Evictionism, The Libertarian Position on Abortion (at least in my opinion)

From: S
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 7:55 AM
To: ‘Walter Block’ <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Post-Eviction


Let’s assume that a libertarian society adopts your eviction policy relating to abortion.  What happens post-eviction?  Is anyone legally responsible for caring for the evicted fetus?

In particular, I find persuasive Stephan Kinsella’s argument that one voluntarily assumes positive obligations if one puts another in a dangerous situation.  If so, hasn’t some combination of the mother and the medical staff placed the evicted fetus in a dangerous situation?  Must some or all of them be obliged to care for the fetus?  If the mother, then what’s the point of evicting the fetus (she might as well have given regular birth to the fetus)?  If the medical staff, then will they want to undertake evictions if that obliges them to care for the fetuses, which would involve use of scarce resources?  Perhaps charitable organizations will arise to fund this care, but does that let the mother and the medical staff off the hook?  Since a fair number of evicted fetuses will die until medical technology advances, how will blame be apportioned by libertarian courts for the death of each fetus?


Dear S:

Economics joke: The economist was asked, “How’s your wife?” Came the answer: “Compared to what?”

Dangerous? Compared to what? Compared to not existing? In my view, that’s even more dangerous. So, giving birth implies LESS danger.

How’s about the baby who results from rape? The mother didn’t put the baby “in danger.” The rapist father did.

There are no positive obligations in libertarianism. If and only if no one on the planet wants to care for this new baby, then he will die. But this is extremely unlikely.

Best regards,



4:36 pm on May 19, 2019