E. R. Olovetto:trulib, that is pretty good, but I think that the court can go further. I wrote out half a response to spidey when I was at work today and will try to finish it out now and explain. The problem with his "theory" is that he has no basis for distinguishing between a man who is asleep, or a child, or a man in a coma, or a concious, rational man who can protest his rights being violated right then.
I eagerly await your thoughts E.R. How can the court go further?
I'm not really interested in Spidey's "theory" anymore. I think he lost the debate when he said that a man has a right to rape his daughter.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Spideynw:Except in the case of humans. Unless you just want to ignore the reality that humans at first cannot think critically and later on can.
It is defined no where, accept by you, arbitrarily, that if an object thinks critically than the object stops becoming yours. This is in conflict with your own reasoning and I'll explain why later.
Spideynw:It is arbitrary.
By arbitrary I mean you just randomly made this up without reason. You made it up out of fear that someone would be able to dictate to you how to raise a child.
So lets recap your new definition of property.Property is property untill it starts critiically thinkgin. Here are hte problems you have to reconcile now.
And for the record your system is children being born into slavery. You cannot deny that unless you alter the definition of slavery. But you seem to be on a roll of making up your own definitions and distinctions.
How do you reconcile the fact that I could kill my child before it 'critically thinks' and be justified?
filc: How do you reconcile the fact that I could kill my child before it 'critically thinks' and be justified?
I can reply nothing to this except that your concept of family relations is utterly twisted and nonsensical.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
E. R. Olovetto:1. You won't likely have any choice besides hiring your own army.
Yeah, and that half of the population that thinks abortion should be legal, I guess they would be shit out of luck too right? Or do you think majority will rule over minority in anarchy? Wait, we have that today! Why do we want anarchy again?
E. R. Olovetto:As for "getting past your PDA", you assume that you will have a PDA who will protect you at all costs against charges of child abuse.
Given that abortion is worse than child molestation, and given that half the population thinks that abortion should be legal, yeah, I do.
The rest of your post stands on the sandy foundation that there will be PDA's to enforce your every whim. Get over it, there won't be.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness: Spideynw: The parent. Now, can you answer my question? That's not natural rights. That's a might makes right view. To believe the child doesn't have rights is to tumble into inconsistency, as you've demonstrated throughtout this thread and others. As Confucius has pointed out, and I think he had a point to an extent. The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting.
Spideynw: The parent. Now, can you answer my question?
The parent. Now, can you answer my question?
That's not natural rights. That's a might makes right view. To believe the child doesn't have rights is to tumble into inconsistency, as you've demonstrated throughtout this thread and others. As Confucius has pointed out, and I think he had a point to an extent. The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting.
Maybe someday you will be intellectually honest and try to answer the question. Yet again though, you don't.
Stranger: filc: How do you reconcile the fact that I could kill my child before it 'critically thinks' and be justified? I can reply nothing to this except that your concept of family relations is utterly twisted and nonsensical.
Me eh? I'm not the one arguing that children are property and can be murderd and raiped before they can 'critically think'. That is your position my friend.
K.C. Farmer:Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.”
Axiom 1 should be re-worded to - "every sentient being is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body". It makes no sense to apply it to children, since they cannot act intelligently. It also makes no sense to exclude non-humans, that may be able to act intelligently.
filc: Me eh? I'm not the one arguing that children are property and can be murderd and raiped before they can 'critically think'. That is your position my friend.
That is a fact, not an argument. Children obtain protection from their parents because the parents have the right to exclude strangers, i.e. they own the children.
Whether or not parents should be murdering their children is a moral argument that is irrelevant to a principle of universal law. If they do murder their children, it is a matter of internal family law and does not concern you.
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler:I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument. How about when is killing another adult human not murder? By definition, murder is a subset of killing. I would have to give some thought to what constitutes murder and what does not, but to claim all killing is murder is to, at the very least, make an grammatical error.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument. How about when is killing another adult human not murder?
JackCuyler:I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
How about when is killing another adult human not murder?
By definition, murder is a subset of killing. I would have to give some thought to what constitutes murder and what does not, but to claim all killing is murder is to, at the very least, make an grammatical error.
