About: This is “Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast (Эхо Свободы, Радикальный Подкаст)”. In each podcast episode a different issue is discussed. Each episode can stand by itself, but there is a direction of the whole podcast towards the complete liberation. Additionally this is the space where poetry will be uploaded.
Author: My name is VolodyA! V Anarhist, i am politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually ex-buddhist, religiously atheist, epistimologically agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise. But this podcast is not about myself, but rather about my ideas.
Contact: Anybody is more than welcome to contact me with your thoughts and comments. Please use the comment facility of LibSyn or send me an e-mail (Volodya_Ⓐ_When Gendarme Sleeps.org) (PGP key fingerprint: 0DDF C0B2 A699 E6E7 C154 567A D5BD 548F B099 86AC). I will accept and play audio comments sent as OGG Vorbis/FLAC (or MP3/Wave if you must).
Disclaimer: All that i discuss here is my opinion, i do not condone nor condemn any action(s) by this podcast, i simply speak my mind. Please respect that and be respectful if disagree. Trolling behaviour and spam do not constitute a form of speech and will not be tolerated.
Copyright: All the content that is made by me for this podcast is in public domain at the moment of publication unless stated otherwise. I would appreciate it if while using any of the things you find here, you provide reference back to me, but that is only a request.
Important: This podcast is not affiliated with LibCom.org.
Fri, 27 September 2013
There is almost no analysis of the abortion debate from the anti‐capitalist perspective. I attempt to provide such, and at the same time to take on the most powerful pro‐abortion argument that i know of.
Please leave comments.
Direct download: EchoOfFreedom_121_2013Sep27_AntiCapitalistAbortionAnalysis.vorb.theo.ogv
Category:videocasts -- posted at: 6:23am EDT
And once again, negating the negative does not make a good argument. The fact that parents should have no ownership over the child does not mean that community does. You're digging yourself into a hole here. Child cannot be 'owned', it doesn't matter if it's the 'parent' or 'community' or 'the state' or 'the corporation', no matter who the 'owner' is it's still fucked up. Saying that somebody supports ownership by the community when they say that they oppose ownership by parents is not an argument, but simply non-sequator (sp?)
The responsibilities I was referring to were those of parents to their children. They voluntarily raised temporarily dependent beings, and thus have the ultimate responsibility to take care of them. It might sound weird to say that a parent "owns" their child, but compared to what? It's even more weird to say that a community's wishes trumps the parent's. (Unless harm is being done.) I still don't see the distinction between private/personal property. "The right to use something at any time" (your idea of personal property) necessarily implies "denying others the use of something" (your idea of private property). For example, I can't use my laptop at *any* time without simultaneously denying others use of it at any time.
You said: "Communal responsibility" still implies ownership, among a group of people. To that there is only one response: Of course, it doesn't. Ownership is either (private) denying others the use of or (personal) keeping the right to use at any time. Responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with either concept.
"Communal responsibility" still implies ownership, among a group of people. Although it would be difficult to argue that non-parents have a better claim to ownership/responsibilities than the parents. And as long as things were voluntarily provided (funding, services), that would fit in an ancap society. I'm guessing we're simply disagreeing on the definitions of property, but largely agree on things.
Thanks for your comment. The reason why i went for the anti-capitalist mode of analysis is because 1) there are quite a few alternative attempts already, but they all presuppose capitalist thinking, 2) because i oppose private property. I find it confusing how you said that you "largely agree" if you didn't understand the distinction that i was making, since that was the whole point. You may find 11th episode useful. Adoption can be a way to temporarily solve the immediate problems of today's society, but, of course, eventually i would suggest the dismantling the idea that children can be owned at all. As such it would be the communal responsibility to help the child develop as much as that child expresses such desire and need.
I largely agree with your abortion analysis. Specifically how it cannot be justified after the fetus becomes "viable". But I'm not sure how your thinking is "anti-capitalist", nor am I clear about the difference between "personal property" and "private property". Please explain :). Wouldn't adoption be the most sensible (and "capitalist") solution to the issue?