E. R. Olovetto:Unless you are very wealthy, your chance of having anything close to like a "personal army" is slim.
And unless I am wealthy, I would have no need for a personal army.
E. R. Olovetto:You will be cowering with your pea-shooter as the local Pervhunt Inc. tactical unit swarms your home.
Why would some Pervhunt Inc. swarm my home? What standing do they have? Or do you not know what "standing" is in legal terms?
E. R. Olovetto: while you ignored several requests to give DNA that was eventually shown to match what the school nurse found on your young daughter's underwear.
As if the school I am paying for would get involved in my personal affairs...
E. R. Olovetto:People will pay for police that punish child molesters.
No they will not. They are not their children, so they have no business messing in their affairs.
E. R. Olovetto: PDAs will not be your private mafia unless you fully fund them yourself.
I doubt PDAs will exist. I am sure courts, arbitrators, security companies, and investigators will though. But nothing to provide massive defense.
E. R. Olovetto:As a consumer, you will be funding a small portion of the security firm.
And millions of people are parents, and no security firm would dare think to tell parents how to treat their children. Maybe you should study Mises more about how humans act? You obviously do not understand how markets work, and apparently neither does Rothbard, if he advocates PDAs. No parent would pay a firm that would be so naive as to think to tell the parent how he or she can treat his or her child. You see, the parent is paying for the service, not the child. Do firms try to satisfy their customers or some third party that is not paying them? If you are unable to answer this question, then you can continue living in your fantasy world where you do not understand how the market works.
E. R. Olovetto:Anyhow, what we are really talking about is you forcing someone else to take your crap.
Please do not misunderstand me. I would never molest or kill or intentionally harm my child. I asked what you would do about it if I did.
E. R. Olovetto:For the most part, all someone has to do is want to live their life in peace and decide to be patrons of police who punish molesters
Mob rule huh? Because you get to decide what molesting my child is right?
E. R. Olovetto:Some of us will choose to be the police and put our lives on the line to protect the school nurse from the deranged dad.
In a stateless society, first of all, children would be able to help themselves at a much younger age. Second of all, a lot more of them would probably be working, not going to school. Lastly, if the child was so young that the parent has to pay for the child to attend the school, then I doubt the school would report the behavior, for fear of losing one of its patrons and making an invalid accusation.
E. R. Olovetto:or one can think children have no rights and no law should protect them, but none of this is true
This is true. Unless the neighbor is willing to do something about it.
E. R. Olovetto:Our stance is that the only equality we should pursue is equality under the law, and reason tells us that children are human beings deserving similar rights to adults.
I am not talking about reason, I am talking about reality.
E. R. Olovetto:These are the laws or guidelines I would pay for to be upheld, and possibly fight for.
Then everyone who is for parent's rights would hire their own defense agency to fight your agency. Again, sounds like chaos to me. Or do you just like to deny the reality of all the people that are pro-choice?
E. R. Olovetto:Libertarian law, as I explained earlier, accounts for guardianship.
There is no "libertarian law". There is the market.
E. R. Olovetto:You have already been proven wrong about rights,
Huh?
E. R. Olovetto: If such a view was widely accepted, people would be regularly robbed when they are away at work or asleep, and nobody would act against it.
What are you talking about? When have I made such an argument?
E. R. Olovetto:Guardianship is a subset of ownership and these are juridical statuses which private courts are likely to uphold.
Why? Again, you seem to ignore reality that parents would not have anything to do with an organization that would think to take their child away. The only way a court could secure payment from parents would be to promise them that the court would not get involved in matters of their children, until such time of course that the child could afford to procure their services.
E. R. Olovetto:Libertarians don't object to the use of aggression in response to the initiation of aggression.
First of all, some libertarians are pacifists, and do object to all uses of aggression. Second of all, a small child is unable to respond to the initiation of aggression.
E. R. Olovetto:A guardian owns a child insomuch as he can represent the child like he was representing himself against someone who stole or damaged his property.
E. R. Olovetto:Raping a child can be said to be purely evil, because it in no way aids the child in their development to a status of moral agency. You just can't own a child in that manner under libertarian law.
Sure you can, if no one will stop you. And no one will, unless it is immediate family or neighbors.
E. R. Olovetto: Once you have done certain things, the child would be seen as either unowned or by default under the guardianship of the other parent or "co-owner".
No, a child is never "unowned" unless both parents either die or give up custody. And for reference to this thread, I am talking about neither parent objecting to the treatment of the child. Of course, both parents own the child, and it might be argued that the mother has more ownership rights than the father.
E. R. Olovetto:You need to grasp these simple concepts before we deal with partial moral agency and divergent anarchic legal systems.
It appears you are the one that needs to grasp some simple concepts.
E. R. Olovetto:Libertarian law prescribes punishment for guardians who rape, murder, or permanently injure their child.
No, it does not, because in a stateless society, there would not be anyone to enforce such punishments.
E. R. Olovetto:This much is clear and these would be our widely accepted common law.
Common law would be based on dispute resolution. Since there would be no dispute, there would be nothing in the law about it.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
In the future, I am not even going to respond to posts like yours. If I ignore something, it is because there is no need to repeat myself and you are just being stubborn/irrational. I will edit out this sentence and bump this thread when I get around to finishing my reply.
"And unless I am wealthy, I would have no need for a personal army."
"I doubt PDAs will exist. I am sure courts, arbitrators, security companies, and investigators will though. But nothing to provide massive defense."
PDA stands for private defense agency. Right now states claim sovereignty to basically all of Earth's habitable land mass. We have to account for a transitional period before some time in the future where such is not true. If you're at all familiar with Block's paper on handguns and nukes, you will understand why our law would say that it is a threat to simply own a nuke. This assumes that there are not states with nukes external to this transitional society. I think that it would be legitimate to own nukes in the transitional society, so long as the intention is to repel these states. Eventually, I see only a few probable outcomes for mankind: either global governance and/or nuclear holocaust, or people near totally rid themselves of government like the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth or other extinct beliefs.
All you're doing here is playing word games. I agree that most people will not need massive defense beyond the age of states. Whatever amount which exists to maintain order will depend on the strength of "rogue PDAs". Even if there are truly voluntary governments, we'd still view their actions as unjust. If they're armed with tanks and such, we would still have some benefit from being able to defend against them if/when they try to expand as coercive states.
As in my previous post, I want to point out the distinction between how I might use the words 'defense' and 'security'. Police security refers to the post-transitional society where disputes are largely between individuals rather than having the threat of large scale military conflicts. Sometimes, I will just use PDA out of convenience, but this doesn't refer to any specific trait of the agency. The whole idea of enforcing libertarian law is defensive. A private defense firm is just whatever person(s) who take whatever measures necessary to apprehend criminals and/or defend their clients.
PDAs/security firms/private police are just one part of the process of maintaining a polycentric legal order. They may handle what we think of as police investigation, or they may be only concerned with capture as with Pervhunt's SWAT team. The same company may or may not employ judges and jurors, executioners, rehabilitative counselors, or prison guards.
"[libertarian law does not prescribe punishment for child rape/murder/abuse], because in a stateless society, there would not be anyone to enforce such punishments."
People near-unanimously value their children not being raped at the same time as wanting to punish others in society who rape people's children. I think they will be happy to voluntarily cede their rights to object to punishment for raping any child, as they wish any punishment to child rapist to be justified.
"What are you talking about? When have I made such an argument?" ..
"Given that they do not have the ability to grant consent, [children] do not have rights."
"However, children do not have rights, because as has already been established, they do not have the mental ability to grant consent. This is also why people in a coma do not have rights, since they no longer have the mental ability to grant consent."
"If such a view was widely accepted, people would be regularly robbed when they are away at work or asleep, and nobody would act against it."
The last 2 bolded quotes are yours from this thread. I stopped paying attention to that thread because of its signal to noise ratio. I explained more implications of your absurd rights justification in another thread I think but am not wasting more time on this now. What I left out of my selective quoting referred to determining "age of adulthood". In a following post, I will try to aid developing such a theory. You still obviously aren't ready for the complicating factors of partial moral agency. We're talking about pre-rational infants and toddlers, or possibly some children under the age of 10. It is pointless to attempt to say exact ages.
"No, a child is never 'unowned' unless both parents either die or give up custody. And for reference to this thread, I am talking about neither parent objecting to the treatment of the child. Of course, both parents own the child, and it might be argued that the mother has more ownership rights than the father."
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto:People near-unanimously value their children not being raped at the same time as wanting to punish others in society who rape people's children. I think they will be happy to voluntarily cede their rights to object to punishment for raping any child, as they wish any punishment to child rapist to be justified.
Yeah, you just advocate mob rule. I hope everyone else can see this. There is no mob in anarchy. If the majority of people dislike dog fighting, it will not matter. If the majority of people are opposed to abortion, it will not matter. The rights of the minority will be completely protected under anarchy. But it appears that there is no way to convince you until we have reality and you can see with your own eyes that you are wrong.
Say I believe that I can rob, murder, or rape anyone I wish. How will you protect my minority rights?
I will tell you when I am done with my edit.
E. R. Olovetto: Say I believe that I can rob, murder, or rape anyone I wish. How will you protect my minority rights? I will tell you when I am done with my edit.
You can already rob, murder, or rape pretty much anyone you wish, regardless of whether or not there is a government. In a stateless society, if you do rob or rape someone however, and your victim finds out who you are, then they will have the option to either seek retribution using vigilantism or by asking you to go to court to settle the dispute. The motivation of the criminal to go to court would be so that the victim does not extract vengeance privately. If you kill someone, well, the person's family or friends may be pissed off, and so you would probably want to go to court to resolve the dispute, to avoid vigilantism.
I mean really, who wants a "family feud" where two families are trying to kill each other because one member of one family harmed a member of another family? I would guess most families would want to go to an arbitration court, and get the dispute resolved, so they can all go on about their lives.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto: Say I believe that I can rob, murder, or rape anyone I wish. How will you protect my minority rights? You can already rob, murder, or rape pretty much anyone you wish, regardless of whether or not there is a government. In a stateless society, if you do rob or rape someone however, and your victim finds out who you are, then they will have the option to either seek retribution using vigilantism or by asking you to go to court to settle the dispute. The motivation of the criminal to go to court would be so that the victim does not extract vengeance privately. If you kill someone, well, the person's family or friends may be pissed off, and so you would probably want to go to court to resolve the dispute, to avoid vigilantism. I mean really, who wants a "family feud" where two families are trying to kill each other because one member of one family harmed a member of another family? I would guess most families would want to go to an arbitration court, and get the dispute resolved, so they can all go on about their lives.
E. R. Olovetto: Say I believe that I can rob, murder, or rape anyone I wish. How will you protect my minority rights?
You still aren't answering my question. Take a minute to consider that your expectations are unrealistic and please don't make statements like the bolded without putting more thought to their implications related to the rest of your "theory". It will be necessary eventually to be fairly exact about evidence and actors in hypothetical conflicts...
How will an elderly woman with little or no kin/friends even think of engaging in a "feud" without hiring other people (a PDA)?
Say that I am a 35 year old guy with a 2 year old daughter. I work at a factory and it takes about half of a month's disposable income to buy a pistol. My wife died and I have few friends/kin.
I like raping my daughter. I don't agree with whatever you say about rights and I feel that I own her and can do whatever I want with her since she can't protest or run away. There exists this horrible libertarian syndicate who plans to manumit my daughter and punish me. What will you personally do to take on this rogue PDA? C'mon man, what will you do to protect my minority rights?
E. R. Olovetto:How will an elderly woman with little or no kin/friends even think of engaging in a "feud" without hiring other people (a PDA)?
Strawman, I never said people would not hire other people to help them. But maybe you will stop avoiding my questions. How are PDA's going to resolve the dispute between people that believe women should be able to have abortion's and people who do not?
E. R. Olovetto: Say that I am a 35 year old guy with a 2 year old daughter. I work at a factory and it takes about half of a month's disposable income to buy a pistol. My wife died and I have few friends/kin. I like raping my daughter.
I like raping my daughter.
Is it possible to rape a 2 year old? I think it is only possible to touch them sexually. Maybe insert some really small object in them.
E. R. Olovetto:I don't agree with whatever you say about rights and I feel that I own her and can do whatever I want with her since she can't protest or run away.
And given the privacy of your home, I probably would never know that you did it. But for arguments sake, I will assume that I somehow find out about it.
E. R. Olovetto:There exists this horrible libertarian syndicate who plans to manumit my daughter and punish me.
And there exists another syndicate whom you hired to stop them.