I never said murder is not a subset of killing. And I did not ask you if killing is always murder. But you still have as yet to answer the question.
JackCuyler:When I abandon my car, does everyone just take a piece of it?
You would compare a car to a human child?
JackCuyler:that anything that can be sold and retained can be homesteaded when unowned,
You think a car sitting in the street for a long time and appropriating it because it is on your property is the same as coming into my home and taking my child?
Again, how is it going to be decided who gets to take my child?
JackCuyler:I didn't ask how you would see him, but how you think he would be generally viewed. I honestly think a pedo-killer would generally be seen as a hero.
Good point.
JackCuyler:My premise: All moral agents, including potential moral agents, have the right to be free from aggression.
Which includes sperm and eggs and a fetus. So, are you going to address that or not?
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.” Axiom 1 should be re-worded to - "every sentient being is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body". It makes no sense to apply it to children, since they cannot act intelligently. It also makes no sense to exclude non-humans, that may be able to act intelligently.
Alas, Mr. Rothbard will be unable to make your suggested changes.
The use of the term "man" has been interchangeable with the term "human" in the English language, which includes male and female humans of any age. You have set an unnecessary restriction to support your argument rather than work from established facts, axioms or principles. It is now upon you to prove why such a restriction should exist. So far, I don't buy the argument. If you want to expand the term to include potential nonhuman sentient beings, then that is your doing. The axiom as written declares that man (which includes children) is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. Assertions on the requirements of consciousness, critical thinking, consent, etc. are again your own construct that remains to be unproven, and definitely not self-evident.
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler:Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent? When he or she matures.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent?
JackCuyler:Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights.
And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent?
When he or she matures.
So, having sex with a child without the child's consent is wrong because the parent did not get the child's consent. And children never consent to anything a parent does to him. Which would mean everything a parent does to a child is wrong. Do I got it right now?
Stranger:This entire thread can be summed up as denouncing an anarchist system because it implies that parents would own their children, and so a state is needed such that, and the minarchists never complete this sentence but that is what they imply, the state will own all children and have the power to invade the household and reallocate children to new households at will. (A power that, it must be noted from the Austrian man's example, the state does not even claim today.)
I am certainly no minarchist. I am claiming that children own themselves. I am most certainly not claiming that the state should "have the power to invade the household and reallocate children to new households at will." Not even a little bit. The anarchist, not minarchist, position is that everyone (even children) have the absolute right to be free from aggression (even from their parents). Further, the fact that preventing and/or punishing and/or seeking restitution from a particular rights violation is "utterly implausible" in no way lessens the violation. Parents initiating violence against their child is a violation of the child's rights. It doesn't matter if no one can prevent it. It doesn't matter if no one can punish it. It is still a rights violation.
This may seem like an appeal to authority, but I believe it's apt to refute your claim. Try and guess the author. I'm sure no one would confuse him with a minarchist, especially at this point in his writing career,
In present law, children may be seized from their parents by outside adults (almost always, the State) for a variety of reasons. Two reasons, physical abuse by the parent and voluntary abandonment, are plausible, since in the former case the parent aggressed against the child, and in the latter the parent voluntarily abandoned custody. Two points, however, should be mentioned: (a) that, until recent years, the parents were rendered immune by court decisions from ordinary tort liability in physically aggressing against their children—fortunately, this is now being remedied;[15] and (b) despite the publicity being given to the “battered child syndrome,” it has been estimated that only 5 percent of “child abuse” cases involve physical aggression by the parents.[16]
Stranger:Additionally, note that parents owning their children does not in any way imply that children have no rights. In fact, in a dispute involving their parents and a complete stranger, a child will always side with his parents. It matters not how "abused" you consider the child's rights to be. To take the child away from the parents, you must violate both their rights, and thus you must prove that you own the child instead of the parents.
That is a rather unsubstantiated (and easily refuted, as "always" is a rather high bar) assertion. Do you honestly believe that? An abused child will "always" side with the parents, no matter how severe the abuse? Care to back that up with any facts?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Spideynw:So, having sex with a child without the child's consent is wrong because the parent did not get the child's consent. And children never consent to anything a parent does to him. Which would mean everything a parent does to a child is wrong. Do I got it right now?
