What are libertarians to do with babies?

A Not So Funny Thing Happened to Me in Tampa by Walter Block:

I was looking at news about how the Republican party bosses took their wolf masks off at the RNC (the Dems don’t seem to bother wearing them, people with eyes can see that) and changed the rules retroactively and CHEATING the Ron Paul supporters out of the chance to see their nominee’s name put to nomination on the floor.

If they think it was a “demonstration of unity”, it’s because somewhere along the line the fell into Lewis Carroll’s hallucinogen-fueled rabbit hole and came out, but they left their minds in there.

The truth will win out, because it is the truth.

But while I was checking the usual places that have the news that matters on the subject, I came across Walter Block’s article at lewrockwell.com complaining that he was booed at one moment in his speech at the Ron Paul Rally in Tampa on Sunday, August 26.

In fairness to Walter Block, and as my own disclaimer, I have to say that this is the first time I’ve heard of the term “evictionism” or the concept itself as a libertarian answer to the apparent dilemna (for some) of reconciling the libertarian philosophy with the obligation of a mother to a baby, especially a baby in the womb.

I haven’t thought deeply enough about this to reconcile my strict pro-life views for the libertarians who might not be pro-life or who might see this as a dilema for the liberty-minded who base the concept of liberty on the individual.

So my first reaction is the following, which Block’s article brought to articulation for me (thank you Mr. Block). As time permits, I will read the half-dozen articles (or most of them) he ahs written and provided links for, and his links to critiques to them, and his own rejoinders in turn.

The strict libertarian philosophy upon which both evictionism, and even those who are “pro-choice”, along with its direct corollaries, provides an answer to what is to some a dilemna.

We oppose government “help” because it robs somebody to give something to a third party, besides something for the “middleman”, meaning the government operatives who have to also be fed.

We want the freedom to engage in business, trade with our neighbors, prepare our lives as best we see fit, for better or for worse. This includes living with our actions. We also know that the best government for the poor is the government that gives them nothing at all, because in such an environment they don’t have to take anything from the people who would give them jobs, or help the helpless.

But part of the package is living with the consequences, both gains and losses and other incidental effects, of our own actions and our own decisions.

By this time in life in history, anybody who has read this writing up to here, must know that a baby happens when a man and a woman have sex. A baby is conceived only after the womb receives a man’s “seed” and a sperm cell finds the ovum.

There are varying figures on how many pregnancies result from rapes, but they are rare. For the pregnancies that do not result from rape, it is a deliberate act by a woman and a man that results in conception.


If a baby results from conception in such a situation, in other words, it is because a decision was made. If the act was done without contraception, the “risk” is rather evident. Even most elementary-aged children are aware of how babies are made. Even those using contraceptives or contraceptive methods should be aware that they have their risk factors as well.

Ah, the consequence is maybe bigger than the compulsion, but it is a live human being to which the mother is obligated, even in the strictest libertarian sense by virtue of her decision. If you have sex and conceive, the baby is a consequence that demands the mother’s attention.

Most pro-lifers actually see a baby as a blessing, a gift, if not from God, then from nature. Only in the last century has this view been under attack by neo-Malthusian philosophy and and hedonist culture –aided by subtle hedonist propaganda in entertainment. Baby-as-burden has hitchiked into the culture on the backs of nonsensical circular oxymorons like “overpopulation”.

The obligation to the baby as consequence, of course, is until the baby grows into a viable person that can fend on its own.


When a baby is conceived as a result of a rape, this of course is not so obvious, and here is where we should be able to see that the laws of nature and our natural liberties with regard to the baby in the womb are not so obvious.

The baby conceived after voluntary sex is an obligation by virtue of the consequence of a voluntary act.

But the baby conceived from a rape is still a baby, and is still due all the rights and liberties incumbent upon anyone at all, including the mother. The abuse of the innocent by virtue of size or power is the opposite of liberty, so an induced abortion is not acceptable.

But the baby by virtue of biology will require active sustenance from the mother, and cannot receive it from elsewhere. So the mother is obligated.

How to reconcile this with libertarianism? Well, here is where it becomes obvious that libertarianism cannot be described as being free from involuntary obligation to another.

Not all is lost, here, however. The very principles of libertarian thinking are based on respecting your neighbor and all his rights. To some extent or another neighbors are interdependent and there is sometimes an action required by one to simply reaffirm that right.

Who can deny the biggest example in the 21st century of the recognition of this fact by our own most lauded hero of the day, Ron Paul? This is the man who on principle gave up most of the congressional salary his peers had voted for themselves, and credibly pledged to refuse most of the presidential salary also. This is the man who on principle refused government money and tended to many patients free of charge who could not pay.

So nature has given a bonus to a father and mother in the person of a sired child. If they refuse this bounty, it’s not the baby’s fault and she/he should not pay for their short-mindedness either.

Many, probably most, who do not see a baby as having the right to his parents’ sustenance and protection, will not yet be convinced at this point.

But this whole academic discussion reaffirms something that is already rather obvious to me, and that is, that the traditional nuclear family is the absolute best protection for liberty. A father, mother, and the children their union brings to the world.

In the meantime, if you get the government out of the picture, there are wildly enthusiastic individuals eager to help families and adopt those babies and raise them with love. Most governments today intrude abusively into the adoptive process and encourages abortions, meaning they are more interested in population reduction than in “taking care of us”.


%d bloggers like this: