reproduction.
 
Unfortunately, there are flaws in that system, too. Is it actually a legitimate position that a fetus is only human if the woman wants it? If she wants it, then it is considered human. If she does not want it, then it can be aborted as an annoyance. Being human is dependent on opinion?
 
Fathers, legally, have zero rights concerning their unborn children if they are not married to the mother. The woman can abort the fetus with no input from him. If she decides to give birth, she can legally force him to pay for bringing up the child, or cut him off completely and give the child her last name.
 
None of it, in my opinion, is “libertarian.” If a woman had a child on her own, and there was no State assistance for her, and she could not legally force the father to pay any support, how then, could she support herself and the child?
 
In a libertarian society, she couldn’t--not unless she was rich and didn’t have to work. Should she work and give the child as soon as possible to a day-care center? This is exactly what Communists strove to do, and still strive to do.  Get a poorly-paid nanny?  (And who really wants child-care workers to cost a lot?) In other words, give children to be raised by others, as in socialist Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child”?
 
You can argue that the father should be legally forced to provide for the child. Again, fair enough. But then, should he not have legal rights to the child since he’s paying for it?  In a libertarian society, would not all fathers automatically have “property rights” in their children? Just as much as the mother?
 
I have seen what happens when parents who are not married fight over their children. Again, it’s a catastrophe, one that damages the lives of the adults and the children. And it goes on for years, if not decades.
 
Ultimately the question is this: What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married? What are the legal rights of the mother and father towards those children? Can there be a theory in a libertarian society that satisfactorily answers these questions?

7.5
Your rating: None Average: 7.5 (2 votes)
Bob Wallace's picture
Columns on STR: 89

Comments

tzo's picture

"If she wants it, then it is considered human. If she does not want it, then it can be aborted as an annoyance. Being human is dependent on opinion?"

From Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, page 98:

The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there 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. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people's rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights.

"What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married? What are the legal rights of the mother and father towards those children? Can there be a theory in a libertarian society that satisfactorily answers these questions?"

Chapter 14, 'Children and Rights,' of the above-mentioned reference is online here:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Michael Kleen's picture

I cannot agree with the notion that a fetus is part of the woman's body or that "the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain." It's ridiculous to call a fetus an "invader" or try to pretend that it is something less than human. The fetus is clearly developing into its own person, a person who has a natural right to life. The mother has an obligation to protect that fetus because it is entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival. If the mother were to "expel it," she would be condemning it to death and therefore would be responsible for violating that fetus' right to life. A mother cannot have a "right" to violate someone else's natural rights, even if - or especially if - they lack the ability to speak for themselves.

tzo's picture

I cannot agree with the notion that a fetus is part of the woman's body

[That notion is not put forward here.]

or that "the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain."

[Every human individual has the right to his or her own body.]

It's ridiculous to call a fetus an "invader" or try to pretend that it is something less than human.

[Nothing here implies that a fetus is less than human. One person invades the personal property of another if they are there without consent. Even if the person is a fetus. Please understand that your prior previous assumptions notwithstanding, Rothbard considers children, babies, and fetuses as either individuals or potential individuals that possess all the same rights enjoyed by all other individuals.]

The fetus is clearly developing into its own person, a person who has a natural right to life.

[Yes.]

The mother has an obligation to protect that fetus because it is entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival.

[Just like a doctor has the obligation to render service to a sick person if a sick person needs that service. What of the individuals who cannot survive on their own? Who has the legal obligation to keep them alive or else be called a murderer? Obligating an individual to perform service for another is called what?]

If the mother were to "expel it," she would be condemning it to death and therefore would be responsible for violating that fetus' right to life.

[Incorrect. If an individual, or potential individual, cannot survive on its own, no one else has the ethical (legal) obligation to render service to that individual in order to keep him alive.]

A mother cannot have a "right" to violate someone else's natural rights, even if - or especially if - they lack the ability to speak for themselves.

[Leaving someone alone or removing him from your personal property is not a violation of anyone's natural rights.]

******

Now, having said all that, it may be morally reprehensible at times to act in an ethical manner. But those are individual decisions, and should not be legislated. Ethics properly falls into the realm of legislation, while morality does not. I find Rothbard's argument consistent with his libertarian principles, even if some disturbing results appear. Are parents ethically obligated to feed their children? No. Morally? Certainly.

Rothbard takes great pains to explain the difference between ethics and morals, and he remains consistent in his approach to issues. Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps it is monstrous. But your above criticisms seem to be a bit emotional and do not really address what he has put forth.

I am not here to say I agree with him on this, but I don't think you have successfully attacked the logic of his position. One individual's right to life does not imply that another is obligated to keep him alive. This logic leads directly to "the right to have food" and "the right to have a decent place to live" and "the right to health care," etc. Natural rights are negative, not positive.

This is a particularly tough area for libertarian thought, but once you insist on having exceptions...

Suverans2's picture

Quick definitions from WordNet (invader) ▸ noun: someone who enters by force...

That fetus is not an invader.

Quick definitions from WordNet (ethics) ▸ noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules

Self-explanatory.

Michael Kleen, would you make an exception if the woman was raped?

tzo's picture

Invader is certainly not the best word. Infringer? Encroacher? Trespasser? Kinda harsh, all.

How about merely a guest, perhaps invited, perhaps not, who has been asked to leave.

tzo's picture

One person invites another to his cabin deep in the woods in northern Canada. While the guest is there, a big storm whips up, making it impossible to exit. They will be snowed in for a week and it is so cold that walking out is not an option.

The cabin owner does not want to feed the guest. The cabin owner wants the guest to leave. Not feeding the guest or kicking him out of the cabin means death for the guest. But everyone has the right to their private property, so the guest is out of luck. The cabin owner cannot ethically be forced to provide his property and/or labor to the guest for his survival.

The guest either dies of hunger or exposure. Has a crime been committed?

Parallel case?

Suverans2's picture

"Invader is certainly not the best word. Infringer? Encroacher? Trespasser? Kinda harsh, all." ~ tzo

Not just "kinda harsh, all", tzo, totally inaccurate, all, in my opinion, because they all ass-u-me that the pre-born child had a free choice in the matter. Guest, "someone who you have invited...", (except in the case of rape), is getting much closer, but may still fall a tiny bit short in the accuracy department, again, in my opinion, because the pre-born child did not consent to be the mother's guest.

Individual sovereignty, as you well know, is all about taking responsibility for your actions.

With that in mind, I believe a closer "parallel case", my friend, might be if you chose to adopt a puppy. You knew, or should have known, that although having a puppy may appear to be nothing but fun, there is, according to ethics, i.e. "doctrines of morality[1]", much responsibility and very likely some loss of freedom that goes along with all that "fun", and you should, therefore, think long and hard about the negative side of this act before deciding to voluntarily enter into it. So, if and when you do choose to get one, you are freely choosing to be responsible for its food, shelter, and overall care, (or finding someone who will voluntarily accept those responsibilities in the event you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself).

The same holds true if you voluntarily decide to enter into the "sexual-act-that-has-the-potential-to-create-new-life"; your actions state, for the world to see, that you agree, "out of your own free will", to accept the responsibility of caring for a new life until such time as it can care for itself, because you knew, or should have known, full well, that that was a possibility, however slim. (The only kind of birth control that is 100% effective is "abstinence" from the procreative act, last time I checked. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that a woman can simply be "found with child".)

And, what's all this talk about a "libertarian society" (thirteen mentions on this page), (intending no disrespect), that's almost laughable. Most people do not want freedom, (notwithstanding that they will bitch and cry about the loss of it), they want and/or need a government to take care of them (entitlements), they go from being dependent on a guardian appointed by the STATE, (PARENT(S) who are, themselves, dependent on STATE entitlements), to being dependent on the STATE directly; the last thing they want is individual responsibility; we are never going to change that fact by "re-educating" them, in my opinion. There are only "libertarian individuals", (whatever "libertarian" means), who evidently cannot come to a 100% consensus on even this one issue.

[1] Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

thebigho111's picture

"It's ridiculous to call a fetus an "invader" or try to pretend that it is something less than human." -- It is a human fetus. Are you going to take care of this unwanted baby should it be discarded??? If it should be discarded after birth and spends a year or two suffering before death, would that be ok with you? Where do you get this moral authority from anyway Michael???

Michael please answer this question: A woman can miscarry through stress, chemical reactions, diet, exercise, etc. If this is the case and her body has chosen to expel a fetus thus relinquishing her "obligation" without a cognitive decision, is the mother breaching any moral code????

If not, how is her body different than her brain? Is this not inclusive? Are you saying that as long as she didn't think it iS ok???

Please answer those, thanks. TBH111

B.R. Merrick's picture

I have to say, as a pro-life anarchist, I am finding this discussion most enlightening. One thing freedom has done for me is at least soften me up to the pro-choice arguments within the anarchist community. Not convince me, but it gives pause to think a little deeper.

