Joe: taking a crack at it, the whole custodial/guardianship idea seems to hold a lot of weight with me. Which sort of puts children in a third category that is inbetween property and a self-owning moral agent. It would seem to make sense that someone could challenge a parent or set of parents in court for custodial rights and it would be up to an arbitrator to determine who had the better claim to the custody rights. I am not sure exactly on what grounds the arbitrator would decide the cases, but I have a good idea that extreme physical violence/rap are going to be reasons to rule in favor of anyone willing to take on the custody rights.
taking a crack at it, the whole custodial/guardianship idea seems to hold a lot of weight with me. Which sort of puts children in a third category that is inbetween property and a self-owning moral agent. It would seem to make sense that someone could challenge a parent or set of parents in court for custodial rights and it would be up to an arbitrator to determine who had the better claim to the custody rights. I am not sure exactly on what grounds the arbitrator would decide the cases, but I have a good idea that extreme physical violence/rap are going to be reasons to rule in favor of anyone willing to take on the custody rights.
Why, because the majority thinks that should be the case? Is that how markets work, the majority rule? Or do markets serve everyone, every single individual? If everyone, then why would dispute resolution be a special case and result in majority rule in a stateless society?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Aster_Lacnala: Then we are back to ability to argue one's complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn't a violation. For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done.
Then we are back to ability to argue one's complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn't a violation. For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done.
That's about right.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
JackCuyler:you are in error to claim that it somehow leads to all interactions.
Can you show me where I made that claim? If not, will you admit your lie?
JackCuyler:No where in this thread have I stated or implied that all interactions with a child, regardless of consent, are a violations of said child's rights.
Did I ever claim you did?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question? Spideynw: Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?Why don't you answer this question first: if it's rape at 20 years old, why isn't it rape at 4 years old? When you can answer that, get back to me. A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not. Can you move on now? How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions? The bolded is not a question. I assume that you missed the fact that there is a period at the end of it and not a question mark. So again, can you move on now?
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question? Spideynw: Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?Why don't you answer this question first: if it's rape at 20 years old, why isn't it rape at 4 years old? When you can answer that, get back to me. A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not. Can you move on now? How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question? Spideynw: Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?Why don't you answer this question first: if it's rape at 20 years old, why isn't it rape at 4 years old? When you can answer that, get back to me. A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not. Can you move on now?
Daniel Muffinburg: So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question?
So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question?
Spideynw: Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?Why don't you answer this question first: if it's rape at 20 years old, why isn't it rape at 4 years old? When you can answer that, get back to me. A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?Why don't you answer this question first: if it's rape at 20 years old, why isn't it rape at 4 years old? When you can answer that, get back to me.
Spideynw:For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?
A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
Can you move on now?
How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions?
The bolded is not a question. I assume that you missed the fact that there is a period at the end of it and not a question mark. So again, can you move on now?
Nice. Now, what about the other questions you either avoided or answered with questions?
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."
Aster_Lacnala:Then we are back to ability to argue one's complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn't a violation.
If this was meant to represent my stand, then it is a gross misrepresentation. Once she gets away, she most assuredly could bring a case against him.
Aster_Lacnala: For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done.
This is also a gross misrepresentation of my ideas, if it is meant to be such. I have never claimed to know how the market would resolve such a situation.
Daniel Muffinburg:Nice. Now, what about the other questions you either avoided or answered with questions?
Such as?
nirgrahamUK: Daniel Muffinburg:How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions? My understanding is that he answered by suggesting that if he took on board the sensitivity to expressed consent his toddler would go uncared for, as it has not been observed to consent to the things needed to keep it well cared for, in the manner in which an older more expressive child might be expected to. I could be wrong though.
Daniel Muffinburg:How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions?
Seems pretty spot on. If a child is unable to consent, and if that is the only criteria that a parent can use to determine if he is violating his child's rights, then that means anything a parent does to a child is a violation of the child's rights, since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
nirgrahamUK: JackC, in an attempt to bridge the Gap.. Spideyn question is as simple as, is my bathing you without your consent violation of your rights? is my placing a bottle, filled with milk. in your mouth, without your consent a rights violation of you?
JackC, in an attempt to bridge the Gap..
Spideyn question is as simple as, is my bathing you without your consent violation of your rights? is my placing a bottle, filled with milk. in your mouth, without your consent a rights violation of you?
I think there are categories of interactions - some that require consent and others that require the absence of refusal. So to use your examples, with the addition of sex:
Were you to bathe me without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don't think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don't think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place your penis in my mouth without my consent, I think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to bathe me despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Spideynw: nirgrahamUK: Daniel Muffinburg:How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions? My understanding is that he answered by suggesting that if he took on board the sensitivity to expressed consent his toddler would go uncared for, as it has not been observed to consent to the things needed to keep it well cared for, in the manner in which an older more expressive child might be expected to. I could be wrong though. Seems pretty spot on. If a child is unable to consent, and if that is the only criteria that a parent can use to determine if he is violating his child's rights, then that means anything a parent does to a child is a violation of the child's rights, since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
Are you saying that the parents have positive obligations?
Stranger: Aster_Lacnala: Then we are back to ability to argue one's complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn't a violation. For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done. That's about right.
I'm curious, did you arrive at this conclusion solely through logical reasoning?
Why anarchy fails
JackCuyler: nirgrahamUK: JackC, in an attempt to bridge the Gap.. Spideyn question is as simple as, is my bathing you without your consent violation of your rights? is my placing a bottle, filled with milk. in your mouth, without your consent a rights violation of you? I think there are categories of interactions - some that require consent and others that require the absence of refusal. So to use your examples, with the addition of sex: Were you to bathe me without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don't think you would be violating my rights. Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don't think you would be violating my rights. Were you to place your penis in my mouth without my consent, I think you would be violating my rights. Were you to bathe me despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights. Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights.
So on one hand, if you do not give consent yet do not withhold consent, your rights have not been violated. On the other hand, if you do not give consent yet do not withhold consent, your rights have been violated. I am confused. How does that help me as a parent know if I am violating my child's supposed rights?
Spideynw: JackCuyler:you are in error to claim that it somehow leads to all interactions. Can you show me where I made that claim? If not, will you admit your lie? JackCuyler:No where in this thread have I stated or implied that all interactions with a child, regardless of consent, are a violations of said child's rights. Did I ever claim you did?
I apologize. You did not. One of your question was rather leading, but possibly I read more into it than i should have. I should have answered this:
Spideynw:If they never consent to anything, then does that not mean that everything a parent does to a child is violating it's rights?
With: No. Nothing I've said so far would lead to that conclusion, and that is not my position.
However, right after questioning where you made that claim, you made that claim:
Spideynw:If a child is unable to consent, and if that is the only criteria that a parent can use to determine if he is violating his child's rights, then that means anything a parent does to a child is a violation of the child's rights, since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best. Are you saying that the parents have positive obligations?
Spideynw: since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
I should reword and say that the conclusion I draw is that parent's seem to be legally obligated to do nothing to help their child survive.
JackCuyler:With: No. Nothing I've said so far would lead to that conclusion, and that is not my position.
So you would say children can give consent? Or are you saying that even though children cannot give consent, that does not mean that anything a parent does to his child is violating the child's rights?
The funny thing about all this is that I bet Spidey doesn't have the balls to express his "theory" to his wive and two young daughters.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
JackCuyler: However, right after questioning where you made that claim, you made that claim:
Spideynw:If a child is unable to consent, and if that is the only criteria that a parent can use to determine if he is violating his child's rights, then that means anything a parent does to a child is a violation of the child's rights, since the child cannot consent to anything.
Is there something wrong with my statement?
E. R. Olovetto: The funny thing about all this is that I bet Spidey doesn't have the balls to express his "theory" to his wive and two young daughters.
Why would I be afraid to tell my wife that I think children don't have rights? Are you afraid to tell people that animals don't have rights? Regardless, I talk to my wife about everything. And if you are wondering, she will not talk to me about this subject. She gets upset.
Spidey your conflating guardianship with property and thats why your having a hard time reconciling the point at which a child's rights are being violated. You apparently are in fear that spanking or disciplining a child is considered a violation of rights. You want to be given the authority to discipline your child. And you should have that. So to reconcile this you assign children as property. This gives you the power to do everything you desire and more.
Under guardianship covers all this already however, disciplining your child is not necessarily a violation of rights. Discipline is often an act promoting the successful capacity of the child. I know there are those that would debate that but I'd rather debate that then justified infanticide.
So under guardianship disciplining your child can be seen as ok.
Owning a child however changes the entire spectrum. It removes any responsibility a parent has at developing a productive person.
Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created.
If the answer is no, please explain why. If your answer is yes no further explanation is needed.
Stranger
In a free society it's entirely possible for a 13 year old child(or younger) to present a case to a court, even if ad-hoc or with help. But a father could practice coercion over his 'property' and prevent him from doing so. The ability to present a case to a judge does not constitute being human and does not constitute having rights. Being human is a biological attribute. The ability to act is one of those attributes but specifically having the ability to present a case in court does not magically make you a human with rights. In some rural areas there may be no judge. Does that mean everyone is non-human? The concept is retarded.
We build a framework of principles and our positive law forms around that not the other way around. We don't create principles to from positive law. Principles come first.
Nir
Spidey's fallacy is the conflation of property rights onto people. He seems to shy away from it's logical conclusions. Feel free to also answer the two questions I mentioned above.
By your logic and spidey's I could homestead a senior citizen suffering from 'altimers'(Spelling?). I could then do with him and his body as I please. He seems to make an arbitrary exception to this fact. But there are people of all ages who for long periods of time are incapable of being their own guardian and making rational decisions. If he followed his concept logically you would be able to homestead these people and do with as you please.
The fallacy here is a new definition of human. The definition is 'being able to think coherently makes you human and gives you human rights'. This is not what constituets a human however.
Children are placed in positions of responsibility on a daily basis. Some children who's parents are sick must make decisions for them. Children are entirely capable of thinking critically and making moral decisions. The only reason why they do not commonly do this is because they are under the wing of their parent.
The belief that children are incapable of having rational preferences and making a certain level of decisions for themselves is entirely false. If children did not have human preferences they really would be property, they'd never dispute anything you ever asked for and they would need no discipline. They'd be robots.
My third question is this, besides the two I posted above which I do wanted answered. Whats your beef against guardianship? You can still discipline your child as needed(within reason). The idea of guardianship is fostering an environment which promotes better development for their persons.
Making a child ownership removes all responsibilities a parent has as being a parent, including discipline. They can do wtf they want.
Additional reasons why children are human
filc:In a free society it's entirely possible for a 13 year old child(or younger) to present a case to a court, even if ad-hoc or with help. But a father could practice coercion over his 'property' and prevent him from doing so.
Sure, what do you want to do about it?
filc: The ability to present a case to a judge does not constitute being human and does not constitute having rights.
You only have the rights that other people are willing to protect. Imaginary rights established on abstract philosophical principles are of no material consequence unless there is an agency embracing those principles and capable of economically protecting them. Rights that make no economic sense cannot exist.
filc:The ability to act is one of those attributes but specifically having the ability to present a case in court does not magically make you a human with rights. In some rural areas there may be no judge. Does that mean everyone is non-human?
No, it means they are humans with no rights.
spideynw:A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
I'm fairly confident in the fact that a 4 y ear old would be able to ascertain whether or not they wanted to be raiped. Might does not make right. The only reason why a child could not present a case to a judge is because they were not yet taught. Such things are generally pushed farther up the list.
Most grown adults today do not know how to present a case in court. Fortunately the division of labor provides lawyers. By your logic though all of these adults who cannot present themselves in court adequately are homesteadable as property.
Stranger:Sure, what do you want to do about it?
Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours.
Stranger: Imaginary rights established on abstract philosophical principles are of no material consequence unless there is an agency embracing those principles and capable of economically protecting them.
If you believe positive law comes first how is it that you are here on an AE forum?
Stranger: Rights that make no economic sense cannot exist.
Children having rights makes perfect economical sense. If you want your economy to have a healthy future.
Stranger: filc:In a free society it's entirely possible for a 13 year old child(or younger) to present a case to a court, even if ad-hoc or with help. But a father could practice coercion over his 'property' and prevent him from doing so. Sure, what do you want to do about it? filc: The ability to present a case to a judge does not constitute being human and does not constitute having rights. You only have the rights that other people are willing to protect. Imaginary rights established on abstract philosophical principles are of no material consequence unless there is an agency embracing those principles and capable of economically protecting them. Rights that make no economic sense cannot exist. filc:The ability to act is one of those attributes but specifically having the ability to present a case in court does not magically make you a human with rights. In some rural areas there may be no judge. Does that mean everyone is non-human? No, it means they are humans with no rights.
If Spidey was economically capable of raping you, then according to your logic, he wouldn't be violating your rights, correct?
Daniel Muffinburg: If Spidey was economically capable of raping you, then according to your logic, he wouldn't be violating your rights, correct?
Obviously, I wouldn't have such rights.
filc: Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created. Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified?
In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child's guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself.
In answer to the second, as I have already explained, rape implies reasoning abilities. As such, I will instead rephrase your question to "Is having sex with your child legally justified?" The answer is yes.
filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours.
If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
Spideynw:So you would say children can give consent? Or are you saying that even though children cannot give consent, that does not mean that anything a parent does to his child is violating the child's rights?
The latter. Or rather, claiming that sex with a non-consenting child is a violation of that child's rights in no way implies that all interactions with that child (anything a parent does) is a a violation of that child's rights. I either have not yet formed an opinion on other interactions, or have not been asked specifics, other than bathing and bottle feeding, which I answered.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: If Spidey was economically capable of raping you, then according to your logic, he wouldn't be violating your rights, correct? Obviously, I wouldn't have such rights.
I see.
Please explain what is an "imaginary right."
Stranger:If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
Blatantly false. A murder is no less a violation of rights because the murderer got away with it.
JackCuyler: Stranger:If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination. Blatantly false. A murder is no less a violation of rights because the murderer got away with it.
What is the difference between the powers that be declaring a murderer not-guilty and simply letting him walk away?
Stranger: filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours. If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
Why and how so?
Stranger: filc:The ability to act is one of those attributes but specifically having the ability to present a case in court does not magically make you a human with rights. In some rural areas there may be no judge. Does that mean everyone is non-human? No, it means they are humans with no rights.
Your rights are derived from another's ability to judge you?
Spideynw: filc: Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created. Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child's guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself.
Did you arrive at this conclusion purely through logical reasoning, based on the principles of natural law?
filc:Spidey's fallacy is the conflation of property rights onto people.
surely it depends on the child, specifically it depends on who owns the child. i.e. itself, which would lead to an answer of unjustified to all your questions above (this is under the assumption that the child did not consent to have those things done to it, though it is a logical possibility that it might in fact consent to have the first thing done to it, though the second thing is trickier, if the child always consented to have sex,that would render the notion of raping the child a nonsense/unintelligable.)
if the child does not own itself (because it was not yet a mind-having self-owner...i.e. the mindless-body does not teleologically own the body, there is no 'person' who could be violated. There is 'no person' to apologise to, no person that may have consented under the circumstance but contingently did not)
filc:The fallacy here is a new definition of human. The definition is 'being able to think coherently makes you human and gives you human rights'. This is not what constituets a human however.
no. human is not being redifined. a human that is just tissue with particular dna that people call 'human' through its stages of development can think or it cant. the point is that morality is not a concept dependant necessarily on genes. genes are just the way nature (that we are aware of) has found to give rise to creatures that have minds. lets not get grandious and human centric and imagine that there arent other ways that minds can emerge... lets say that if they emerged, theses minds would own the bodies they emerged from, and would have rights. I am merely trying to emphasise correctly what moral agency relies upon. moral agency is not a human-only topic. it must consist in other features.
filc:My third question is this, besides the two I posted above which I do wanted answered. Whats your beef against guardianship? You can still discipline your child as needed(within reason). The idea of guardianship is fostering an environment which promotes better development for their persons.
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
filc: spideynw:A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not. I'm fairly confident in the fact that a 4 y ear old would be able to ascertain whether or not they wanted to be raiped.
I'm fairly confident in the fact that a 4 y ear old would be able to ascertain whether or not they wanted to be raiped.
Are you a child development expert, like a child psychologist? Regardless, I did say "probably does not". Implying, I could be wrong.
filc:The only reason why a child could not present a case to a judge is because they were not yet taught.
So you don't think it has anything to do with their intellectual development? You think that baby is going to get up to the stand, and when the prosecutor asks the baby, "can you point to the person that raped you?" that the baby will point to her father?
Or if a 3 year old gets up on the stand, you don't think the toddler would on the one hand point to the father when the prosecutor asks her to and on the other hand withdraw her accusation when asked by the defending attorney?
filc:By your logic though all of these adults who cannot present themselves in court adequately are homesteadable as property.
Can you prove it?
Stranger:What is the difference between the powers that be declaring a murderer not-guilty and simply letting him walk away?
Nothing. Either the accused did not commit the crime or there was a miscarriage of justice.
JackCuyler: Spideynw:So you would say children can give consent? Or are you saying that even though children cannot give consent, that does not mean that anything a parent does to his child is violating the child's rights? The latter. Or rather, claiming that sex with a non-consenting child is a violation of that child's rights in no way implies that all interactions with that child (anything a parent does) is a a violation of that child's rights. I either have not yet formed an opinion on other interactions, or have not been asked specifics, other than bathing and bottle feeding, which I answered.
And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how that helps parents decide when they have violated a child's rights.
AJ:Did you arrive at this conclusion purely through logical reasoning, based on the principles of natural law?
Parents own their children until the children reach the age of reasoning. As such, the parents can legally do whatever they want to their children until that point. I am not sure what you mean by "natural law". If not, and children have rights, then when does a parent know the child's rights have been violated?
Stranger:Because at 20 years old, the victim can argue her complaint in front of a judge.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours. If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination. Why and how so?
That's self-evident.
Spideynw:A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
I will answer your question when you provide a satisfactory answer to mine. Period. You will not have an answer until then. You are the one claiming that somehow, it magically becomes rape upon the ability to reason. You need something more.