Apolitical Staples

And I believe they are both evil. ;)

P.S. Hilary is definitely no friend of Canada’s.

“Hilary is definitely no friend of Canada’s.” That much I know ;)

There is no contradiction between economic and social libertarianism. The fundamental principle at stake is self ownership. You own your own body and you own what you produce with your own body.

It is evil to force someone to have or to not have a baby and it is evil to force someone to contribute tax money to either pay for someone else to have an abortion or to raise someone else’s child. All of these acts are immoral because they are invasions of one’s property.

The rights of a fetus raise some interesting questions, but these can again be solved with simple logic. A fetus is like an invited guest in a woman’s body if it was created through a consensual act, and it is immoral to kill an invited guest. A fetus created by rape or other non-consensual means is like a trespasser. Since one can expel trespassers, with deadly force if necessary, there is some moral justification (though not a Christian one) for aborting a fetus which is the product of rape.

Even though there is no moral justification for killing a fetus which was created through a consensual act, there is no justification for invading a woman’s body - her property - and forcing her to treat her guest with what others deem to be proper respect. It is impossible for outsiders to determine to what degree consent was involved in the production of the fetus, and following the Golden Rule, one would not want to have strangers invading one’s property in order to impose what they consider to be suitable rules of hospitality.

There are also practical concerns. As feminists point out again and again, attempts to ban abortion had little effect, and led to further problems of botched, back-room operations.

Note that while in the matter of abortion the question of justice with respect to treatment of invited guests versus trespassers is not clear enough to invite intervention, someone like Robert Pickton is obviously far over the line and must be punished.

You will be despised by both the anti-abortion faction who wish to invade a woman’s body and force her to protect her fetus and the pro-abortion faction who wish to invade your pocketbook in order to pay for either a woman’s abortion or to raise her child. Arguments about what’s better for society are red herrings designed to apologize for or disguise invasions of your property, “for the greater good”.

As for your political homelessness: the truth may be a lonely island, but it will never sink. Recognizing, articulating and denouncing the lies and other moral abominations in the mainstream parties’ platforms make one a lousy politician, but a fine human being.

These questions don’t leave much to the imagination and are, more or less, a series of false dichotomies. For example, the first question asks “If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.”

It is entirely possible for the process of globalization, that is the process whereby people become ever more connected no matter their location on the globe, can, at the same time, serve both purposes. (There are only a few vestiges of autarky left in the world and their people would be far better off with a little bit of interaction with the outside world- but I digress.)

In fact, globalization can serve many other purposes, such as raising awareness for endangered species or constructing international agreements to eliminate CFCs (Montreal Protocol). In fact, the Montréal Protocol is a prime example of an international pact that served both he interests of “trans-national corporations” and “humanity.”

With questions such as these it is hard conclude that this test can adequately reflect one’s political belonging. It certainly cannot reflect a truly informed political opinion.

But hey, it is really good for filling page space on slow chatter days in blogsphere ;)

-Patrick

I feel for you, Greg. This political “homelessness” is exactly what drove me to seek another place to live.

A fetus created by rape or other non-consensual means is like a trespasser.

Not enough oxygen is reaching your brain. No matter what sort of arguments are deployed to debate the pros and cons of abortion, the absurdity that the unborn is anything but innocent should not intrude. Conception is an act wholly beyond control of the conceived.

It would seem that some in the press corps and press gallery would agree that they are similar (in the way they treat them).

Thanks for pointing out a way to identify political leanings across national boundaries and exposing the similarities between the Canadian right and the American left.

I always cringe when our media and politicians praise the Democrats while damning the Conservatives, since, on most issues, the Democrats are further to the right. They should learn more about American politics before they make cross-border comparisons.

Thanks for the insights, Mr. Staples. Great blog.

Patrick covers one of the major flaws in that survey (false dilemmas). Another one is that many of the questions, as worded, have nothing to do with public policy (eg. “Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all”, “Sax outside marriage is usually immoral”). In reality, answering ‘yes’ to those questions most likely categorizes you as “opposed to gov’t subsidies for art” and “in favour of a gov’t ban on unmarried sax”. It’s very misleading.

(I tried taking this test two different ways. When I answered based on what the questions actually said, I got 5.88 towards economic right and -1.95 towards social libertarian. When I answered based on what the questions “really meant”, I got 8.12 economic and -1.74 social.)

Finally, whatever criteria they use to rank real-world leaders and parties is heavily skewed to put most of them into the top-right quadrant. I suspect this a reflection of the political biases of whoever is doing the ranking.

Greg, what are the issues in Canadian public policy that make you “pretty far from [the Conservatives] on the social scale”?

(As you probably noticed, I had to misspell a couple words to get past the spam filter…)

I assume Jazz artists know how to perform safe sax.

the absurdity that the unborn is anything but innocent should not intrude. Conception is an act wholly beyond control of the conceived.

That’s why I said the fetus that is a product of rape is “like” a trespasser, not that the fetus “is” a trespasser. Or if you prefer, a fetus in the case of rape is the product of trespass and assault. The innocence of the unborn infant is a very important consideration but it does not trump all other considerations. Your right - and ability - to preserve the life of the fetus ends at the pregnant woman’s stomach.

My ability isn’t confined except by my own good moral sense as to which means are acceptable and which are not, and my moral right to intervene to prevent the death of an innocent human ends nowhere at all. The only open question is the status of a fetus with respect to being a person. If that question is ever resolved one way or the other, the permissibility of abortion is simultaneously resolved. Until that question is answered, I confine my moral standard - err to the benefit of the fetus - to myself and let others make their own choice.