E. R. Olovetto:What will you personally do to take on this rogue PDA?
First of all, why is it "rogue"? Second of all, I will probably do nothing, given that your syndicate would be sufficient to stop the other syndicate. Not only that, the other syndicate would not exist, because it would not have any customers. Why would anyone hire a PDA that would not guarantee their parental rights?
I hope this article helps you: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_5.pdf
Again, you just keep ignoring the fact that me harming my child is not injurious to you, as such you have no standing in a court.
Quite simple, children have rights, although it can be difficult to enforce them. However child rape would likely have pro bono representation, as most people on a personal level think its horrible. So once the child is able to object, court representation would be possible.If your child like sexual acts with the parents, then there really isn't much that will likely be done. Although there is nothing about anarchist law that states it must be libertarian. So possibly people will pay others to spy on other individuals, watch for child rape, convict them in court, and seek punishment or restitution, this all depends on how many wish to pay money to stop child molestation. If few will pay money pretty much nothing will happen. But the outcomes are fairly similar to what might happen in a government where the people had strong opinions and wish to pay with their own personal cash, thus resulting in a more libertarian society, unless a very large population see differently.Similiarly if a society hated red heads in anarchy, sure there might be a genocide, but that is more likely under governments. In this case it is unlikely consensual sexual acts with a child will not be prosecuted, while if the child opposes, then free representation is quite probable, providing society cares enough.
Anarcho-math:Quite simple, children have rights, although it can be difficult to enforce them. However child rape would likely have pro bono representation, as most people on a personal level think its horrible. So once the child is able to object, court representation would be possible.
So you would agree that babies/small children do not have rights?
Anarcho-math:So possibly people will pay others to spy on other individuals, watch for child rape, convict them in court, and seek punishment or restitution, this all depends on how many wish to pay money to stop child molestation.
And if people do not like people having extra-marital sex, then could they not also pay people to spy on people having extra-marital sex and then sue?
Anarcho-math:If few will pay money pretty much nothing will happen.
So you think no one would provide a product or service even if there is only one person willing to pay for it, as long as the price is right?
Anarcho-math:Similiarly if a society hated red heads in anarchy, sure there might be a genocide,
There is no reason to believe genocide would occur in anarchy.
Spideynw: Anarcho-math:Quite simple, children have rights, although it can be difficult to enforce them. However child rape would likely have pro bono representation, as most people on a personal level think its horrible. So once the child is able to object, court representation would be possible. So you would agree that babies/small children do not have rights? Anarcho-math:So possibly people will pay others to spy on other individuals, watch for child rape, convict them in court, and seek punishment or restitution, this all depends on how many wish to pay money to stop child molestation. And if people do not like people having extra-marital sex, then could they not also pay people to spy on people having extra-marital sex and then sue? Anarcho-math:If few will pay money pretty much nothing will happen. So you think no one would provide a product or service even if there is only one person willing to pay for it, as long as the price is right? Anarcho-math:Similiarly if a society hated red heads in anarchy, sure there might be a genocide, There is no reason to believe genocide would occur in anarchy.
It is fascinating that you keep advocating for child molestation. Your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. The vast majority don't think child molestation is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you.
Maxliberty:It is fascinating that you keep advocating for child molestation. Your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. The vast majority don't think child molestation is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you.
It is fascinating that you keep advocating for X, your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. the vast majority don't think X is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you.
Max, how do you respond to people who might use this argument against you?. If X is "secession", or "liberty", or more narrowly stuff like , "freedom from taxation" or "polycentric law", or whatever etc etc.
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
In the market place, it does not matter what the vast majority think. The market place provides for the minority.
And yes, individuals may use violence against child molesters. I have never said they would not. I am only claiming that there is no reason to believe that their actions would be considered legal.
I am sure there are people that think dog fighting or chicken fighting is just as wrong. And individuals may take action against those that engage in it. But there is no reason to believe there would be any businesses that would take action against it.
Spideynw: I am only claiming that there is no reason to believe that their actions would be considered legal.
Would be considered legal by whom? Yes, you will think it's illegal and so will all the other child molesters....so what? This is an area where there is no middle ground. This is not an issue that will be viewed as some debate about your right to molest children. It is contrary to our basic human biology.
