JackCuyler:I'm actually interested in the timing. Does someone who has drunk himself into unconsciousness temporarily lose his rights, until he sobers, or at least wakes up? If not, is it because he demonstrated mental capacity before he passed out, or because it is assumed he will once again demonstrate his mental capacity once he is awake?
is he completely devoid of rational faculty? does that happen? i dont know... im not a psychiatrist/brain scientist... when people dream (even if they forget dreams) dont they often reason ? i must get to the beach before my hulk costume turns into a ferrari and drives away... i.e. positing value, and considering means to ends. however absurd the contents of the means and the dreamed about ends ? (i am openly speculating here )
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
nirgrahamUK:is he completely devoid of rational faculty? does that happen? i dont know... im not a psychiatrist/brain scientist... when people dream (even if they forget dreams) dont they often reason ? i must get to the beach before my hulk costume turns into a ferrari and drives away... i.e. positing value, and considering means to ends. however absurd the contents of the means and the dreamed about ends ? (i am openly speculating here )
I'm asking if someone who hypothetically temporarily loses all rational faculty, a dreamless unconsciousness, does that person then temporarily lose all rights?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
if you are telling me that they arent moral agents then that would follow. is that going to be a problem?
Max:Same thing with Jon, BAAWA and LS, like you[Spidey] they advocate child murder
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."
nirgrahamUK: if you are telling me that they arent moral agents then that would follow. is that going to be a problem?
I'm telling to they have temporarily lost they moral agency. As you put it earlier:
nirgrahamUK:When I say "has the capability of granting or withholding consent", I mean the mental capacity. Someone who is asleep still has the mental capacity.
So I took it a step further, to temporary diminished capacity. Dreamless unconsciousness due to minor head trauma, drunken stupor, what have you. Mental capacity is currently not there, but will presumably return. Has this person lost his or her rights? Is it permissible to steal from the unconscious? To rape the unconscious? To beat the unconscious? Upon awakening, would this person have no standing to seek restitution, simply because he or she lacked the mental capacity at the time of the "attack"? Could one then get away with murdering another simply by rendering the victim unconscious first, and thereby only face charges of a non-lethal physical assault?
This is really just a simple question. Does a temporary loss is mental capacity lead to a temporary loss of rights? Even if you don't believe a true loss of mental capacity is possible, assume for the hypothetical question that it is.
JackCuyler:Does a temporary loss in mental capacity lead to a temporary loss of rights?
nirgrahamUK: JackCuyler:Does a temporary loss in mental capacity lead to a temporary loss of rights? yes, if its a complete loss you have in mind and not an impairment. then that would follow. is that going to be a problem?
A complete, though temporary, loss, yes. I find your answer rather asotounding. Does that mean if I hit you in the head with enough force to knock you into dreamless unconsciousness, and then rape and kill you, I should only be liable for the whack to the head? i mean, you have no rights while you're unconscious...
you are the one alleging that with a swift blow to my head ,without killing me you can make me not be me. make me be not capable of reason, make me not be a rational agent. maybe thats the astounding claim? or maybe its not astounding and hitting me so hard to the head that i lose rational capacity is killing me in the meaningful sense of the words 'killing me'
nirgrahamUK: you are the one alleging that with a swift blow to my head ,without killing me you can make me not be me. make me be not capable of reason, make me not be a rational agent. maybe thats the astounding claim? or maybe its not astounding and hitting me so hard to the head that i lose rational capacity is killing me in the meaningful sense of the words 'killing me'
There is a high probability that you would recover from the blow, and be "you" again, but for the short time you were unconscious, you lost rational capacity. Using your argument, you had no rights during that short time. You (had you not been killed) or your heirs would then have no standing to seek restitution for any would-be crimes committed against you while you were in that state.
As Juan pointed out, drugs are an even better solution. You certainly could be put in a drug induced coma.
this would almost be a problem if in turning off my rational mind completely you hadnt breached libertarian law, horribly.
jdcoffey: GilesStratton: Spideynw: And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good". Spideynw:My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent What? My thoughts exactly. That is an obvious contradiction. If there is no "evil and good" then there can be no "wrong" to commit. You are trying to ignore objective morality when it doesn't suit you and employ it when it does.
GilesStratton: Spideynw: And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good". Spideynw:My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent What?
Spideynw: And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good".
Spideynw:My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent
What?
My thoughts exactly. That is an obvious contradiction. If there is no "evil and good" then there can be no "wrong" to commit. You are trying to ignore objective morality when it doesn't suit you and employ it when it does.
Evil and good are religious ideas. Right and wrong are philosophical ones. No contradiction there.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
JackCuyler: Spideynw:As to the whole sleeping thing, again, it has to do with whether or not one has the mental capacity. Going to sleep does not take away one's mental capacity. Going to sleep temporarily takes away one's mental capacity.
Spideynw:As to the whole sleeping thing, again, it has to do with whether or not one has the mental capacity. Going to sleep does not take away one's mental capacity.
Going to sleep temporarily takes away one's mental capacity.
No it does not.
JackCuyler:If not, imbibing significant amounts of adult beverages certainly does,
It certainly does not.
JackCuyler:as would a sharp blow to the head.
Nope, it still does not.
In none of these cases has the brain of the person changed.
More importantly, in all of these cases they can still file charges.
So I guess I should clarify that the only way we know a wrong has been committed, is if someone files a complaint, that either his or her person or property has been violated or the person or property of someone he or she has a responsibility for has been violated.
JackCuyler:I'm asking if someone who hypothetically temporarily loses all rational faculty, a dreamless unconsciousness, does that person then temporarily lose all rights?
No, for the same reason that you can't go wreck up someone's car just because they aren't driving it at the moment, or break into their house when they're on vacation. The person has already homesteaded the rights to actions extending into the future, and interfering in the present is a violation of those rights, albeit a violation that is not evident until later. So if you kill someone who is unconscious, you have violated their right to continue living the future—a right which has not been abandoned, unless the person is already dead.
As far as children's rights are concerned, I think Stephan Kinsella's approach is useful:
Stephan Kinsella:Now, if you pass by a drowning man in a lake you have no enforceable (legal) obligation to try to rescue him; but if you push someone in a lake you have a positive obligation to try to rescue him. If you don't you could be liable for homicide. Likewise, if your voluntary actions bring into being an infant with natural needs for shelter, food, care, it is akin to throwing someone into a lake. In both cases you create a situation where another human is in dire need of help and without which he will die. By creating this situation of need you incur an obligation to provide for those needs. (Source)
The parent(s), by bearing a child, have caused the child's future-rights to become "entrenched," in much the same way as an unwitting trespasser farming your land acquires rights to that land if you are aware of the trespasser but do not challege him/her (adverse possession), or an airplane pilot incurs an obligation to land the plane for the sake of the passengers. The only question is: at what point can a piece of matter be considered a "potential moral agent" (like an unconscious adult)? At one extreme, a separated egg-and-sperm pair clearly is not, and a 9-year-old child clearly is. My guess is that the transition would occur during or shortly before birth, but I think we have a continuum or Ship-of-Theseus problem here. More philosophizing is needed.
Then again, I may be all wrong. This is one of the most difficult issues in ethics, even among libertarians.
Zavoi: The parent(s), by bearing a child, have caused the child's future-rights to become "entrenched," in much the same way as an unwitting trespasser farming your land acquires rights to that land if you are aware of the trespasser but do not challege him/her (adverse possession), or an airplane pilot incurs an obligation to land the plane for the sake of the passengers. The only question is: at what point can a piece of matter be considered a "potential moral agent" (like an unconscious adult)? At one extreme, a separated egg-and-sperm pair clearly is not, and a 9-year-old child clearly is. My guess is that the transition would occur during or shortly before birth, but I think we have a continuum or Ship-of-Theseus problem here. More philosophizing is needed. Then again, I may be all wrong. This is one of the most difficult issues in ethics, even among libertarians.
If neither the baby, nor the babies parents, nor the babies grandparents bring a case to court, what wrong has been committed?
Spideynw: If neither the baby, nor the babies parents, nor the babies grandparents bring a case to court, what wrong has been committed?
If I were to kill everyone in the world in one fell blow so that there was nobody left to take me to court, has a wrong been committed? The obvious answer is yes. People have rights and moral value independent of their ability to defend or think for themselves.
Spideynw: JackCuyler: Going to sleep temporarily takes away one's mental capacity. No it does not.
JackCuyler: Going to sleep temporarily takes away one's mental capacity.
You cannot give consent while you are sleeping. You cannot "file a complaint, that either [your] person or property has been violated or the person or property of someone[you have] a responsibility for has been violated" while you are sleeping.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:If not, imbibing significant amounts of adult beverages certainly does, It certainly does not. JackCuyler:as would a sharp blow to the head. Nope, it still does not.
Alcohol and other drugs affect brain chemistry. Blows to the head can cause the brain to impact the inside of the skull, causing damage. When you are unconscious, due to drinking a significant amount of alcohol, or you are in a drug induced coma as part of medical treatment, or you have been knocked out by a blow to the head, you are unable to "file a complaint, that either [your] person or property has been violated or the person or property of someone[you have] a responsibility for has been violated." Further, you are incapable of being aware that such a violation is taking place.
Spideynw:If neither the baby, nor the babies parents, nor the babies grandparents bring a case to court, what wrong has been committed?
So killing one person may be a crime, but killing an entire family tree is not? I'm just trying to clarify your position.
Doesn't the application of Natural Law/Rights clear up all the ambiguation here? It seems to certainly close any perceived holes with extenuating circumstances (i.e. impairment, mental retardation and children).
Juan: Max:Same thing with Jon, BAAWA and LS, like you[Spidey] they advocate child murder wow. Any proof for that ?
If you accept, like they do, that parents have the right to take their children to the middle of the desert/ocean/frozen tundra and abandon them with the intention of the child being killed by exposure then you are advocating child murder. They cowardly hide behind some notion that it wasn't the actions of the parents that caused the death but the climate. Like dropping a baby off a cliff and saying it wasn't the fall that caused the death but it was the Earth's fault for the sudden stop. It's a disgrace to freedom minded people and inherently evil.
Just like Spidey in this thread.
nirgrahamUK: this would almost be a problem if in turning off my rational mind completely you hadnt breached libertarian law, horribly.
This is the problem with your incoherent definition of what a human is. You can't define when it occurs or deosn't occur in any individual case. Not to mention that there will be no agreement on what a rational mind encompasses.
Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
If you accept, like they do, that parents have the right to take their children to the middle of the desert/ocean/frozen tundra and abandon them
Juan: Again, proof for that ?
Again, proof for that ?
What does "proof" mean?
/sarcasm
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Maxliberty:This is the problem with your incoherent definition of what a human is. You can't define when it occurs or deosn't occur in any individual case. Not to mention that there will be no agreement on what a rational mind encompasses.
for the last time, i have not been defining humans. i've been defining moral agents. what is your major malfunction?
nirgrahamUK:for the last time, i have not been defining humans. i've been defining moral agents.
And I've been asking (ok really only once or twice) whether the past or the future defines that moral agency. For example, you are unable to assert your rights while you are sleeping or while you are unconscious. We agree, however, that simply being alseep does not deprive you of your rights. So is it the fact that you were able to assert your rights before you fell asleep the reason you don't temporarily lose your rights, or the fact that it's presumed you will be able to when you awake?
I will try to puzzle this with you. in that spirit would you redraft your query so as to mention rationality and/or moral agency ?
note: there are theories out there, im just not too well versed in them (yet?). 'interest' theory of moral agency might be what you have in mind, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2.2
nirgrahamUK:I will try to puzzle this with you. in that spirit would you redraft your query so as to mention rationality and/or moral agency ?
No matter how we define rationality, we can observe occasions when an individual is incapable of being rational. Comas and unconsciousness are examples. When in these states, one is incapable of making rational choices, or indeed any choices, regarding the real world. There are many non-nefarious ways one could end up in such a state. One could over-dose. A doctor could induce a coma for treatment. One could fall and sustain minor head trauma. One could be in a boxing match. In each of these situaltions, the unconscious person temporarity ceases to be a moral agent in any meaningful sense - no rational choices can be made, as the person is unaware of any choices.
Personally, I think this person, though temporarily without reason, still possesses rights. If you agree, as i think you do, I wonder is it because this person was a moral agent before temporarily losing his reason, or because it's assumed the loss is temporary, and he will regain the use of his senses?
the problem is 'capable' is doing double duty.
is a car thats driving forwards capable of driving backwards? well surely in the moment with it going forwards, with its gear stick being in such a position and wheels turning one way, it can only go forward, and it cant go backwards. do we say that the car is incapable of going in reverse? there is a sense in which we would and one in which we wouldnt. i think we both need to inquire into this curiousity.
Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
And not all adults have the same brain functions. I'd be willing to bet you that in some of the most primitive societies that are adults who are less capable of logical thought than children that live in western societies. So, the question is, when people go there and butcher them en masse is it fair game?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable. And not all adults have the same brain functions. I'd be willing to bet you that in some of the most primitive societies that are adults who are less capable of logical thought than children that live in western societies. So, the question is, when people go there and butcher them en masse is it fair game?
I don't know. Do they have the intelligence to grant consent to be killed? A baby obviously does not.
Please define the exact moment something becomes a human and therefore has rights. Also, please describe exactly how you will know in every case when this moment has happened.
Spideynw: GilesStratton: Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable. And not all adults have the same brain functions. I'd be willing to bet you that in some of the most primitive societies that are adults who are less capable of logical thought than children that live in western societies. So, the question is, when people go there and butcher them en masse is it fair game? I don't know. Do they have the intelligence to grant consent to be killed? A baby obviously does not.
If you don't know now, how would you determine if they had the capacity to grant consent after they were dead?
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:This is the problem with your incoherent definition of what a human is. You can't define when it occurs or deosn't occur in any individual case. Not to mention that there will be no agreement on what a rational mind encompasses. for the last time, i have not been defining humans. i've been defining moral agents. what is your major malfunction?
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that not all humans have rights.That rights are granted by some other event that occurs unrelated to whether or not you are human. In your line of thinking then dogs and cats conceivably can have more rights than babies. If the whole criteria for rights is simply an understanding of right and wrong and the ability to choose one over the other then most dogs qualify and many other animals qualify but newborn babies do not.
This is why according to your definition of who has rights then this can come and go depending on your mental status. So Jack's critique of what happens when your sleeping is very relevant. So is it just the possiblity of having this rational thinking or do you have to be actively exercising it in order to be qualified as having rights? If an indigent person that nobody knows is killed in the street has anyone's rights been violated? How will you prove the dead guy met your criteria of rationality? How will anyone else prove that at the moment of death that he was a rational thinker with rights?
Is that not what you are saying?
Your theory of when rights begin/stop/are interrupted is the only major malfunction here.
They have the same brain functions they are just not as developed. So if someone has more developed brain function than you does that mean you no longer possess rights? Is there a heirarchy of rights based on brain development? Please explain what the heirarchy is and how you know when you have crossed over each stage or when someone else has.
GilesStratton:I'd be willing to bet you that in some of the most primitive societies that are adults who are less capable of logical thought than children that live in western societies
Being in primitive conditions is completely irrelevant to logic. Look at the average western boobus cheese burger voter. Not exactly a tower of reason. Knowledge != Reason as Paul Krugman so often shows us on his NYT blog.
LibertyStudent, I think this largely misses the point. My point wasn't that primitives are incapable of logic but that they've not cultivated this capability. If Spidey is attempting to make the point that killing children is fair game because, after all, they can't complain, that's OK. But, I don't know how true this is. As somebody who has quite a few younger siblings I can tell you that my six year old brother would certainly be able to object to all sorts of ill treatment towards him. In fact, I think that most children above very young ages can show some sort of disagreement towards physical abuse. Now, the problem is that they often can't communicate this verbally (although, they can certainly show the same through body language) but if this is so where do we draw the line? I can't communicate with Chinese people and vice versa I don't think for a second this makes it fair game for us to kill one another wantonly.
Maxliberty: Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Please define the exact moment something becomes a human and therefore has rights.
Please define the exact moment something becomes a human and therefore has rights.
A right is a "legal claim". So, as soon as one can make a legal claim. It could be 5 years old, or it could be 14. We probably need courts and child psychologists to help us out here. Even U.S. courts do not treat minors the same as adults. However, I do not agree with how the state thinks 18 or 21 is somehow magical. The question is, at what age, in a free society, would children choose to leave their home? This would probably be a pretty good bench-mark...
GilesStratton:Now, the problem is that they often can't communicate this verbally (although, they can certainly show the same through body language) but if this is so where do we draw the line? I can't communicate with Chinese people and vice versa I don't think for a second this makes it fair game for us to kill one another wantonly.
Of course you can communicate with Chinese people. Just because you do not speak the same language does not mean you cannot communicate...