Len Budney: Here "convention" means precisely that it's an assumption. Appealing to "convention" certainly indicates that you realize it can't be proven. --Len
Here "convention" means precisely that it's an assumption. Appealing to "convention" certainly indicates that you realize it can't be proven.
--Len
I am saying that it is necessary to do so in order for it to be considered ethics. If you are not looking for an ethical justification of private property rights, then universality and argumentation is of no interest to you. In fact you can just go around killing all of your opponents and skip the argument entirely.
Len Budney: Stranger:That is not a problem of social relations. Stay on target. Any positive obligation contradicts self-ownership. More or less all humans on the planet assume the existence of at least one positive obligation. In so doing, they postulate a morality without self-ownership--and it doesn't involve putting one's every decision to a vote. --Len
Stranger:That is not a problem of social relations.
Stay on target. Any positive obligation contradicts self-ownership. More or less all humans on the planet assume the existence of at least one positive obligation. In so doing, they postulate a morality without self-ownership--and it doesn't involve putting one's every decision to a vote.
What the hell are you talking about?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Len Budney:Here "convention" means precisely that it's an assumption. Appealing to "convention" certainly indicates that you realize it can't be proven. I am saying that it is necessary to do so in order for it to be considered ethics.
Len Budney:Here "convention" means precisely that it's an assumption. Appealing to "convention" certainly indicates that you realize it can't be proven.
I am saying that it is necessary to do so in order for it to be considered ethics.
You're completely lost. Plenty of people believe in moral systems where different people are bound by different rules. The notion that only universal ethical systems are admissible is an assumption.
Stranger: Len Budney:Stay on target. Any positive obligation contradicts self-ownership. More or less all humans on the planet assume the existence of at least one positive obligation. In so doing, they postulate a morality without self-ownership--and it doesn't involve putting one's every decision to a vote. What the hell are you talking about?
Len Budney:Stay on target. Any positive obligation contradicts self-ownership. More or less all humans on the planet assume the existence of at least one positive obligation. In so doing, they postulate a morality without self-ownership--and it doesn't involve putting one's every decision to a vote.
You are completely lost. We're discussing whether self-ownership is the only assumption that isn't self-contradictory. Self-ownership is precisely the assertion that there are no positive obligations upon us. Non-self-ownership is precisely the assertion that there is at least one positive obligation upon us. It is quite evident that it's possible to assert non-self-ownership in a way that is self-consistent.
A moral system and an ethical system are not the same thing. Self-ownership may be moral or immoral but it is necessarily ethical. You cannot claim that self-ownership is unethical without a performative contradiction. You can claim whatever you want about the morality of that.
That is Hoppe's argument and I just wanted to correct you so that you don't lead some innocent bystander to confusion.
Stranger:A moral system and an ethical system are not the same thing. Self-ownership may be moral or immoral but it is necessarily ethical. You cannot claim that self-ownership is unethical without a performative contradiction. You can claim whatever you want about the morality of that.
You're not saying anything germaine. Insofar as you're talking about "proving self-ownership," you're simply begging the question when you disqualify non-universal rules from consideration by appealing to "convention."
I am not "proving" self-ownership, you are demonstrating that it is ethically justifiable by engaging in any form of argumentation.
Len: That you think something is a fact certainly doesn't make it one. You are confusing reality itself with assertions about reality.
Here, too, you're deeply confused.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger:I am not "proving" self-ownership, you are demonstrating that it is ethically justifiable by engaging in any form of argumentation.
You jumped into a discussion whether it can be proven. You're now weaseling about things like "justifiability," which are either irrelevant, or a half-baked attempt to talk about "proving" without "proof." You're way, way off in left field.
Len Budney: Stranger:I am not "proving" self-ownership, you are demonstrating that it is ethically justifiable by engaging in any form of argumentation. You jumped into a discussion whether it can be proven. You're now weaseling about things like "justifiability," which are either irrelevant, or a half-baked attempt to talk about "proving" without "proof." You're way, way off in left field. --Len
It can be proven logically that you demonstrate the ethical justification of self-ownership by engaging in argumentation. That is the part that is the proof. If you are not interested in the ethics of private property, then this proof is of no value to you and you can just go around beating people up. That is Hoppe's point. Of course, we can't prove that you don't want to beat people up, but so long as you prefer to engage in argumentation over the ethics of private property, you must necessarily validate self-ownership.
It can be proven logically that you demonstrate the ethical justification of self-ownership by engaging in argumentation.
No, it can't. I already showed the flaw in that "proof."
Len Budney: It can be proven logically that you demonstrate the ethical justification of self-ownership by engaging in argumentation. No, it can't. I already showed the flaw in that "proof." --Len
You're the only one who thinks that, which implies that you do not engage in argumentation and therefore the proof does not apply to your actions.
banned:If the burden of proof is required to prove one DID NOT do something, generally that means you must assume their guilt in the action. When two concenting adults have sex you dont automatically assume it's rape until each adult supplies enough information to show that they were with a consenting party.
The burden of proof that the act occured would be on the accusor/victim. If the defense is that the act did in fact occur, but was consentual, the burden of proof then rests on the defendant. In legal terms, this is called an affirmative defense.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Stranger:You're the only one who thinks that...
Argumentum ad populam! Now I've seen everything! Go soak your head until your embarrassment dissipates.
JackCuyler:The burden of proof that the act occured would be on the accusor/victim. If the defense is that the act did in fact occur, but was consentual, the burden of proof then rests on the defendant. In legal terms, this is called an affirmative defense.
Exactly! It's surprising how many people think that the presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove it wasn't self-defense, even after you admit to killing the deceased.
Len Budney: Stranger:You're the only one who thinks that... Argumentum ad populam! Now I've seen everything! Go soak your head until your embarrassment dissipates. --Len
We're not argumenting anymore Len, you can't say this is a fallacy.
Stranger:We're not argumenting anymore Len, you can't say this is a fallacy.
Give up. At no point in this thread have you made a shred of sense.
I have not read the whole thread, and I'm pretty new to libertariansim, so maybe these are all old points.. or maybe im missing the point alltogether.But the whole concept of an individuals right to self-ownership seems a bit idealistic. If an individual has no no way of exersising his right, then the rights are no more real than an illusion. There are no rights without power. If rights can exist without power, then all rights can be created out of thin air just by imagining them.A young child does not own itself. Because he has no way of keeping his self ownership in the real world. Parents own their childeren, and they will use their power to protect this property from being stolen by others. Until the child grows powerful enough not to need its parents protection it has no rights. If we say that a parent does not have the right to treat its property any way we like then we are saying that there is someone else that also has ownership of this property, and that is powerful enough to protect it. The simple fact that there are laws that protect childeren and the fact that these laws are enforced suggest that childeren are in some part owned by the state. And the fact that adults also has laws that protect them mean that none of us own our selves. The state owns us because it gives us protection and it has the power to enforce its laws. So much like a child is owned bu its parent, and adult is owned by the state. A child can run away from its parents and therby gain self ownership. As an adult it is harder to run away from the state, and gain self ownership. As far as the law of the land can reach you, you have not yet run far away from home. I'm not sure where this leaves us on the topic at hand. Other than that parents have more power over their childeren than the state does. Maybe that means that there should be no laws conserning sex, maybe its would better off left to parents. If someone damages their property (child), maybe the parents should take the power into their own hands and punish the person without waithing for help from the state.Cheers
DriftWood:But the whole concept of an individuals right to self-ownership seems a bit idealistic. If an individual has no no way of exersising his right, then the rights are no more real than an illusion. There are no rights without power. If rights can exist without power, then all rights can be created out of thin air just by imagining them.
There's truth in that. The "rights" of someone in a persistent vegetative state are more or less strictly academic.
On the other hand, this observation can be taken to an extreme. In fact, that's just what socialists do: they argue that your "rights" are meaningless if you're dead; therefore guaranteed food, shelter and medical care are prerequisites to real rights. That's not true. They're essentially arguing that you aren't "free to go to the beach" unless someone makes sure you actually have transportation, beach chairs and money for the trip. You can be free, without having the means to do whatever it is you'd rather be doing.
A young child does not own itself...
You've locked right onto the right question: children and the incapacitated are the cutting edge of libertarian research. On the one hand it's not fair to consider them slaves or chattel, any more than someone who voluntarily contracts to follow my household rules in exchange for room and board. On the other hand, children don't make such a contract, because they don't get to pick their parents. In practice, libertarian parents attempt to find a balance in which the children's autonomy is respected as much as can be, consistently with their welfare.
If we say that a parent does not have the right to treat its property any way we like then we are saying that there is someone else that also has ownership of this property...
If that were really, really true, then it would be a parent's prerogative to barbecue and eat his children, just as he could a cow, goat or other property. We're all pretty well agreed that whatever a child's status, exactly, we're sure that it's murder to kill one. So they can't be property.
Rothbard points out that you can own a house, but you can also own specific rights to a house that isn't yours. A renter has rights to enter and leave. Neighbors might have rights-of-way to the driveway. Hunters might have limited access rights for hunting. And so on. Attempts to fit children into the model boil down to modeling guardianship as an easement: I don't own my son, but I own a "variance" that allows me to discipline and raise him. This is still a very immature notion, though. It's hard to make an airtight case that doesn't smack of Lockean "social contracts," which we anarchists don't believe in.