Maxliberty: Spideynw: I am only claiming that there is no reason to believe that their actions would be considered legal. Would be considered legal by whom? Yes, you will think it's illegal and so will all the other child molesters....so what? This is an area where there is no middle ground. This is not an issue that will be viewed as some debate about your right to molest children. It is contrary to our basic human biology.
I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it would be legal to assault a child molester. There would be no standing. Just like you cannot bring a case against me for stepping on a rock, you cannot bring a case against me for molesting my child. There is no standing.
Spideynw: I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it would be legal to assault a child molester. There would be no standing. Just like you cannot bring a case against me for stepping on a rock, you cannot bring a case against me for molesting my child. There is no standing.
Actually I can bring a case against you for stepping on a rock
Makes me sick to my stomach. That's just wrong Spideynw. I bet you keep tons of rocks in your basement to step on. It may not be legitimate by libertarian law but I am going to hire a PDA to punish you for your immoral rock-steppin'. If you take libertarian ethics to its logical conclusions, you get some absurd conclusions like this, which violate our emotive/intuitive sense of ethics. Nuff said.
Snowflake:If you take libertarian ethics to its logical conclusions,
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."
Juan: Snowflake:If you take libertarian ethics to its logical conclusions, Haven't you noticed that Spidey's premise is not exactly libertarian?
If "libertarian" is mob rule, then my stance is not "libertarian".
Juan:Your non-libertarian premise is that children don't have rights.
So Juan, how is a baby/small child supposed to bring a case to court against its parents?
Juan:Once you make the fundamental mistake of assuming that parents can do whatever they please with ' their' children, the rest of your argument is mostly irrelevant.
So Juan, how are you going to punish someone else for treating his or her child how you do not like the child being treated?
Juan: Yes, if a majority of people don't like X, X might end up outlawed for practical purposes.
Sounds like mob rule to me, which, if that is "libertarian" to you, is definitely not libertarian to me.
Juan:Yes, that is mob rule. No, I don't think that's good. But then, I 'believe' in individual rights...for both parents and children.
Then you do not understand what libertarianism is. Because in a stateless society, there will be no mob to enforce your dictates on others.
Then you do not understand what libertarianism is.
nirgrahamUK: It is fascinating that you keep advocating for X, your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. the vast majority don't think X is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you. Max, how do you respond to people who might use this argument against you?. If X is "secession", or "liberty", or more narrowly stuff like , "freedom from taxation" or "polycentric law", or whatever etc etc.
Do you agree with this statement? People will generally be willing to use violence to stop child molestation. If you don't then we have completely different views about what human nature will do and there is no possible reconciliation of views. In the history of humans has there ever been universal molestation of children that has been considered a generally acceptable practice?
Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct.
Maxliberty: Do you agree with this statement? People will generally be willing to use violence to stop child molestation. If you don't then we have completely different views about what human nature will do and there is no possible reconciliation of views. In the history of humans has there ever been universal molestation of children that has been considered a generally acceptable practice? Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct.
What's worse, abortion (killing a child) or molestation? If abortion is worse, then why aren't people using a lot more violence to stop that?
Also, as far as I know, lots of molestation occurs today. Why isn't more violence being used to stop it today?
before going down further tangents, perhaps you might address my question directly?. or perhaps you'd prefer if I simply counter with yet a further question for you to answer?
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty: Do you agree with this statement? People will generally be willing to use violence to stop child molestation. If you don't then we have completely different views about what human nature will do and there is no possible reconciliation of views. In the history of humans has there ever been universal molestation of children that has been considered a generally acceptable practice? Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct. before going down further tangents, perhaps you might address my question directly?. or perhaps you'd prefer if I simply counter with yet a further question for you to answer?
Child molestation is self evidently wrong. If you disagree then there is no middle ground for discussion.
The issues you mentioned are not self evidently wrong. This is how the flawed logic of not being sure what a human being is leads you to these wackadoo conclusions.
Juan:Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct. What does 'molesting children' mean?
I am not looking for your agreement to my position because my position is just a fact. You can join spidey in the alternate reality where everyone thinks child molestation is ok. Just don't be surprised when the mob takes you and spidey out to the nearest hanging tree after molesting their children.
Spideynw: Maxliberty: Do you agree with this statement? People will generally be willing to use violence to stop child molestation. If you don't then we have completely different views about what human nature will do and there is no possible reconciliation of views. In the history of humans has there ever been universal molestation of children that has been considered a generally acceptable practice? Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct. What's worse, abortion (killing a child) or molestation? If abortion is worse, then why aren't people using a lot more violence to stop that? Also, as far as I know, lots of molestation occurs today. Why isn't more violence being used to stop it today?
Child murder and child molestation are illegal everywhere. So right now the overwhelming majority of the planet thinks these things should not be allowed. You are under the delusion that this will radically change for some reason.
Maxliberty:Child molestation is self evidently wrong.
This is not a form of deductive reasoning, it's a form of circular reasoning.
Maxliberty:This is how the flawed logic
Many people are missing Spidey's point. He's not advocating child molestation. He's asking how you can ethically prevent him from doing so. The logic of reasoning that determine's what is and is not human is not what is currently debated and as such it is a red herring.
Maxliberty: Child molestation is self evidently wrong. If you disagree then there is no middle ground for discussion. The issues you mentioned are not self evidently wrong. This is how the flawed logic of not being sure what a human being is leads you to these wackadoo conclusions.
Why is it wrong? And how is that self-evident.
Maxliberty:Child murder and child molestation are illegal everywhere. So right now the overwhelming majority of the planet thinks these things should not be allowed. You are under the delusion that this will radically change for some reason.
Abortion is legal in the U.S. And not just for the 1st trimester. Not only that, but a full half of the population thinks it should be legal.
filc:Many people are missing Spidey's point. He's not advocating child molestation. He's asking how you can ethically prevent him from doing so.
Snowflake:I would violate the NAP to stop child molestation.
Well, it is happening all the time, right now. So what have you done to stop it?
filc:He's asking how you can ethically prevent him from doing so.
Are you and Spidey sharing a crack pipe or something?
How can I ethically prevent him from molesting children...did you actually say that? Why don't you answer the question since it seems there is doubt in your mind?
filc:The logic of reasoning that determine's what is and is not human is not what is currently debated and as such it is a red herring.
The definition of what a is human is completely relevant to the relationships between humans. Spidey's whole argument hinges on his idea that 5 year olds aren't human so you can do whatever you want with them. Do you agree with this premise?
Spideynw:Abortion is legal in the U.S. And not just for the 1st trimester. Not only that, but a full half of the population thinks it should be legal.
And it is illegal in a lot of other places. In fact it has only been legal in the US for 40 years. For ten thousand years it had been illegal. At any rate, you are talking about 5 year olds, not fetuses. Your logic doesn't make sense for 5 year olds or fetuses.
Maxliberty:Are you and Spidey sharing a crack pipe or something?
Ad homonim's don't give merit to your argument.
Maxliberty:How can I ethically prevent him from molesting children...did you actually say that? Why don't you answer the question since it seems there is doubt in your mind?
I actually did answer the question. Several pages of this thread were writings from me and some of them were rather lengthy. I can't be bothered to repeat myself to people whom are too lazy to read the thread in it's entirety. Such people are derailing trolls as they jump in without understanding the context of the discussion.
Maxliberty:The definition of what a is human is completely relevant to the relationships between humans.
You didn't define what is human or what human rights are. You arbitrarily called it wrong simply because you say so. Your logic was a form of circular reasoning. I linked the logical fallacy for you. I use links to help you, don't ignore them. :)
Max: Juan: What does 'molesting children' mean? I am not looking for your agreement to my position because my position is just a fact.
Juan: What does 'molesting children' mean?
Maxliberty: Spideynw:Abortion is legal in the U.S. And not just for the 1st trimester. Not only that, but a full half of the population thinks it should be legal. And it is illegal in a lot of other places. In fact it has only been legal in the US for 40 years. For ten thousand years it had been illegal. At any rate, you are talking about 5 year olds, not fetuses. Your logic doesn't make sense for 5 year olds or fetuses.
Majority opinion is irrelevant. The mob will not rule. As I keep asking, how will you enforce your dictates on your neighbors without a government?
I would violate the NAP to stop child molestation.
Spideynw:Well, it is happening all the time, right now. So what have you done to stop it?
Snowflake: Spideynw:Well, it is happening all the time, right now. So what have you done to stop it? I pay my taxes
Don't taxes result in a lot of people going to jail for selling plants? Yeah, I guess you do violate the NAP.