Women and Capitalism

Capitalism leads to the freedom of all individuals — including women.

Capitalism leads to the freedom of all individuals — whether male or female — by banishing the initiation of force from all relationships. Capitalism is the only system that leads to political equality — an equality of rights (as opposed to egalitarian equality of economic results).

Men and women have a variety of differences, but in their ability to think and reason, they are in principle the same, and so their political rights are the same.

One’s right to life is based on the fact that the individual survives by reason, and the social requirement to use one’s mind is freedom from the initiation of physical force.

Under capitalism, all females (individuals with the XX sex chromosome) have equal rights to males (individuals with the XY sex chromosome), as they are individuals, i.e., human beings who require the freedom to survive by the use of their minds.

The reason females have equal rights to males is that though women on average are not men’s physical equals (for example the 2019 women’s world soccer champions from the U.S. were soundly defeated in a friendly match against 15-year-old high school boys team); mentally women are equal in their ability to reason with men.

One’s gender, race, ancestry, religion, nationality, etc. play no role in the recognition of one’s rights.

As capitalism is the social system that rewards production, under capitalism, a rational woman can easily support herself.

As to wages, in a free market, an individual is paid based on the value of what he/she can offer to others. As an illustration, observe women who earn enormous salaries that dwarf those of most men.

Some of civilization’s greatest intellectual achievements are the result of individuals who happened to be women. Examples of such intellectual giants include philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand, scientist Marie Curie, free speech and tolerance intellectual Ayaan Hirsi Ali, programmer Ada Lovelace, and educational innovator Maria Montessori.

Feminism and capitalism

The individualist conception of feminism was (and still is) a worthy goal, but it is being undermined by collectivist feminists.

The original feminist movement was a “woman’s suffrage” movement to grant equal political rights for all individuals of the female gender (women), i.e., right to vote for women, i.e., equal treatment before the law, etc. This individualist conception of feminism was (and still is) a worthy goal. i.e., today this battle is fought in a women’s right to choose to have (or not have) an abortion.

Sadly, many modern-day feminists are basing a woman’s right to life, not on individualism, but on a form of collectivism known as sexism.

These collectivist feminists are not asking for the equal protection of their inalienable rights, but are demanding the state to grant them political privileges based on their sex, at the expense of the rights of others, i.e., a free abortion paid for by taxpayers (a violation of their rights those forced to pay for the abortion), i.e., preferential government-enforced hiring quotas based on sex (violates the right of free association and an employer’s right to contract), i.e., government enforced equal pay rates based on gender in a private industry (violates the freedom to contract).

In doing so, these feminists are calling for ther violaion of the rights of the men — and women — who are forced to pay for these privileges .

Abortion and Capitalism

Under capitalism, a women’s right to abortion is inalienable, because there is no such thing as the right to live inside another.

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal of an embryo or fetus (that is incapable of survival outside the body of the woman) which results in the death of the embryo/fetus.

The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman?

Abortion is not a violation of any right because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose whom she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman’s right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman but is there by her permission.

This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the permission of that person. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

As there is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is aborted, because of incest, or rape, or “convenience” does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman’s inalienable right. (In such cases, such actions may be immoral, but they do not violate the rights of any individual.)

The “pro-life” anti-abortion position is based on the ethical doctrine of altruism.

Altruism is the ethical doctrine that one must sacrifice one’s interests, one’s life, and happiness for the good of others — in this case, the unborn child or fetus. Such a doctrine is profoundly anti-life and immoral.

A moral conception of pregnancy — that is one based on rational egoism — holds that women should only give birth to a child, not as a sacrifice to god, or the greater good of society, or an embryo, but for her self-interest and happiness: because she wants to have the child.

Having and parenting a child is one of the most intellectually demanding and spiritually rewarding actions a human being can make. Such activity should not be one based on altruistic self-sacrifice and self-immolation, as an unchosen duty, but as a voluntarily chosen, rationally planned, personally satisfying and long-term goal in the pursuit of happiness.

Anti-abortionists are not “pro-life” but anti-capitalism (individual rights).

Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the right to life of the actual human being, the pregnant women) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman’s womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman’s uterus.

Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights), abortion is an inalienable right. Anyone who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy) — is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism.



For further reading:

Abortion is Pro-Life
The moral case for abortion