It is not my purpose here to delve into the definition of humanity, and my reasons for believing that all babies are human, regardless of age.  Suffice it to say that if one does believe that babies are human, then to kill a baby is murder, and should be punished.  Therefore, a social conservative who believes that babies are human (encompassing all opponents of abortion I have ever met) cannot object to libertarianism because it demands support for abortion.

This also cuts through much of the rather twisted rhetoric on abortion by pro-abortion libertarians.  The issue is not about whether or not one supports a women’s right to choose, or whether one believes in liberty, it is simply about the definition of humanity.  Libertarians wishing to convince others that abortion should be legal must therefore cease framing the issue in terms of liberty, must cease treating abortion as a necessary belief of consistent libertarianism, and must prepare to debate the definition of life.

The first discusses the upcoming Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller, regarding the constitutionality of the DC gun ban, expressing the belief that “the right to own guns is itself an important civil right”, an implicit support for striking down the ban.  The very next article treats the recent case of Baze v. Rees, on the constitutionality of the death penalty.  Here, National Review condemns the mere fact that the case was in the court system: “Reasonable people may differ on the merits and morality of capital punishment.  The proper arena for their disputes, however, is not the Supreme Court, but the voting booth and state legislatures.”

National Review faces a choice: either matters of public policy are the strict domain of the legislature, not subject to court review, or the court system may interfere with legislative supremacy when the legislature violates the Constitution.  But NR does neither.  In arguing that the Supreme Court should strike down the DC gun ban, it argues that the court does have a duty to uphold the rights of the people against the acts of state and local legislatures; in arguing that the death penalty is the exclusive province of state legislatures it argues that the Supreme Court has no authority to override legislation that the voters deem constitutional.  Which should it be?

Let us say that I possess the right of property over a certain possession of mine. If my right to it is absolute, I may do with it whatever I want. If my right to it is not absolute, then in certain circumstances another person possesses the right of property. But who determines the lawful owner under a given set of circumstances? Someone must have the right to determine whose property it is at any given time. But then that person becomes the sole owner of the property, for he has the right to determine the use of the property. Hence, if I can determine the lawful controller of the property, then my right over it is absolute, for I could judge it to always be under my control. Similarly, if the right of arbitration belonged to another, then he could judge it to be under his control, and my right would not be limited, but nonexistent. Thus, I conclude that for a right to exist at all, it must be absolute.

I do not deny the possibility of group rights, such as democratic control (such as a joint-stock corporation). But in this instance, the right is not a partial right belonging to each shareholder, but an absolute right belonging to the shareholders as a body, voting in proportion to their holdings. The indivisibility of rights persists, as at all times. The only alternative to indivisible individual rights is the absence of rights entirely. No stance between the absence of individual rights and their indivisibility is logically consistent.

And how well does the US government adhere to this standard? It prohibits theft, but takes a greater portion of the freely earned wages of its citizens than a legion of thieves. It investigates oil companies for “extraordinary profits”, but itself profits more from each gallon of gasoline sold than the oil companies. The oil companies have the excuse that they are the center of a highly volatile market. What excuse has the government, whose sole contribution to the production of oil is a mountain of pointless regulation?

The United States Government is not a government under the law, for it violates in every action the laws it has established. It, like all governments, is founded on force, without which it could never survive. And yet it attempts to restrain force. The US government is subject to its own law alone, which is really no law whatsoever.