This is part 4 of my series answering Bob Murphy's tough questions for libertarians. See the post describing the series here: #458128.

For libertarians who subscribe to the evictionist view on abortion, do you think it would be legal in a libertarian society to throw child stowaways off of ships in the middle of the ocean or would some other legal principles enter in?

Here's a clip of Bob explaining this question.

Evictionism is a middle ground position on abortion, developed by libertarian theorist and Austrian economist Walter Block. Basically, women have the right to remove a fetus from their body, but they don't have the right to go out of their way to kill it.

This fits within the standard libertarian view that you have the right to remove trespassers from your property, but only by the least violent possible means.

Walter's perspective is that this position will converge towards a pro-life position as technology develops that pushes down the age of viability.

As is common in libertarianism, no one has a legal obligation to provide life saving care to the removed fetus. However, it is presumed that there will be charities or adoptive parents to fill that role voluntarily.

The analogue to a kid found stowing away on a ship (perhaps accidentally) is pretty straight-forward. The kid doesn't own the ship, so the owner has the right to remove the kid from it. Removing a non-viable fetus and chucking the kid into the ocean are the outcomes being compared.

I have subscribed to this view on abortion in the past, so once again I am in Bob's target audience. It's important to keep in mind that this question is about legality, specifically. So, we need to address whether there would be legal consequences in a case like this. If there are, what are the grounds and who has standing to bring them?

The kid's parents are the immediately obvious answer as to who would have standing. On what grounds, though? Libertarianism is predicated on self-ownership and this would only work if parents have a property right in their kids. Well, that is what guardianship is, essentially, so what we're doing is thinking of kids as not fully persons. They begin as property of their parents and develop into persons over time.

The resolution seems to have presented itself, then. Since a fetus is the mother's property, no one has legal standing to take her to court over getting an abortion. However, the stowaway's parents would have legal standing to object to the destruction of their property.

Another analogy came to mind as I was thinking about this question. If some of my neighbor's stuff blows into my yard, do I have the legal right to destroy it? No. It didn't become mine when it flew over the fence. Am I obliged to return it? No, but I think there is an obligation to allow my neighbor to retrieve it if I don't feel like returning it.

So, my answer is that there are other legal principles that enter in to the analysis: specifically, a right to retrieve errant property (perhaps accompanied by compensation for any costs imposed by the trespass).