Having sex with anyone without consent is wrong. How you make the jump from rape to "everything" is quite beyond me. You do not have the right to initiate violence upon anyone, including your children. You do, on the other hand, have the right to create and enforce rules for living on your property. You have the right to forgive or expel from your property anyone who violates your rules.
JackCuyler:I am claiming that children own themselves. I am most certainly not claiming that the state should "have the power to invade the household and reallocate children to new households at will." Not even a little bit. The anarchist, not minarchist, position is that everyone (even children) have the absolute right to be free from aggression (even from their parents). Further, the fact that preventing and/or punishing and/or seeking restitution from a particular rights violation is "utterly implausible" in no way lessens the violation. Parents initiating violence against their child is a violation of the child's rights. It doesn't matter if no one can prevent it. It doesn't matter if no one can punish it. It is still a rights violation.
Perhaps it is, but it is a rights violation that has no consequences for the justice system. Perhaps the child, upon reaching adulthood, will want to pursue justice from his parents. That is of no concern to you. But then again what is a child owed by his parents? Nothing at all, in fact children live at the expense of their parents until the moment they reach maturity. Their life is a gift.
JackCuyler:That is a rather unsubstantiated (and easily refuted, as "always" is a rather high bar) assertion. Do you honestly believe that? An abused child will "always" side with the parents, no matter how severe the abuse? Care to back that up with any facts?
This is yet another case where a single counter-example could refute my claim, yet no amount of repeated instances could prove it true.
We have been seeing a lot of these fallacies lately.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:My premise: All moral agents, including potential moral agents, have the right to be free from aggression. Which includes sperm and eggs and a fetus. So, are you going to address that or not?
I answered this a few pages ago. Including a fetus, but not including sperm and unfertilized eggs. A fetus is a potential moral agent. Neither sperm nor unfertilized eggs are.
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler:My premise: All moral agents, including potential moral agents, have the right to be free from aggression. Which includes sperm and eggs and a fetus. So, are you going to address that or not? I answered this a few pages ago. Including a fetus, but not including sperm and unfertilized eggs. A fetus is a potential moral agent. Neither sperm nor unfertilized eggs are.
Interested in the argument since it is not self-evident. Is potential human sufficient to be declared as human with respect to rights?
Both sides seem to be arguing to the extremes of what Rothbard identified. While there may be some validity in those arguments, I have yet to see it.
JackCuyler: Spideynw:So, having sex with a child without the child's consent is wrong because the parent did not get the child's consent. And children never consent to anything a parent does to him. Which would mean everything a parent does to a child is wrong. Do I got it right now? Having sex with anyone without consent is wrong.
Having sex with anyone without consent is wrong.
Do you think imprisoning someone without consent is wrong? Well, I imprison my child in her room every night, without her consent. Do you think forcing someone onto the floor and pulling off their pants and underwear and putting on new pants and underwear is wrong? Well guess what, I do that to my child every time I change her diaper. Do you think kidnapping someone and forcing them into your car without her consent is wrong? Well guess what, I do that to my child every time I take her home from daycare.
So, your only criteria as to why it is wrong for a father to have sex with his child is that the child did not want it. Again, when was the last time a child consented to anything? Given that children never consent to anything, and given that doing anything to an adult without consent is wrong, using your logic, everything a parent does to a child is wrong. If not, then you are just arbitrarily deciding how you think parent's should treat their children.
trulib:I'm not really interested in Spidey's "theory" anymore. I think he lost the debate when he said that a man has a right to rape his daughter.
Then you have no interest in truth, just in making yourself feel better.
Not thoroughly. Your argument hinges on the fact that an egg and sperm dies without the other. Well, a fetus will die without the mother, and a child will die without the parents. But as long as they all have the other, then they all have potential. As such, using your logic, letting a sperm or egg die is murder, because it is a potential moral agent.
Stranger: filc: Me eh? I'm not the one arguing that children are property and can be murderd and raiped before they can 'critically think'. That is your position my friend. That is a fact, not an argument. Children obtain protection from their parents because the parents have the right to exclude strangers, i.e. they own the children. Whether or not parents should be murdering their children is a moral argument that is irrelevant to a principle of universal law. If they do murder their children, it is a matter of internal family law and does not concern you.
Awesome point.
Stranger:Perhaps it is, but it is a rights violation that has no consequences for the justice system. Perhaps the child, upon reaching adulthood, will want to pursue justice from his parents. That is of no concern to you. But then again what is a child owed by his parents? Nothing at all, in fact children live at the expense of their parents until the moment they reach maturity. Their life is a gift.
Parents raise their children for a number of reasons. Because of the joy/pride good feelings being a parent brings.... out of some perceived obligation... as a trade for the future (expecting the child to care for them in old age)... etc. Parents make the decision that the time/effort/money spent on their children is worth the return (joy/pride/hope/etc).
Stranger: This is yet another case where a single counter-example could refute my claim, yet no amount of repeated instances could prove it true. We have been seeing a lot of these fallacies lately.
Agreed. The fallacy of sweeping generalization.
Spideynw: Which includes sperm and eggs and a fetus. So, are you going to address that or not?
Spideynw: Not thoroughly. Your argument hinges on the fact that an egg and sperm dies without the other.
Not thoroughly. Your argument hinges on the fact that an egg and sperm dies without the other.
Not technically true. My argument hinges on the fact that all humans, including the unborn, are human beings and therefore moral agents or potential moral agents. Neither a sperm cell nor an egg is a human being, genetically speaking. Both are missing some DNA.
Spideynw:Well, a fetus will die without the mother
Sure. In that case, a human being will die. One day technology will most likely overcome this, opening up a different can of worms. But as it stands, you are correct.
Spideynw: and a child will die without the parents.
Depending on what you mean by "parents" - sure, or at least most likely.
Spideynw:But as long as they all have the other, then they all have potential. As such, using your logic, letting a sperm or egg die is murder, because it is a potential moral agent.
Again, an egg is not a human. A sperm cell is not a human.
My logic does not lead to the conclusion that "letting" anything or anyone die is murder. I've not once offered a positive obligation. I've not argued that a parent must feed/clothe/educate a child. Nor have I argued that a woman may not evict a fetus from her body. Nor will you ever see me do so. A child has a right to be free from aggression. That does not imply care for the child. A parent, just like anyone else, may choose to refrain from taking care of his or her child, but a parent must refrain from initiating violence against anyone, including his or her child.
JackCuyler: My logic does not lead to the conclusion that "letting" anything or anyone die is murder. I've not once offered a positive obligation. I've not argued that a parent must feed/clothe/educate a child. Nor have I argued that a woman may not evict a fetus from her body. Nor will you ever see me do so. A child has a right to be free from aggression. That does not imply care for the child. A parent, just like anyone else, may choose to refrain from taking care of his or her child, but a parent must refrain from initiating violence against anyone, including his or her child.
essentially the same point I was making on the 4th page.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-year-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal? Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents?
Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-year-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal?
Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents?
What if her parents were dead and she didn't have a legal representative?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again? Substitute "morals" with "criteria".
Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again?
Substitute "morals" with "criteria".
Just because their definition encompasses more actions of killing, it doesn't mean that they are more consistent.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-year-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal? Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents? What if her parents were dead and she didn't have a legal representative?
People are responsible for providing their own security.
JackCuyler: Spideynw: Not thoroughly. Your argument hinges on the fact that an egg and sperm dies without the other. Not technically true. My argument hinges on the fact that all humans, including the unborn, are human beings and therefore moral agents or potential moral agents. Neither a sperm cell nor an egg is a human being, genetically speaking. Both are missing some DNA.
But both are potential humans, and as such, potential moral agents. So, they are both potential moral agents.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again? Substitute "morals" with "criteria". Just because their definition encompasses more actions of killing, it doesn't mean that they are more consistent.
More actions of killing? Regardless, it is easier for an individual to follow their philosophy than it is to follow yours, in knowing what is right and what is wrong.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-year-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal? Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents? What if her parents were dead and she didn't have a legal representative? People are responsible for providing their own security.