The state owns us because it gives us protection and it has the power to enforce its laws.
That's de facto true: that's why we anarcho-capitalists decry the state as inherently criminal. It's de facto slavery. The non-aggression principle implies that slavery is wrong, and therefore we conclude that the state is wrong. As for "protection," it's a straight-up protection racket. Men with guns round up people who fail to pay protection money on April 15th, and dons in expensive suits genteelly remark what a shame it would be if something unfortunate should befall a good citizen who forgot to pay up...
If you have no power to assert your rights, but believe they are violated, are they not violated?
DriftWood:A young child does not own itself. Because he has no way of keeping his self ownership in the real world. Parents own their childeren, and they will use their power to protect this property from being stolen by others. Until the child grows powerful enough not to need its parents protection it has no rights.
I strongly disagree. Parents are custodians of the child's rights until the child is rational enough to assert those rights. They are not the owners of the child. When my parents adopted me, they didn't take ownership of me, they took ownership of my upbringing, in exchange, I suppose, for all the joys raising a child brings. God help them.
How does one "exercise" the right to self-ownership? It's a negative right, meaning it is not to be interfered with. The point is that if someone violates the right, you may demand compensation from them, and act so as to prevent such violations. I see nothing "idealistic" in this.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The answer to the question is the Biological Trust. Assuming that the procreative adult humans were both consenting, they bear equal responsibility for raising the offspring. The biological trust terminates over a period of time, as the child gains the ability to exercise his own self-ownership rights. Running away would be executing the termination clause and assuming full self-ownership. As for indoctrination, far from being a sin, it is a responsibility to indoctrinate your children with the best doctrine you have. Good doctrine leads to a prosperous, healthy life, whereas bad doctrine creates communists.
The answer to the question is the Biological Trust. Assuming that the procreative adult humans were both consenting, they bear equal responsibility for raising the offspring. The biological trust terminates over a period of time, as the child gains the ability to exercise his own self-ownership rights. Running away would be executing the termination clause and assuming full self-ownership.
As for indoctrination, far from being a sin, it is a responsibility to indoctrinate your children with the best doctrine you have. Good doctrine leads to a prosperous, healthy life, whereas bad doctrine creates communists.
Where does this Biological Trust doctrine come from?
Voievod: In a Libertarian system, what is the minimum "legal" age at which sex between an adult and the consenting minor is no longer statutory rape? Who decides this age? The parent? Then what is the age at which the parent is no longer allowed to make decisions for it's child? And who decides that age?
In a Libertarian system, what is the minimum "legal" age at which sex between an adult and the consenting minor is no longer statutory rape?
Who decides this age?
The parent? Then what is the age at which the parent is no longer allowed to make decisions for it's child?
And who decides that age?
There is only one real objective standard as to when a child has assumed full responsibility for their life--and that is when the child has assumed full responsibility for themselves, meaning they've moved out and are entirely financially self-supportive and independent.
Until they, their ability to make decisions for themselves are held in trust by their parent under something like a fiduciary relationship. And the parent can make reasonable and rational decisions for them and enforce them.
For some kids that's going to be around 21 or so, after college. For others it could be as young as 13.
This would be too when voting rights begin, when you are entirely self-supporting. I'd love to see a society where only those financially self-supportive and productive are able to vote. Meaning those on government welfare lose the ability to vote because of the quid-pro-quo problem between politicians in elections and the beneficiaries of government programs. If you cannot provide for yourself, you dont' get a vote in the society.
The origin of the biological trust can be described from several points of view. First, it is useful to recognize its utility. Human offspring is unable to do anything to sustain existence for a period of years, and gradually assumes native ownership as he or she becomes more able, however without a faithful trustee, this would not be possible. Therefore if continued human existence is accepted as a value, the biological trust follows as a means of explaining the moral conditions of parenthood and childhood.
If self-ownership is a given, then the trust follows naturally, as the owner is unable to control and maintain his property, and the individuals responsible for his condition (as an owner who cannot exercise ownership rights) are responsible for maintaining his property until he is able to do so.
Experience shows us that if the biological trust is not faithfully executed, then the offspring suffer ill effects. So if human prosperity (any human) is a value, then the biological trust follows.
To be honest, I thought this concept would have been established already. Kind of like how I have been using praxeology for years to prove that authoritarian economics leads to ruin, but I just learned about "praxeology" a few months ago, I thought the parent-child relationship would have been recognized as a trust. It has all the characteristics, and could very well be the first example of a trust.
I personally think that the biological trust is a moral imperative, and originates from the same origin as all other morals.
There most certainly are truths that cannot be proven, see Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem.