 Alright, I think it's an opportune time for us to finally talk about evictionism. It is, like all libertarian proposals, not simply a cut and dry trying to make a compromise between left and right. It just so happens that in most things there are some things that the left say are right and some things that the right say are correct, I should say correct instead of right. And evictionism tries to be the libertarian proposal for the question of pro-life, pro-choice and abortion. See a hot topic right now, I believe today something like the DOJ said they were going to take legal action against Texas for their abortion bill, so it's all kicking off and I've never actually really discussed in length the question of abortion and where anyone should stand on it on this channel because I've never been able to make up my mind. All I know is when this controversy first started to kick off, I was very disillusioned and completely unconvinced by nearly all of the pro-choice arguments aside from bodily autonomy. Things like saying a fetus as a clump of cells makes no sense because what are you and I if not clumps of cells if you want to do physical reductionism. So I am joined today by Walter Bloch's number one fan as Walter Bloch came up with this theory, Liquid Zulu. Zulu, how are you? I'm doing well, how about you? Not too bad at all, I'm excited to finally get this, I don't know, out in the air and hopefully have some sort of a conversation that doesn't just devolve to YouTube comment section doing what YouTube comment section does best. I'm going to be doing quite a few controversial topics in quick succession so my comments feed could be an absolute nightmare. But to get started, I've given a general gist of what evictionism tries to come to grips with. Could you sum up evictionism in your words? Sure, so evictionism as Anglo mentioned and as Walter Bloch himself states is a compromise between the common pro-life and pro-choice positions, but it's not just a compromise like if I said one plus one is two and Anglo said it's four, the compromise would be that saying that's three. But that's just, you know, you're just taking the middle. What he says is a principle compromise so you wouldn't just take the compromise position no matter what you to easy compromise, but you get there from your principles and those principles are the principles of non aggression and gentleness. So what the evictionists say is that abortion really is saying two things. It's saying you're killing the fetus and then you're evicting it. We're saying you're not allowed to kill the fetus, but you are allowed to evict it. And you know what the pro-lifers are saying is you're not allowed to do both and both of these positions fail. It would be like if somebody was on your property and you didn't want them there and you know, they didn't realize it was your property because to keep it analogous with the fetus because the fetus doesn't deliberately walk onto your property, right? So you know, a child or something is on your lawn, you would be allowed to get them off your lawn, but you wouldn't be allowed to launch a rocket launch at them. That's where the pro-choicers fail, where the pro-lifers fail is saying you would not be allowed to get that child off your lawn at all. Okay, I like that. And I like how it's not... It is a compromise, but it's not devised to be a compromise in the same way that somebody would say, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It's just trying to compromise, I don't know, in a compromising way. So firstly, I want to ask then, could you summarize quite concisely why gentleness should be a priority? Sure. So I think if I wanted to like, you know, take more of an intuitive approach that I think basically everybody would accept gentleness because, you know, otherwise you're going to just be essentially maximalists, but only for stopping of aggressions. And here's where I need to kind of drop the distinction between gentleness and proportionality, because often people will make the bit, will conflate the two. So basically what gentleness is concerned with is stopping an ongoing aggression. So, you know, if somebody is currently mugging me, I might be able to shoot them in order to stop them from mugging me. If that's the lowest, that's the easiest way I can do it. You know, I shouldn't say easiest if it's, you know, the gentlest possible means to do it, and I'll get into that in a bit. Whereas if they robbed me, if they had mugged me, and then afterwards I said, hey, that guy mugged me, let's go hang him, right? That would be, that would go against proportionality because you're talking about punishment there, rather than stopping an ongoing aggression. So, you know, why should we care at all about gentleness? Well, I mean, I don't know how to really get there from principles. I'm going to be honest, because, you know, it's a lot of these first principles stuff, I'm not sure if I'm well read enough on it. I would need to go into some like fucking long ass paper. But, you know, it's what I like to do in these situations where I can't get their a priori, is I just like to say, well, what would it take for a person to actually disagree with me here? Because if there is nobody on Earth who disagrees with me on a thing, then there's no point even debating about it. We don't need to deduce a priori that the sky is blue. So we all agree that it's blue. OK, so just say if if if the only way to deal with this is to develop a legal norm that you this is the most effective legal norm we can have. Yeah. And also, like, you know, it's just it's not even just effectiveness, it's whether people agree with it. Like, I can't imagine anybody who would disagree that you should take the gentlest possible and that's just being unnecessarily reductive in order to win a debate, really. Like, nobody is seriously going around believing that shit. Well, fair enough, I can be on board with that. So my understanding then is that one concept that shared with the pro life camp is that life begins at conception. Would you agree with that? Yes. OK. And can you summarize why that is? Well, conception is really the only reasonable assumption to make. It's similar to how I say that homesteading is when property ownership starts. I could get a labrile nine a second. But like, you know, a lot of people say that it starts at birth. I mean, that's kind of ridiculous, because birth is really just the baby moving from the womb outside the womb. So that doesn't really make sense that it wouldn't be alive before. And then suddenly the second it's in a different location, it's alive, right? It doesn't really make sense. I mean, you could say maybe it's when the mother no longer needs to care for the child. I mean, then, like, you know, is a baby with cerebral palsy who then grows up and becomes like 80 years old and has needed somebody to care for them their entire life. Are they? Did they never live? Right. That seems also ridiculous. The really the only reasonable point I can see is when the two gametes, I think they're called, I'm not like a biologist guy, you know, the sperm and the egg, they're separate. Then they come together. It seems like that that is when it has all the genetic information to make you and that's when it starts dividing. I define life as, you know, division. That is really what it is, right? I mean, some fucking guy will be in the comments. I guarantee you talking about respiration stuff. You know, I don't care about any of that. I just say that's when it's fucking beginning. Come on, it's clearly dividing up into a human. We know we don't know when it's really starting to breathe properly. Yes, exactly. Come on, sorry. Oh, yes, sir. So the way I analogize this to homesteading is, you know, when does the property ownership come into being? It couldn't just be when Crusoe sees an apple tree. Suddenly he owns all those apples unless somebody owns the moon and all the stars in the sky, because somebody must have seen them first and then passed on to their children, you know? So it can't be then. It can't be before he saw it, because then everybody, whoever is the first human owns everything because they just happen to exist. You know, it must be when he like actually goes and picks an apple from the tree. Yeah, and I completely agree because the reasonable nature of this is what got me really started thinking and then want to finally actually sort of formulate some sort of an idea of where I should stand. Because you're right. Obviously, birth, I don't think you could find a single reasonable pro-choice person who would say that you could have bought a baby one day before it was due to be born. Because everyone would agree at that point, it's a baby, it's therefore a human and it's not as simple as calling that bundle of cells. So when do you do that? And surely any point to pick that is just as arbitrary as the next. I mean, you do say no reasonable pro-choice people, but I have heard some of them talking about like, you know, there's Alex Jones podcast where he's talking about the post-birth abortions. They're like, well, keep them comfortable. It's fine. You know, there's a lot of evil people out there. Of course. And yeah, reasonable is the the highlight of that phrase. Yeah. OK. So next on then, is it always wrong to kill a baby? And I would say I'll interpret this in two ways and give my answer to both legally wrong and not necessarily. It could be possibly that the gentlest possible way to stop that some aggression that that baby is doing is to kill it. Morally, I would say definitely. I think it's always going to go against some sort of heuristic for maintaining and achieving eudaimonia to kill a baby. I think that's always going to be immoral. OK. And so at that point, then, what I would like to emphasise there, then, is this is, of course, is a legal argument asking if it's morally wrong. Isn't the question that evictionism is trying to answer here? Is that right? Yeah. Cool. OK. Well, in terms of a legal position, then, aren't babies innocent of any crime and how could it therefore be legal? I suppose you've already answered this, but how could you frame it in the in the case that no crime has been committed? Has it? Indeed, they aren't criminal. And the departureist point of sale all the time, they say the baby is a non-criminal trespasser because they don't have an entry to departureism. First is before you go there. Sure. Departurism is it's basically identical to evictionism in every way, except they say the gentlest possible approach is to wait until the baby is viable and then you're allowed to evict it. Whereas we say even if it's not viable, you're allowed to still evict it. OK. So who are departureists? Are they like libertarians as well? Yes, they are libertarians. Sean Parr is the main guy to look up there. There is like this big back and forth between him and Walter Block on this. Right, OK. And I can I can go into why exactly I think they're wrong about that. The gentlest possible means is because their entire premise is built on the baby being non-criminal because the baby cannot act. Whereas they define continued departure as the act of stopping an aggression. But as the baby cannot act and we agree on the baby cannot act, they cannot engage in human action, so they could not possibly be departing. So they are not so allowing continued departure, as they say, because they think the baby, the second it's conceived, is starting to leave the womb and you should allow it to continue to move the womb. But it can act so it cannot decide to stop that aggression. OK. All right. Well, that does kind of lead us on to the next one. I was going to say, isn't it true that babies don't pose any threat? So if we if we bring it into. Bodily, autonomy and property rights, we'll always say you can use self-defense to protect your body and your property, but self-defense requires a threat. So where does that stand? I would say it's I don't think eviction is a I don't think you need to justify it by self-defense. I mean, there certainly are cases where the baby does pose a threat, like, you know, maybe the mother's deathly ill or something. But even ignoring that, let's say no baby ever ever poses a threat to their mother. Even then, you can you're still allowed to evict a tenant who isn't posing a threat to you. You're allowed to say, hey, get off my property. I don't want you here anymore. Like it's not specifically you don't need to go to the self-defense argument there. OK. And so it's the general gist of it then that. When you say it should prioritize life. So at any time a mother could terminate their pregnancy, but the priority should be to preserve the fetus as much as possible. Yeah. So it's you're taking at any given point in the pregnancy. You if you wanted