This reference is from “Principles of International Law”, 1951So the source seems to be a phrase “bellum justum” principle, the breaking of which would be considered a “crime against humanity”. Interesting.
ok. So basically, only a “just war” is acceptable. Any war that is not a just war, is a crime against humanity.
Extending that to individualism via the route of libertarianism, war = violence. If there is no justification for violence, then all violence is unjustified. Any violence will be a crime against humanity and a crime against humanity would be a war for no war can be just, as there is no justification for war, hence any attack on a person is a crime against humanity.
Are there valid exceptions to the initiation of force (ie – the individual equivalent to a “just war”)?
It’s a tough one. Let’s see: Parenting. Parenting comes to mind. Many actions that parents take in being caretakers of their children involves the initiation of force against the children, subverting the will of the smaller individual to the will of the most powerful individual.Is this a just war?
Interestingly: Back in 1990, I started a youth rights group on the Internet. One organization that formed out of it (I kinda kicked them out because they were academic libertarians and I hated that they were talking over everybody’s heads, including my own), is “Taking Children Seriously”, started by Sarah Fitz Claredge and David Deusche (the quantum computer dude) – both who were active members of my list and refused to conform to one of my rules, which was to write in a general manner so the majority of members could understand. [it had a few thousand members at its peak, many who were kids/teens themselves, and I wanted everybody a chance to understand everybody].Anyway, they take a more extreme libertarian POV. She came to visit me once from England with her kids. My mother wasn’t happy ’cause she didn’t approve of how her kids had free reign of our house while she was flirting with me in my bedroom… but, well, not everybody’s a fan of libertarian principles, depending how far they go.
I’m generally in alignment with many libertarian principles, although I don’t ‘do’ party politics, at least not until I feel represented. So far, no one yet, so I just vote the best I can.
For fetal rights, I go with something like (I’ll make up something here that sounds good):
“The rights of the fetus begins the moment they can be separately cared for in some form separate from the mother. Until that point in time, there is only one person and one set of rights. After that point, there are two sets of rights, two individuals”
There. That sounded good.
Well, I don’t like economics having primacy over people. I’m a strong individualist. In the case of abortion, I *want* to be pro-life and I have respect for the concept that all life is special. I believe that. BUT, I also know that *I* can’t do anything about it. I can’t get a uterus implanted yet and raise the fetus. There’s no technology that can separately care for the fetus yet.
So, until technology improves, I see abortion as a regretful necessity. It is a right for the mother because there is only one person there until separation is possible. I can’t see it any other way, logically.
But, I hope someday technology improves enough so that the pro-lifers get their wish and there will be no need for a choice because the option for separation will be available technologically.
So, am I depending upon the state or free market for this? Doesn’t matter to me. If the ability to do so is there, and the ability to achieve separation is within the purview of the mother, then abortion is no longer a necessity. But right now? It is.