KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443. Related: Abortion Correspondence with Doris Gordon, Libertarians For Life (1996) (June 14, 2023) Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok) Walter Block, "Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism," MEST Journal (forthcoming 2025) “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). This was also podcast  at the Property and Freedom Podcast as PFP285. Below please find the Shownotes provided by Grok, my own notes from which the speech was read, the transcript (cleaned up by Grok), and an Article version of the speech prepared by Grok (here: Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)). Related: "How We Come to Own Ourselves," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), in an update noting: See Daniel J. Flynn, “Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand,” J. Libertarian Stud. 29 (2) (2025): 35–50, p. 40: “He noted a split on the seemingly uncontroversial idea of making support of children compulsory for parents, which, despite Atlas Shrugged’s reputation as a kid-free zone, Rand endorsed.” Block, “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism” Grok shownotes: Shownotes: KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024) In this thought-provoking talk from the 2024 Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting, Stephan Kinsella tackles the contentious issue of abortion through a libertarian lens, acknowledging its complexity and the deep divisions it creates. He traces the historical pro-choice leanings of libertarians, particularly Objectivists like Ayn Rand, while noting the rise of pro-life sentiments within modern paleo-libertarian circles, exemplified by the 2022 Libertarian Party platform change led by the Mises Caucus. Kinsella critiques both secular and religious arguments, dismissing Doris Gordon’s Libertarians for Life stance as overly simplistic and finding Walter Block’s “evictionism” convoluted, as it frames the fetus as a trespasser despite most pregnancies resulting from voluntary acts. Reflecting on his own evolution from a staunch pro-choice Randian to a more nuanced perspective as a parent, Kinsella grounds his analysis in the libertarian principle that rights stem from reasoning capacity, a concept rooted in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s discourse ethics. Kinsella argues that the abortion debate is intractable due to irreconcilable religious, feminist, and philosophical differences, making state intervention problematic. He proposes a “radically decentralist” solution: until birth, the family unit, particularly the mother, should have jurisdiction over abortion decisions, free from external legal interference. This approach, inspired by Hoppe’s 2011 remarks in Romania, avoids intrusive policing—such as monitoring pregnancies for late-term abortions deemed murder—and respects the private nature of family matters. Kinsella suggests that positive obligations may arise from voluntarily conceiving a child, akin to rescuing someone you’ve endangered, but maintains that legal systems should defer to families until the child is born, when homicide laws apply. He references Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism to underscore that a born child owns its body, marking birth as a clear legal boundary. This decentralist framework aligns with libertarian principles of minimizing state overreach and respecting individual autonomy, as Kinsella elaborates in his broader work, such as Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023). The episode also points to related discussions, including Christos Armoutidis’ “Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion” (J. Libertarian Stud., 2024) and Oscar Grau’s chapter in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Papinian Press, 2024), for further exploration of libertarian perspectives on abortion. By advocating for family jurisdiction, Kinsella offers a pragmatic way to navigate this divisive issue, leaving listeners with a compelling case for decentralization in one of libertarianism’s most challenging debates. *** Update: see Christos Armoutidis, "Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion," J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no.1 (2024): Abstract: The issue of abortion—and, more broadly, the issue concerning the source of rights or, more precisely, when and why humans acquire or recognize rights—has long vexed libertarians. It’s a complex issue with numerous good-faith and reasonable arguments that lead to differing conclusions. This issue is usually brought up when the topic of abortion is discussed in libertarian circles. This article will attempt to show when and why humans get rights by advancing a theory inspired and implied by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics”; it will then endeavor to “resolve” and present the consistent libertarian stance on the abortion issue. and Oscar Grau, "On Argumentation Ethics, Human Nature, and Law," in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024). See also Benjamin Tucker on abortion: This is just the old adage "I brought you into this world, I can take you OUT" elevated as if it's serious high theory. Like Walter Block with his "libertarianism abhors unowned property" reasoning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion: 19th-century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker initially concluded that no one should interfere to prevent neglect of the child, although they could still repress a positive invasion. However, Tucker, having reconsidered his opinion, resolved that parental cruelty is of non-invasive character and therefore is not to be prohibited. Tucker's opinion is grounded on the fact that he viewed the child as the property of the mother while in the womb and until the time of their emancipation (at the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves) unless the mother had disposed of the fruit of her womb by contract. In the meantime, Tucker recognized the right of the mother to dispose of her property as she sees it fit. According to Tucker's logic, "the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so".[12][13] Tucker is very confused here, but at least he was good on IP (even more impressive given that he, like Tucker, seemed to accept the flawed labor theory of property which usually leads people to favor IP). https://youtu.be/v9bDRDD2wWU Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/vFCZLT4tMY4 My speech notes: Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society 2024 Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey September 19–24, 2024 Alright, let’s have as much fun as we can with a topic like this. Contentious issues among libertarians: Anarchy vs. Minarchy Forms of state: monarchy vs. democracy Open borders vs. mass immigration Intellectual Property (we are winning this one) Israel vs. Gaza Ukraine vs. Russia Abortion: Pro-choice and Pro-Life I’ve changed my own mind a bit on this issue, after becoming a parent: from pro-choice. to more sympathetic to pro-life arguments, and to my current decentralist view Traditionally libertarians have tended to be pro-choice, including virtually all Objectivists, though there were always some minority pro-life voices (e.g. Doris Gordon of L4L). In recent years many seem to be more conservative, and more friendly to religion, and many more opposed to abortion than in the past. The LP removed its pro-choice plank in Reno in 2022 as part of the Mises Caucus takeover, the “Reno Reset,” arguing that the issue is not settled and each candidate should be able to adopt their own position on this issue. On some issues it seems possible to make progress. Many libertarians come from conservatism, or sometimes leftism, moving at first towards libertarian minarchism and then eventually to libertarian anarchism. I changed my mind on the IP issue and have managed to persuade a large number of people to adopt the anti-IP position. Views change on the issue of open borders and immigration and on particular issues like Israel vs. Gaza and Russia v. Ukraine. But it seems almost impossible for anyone to change someone else’s mind on the abortion issue. The fact that this issue seems intractable, often rooted in deep lifestyle preferences or religious beliefs, is relevant, I think to how this issue is best solved in a political-legal sense. See Loren E. Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 91: “The intractability of the dispute … may itself be philosophically significant.” There are the well-known arguments Pro-choice There is the modern, or feminist, argument: it’s my body. Of course the response is that there is a baby inside which complicates the matter For this reason even most pro-choice people do not not favor legality until birth Ayn Rand: “abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” (“Of Living Death,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6) In Rand’s view, opposition to abortion arises from a failure to grasp both the context of rights and the imposition that child-bearing places on women. As she put it: “A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” So even Randians recognize difficulty in the later stages of pregnancy Pro-life