to stop aggression, if you decided you didn't want the baby there and it was therefore an aggression, I should say, it's trespassing in you and you want it gone. You would be obligated to take the gentlest possible means. And I know Walter Block justifies it often with a forestalling argument saying that, you know, you can't just, you know, evict the baby in your living room and then keep it there and prevent anybody else from getting to that baby, because you'd be forestalling that property that you have by definition abandoned, you have abandoned your guardianship over that child. So somebody's allowed to homestead that guardianship. OK. But but however, is the if. If it's the case that the inevitable result of trying to preserve the fetus would be impossible, it's still legally permissible. And we'll result in the death of the fetus. Yeah, if it's literally impossible for you to keep the fees alive, then yeah, you're still allowed to stop that trespass. So you've taken the gentlest possible means, you know, it may be it may even be that the gentlest possible means is somewhere in between where the baby would end up being disabled. I'm not sure what exactly that would look like, but, you know, in any case is trying to preserve the fetus as much as possible. OK. But then on the argument of trespass, then, if I'm stood outside of your property and then I enter into your property without permission, I have trespassed. I've been in a state of not trespassing to trespassing because I've crossed the border. So I know you can see where I'm going with this. So the fact that the baby has not crossed a border is simply materialized inside you. Where does how can you justify that as trespassing the same vein? Well, I would say the baby was outside your womb before it was inside the womb. If we were defining outside as being not inside, it was not inside your womb before it was born, clearly. And then it is inside your womb. And I think to make this a little bit easier to understand, imagine a mother is in some flat and then she gives birth and the baby is like growing up and everything. But the baby never leaves a flat. And now the baby is like 18 years old. And then the landlord is like, right, I want you and your kid out of here. I mean that the child didn't ever cross any boundary to get in there. And you can even imagine that the mother trespassed to get the baby into somebody's property and they're like, hey, get out of here with your kid. And then she's like, well, my boy here, he never crossed any boundaries to get in here. And this is that lady's justification for it. And I think it's entirely arbitrary. Trespass has nothing to do with whether you crossed a boundary to get in there. And I mean, even if it is, you can still say that the baby crossed a temporal boundary rather than the spatial one. Damn, that's deep. All right. And then so I've only I didn't get many questions for this because yes, it's all rather straightforward, to be honest, if you come from the first principles that we share. But my last one I've got written down here. I think I'll just give it to you as I've written it down and you can interpret it however you'd like and answer however you'd like. The their creation as in the baby is your responsibility. So why should they be punished if you change your mind or for any reason? I would say it's not a punishment. This is the distinction I got into earlier with distinguishing proportionality from gentleness. You know, it's when you when some kid walks onto your lawn and he doesn't realize you'd be allowed to shoot him off that you're not punishing him. You're just stopping him from trespass. You could even pick him up and put him off if he was just really sitting down and refusing to walk away. You know, that is not a punishment. If it was a punishment, punishments are done ex post. Whereas stopping the aggression through gentleness that is done ex ante. I think I got those the right way round. So just wrap up by telling us what ex post and ex ante are. Sure. So ex post is after the event. So if somebody hit me and then I went off to the police, got them arrested and then said, hey, and then brought them in front of a judge, whatever, then any any action that a judge orders onto that person that would be done ex post, whereas ex ante means during the event. So if the guy punched me and I punched him back, there would be ex ante. That would not be a punishment on to him. You know, I'm just trying to stop him from punching me more. OK, well, like I said, I didn't get down as many questions as I thought I would have for you. That is all I've got. Do you have any closing thoughts before you can plug you? And nothing I can think of, honestly, apart from if you're wanting to know more about this, you just ask me about and I can link you Liberty's paper. That's what I'm working off of at the moment in anticipation for me making my own video on this. Because I don't I don't know where Liberty wants to actually start. I've asked him this like twice now, but he's not going back to me. So it's just going to be a discord link. Like CDN.discord app, right? So I suppose you can just wag in the description or something. All right, well, that's great, because that leads us on to where can people find you to tell you that you're wrong and stupid and deserve to die? They can find me at youtube.com forward slash liquid Zulu. Right. One word. Smashing. All right. Well, thank you very much, Zulu. I'm glad to have you on here. I hope you take it easy and see you at yours. All right, as always, thank you all very much for watching. I should just clarify, by the way, I have to listening to this back for the first time. I am not making my own opinion on this matter yet. I'm currently undecided and I'm going to ruminate and read on the various thoughts. This has never been a focus of discussion on my channel. I don't think it ever will be. I just want to get it out there that there is a solution you probably haven't ever heard of if you aren't in these typical circles that I think is at least worth considering. I really do ask for civility in the comments section. I'm not going to be afraid to delete any comments that are simply disrespectful and completely useless and therefore blocking you from commenting again. I'm just not in the mood to deal with this, so I hope you can all be respectful. Take it easy and I'll see you next time.