Does the prospective mother right to her own body mean she can expel any unwanted “attachment” from her person?

Then what of the right of the baby to its life?

Obviously this is a deep moral issue, one which cannot be easily answered… particularly in a short pamphlet like this one.

The question then which I would like to bring to the abortion debate is as follows: Should the government dictate and enforce its morals onto the citizenry, or should individuals (perhaps though institutions they’re affiliated with) decide for themselves?

Should the government pay for abortions, child-births and child-rearing?

Please see “Private production of Defence”, Chapter 12 from “For a New Liberty”, Chapter 9 from “The Ethics of Liberty”, Chapter 13 from “The Ethics of Liberty”, Legislation and Law in a Free Society and Legislation and the discovery of law in a free society.

Also, Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a lecture at our very own Mises Seminar in Australia just a few months ago on this topic:

If you have any questions remaining after going through the aforementioned, please add your constructive conclusions in the threaded comment section below.

Legalising gay marriage is the same as supporting Government intervention into your private life.

Recently the Australian Government has been discussing enforcing a “Fast food tax”, in order to give a “positive incentive” to purchase “healthy” foods.

Protesting for gay marriage “rights” is analgous to protesting the aforementioned  Fast food tax for McDonalds exclusively.

The Queer community are ignoring the principle behind petitioning the government to legalise gay marriage.

The alternative

The Libertarian alternative is to make your personal life private. I.e.: privatise marriage.

To simplify the argument further: what bearing should an unaffected third-partys’ judgement have on contracts between consenting individuals?

Freedom of contract is what all Libertarians advocate.

This entails the freedom to make contracts—marriage inclusive—with one or more consenting adults.

The government should not be allowed to interfere with your private lives.

Socialist advocates of same-sex marriage

Marriage is a contract. I thus find it ridiculous to watch Socialists organise rallies advocating same-sex marriage, because that is the same thing as supporting capitalism.

In  a capitalist society, individuals can make contracts with other individuals, as long as they are free from coercion (i.e. voluntary) and aren’t an agreement to inflict aggression against a third-party’s person or property (non-aggression axiom).

Socialist support of Palestine

Historical land theft

A strange argument socialists use for promoting Palestine and removing the Israeli State is that the Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. Not only is this almost entirely false, but even if it were completely true, the argument would still be supporting the right to hold private-property.

Economic and political system

Israel is the most “socialist” of all its neighbours, even if you were to take into consideration the Palestinian National Authority.

Religion

Traditionally the core of almost all forms of socialism has been atheism, so to support Palestine (or for that matter, Israel) would be inconsistent with their socialist philosophy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, not only does the Socialist argument against Israel rest on private-property (an extremely anti-socialist concept), but what it is seeking to replace Israel with; is itself less Socialist than Israel.

Whenever you see a rally hosted by a Socialist group—whether it be on drugs, same-sex marriage, Israel, Palestine, Muslims or even Aboriginal rights—consider how consistent their protests are with Socialism.

The existence of a National Currency requires essentially the existence of a central bank. Decisions by the central bank impact the entire economy, and leave control of the currency to a tiny banking elite. These systems suffer from longer business cycles than are historically had on the gold standard. Essentially the printing of money leads to a conflict of resources, and projects cannot be completed – and so economic growth stalls and recession occurs. There is no way out of this fate for any economy with fiat currency.

The alternative is to keep Government out of currency and allow private traders to decide instead what to use as a means of exchange. Because gold has little industrial purposes, is scare, and highly malleable while imperishable – it has all the attributes which an entity requires to be a good means of exchange. Gold is an equivalent of value produced, and therefore in exchange is as good for both parties as a simple barter. The gold standard essentially banishes fraudulent currency from the market place. Indeed, the only purpose for a fiat currency is so that the State can defraud it’s value.

Capitalism is synonymous with greed, theft and all that is wrong with the corporate domination of society. To most people is ‘obviously’ means the pursuit of a profit above all legal and moral considerations, at the expense of the environment and basic human rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Greed and exploitation are not unique to an economic mode of action. We must look deeper at the meaning of capitalism to see what it is and what it is not.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. This means that individuals or groups of individuals have the freedom to accumulate capital (i.e. money, equipment etc) and engage in entrepreneurial activity.

Contrast this with socialism, where the means of all production MUST be ‘owned’ by a collective of individuals (i.e. workers or even the general public). In other words, you are not free to accumulate capital and start a business that would be owned entirely by you.

Social cooperation between collectives of individuals, to own and manage the means of production, can free occur under capitalism (and indeed it has throughout history). In contrast, no individual is permitted to own the means of production within a socialist commonwealth.

Which system is compatible with liberty and a free society? The answer has always been capitalism.

To find out more, read: http://mises.org/books/capitalism_kelly.pdf

Socialism—of any form—restricts your freedom of contract. This denial of self-ownership and your basic human-rights is what makes socialism inherently evil both in theory and practise.

There are many more critiques of socialism to be made, from economical, sociological, epistemological, religious, atheistic, altruistic and philosophical positions.

Join us on the 3rd Sunday of every month to learn more critiques of socialism

If roads were privately-owned, as they should be, the owners of good, safe, fast roads would spell out the economic advantages of their better roads over the costs and delays of their competitors’ slow, dangerous and uncomfortable roads. Road owners would be responsible for the lives of their road-users, creating further incentive for road-owners to increase safety.

Road owners would also be held accountable (sued) for the pollution caused by vehicles using their road – as this pollution is infringing on the private property rights of others. The reason for why pollution from vehicles persists to plague us is not due to ‘markets failing’, rather, it is the failure of government to uphold private property rights.

For more information see Walter Block’s book: ‘The Privatisation of Roads and Highways – Human and Economic Factors’ which is available for free online at: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

People freely pay for the products and services they think are necessary in their private lives.  They will continue to fund the government functions that are necessary and proper.  The unfunded programs will fade away because they are not needed.  There is no legitimate reason for citizens to pay for programs they do not benefit from and do not support.

The one question on tax that everyone is scared to answer: When attempting to justify government expenditure on utilitarian grounds, how do you take the coercive nature of taxation into account?

When answering this question for yourself please consider the following four points:

• Taxation is coercive
• Taxpayer does not want to pay tax
• Taxpayer would have put his funds elsewhere
• Whether public good or not irrelevant