Pinko Feminist Hellcat has a really interesting post about reproductive justice, and how it’s much more than the right to buy an abortion. Her starting point was Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life by Andrea Smith.
Andrea Smith begins with some really interesting interviews she did with Native American women:
Once, while taking an informal survey of Native women in Chicago about their position on abortion—were they “pro-life” or “pro-choice”—I quickly found that their responses did not neatly match up with these media-mandated categories.
Example 1:
Me: Are you pro-choice or pro-life?
Respondent 1: Oh I am definitely pro-life.
Me: So you think abortion should be illegal?
Respondent 1: No, definitely not. People should be able to have an abortion if they want.
Me: Do you think then that there should not be federal funding for abortion services?
Respondent 1: No, there should be funding available so that anyone can afford to have one.
Example 2:
Me: Would you say you are pro-choice or pro-life?
Respondent 2: Well, I would say that I am pro-choice, but the most important thing to me is promoting life in Native communities.
This analysis is much more common than you’d think. Actual women having actual abortions aren’t generally making statements about the life-status of the fetus, but decisions about their own lives, and the reality that we live in.
Sheezlebub laid it all out in her post:
It isn’t about choice. It’s about power, it’s about basic civil and human rights. It’s about dignity. It’s about access to health care so that a woman can do what best for her and her child, instead of having no alternatives and then being thrown in the clink for being a dirty poor brown junkie or a lax bitch who didn’t get prenatal care. There be cooptation down this road of choice rhetoric–that dirty trashy slut made bad choices and should be punished for them! For the sake of the baby, dammit! And lo, she is, and because she’s not a wealthy or middle-class White woman, she’s invisible.
I agree that feminism isn’t about choices – feminism is about changing our society so women no longer have to constantly choose between shitty alternatives.
Despite that I think that there is strength in the slogan ‘a woman’s right to choose’ though (strength that gets lost in the watered down idea of being ‘pro-choice’). When I was going through the archives of an abortion rights group from the women’s liberation era, I found this fantastic leaflet that emphasised that the right to choose meant the right to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term and keep the baby. A right that we can’t have unless the work involved in child-rearing is recognised, and the costs involved in child-rearing is collectivised. To me that’s the (and the idea that women could have a right to choose when they can only have an abortion if they can pay for it is ridiculous).
I am an absolutist about a woman’s right to decide whether or not to end a pregnancy. I don’t think there are any circumstances where I’m a better judge than the pregnant woman about whether or not to continue either a pregnancy or this particular pregnancy. If a woman has had a sex test and decided to abort the pregnancy because the fetus is female, then who am I to say “no, you’re wrong, you can raise a baby girl”? The same is true if the fetus is going to be disabled, or if the father was of a different race.
But the problem in all those situations is that women may have very limited ability to exercise their right to continue their pregnancy and raise that child. You can’t have reproductive justice in a society where women can only have an abortion if they can pay, but equally well you can’t have reproductive justice in a society where women can only continue the pregnancy if they can pay. If we use the right to choose rhetoric, that has to mean that we’re working on both sides of the choice.
Also posted on Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty
Pingback: Rachel’s Tavern » Random Thoughts #1 (Country Music Conservatives, Madonna Adoption, adn Caffeine)
I agree. Too often “pro-choice” is emphasized as being about our right to choose to discontinue a pregnancy, rather than to choose to continue it. This is a serious issue for women of colour, disabled women (especially intellectually disabled) and those in abusive, controlling relationships.
A tangent, however: My husband and I recently had a conversation about whether we would be “pro-choice” if a 12-14 year-old daughter of ours were pregnant. We decided that in that case we were more likely pro-abortion than pro-choice. In the case of young minors, with immature bodies, who may not fully understand the complexities and consequences of their pregnancies, I have a hard time fully embracing the choice model. But my opinions are not fixed in this case; I struggle with it on a philosophical level, and I’d love to hear the opinions of others.
With my daughter, I plan to teach her all about where life comes from and health and happiness well before she is able to reproduce, so that such a question would become moot. Why would a truly free and informed 12-year-old choose to have a baby? Obviously something’s wrong in that scenario, and the problem is not her.
saltyC, agreed: while, philosophically and legally, a 12-year-old should have a choice either way, the only scenario I can imagine where a 12-year-old would want to carry to term is if she’s spent a lifetime being systematically shamed or threatened into not seeking an abortion. In this case, a “choice” to give birth doesn’t constitute a real, positive choice. Provide *real* freedom – legal AND ideological – to women and girls, and they’ll be able to decide what’s best for them.
Call me an old-fashioned minimalist ( or a cold-hearted bitch, if you prefer) but I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the only thing that anyone, whether male or female, is entitled to.
There is no right to have children, just like there is no right to a 6 bedroom house in the hills with a white picket fence. If a woman has the right to an abortion or to continue the pregnancy why don’t I have to right to not be forced to subsidize her abortion and the right to not be forced to pay for her childrens daycare? Especially when I would never have an abortion or put my own children in childcare unless I could afford it?
If a group of 10 people-or a 100 or 1,000- want to get together and pool their resources to pay for everyone’s abortions and everyone’s childcare and everyone’s health insurance that is alright by me. Just don’t force me to participate in it and then call it “choice”.
“But if you don’t PAY for my choice then I’m not really freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…”
What SBW said.
Well, I’m pretty sure that Robert and SmartBlkWoman are pretty damn happy that we’re subsidizing their parent’s retirement so they don’t have to foot the whole damn bill themselves.
SBW, the first problem is that if women are not allowed to make that choice for themselves, then all women’s subjugation is enforced by society, and reinforced in society.
Just to take one example, why is the ‘standard’ ‘normal’ work week set up so that most people who are primary caregivers to someone will not have time to work and provide care? How are you going to control that situation as an individual?
What do you mean “I would never have an abortion unless I could afford it?”
Don’t you mean that you would never have a baby unless you could afford it?
Do you really think every women who gets pregnant should abort if they can’t afford to have a baby? because of course becoming pregnant isn’t always a choice, sometimes it happens by accident.
What about the fact that black women are disproportionately poorer than white women (or men)? so many more black women are going to be aborting their babies. Is there anything about that that seems wrong? (Let alone that poor women will be aborting more babies than rich women.)
Why is it that people can’t afford to have babies? do you really think people’s economic position in society is somehow natural? It’s natural for women to be poorer than men, paid less than men. it’s natural for black women to be paid less than white women?
I think the structure of our society (work, expectations of caregiving responsibilities) sets it up that way. So how is that going to change if we only allow people to have babies who comply with the system as it is?
And of course, you pay either way. because the system as it is rewards conformity to sexist standards, as well as racist ones.
when you choose not to bear children, that is partly a function of the kind of relationships you are in — and especially it is a function of how close you are to living as a male (i.e. someone who is not expected to be responsible for primary childcare and can’t get pregnant accidentally or otherwise).
Giving up some of that may disadvantage you according to where you were before. But it wasn’t a level playing field to start with. Women who lose or quit their jobs, give up on their dreams of financial independence or personal development, or suffer great stress due to the double burden of childbearing and work outside the home, are paying already (as are their families) – the cost of complying with this system has been pushed off on them. So they are already paying.
Robert, both you and SBW are forced to pay for jails, police etc instead. Connect the dots. The only reason you have money at all is because you live in society, you don’t individually generate it from air. I suppose you would always choose the most expensive childcare for yourself rather than go to one that were adequately publicly funded, the way they are in Sweden for instance, but I would like to pay less. Healthy, sane children who don’t hate society are actually a valuable resource that make a country richer, and most moms are struggling to do us all a favor. Instead public money goes to making weapons and making exxon rich.
Also, it is absurd to say that a woman who can’t have an abortion should not have one. So she should have a child she can’t afford instead? Oh yeah, she’s shameful for having sex without protection in the first place.
You know what? This is the dominant thought pattern we see today, and why so many children are miserable: to pay for their mother’s sin. This is why 2 million Americans live in jail, and why we live in fear of fellow Americans: No sympathy, no support: all blame. I got mine, if you were as good as me you wouldn’t be so needy. Lucky you. I wonder how lucky you really are, after all, we usually judge others because of our own failings. The least generous people are the ones who never received help. And so the vicious cycle turns forever.
SBW, the first problem is that if women are not allowed to make that choice for themselves, then all women’s subjugation is enforced by society, and reinforced in society.
Who said women weren’t allowed to make “that” choice for themselves? If you read my words carefully you would see that I said a woman can make any choice she wants to make-just don’t involve me it.
Just to take one example, why is the ’standard’ ‘normal’ work week set up so that most people who are primary caregivers to someone will not have time to work and provide care? How are you going to control that situation as an individual?
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps when someone becomes a primary caregiver they have to give up something else? Life is full of one cost-benefit analysis after another. Perhaps primary caregivers could stay home or work out some other situation with their partners/friends/family to allow them to work outside of the home.
Either way, it is not my responsibility to make someone else’s life easier by subsidizing their lifestyle choices.
What do you mean “I would never have an abortion unless I could afford it?”
Don’t you mean that you would never have a baby unless you could afford it?
You misquoted me. I would never have an abortion and I would prefer to keep my child out of daycare.
Do you really think every women who gets pregnant should abort if they can’t afford to have a baby? because of course becoming pregnant isn’t always a choice, sometimes it happens by accident.
No, I don’t. But just like I wouldn’t ask somebody I don’t know to pay for my car accident I don’t expect anyone to ask me to pay for their pregnancy accident. I’m all for taking care of people that temporarily or permanently can’t take care of themselves.
And of course, SmartBlkWoman loves the babies :)
I think that when an unplanned pregnancy occurs and the decision is made to continue the pregnancy it is up to the womans partner and their friends and family to take care of the baby.
What about the fact that black women are disproportionately poorer than white women (or men)?so many more black women are going to be aborting their babies. Is there anything about that that seems wrong? (Let alone that poor women will be aborting more babies than rich women.)
Poor women and black women already are aborting their babies in disproportionate numbers. 3 out of 5 pregnancies of black women end in abortion. And as a black woman, those figures do disturb me, but what do they have to do with me being forced to pay for childcare and abortions?
I want to volunteer my time and money to prevent unplanned pregnancies and help teen mothers. I want to do that because *I* want to do it, not because the government tells me that I must do it, whether I like it or not.
Why is it that people can’t afford to have babies? do you really think people’s economic position in society is somehow natural?
People can’t afford to have babies when they don’t have the financial stability to do so. Yes there is privilege and racism and sexism and all the other -isms. Who said life was fair? But whether or not life is fair has nothing to do with a womans right to have a child, especially when she is asking that everyone else suffer stiff taxes to pay for that so-called right.
It’s natural for women to be poorer than men, paid less than men. it’s natural for black women to be paid less than white women?
That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Does everyone, regardless of their circumstances have the right to have a child and have the costs ( and consequences of raising that child) forced on people who had no choice in whether or not the child would be conceived, no choice in whether or not the child would be aborted, or no choice in how the child should be raised ?
Am I obligated to support everyone’s choices no matter how I feel about those choices? Why isn’t my right to simply not be involved respected?
I think the structure of our society (work, expectations of caregiving responsibilities) sets it up that way. So how is that going to change if we only allow people to have babies who comply with the system as it is?
Let me say this one last time: I am not disputing anyones right to get pregnant, get an abortion, or how they raise their child. I leave it up to each individual woman to conceive and raise a child in whatever circumstances she desires.
This is what I am saying: It is not my responsibility to support your choices. Period. It is my right to not be involved in your choices or to be held responsible for them.
Well, I’m pretty sure that Robert and SmartBlkWoman are pretty damn happy that we’re subsidizing their parent’s retirement so they don’t have to foot the whole damn bill themselves.
WRONG! My parents paid ( and planned for) their own retirement, thank you very much.
But other people do pay for your car accident: It’s called insurance.
You can’t separate yourself from other people’s choices, whether you really will follow through on your intentions to volunteer or not.
So neither of your parents collected a dime of Social Security? Pity that.
saltyc, i think the insurance model IS what SBW is proposing when she says
“If a group of 10 people-or a 100 or 1,000- want to get together and pool their resources to pay for everyone’s abortions and everyone’s childcare and everyone’s health insurance that is alright by me. Just don’t force me to participate in it and then call it “choice”.”
SBW, I think you’re sort of arguing against one of the roles of government: Making people do what they wouldn’t do on their own, in order to benefit the group as a whole. I agree that you’re being forced to pay for people’s choices. But of course you already are (and so is everyone else) through taxes etc. Are you fighting against the whole concept of group government? Or just irt abortion?
The larger point is, SBW, that it’s not about anybody paying extra money in taxes, it’s about reprioritizing society’s spending.
Mothers are struggling, you don’t need me to tell you that. How many women stay with a no-good man because she is afraid of plunging deeper into poverty? Of course she should leave, but the point is: it would be easier with subsidized childcare. It would be easier for mothers to complete their education, to give their children hope, etc if some of the billions going to make spaceships and to bail out risky business were funneled to jelp people like you and me.
It’s classic for the men in charge, the ones who say what you hear on TV, to pit us working folks against each other, while they eat most of the pie. Some women are better off not being m0thers, and they usually know that. I know one women who is still waiting to have an abortion because she doesn’t have the $500 to pay for it. I wanted to help her out, but I am broke too. Meanwhile they just passed a law saying Paris Hilton’s inheritence can’t be taxed. Is there something wrong with this picture?
I think you know the answer, because you are a SBW.
Sailorman, I’m sorry, but is car insurance voluntary or mandatory? Hm? Ok then.
Q Grrl Writes: So neither of your parents collected a dime of Social Security? Pity that.
Not really. My parents never paid a dime into social security either. So they didn’t lose anything. Their jobs had private retirement plans.
saltyC Writes: But other people do pay for your car accident: It’s called insurance.
You can choose a different insurance plan or not drive-and thus choose to not pay any insurance.
The analogy your trying doesn’t quite fit. Car insurance is provided by private companies that anyone can choose to do business with. Socialized child and healthcare are provided by the government and people are forced to contribute, whether they have a child or not. See the difference?
Sailorman Writes: Are you fighting against the whole concept of group government? Or just irt abortion?
I would call myself a classical liberal with an affection for libertarianism.
I label myself as pro-life but I would rather work to reduce pregancies by spending my own money and my own time on it. I’ve always voted Democrat/pro-choice in the past because I think they do the best job at trying to tackle the problem.
I know that’s all a little muddled, but it’s the best I could come up with to try to explain where I stand.
It’s really easy to blame young women and their pregnancies, much easier than going after the power structure that puts young women at the bottom of the totem pole, and looking at whether or not they are really free.
saltyC Writes: The larger point is, SBW, that it’s not about anybody paying extra money in taxes, it’s about reprioritizing society’s spending.
I understand what you’re saying but the problem with prioritizing is that you have to choose a set of priorities and rank them in order of importance. At the end of the day everyone is not going to have the same priorities and they are not going to give each of these priorities the same level of importance as someone else. Just like I don’t want to pay for socialized healthcare and childcare and you do, one of us is going to end up unhappy with the result. But at the end of the day I think it best that government spending be minimized to the fewest priorities as possible to ensure that people aren’t being forced to pay for things they shouldn’t, IMO, be forced to pay for.
Meanwhile they just passed a law saying Paris Hilton’s inheritence can’t be taxed. Is there something wrong with this picture?
At the risk of someone jumping out of the bushes and clocking me in the head over saying this……..I think the death tax should be abolished *SBW is now running for the hills* j/k
You really think you should be struggling as hard as you do, doing valuable work for the rest of us, for no credit? Raising children the right way is hard and should be rewarded. Educating yourself is hard work and should be rewarded.
Being born a Hilton is no great feat, does no help to society and is mightily rewarded, and don’t kid yourself: you do pay for her riches. Taxpayer money goes to large businesses like Hilton Hotels, and the Estate tax only affects mutli-millionaires.
Work is work. Soemeone making 10 million a year does not work 500 times harder than soemone making 20,000 a year with a child and an elder parent to take care of. Don’t you see how much easier your life and my life would be if we lived in a more just system that rewarded people for taking care of their loved ones, who work to better their own lives and that of their families?
Right now young children are seeing their parents struggle and not get anywhere, and they wonder why they should try. Of course that doesn’t excuse them from not trying, but is it that important for the rich to keep on getting richer? Stop watching Fox.
testing to see if my last post was really lost
Dangit I’ll try again.
SBW, do you really think you and I should struggle as hard as we do, when we are doing the valuable work of raising healthy happy children the right way?
Look, someone making 10 million dollars a year does not work 500 times as hard as someone making 20,000 a year with two kids and an elderly parent to take care of.
Everyone benefits from a healthy next generation.
Being born into wealth is not a contribution to society.
Look around you, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Is that because the rich are working harder and the poor are slacking off?
It’s because the sstem is not working. I’m from Brazil, and believe me, the poor can get much poorer and the rich even richer than we have it now. Because the rich pay no taxes, they benefit from very cheap labor. It goes on and on, trust me, it’s not the fault of pregnant women.
Libertarianism will not help people like you and me, tell me, is it pay as you go and every man for himself really working for you?
saltyC Writes: SBW, do you really think you and I should struggle as hard as we do, when we are doing the valuable work of raising healthy happy children the right way?
Wow, that’s a loaded question. On one hand your right. I wish I didn’t have to struggle as much as I do. I wish I didn’t have to make some of the hard choices that I’ve had to make over the past few years. I know all too well what poverty feels like and the pain of having to watch those of greater financial means acquire things in life that I wish I had. I’ve dealt with more instances of racism than I care to acknowledge and yet………for the most part, I made the bed I am now lying in and I think that I will eventually get out of this bed and move on to greener pastures. Just because this is where I’m at doesn’t mean that this is where I have to end up. I may have to work harder to get to where I want to be than the wealthy white woman or white male that I cross in the street but I haven’t given up.
No one is keeping me mired in poverty for the rest of my life. No one is saying that I can’t learn from my mistakes and make a better life for myself and my daughter. No one is saying that the next few years of my life aren’t going to be filled with some hard and painful choices.
I think the difference here is that I am optimistic and I have accepted the fact that life is not inherently fair and there is no way to make things fair across-the-board all the time. That’s just not the way that life works.
Look around you, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Is that because the rich are working harder and the poor are slacking off?It’s because the sstem is not working. I’m from Brazil, and believe me, the poor can get much poorer and the rich even richer than we have it now.
Another loaded question and I don’t have the time right now to do it justice but I will say this: I like capitalism/libertarianism and I don’t think socialism is the answer to the problems that ail American society.
I also don’t think that rich people are always more hard-working than poor people. But you help me make my point by bringing up your birthplace of Brazil. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. There are more people trying to get into America both legally and illegally than any other country in the world. We have something very good going on here in the States. Yes, it can get better. Much better. But the point is that you-or anyone else- would much rather be poor in America than in Mexico or Brazil or just about anyplace else in the world.
Libertarianism will not help people like you and me, tell me, is it pay as you go and every man for himself really working for you?
I’m a stay-at-home Mom who goes to school full-time. Things aren’t all that great for me now but I know that they are going to be a heck of a whole lot better shortly. Despite my poverty I contribute to my daughters college savings account and have organized my life in such a way as that the most important things to me are taken care of despite the fact that I don’t have everything that I want. I’m helping myself along with a lot of input from my family and I can only see things getting better.
Do people in Brazil have the ability to say that in 5 years or less they can look forward to a change from poverty to a $40k-$50k a year career and myriad possibilities?
saltyC Writes: You really think you should be struggling as hard as you do, doing valuable work for the rest of us, for no credit? Raising children the right way is hard and should be rewarded. Educating yourself is hard work and should be rewarded.
I see we have a completely different perspective on things. For me, working hard and educating myself is its own reward, not something I do for some amorphous collective known as “society”. I work hard because I want nice things, I want to live in a nice house, I want to retire comfortably, I want to see my daughter live a more comfortable life than I did. I work hard for myself, my daughter, my family, and the issues that I care about. Perhaps that’s why I work so hard whereas those people “laboring for society” don’t seem to see the connection between their hard work and their own lives; they’re waiting on “society” to give them some congratulations and a pat on the back.
Being born a Hilton is no great feat, does no help to society and is mightily rewarded, and don’t kid yourself: you do pay for her riches. Taxpayer money goes to large businesses like Hilton Hotels, and the Estate tax only affects mutli-millionaires.
1) Yes, the estate tax only affects multi-millionaires. So what? Once you get rich your obliged to become Robin Hood?
2) I don’t think the government should bail out failing businesses.
Don’t you see how much easier your life and my life would be if we lived in a more just system that rewarded people for taking care of their loved ones, who work to better their own lives and that of their families?
The system does do that.
Of course that doesn’t excuse them from not trying, but is it that important for the rich to keep on getting richer? Stop watching Fox.
Maybe because your from Brazil you have an ax to grind with rich people? Maybe you just don’t see yourself doing anything with your life other than what your doing right now?
Tell you the truth, my family came to America in the 70’s, when the divide btw rich and poor was not as great as it is now. None of my relatives are clamoring to come here now, and my dad went back for good. If you’re from a well-to-do family, life is very good there. I have been contemplating going back myself, though I am too American in many way, one of them is not liking such a divided society.
The well-off in Brazil would never trade their luxuries just to live in America now. Same with Mexico. The ones who come here dto make money are from the poor classes. The rich in Mexico City are white. Mexicans who come to America are Indians. You don’t see a lot of white Mexicans in America, because they live the good life at home, thanks to a system that is more libertarian.
To the extent that a hard working American can rise up to make a higher salary is the extent that the classes are not divided to begin with. Without government subsidies, the cost of an education would be even more out of the reach of poor folk than it is now. A health care crisis can bankrupt an average family, because an extended hospital stay will cause you to lose your job hence your insurance. America was great because regular working people fought for labor laws, fought for access to education, fought for contraception, for the right to vote. We are slacking now thanks to Fox. Americans have the same life expectancy as Cubans do., and our health and education indicators are the lowest of the richest nations.
Let me tell you something, I have seen all angles of life. I see how the wealthy live, some members of my family were born into wealth, I myself have been privileged in many ways, one of them is having relatives pay for my education. I have been and done many things, I have taught at Universities, I have been in the development team for video games such as Madden Football, I have created public art projects, etc. I have been well rewarded monetarily, but the hardest job I ever did was raising a baby girl.
I see who gets the money and who doesn’t. In this system, the poorest people are children. It does not have to be this way.
Things don’t just work themselves out if you just let it go. To allow a free-for-all, in which someone who runs a casino or a drug pusher makes a ton of money whereas someone who takes care of a sick relative gets nothing at all is not a recipe for a good society.
The super wealthy get that way from the work of everyday people. They benefit from the work of mothers raising children who will work for them, they hurt when childen are abandoned because a mother has to work and can’t afford childcare. Because that child will not be as productive.
What I’m trying to say is, if we ask the wealthy to share in the cost of making a good society, it’s better for our economy in the long run.
The leap from “Mexico or Brazil” to “just about anyplace else in the world” seems extreme. I’d rather be poor in the USA than in any country in the developing world, but there are other first-world countries where being poor and working-class seems at least as good, or better, than being poor or working class in the USA. Especially when you look at things like relative infant mortality rates.
Libertarians, if they were ever allowed to run the country, would make us very poor within a generation. One major reason the USA is so wealthy because the regulations and bureaucracy that libertarians hate, have fostered a business climate in which business owners can depend on contract laws being enforced, very rarely have to bribe officials, etc.. That’s a climate in which businesses – especially small start-up businesses, which would otherwise be eaten alive – can thrive.
But libertarians would undo all that. Deregulation is horrible for the economy; deregulation is what brings us Enron and the S&L scandal. I’m all for a market-based economy, but markets without regulation — and, yes, a safety net — are a recipe for widespread corruption and poverty.
Ampersand Writes: One major reason the USA is so wealthy because the regulations and bureaucracy that libertarians hate, have fostered a business climate in which business owners can depend on contract laws being enforced, very rarely have to bribe officials, etc.. That’s a climate in which businesses – especially small start-up businesses, which would otherwise be eaten alive – can thrive.
I disagree. Libertarianism would not crush small businesses and often the actions taken to help small businesses and regulate industry have ended up crushing innovation and creating the very monopolies we supposedly despise.
Link
Link
Ampersand:
I’ve been kind of reluctant to post here because I’ve felt like I should go back and respond to your comment in that thread about Angry Brown Butch trying to redefine racism before starting anything new, and I haven’t really been in the mood for it.
But heck if I’m going to let that last comment slide.
First, you’re arguing against a strawman. Enforcing contracts is one of the few functions of government that libertarians regard as legitimate, and we’re far more consistent in our support for enforcement of contracts than you on the left are. And I haven’t the slightest idea where you get the idea that libertarian policies would lead to an environment in which bribery became necessary to run a business. Bribery is important only when government officials have the power to make or break your business, and one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that we should take that power away from them by limiting the government’s interference in the economy.
Your next step is even more baffling. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying that if we agree that government should perform the basic functions of maintaining law and order and enforcing contracts–something no one has disputed–we must also agree that it should provide generous welfare benefits. That’s a non-sequitur; you can’t get there from here without some very nonobvious intermediate steps that you’ve left out.
Also, saltyC:
Insurance is a very bad analogy for the welfare state. With insurance, people who are at high risk pay high premiums. With welfare, it’s just the opposite. The wealthy, who will almost certainly never collect welfare benefits, pay high taxes, while the poor, who are much more likely to collect welfare benefits, pay relatively low taxes.
And the United States has 371 billionaires compared to Brazil’s 16, despite Brazil having about 60% of the United States’ population. In fact, Bill Gates has more money than all of Brazil’s billionaires combined. So I’m not sure why you’re pointing to Brazil as an example of how the rich can get richer.
Does this bother anyone else — the idea that we should be rewarded for doing the right thing?
Silly me, I thought virtue was its own reward.
Gee whiz, SBW. People in second and third world countries would rather live in the US, a first world country.
I personally (in the fleshworld) don’t know anyone — rich or poor — who would like to move to the US. The leftists think you’re the Great Satan and the rightists are too patriotic.
;)
Brazil has a higher income disparity due to the fact that there is little social distribution of resources. Therefore there is less wealth all around because fewer people have disposable income.
But the greater class divide makes for a more comfortable life for the rich. More people in Brazil live a luxurious life though their incomes are lower because labor costs are so low.
A full-time live-in servant costs about $100 a month, so the top third of the population typically never cleans their own house, does any gardening or cooking.
Carlavii, so why shouldn’t entrepeneurship be its own reward too? Why should tax money go to help business, when people should do it all on their own? you’re saying people who aren’t primary caregivers deserve all the money while saintly women who raise children and take care of the old need to stay in Virtuous Poverty. You sound Catholic.
Also, the poor pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, especially sales taxes.
Also, Bill Gates benefitted from an educated population thanks to social redistribution of taxes to public schools etc. That’s why you don’t have more Bill Gateses in Brazil.
Nice discussion, folks. I don’t want to interrupt it too much, but couple of points:
So, in libertarian society government has enough power to enforce the law, yet bribery isn’t even theoretically possible as the government is supposedly not powerful enough to affect businesses in any way?
And I don’t see why it is necessary to totally break or make anything in order to create an incentive for bribery. It is quite enough to make it cheaper to bribe an official than follow regulations.
Please elaborate, though I admit that I’m bit of a sceptic when libertarianism is concerned as all countries without reasonable sized central government seem to be abysmal hellholes. Of course that can be conveniently explained by the old “real communism is not like that” type argument.
Yet as far as I know, unlike communists, very few libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually move to enjoy a paradise without the evils of government such as Somalia.
As for the billionaires, obviously everyone is in the end better of in a functioning society where you can get rich by talent and hard work instead of a divided and quite static class society such as many south-american countries. Yet many so-called right wing policies seem to seek social engineering in order to make US more like Mexico.
I suppose that the problem is that everyone wants to have a free ride in functioning society where someone else pays for it, and this is equally true whether you want to abolish “death tax” in right or more welfare benefits in the left side of political spectrum.
Anyway, as for the actual topic. I think that the very idea that every woman should have the right to have/not have abortion and the right to have and raise the child if she chooses to does have very much “positive rights” ring to it, and those are seldom as obvious as negative ones when one’s rights require that someone provides them.
If we suppose that no, every woman does not have those rights, how is that supposed to be implemented?
Is the kid literally supposed to starve to death, or to die from example because of a banal wound infection as the parents can’t afford food or medical care?
If the child is automatically taken to custody, then the result is even more burdensome to tax payers than providing welfare for otherwise able parents.
If the criminal system is brought to bear on someone because of a pregnancy that would be a huge issue to freedom-loving Americans and heads would roll even if it would be true that she is not able to take care of the kid on her own.
We talk about rich countries like USA where there are already myriad of welfare policies and ultimately it is agreed that the state has the obligation to provide basic needs for kids without functioning parents.
There is nothing wrong with the usual right-wing rhetoric of “personal responsibility” when we talk about able grown-ups in a wealthy society such as USA, but the problem here is the same as in “socialized “healthcare discussions: it is quite inevitable that there has to be some kind of innocent collateral damage if the society strives to be tough but fair in this.
Finally, I agree that government should not provide an incentive for having kids for someone who is not able to take care of himself without obvious reason such as disability. Then again, was it Alas that pointed out that the so called “welfare-queens” were just a right-wing myth.
My point was: even if you disagree with the conclusions of the original article, it wrong to punish the kid and quite hard to punish the mother for assuming rights they supposedly don’t really deserve.
Marcus:
There’s always potential for bribery–utopia is not an option. But Ampersand claimed that a libertarian government would be particularly susceptible to bribery, while I’m arguing the opposite is true–that an activist state is far more prone to it. This is partly because there are just so many more things that an activist government can do to help its friends, and partly because in a society that expects government to be involved in everything, it’s much easier to come up with a plausible justification for whatever new regulation or subsidy the briber has requested.
It’s true that countries with very small governments tend to be hellholes, but that doesn’t mean big government is necessary for a country to stop being a hellhole. The usual pattern is for a country to grow rich with a relatively small government and then to expand the government once it becomes wealthy enough to support a welfare state. Big government is a symptom, not the cause, of prosperity. Where it’s been tried, limited government has worked pretty well. It just hasn’t lasted.
Conversely, hellholes tend to have small governments partly because it’s all they can afford, and partly because the people at the top don’t have any incentive to establish a welfare state. That these governments are small, though, doesn’t mean that there’s anything liberal about them. They tend to be petty dictatorships more often than not. Even on a shoestring budget, a government can always find ways to disprut commerce, scare off foreign investment, and in general make its constituents’ lives miserable.
That said, there are a few countries with relatively limited governments which are doing quite well, such as Hong Kong (not technically a country, but fairly independent, policy-wise), Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.
That’s a bit of a strawman. No libertarian wants a society without government. Minarchists want a single government whose functions are limited to maintaining law and order and enforcing contracts, whereas market anarchists want competing governments which perform those functions. No one in Somalia is performing those functions. But granted that Somalia sucks, does it really suck any more than it did when it had a government.
Yes, and no-one really knows the absolute truth in the absence of true libertarian government. In the other hand, there are plenty of governments that can be characterized as “activists” or even deserve the dreaded label “welfare state”.
So, while this theory sounds much more reasonable than the previous self-contradicting one, I fear that it fails to be backed up by proof that corruption correlates at all with big governments in the real world.
The most corrupt places should be in Scandinavia and northern Europe, while in north America Canada should be more corrupt than USA and notoriously more corrupt than Mexico.
It obviously doesn’t work that way. The problem seems be inversely correlated surprisingly well with the activist state. The concern that turning big government into libertarian one would lead to corruption might be unnecessary -perhaps same cultural values that condemn bribery lead to welfare policies- but it is absolutely logical.
I know that Somalia is no libertarian state for the reasons you stated, yet it was never quite my claim. Somalia does have remarkable right-wing virtues: It is a country where the government has been drowned in a bathtub.
Secondly, one might also argue that it is quite a bit closer to libertarian ideal than a nation with the biggest government in absolute terms in the history of humankind. Yet somewhat ironically, the achievements of latter are frequently used as arguments by self-styled libertarians. (Case in point, this discussion.)
Thirdly, it remains as an option for those that truly think that taxation in democracy is the ultimate human rights violation. Only I strongly suspect that american taxpayers just have the same melodramatic disposition than arab salesmen: These taxes have ruined us! You have taken the bread from the lips of my poor children by this 30% income tax! Now we have to live on the streets in the dust and beg, Allah have mercy on us… (etc)
-And still he pays propably only half what he could really afford based on comparison with othern western countries. It is a cultural thing I suppose.
It is admittedly an extreme example, kind of a worst-case scenario. Like Sweden is as far as the other end of the spectrum is concerned. It is simply very nice after a heavy-handed discussion to hear the admission that despite the unspeakable horrors of welfare state it is possible to go too much to the other direction too.
I largely agree with latter parts of the post, things are still simply not all about the size of the government.