As I see it, an innocent child who knows very little and is virtually unable to make sense of the environment in which she is growing cannot be held responsible for "invading" or "coercing" anything. If anyone has done the coercing, it's two grown adults who "force" the child into existence, only to cut that existence short through further coercion. Makes little sense to me.

And now to muddy the waters even further, we have artificial wombs in the making:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

Robert Wallace's picture

I outgrew Rothbard's foolishness many years ago.

A Liberal in Lakeview's picture

Please give a summary of the problems with Rothbard's thinking.

Gwardion's picture

Trying not to be rude, but when reading your column I have to assume that this whole libertarian thing is very new to you.

The short answer is that bad things happen to people. People make bad decisions.

Libertarian philosophy states that bad thing do happen to people, and you are more then welcome to help in any voluntary association you wish, but you cannot force associations on other.

You are stating the same argument as drug use, or drunk driving, or any or a myriad of social problems.

No aggression, theft, or fraud means no crime. People look out for themselves or form associations to pool risk based on free association.

If you feel that a moral or ethical society would be compromised by single mothers, then the onus is on you to do something about it personally, without using aggression.

The great thing about a libertarian free market system is that, without government, people that share the same concern as you are free to pursue as many solutions to the "problem" as minds that can bring ideas and capital to the table. The whole Idea of being a libertarian is that you realize that there is no monolithic all over society answer for anything, but hundreds of solutions, sometimes equally effective.

If you want an example solution. If I were a woman, I would practice safe sex and make men sign support contracts before having sex with them, just in case. Simple, neat, elegant, libertarian.

Robert Wallace's picture

"Trying not to be rude, but when reading your column I have to assume that this whole libertarian thing is very new to you."

If you don't know who I am, you haven't been one for very long.

Sharon Secor's picture

In a libertarian society, she couldn’t--not unless she was rich and didn’t have to work."

Wrong! (a common theme throughout this piece, in my not so humble opinion, but I suppose I digress). I have been a single mother for 11 years. My children range from 11 years of age to 4 years old. They have never set foot in day care. I have always been their primary care giver. I've always homeschooled them. And, I have always worked. Before I began writing full-time, I worked at a variety of jobs. I only took jobs that I could do with children in tow. I use no social programs, have *never* been on welfare. You are not forced to pay for my children. And, since it is highly unlikely that they will end up in the prison system (except in the event of some political/principle matter they pursue when they become adults), or end up on welfare, or running up student loans that are defaulted on (seeing as they have first hand experience with self-education, self-sufficiency, etc.), I doubt that you ever will be. Thus, my single parenthood is none of anybody else's concern.

And, just for the record, no child support. I don't believe that it is fair for me to "go after" a man who doesn't want to parent for money. The final decision is mine -- he couldn't force me to abort or to bear the child. I chose life, the child is my responsibility, and I do handle my business without burdening others. It is a pleasure to do so. We are a happy family.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Sharon Secor,

If all that you say here is true, (and I am not saying that it isn't), my hat is truly off to you for taking full responsibility for your actions, but I think you will agree that you are the exception, a ONE-IN-A-MILLION(?)-EXCEPTION!, which may even be too generous.

Robert Wallace's picture

"We are a happy family"

Fallacy of Composition. One out of a million.

thebigho111's picture

"Ultimately the question is this:
What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married?"

I'm not sure what "status" is defining exactly but... If government intervention in the sense of subsides for breeding were banished, we would see destitution and poverty for two decades. In our current system of living, work requires lots of time. To give opportunities to your children requires TIME away from them and the cost of actually working.

If you consider the prevailing stats regarding single mothers, it is quite obvious that AGE and EDUCATION are correlations if not causes. Pretend these have no affect on the human animal (especially ones who have no hope of their situation, never seen excellence by example, or father has left them) and I have a bridge to sell you...

God forbid these children from be "helped" by missionaries or religious "altruism", for all you have done is relived the state hierarchy from control and handed them over to a mythological hierarchy headed by real men on planet Earth to control.

"What are the legal rights of the mother and father towards those children?" -- Law should not intercede upon anyone's children. Law was not there upon the sex act, law did not have it in its belly, and law is an abstract trying to supersede the natural rights of all human beings over their offspring. Personally I feel a mother has primary custody rights over her biological children. It doesn't mean parents can not work out their respective situations.

If you accept the idea of personal responsibility, then let them work it out on their own. Who needs a judge when a crime has not been committed?

"Can there be a theory in a libertarian society that satisfactorily answers these questions?" -- Not until "libertarians" recognize that individualism is not just doing your own thing, but giving others the legitimate opportunity to do the same.

Suverans2's picture

"Ultimately the question is this:
What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married?" ~ TBH111

The following is my "two cents worth" on the subject of status.

The status of children in a libertarian society, whether the father and mother are married or not, is the same as that of every other individual, "semi-sovereign"[1].

One is "semi-sovereign" when in any respect or respects he/she is liable to be controlled by a paramount government. This liability is determined by how much "responsibility" an individual is able, or willing, to take for its own existence.

For those who take full responsibility for their own existence, that "paramount government" is the law of nature, or more accurately the natural law of man.

For those who have "subjected themselves to the dominion of [the United States] government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual rights", i.e. those who choose to be 14th Amendment citizens, that "paramount government" is the federal government.

For those who claim to be only a State citizen, (though it is extremely doubtful that this status is any longer an option[2]), then whichever "State" they have "subjected themselves to the dominion of" is their "paramount government".

And, for those who have not yet reached the age where they are able to take responsibility for their own existence, that "paramount government" is their "guardian", i.e. whoever shoulders the responsibility for their existence.

A guardian by nature, at common law, is the father, and, on his death, the mother, of a child. Daniels v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 135 Pa.Super. 450,, 5 A.2d 608, 611. This guardianship, (sometimes called "natural guardian"), extends only to the custody of the person of the child to the age of majority [or until such time as they are able to take responsibility for their own existence].

Footnotes:
[1] Those who wish to be "king" usually balk at this status, they prefer to be called "sovereign", because they want to be "superior to all others", they want to be "a law unto themselves". As a natural consequence of this desire they must deny even the possibility of a Creator, and they must also deny the existence of the Natural Law of man and the existence of Individual Rights as well.
[2] This is so because the States have also "subjected themselves to the dominion of [the United States] government for the promotion of their general welfare". Common sense tells us that, "the borrower is servant to the lender."

Sharon Secor's picture

"A guardian by nature, at common law, is the father, and, on his death, the mother, of a child."

As I understand the definition of words and understand from what is strictly -- to my mind -- logic, guardian by nature (meaning the natural guardian, not common law which was based on the biases of the time, including women as chattel/property) is the mother. The child is housed within the mother's body until birth, after which it is fed via the mother's body. Men are not equipped for breastfeeding, so 'common law' doesn't make biological sense regarding the custody of an infant or young child. Common law or any other law mean nothing to me, not when natural law is so damned obvious. A group of men are going to get together and decide the fate of an event that takes place within my body? An event that risks my life and well-being? A group of men are going to get together and make laws regarding the individual that enters this world through my sacrifices and my efforts? Not in this lifetime. Not now, not ever. I would fight to the death across that issue.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Sharon Secor.

"A guardian by nature, at[1] common law..."

That was taken from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), and is, in my opinion, as ridiculous as saying, "A guardian by statute, according to natural law..." In order for that statement to hold any water at all, it would have to be ""A guardian by nature, according to natural law..."

Thank you for pointing that out.

And, if it were possible, I would agree with you 200% on this, "...natural law is so damned obvious".

Thank you for pointing that out, as well.

[1] At law. According to law; by, for, or in law... Ibid. page 125

jd-in-georgia's picture

About a year ago, my girlfriend was on the pill, wearing a diaphragm, and an IUD all at once. Recently, she had a baby; the baby was born wearing armor. ~Steven Wright

I apologize for injecting the humor but this topic stirs passion around the world. I just wanted everyone to take a breath.

Seriously, at the core of any true libertarian philosophy is the notion (and what many libertarians consider fact) is that as individuals, we are sovereign unto ourselves. We need no ruler or government dictating how we will exist to their ends and to tell us how to co-exist with each other. We have too many laws telling us what we cannot do. When one takes a look at laws making allowances verses laws placing restrictions, the outcome is usually positive. Such is the case for the drug legalization in Portugal and the "You Need To Have A Gun Law" in Kennesaw, Georgia. Granted, I live very near Kennesaw and have yet to hear of a local government, uh, sting operation ensuring that every household has a gun. However, since inception of this law, this little town has had less crime than any town of the same size in the entire country. Education plays a role as well. I am not talking about government education. I am talking basic mom and/or dad, single or married, doing their best to instill some common sense into their offspring. Just some proverbial golden rule teaching goes a long way into nurturing common sense. I am sure that any of my fellow root strikers would agree with this statement. I am not pushing any specific religious doctrine on anyone. I am just saying that if life is chosen, it is a big responsibility. If life is not chosen, it is also a big responsibility. Knowing the consequences of sexuality is one thing. Accepting the reality of sexuality is far more important. Married or single, gay or straight, everyone needs to pack their own moral compass with them when going on a journey into the bedroom and you had both better know how each other's compass works. Otherwise, you may be left with a dilemma involving either self doubt or low self esteem and even worse, the personal choice (if you are a woman) to end or accept the course of history for a developing fetus. This choice is the woman's and it should be. On the same token I do not envy any woman who has to make this choice. For no matter what, it is never an easy choice to make. That is, of course, unless the choice was consensual for the purposes of deliberate procreation, followed by the hopeful impregnation.

Paul's picture

"Trying not to be rude, but when reading your column I have to assume that this whole libertarian thing is very new to you."

Funny, I had that same impression. For one thing, I've never seen a "Big L libertarian" defined as he does. I always thought it just meant a member of the Libertarian Party.

Bottom line for me is, whatever problems you see that society has, the only legitimate way to work them out is without using state violence. It is a poverty of imagination to think that only coercion can solve problems. If indeed it solves them - the evidence seems to be the reverse. Governments are never interested in actually solving problems, as that would put them out of work. What they do instead, is manage problems. And create more problems, where empire-building urges are present.

I think it is pretty silly to consider a fetus to be an "invader". Sheesh, people! If some people want to be able to kill their unborn, they should live in places where that is considered acceptable. If others don't like that, they should live where it is unacceptable. In either case, they should have some control over their own behavior. Problem solved!

Tony Pivetta's picture

"I think it is pretty silly to consider a fetus to be an "invader". Sheesh, people! If some people want to be able to kill their unborn, they should live in places where that is considered acceptable. If others don't like that, they should live where it is unacceptable. In either case, they should have some control over their own behavior. Problem solved!"

As someone with strong pro-life sympathies, this seems an eminently reasonable position to me, and it probably lies at the heart of the societal order that would spontaneously arise under an anarcho-capitalist society--this being the kind of society the ostensibly pro-choice Rothbard (whom I admire) recommended. There's a market for safety, liberty and order. Under anarcho-capitalism, people--or, more likely, their insurance companies--would hire private security agencies (PSAs) and dispute resolution organizations (DROs) to meet the demand for safety, liberty and order.

PSAs would defend rights to life and property. DROs would resolve conflicts revolving around those rights. There will be conflicts. After all, even if we're all anarcho-capitalists, we don't all agree on what constitutes a right. Even if we agree on what constitutes a right, we don't know how to act when confronted with a situation of conflicting rights. That's what makes abortion such an excruciating issue.

The fetus bears a striking resemblance to a miniature human being. Does it have a right to life? Without regard to its mother's rights? Does the fetus' right to life trump the mother's right to privacy and personal sovereignty? Does the mother's privacy rights trump the fetus' right to life? Is there a timeline where one party's right outweighs the other's? Who decides? Using what criteria?

Under anarcho-capitalism, some of us will fund PSAs whose mission includes the forcible protection of fetus' lives. We won't be entirely happy with the forcible part, but we'll condone it as reasonable defense of an innocent life. Conversely, others of us will fund competing PSAs whose mission includes protecting the rights of pregnant women to do whatever they want with their own bodies. The PSAs will be charged with forcibly repelling those who would abridge women's right to terminate their pregnancies. Again, we won't be happy with the forcible part, but we'll condone it as reasonable defense of an adult's privacy. Still others of us will find ourselves torn on the issue, or crassly interested only in paying lower insurance premiums, and thus fund PSAs that take a completely hands-off position on abortion--neither protecting fetuses from "pro-choice" PSAs nor protecting pregnant women from "pro-life" PSAs.

What will the DROs do when confronted with PSAs with conflicting consumer interests? As Paul suggests, the resolution will probably involve geography. If you want to have an abortion, you'll have to live in Ruritania. If you want to live where you and your neighbors can't have an abortion, you'll have to live in Outer Ruritania.

Granted, the stalwarts on either side may not be happy with this resolution. The fact remains the most diehard right-to-lifer today is interested only in banning abortion in the U.S. He doesn't want to go to war with pro-choice nations to make them right-to-life. By the same token, the most diehard pro-choicer doesn't want enforce reproductive rights abroad. Maybe choice and life by geography is the best we can do.