I do not understand how that follows.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again? Substitute "morals" with "criteria". Just because their definition encompasses more actions of killing, it doesn't mean that they are more consistent. More actions of killing? Regardless, it is easier for an individual to follow their philosophy than it is to follow yours, in knowing what is right and what is wrong.
That is completely subjective and irrelevant.
A question on positive obligations...
Driving drunk carries with it the possibility of getting into an accident and hurting someone, possibly other than myself. If I choose to do so anyway, and someone else is hurt, don't they have a claim against me? While it was certainly an accident, I still have an obligation to make reparations to them.
Now, someone choosing to have sex does so knowing that it carries the possibility of pregnancy. Even condoms and pills aren't 100% effective. The pregnancy may not have been the desired outcome of the sex, but it was still a risk. In the same way, doesn't a parent have an obligation to the child created? Rape may be an exception, but certainly this would apply to any consensual sex. Freedom to do as you please does not mean freedom to ignore the consequences of risks you take.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Your answer is bolded.
Daniel Muffinburg:That is completely subjective and irrelevant.
You are playing a semantics game just so you can "win". I tire of it.
Spideynw: JackCuyler: Spideynw: Not thoroughly. Your argument hinges on the fact that an egg and sperm dies without the other. Not technically true. My argument hinges on the fact that all humans, including the unborn, are human beings and therefore moral agents or potential moral agents. Neither a sperm cell nor an egg is a human being, genetically speaking. Both are missing some DNA. But both are potential humans, and as such, potential moral agents. So, they are both potential moral agents.
I am not a biologist, but I would say that sperm cells are not potential humans, they only have the potential to make a human or become part of a human. Also there is a huge difference between the chances that a sperm will create a moral agent and the chances that a human baby will grow up to be a moral agent.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-year-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal? Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents? What if her parents were dead and she didn't have a legal representative? Your answer is bolded.
No. Your answer is bolded. Anyway, there is no answer that you can be sure of because your philosophy is nonsense. It basically boils down to "might is right."
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:That is completely subjective and irrelevant. You are playing a semantics game just so you can "win". I tire of it.
You appeal to semantics game is an obvious indicator that you cannot come up with a better answer, nor an answer that makes any sense, as a rebuttal. It is like you saying that "2 + 2 = 5" and then me saying that you are wrong by definition then you saying that I am playing a semantics game.
Spideynw: Maybe someday you will be intellectually honest and try to answer the question. Yet again though, you don't.
What you are talking about and asking has nothing to do with what you say here. You have failed to be logically consistent and thus stick with arbritary whims. You are theorizing that a child can be violated, though, the child is his or her own property. Violation of property rights is your theory. There's no getting around that fact.
Spideynw: But both are potential humans, and as such, potential moral agents.
But both are potential humans, and as such, potential moral agents.
But the sperm and egg - separate - are NOT human. As you say here. We are talking about humans that are actually - human, but you go ahead and hold onto a fallious theory that supports rape of a 3 year old. When in the face of logical consistency you still hold onto such a theory one begins to wonder about the holder of the rape-theory. I try to not to assume, but then again, how can I not personally wonder about you? I mean look at your theory in the face of such facts that sheds on light on its inconsistencies. How your theory role-models that the State can step in and violate the property rights of every single person.
It's pretty obvious Stranger has this thread won and it's truly disturbing how out of touch with reality some of you are.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: People are responsible for providing their own security. I do not understand how that follows.
Stranger: People are responsible for providing their own security.
If someone is kidnapped and has not purchased any protection, no one is going to come looking for them.
wilderness:But the sperm and egg - separate - are NOT human. As you say here. We are talking about humans that are actually - human, but you go ahead and hold onto a fallious theory that supports rape of a 3 year old. When in the face of logical consistency you still hold onto such a theory one begins to wonder about the holder of the rape-theory. I try to not to assume, but then again, how can I not personally wonder about you? I mean look at your theory in the face of such facts that sheds on light on its inconsistencies. How your theory role-models that the State can step in and violate the property rights of every single person.
The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA. if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights. Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents. dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring