laminustacitus: Knight_of_BAAWA: He is violating the non-aggression principle, regardless of how he attempts to justify it. However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound. See Edward Feser's eviceration of it, and Rothbard as a philosophy: Rothbard as a Philosopher Rothbard Revisited Is Self-Ownership Axiomatic? Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis in the claim that the law as enforced by PDAs would be based upon the NAP in anarcho-capitalism. For all we know, the PDAs might become tyrants-for-hire.
Knight_of_BAAWA: He is violating the non-aggression principle, regardless of how he attempts to justify it.
However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound. See Edward Feser's eviceration of it, and Rothbard as a philosophy:
Rothbard as a Philosopher
Rothbard Revisited
Is Self-Ownership Axiomatic?
Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis in the claim that the law as enforced by PDAs would be based upon the NAP in anarcho-capitalism. For all we know, the PDAs might become tyrants-for-hire.
For all we know, the state might become a tyrant-for-hire. Oh, wait, it already has.
Edward Feser? You mean, Edward "Rothbard is unoriginal because he quoted Aristotle and other dead philosophers, btw, I guess that makes me unoriginal too" Feser?
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."
Snowflake: Spideynw:Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent? Yeah but, you're not going to exercise all your libertarian rights to their fullest extent. So if you would never pound your fists into your stomach if you were pregnant, you wouldn't mind if they took that right away from their clients...
Spideynw:Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?
I know I love going to a car dealership that tells me I can buy their car, but only if I use the turn signal for at least three seconds anytime I make a turn. Oh wait, none of them do! And you base your hypothesis on what again? Fantasy? Because it most definitely is not based on reality.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*. Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent? It is a trade off. You are hiring private police, not a personal mafia. It is a shared protection or distribution of risk.
Spideynw: Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*. Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?
Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*.
Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*.
Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?
It is a trade off. You are hiring private police, not a personal mafia. It is a shared protection or distribution of risk.
Then it is not a market. Because there would be other PDAs offering services, that would not take away my parental rights. And the PDA that offered to take away my parental rights would go out of business really fast.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place? I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother. So, you have no rights when asleep? As an arbitrator, I would say one does not lose his/her rights just because s/he is asleep.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place? I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother. So, you have no rights when asleep?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place? I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother.
E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place?
I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother.
So, you have no rights when asleep?
As an arbitrator, I would say one does not lose his/her rights just because s/he is asleep.
Based on what principal???? How is this consistent with children not having rights RIGHT THEN? The man who is asleep doesn't meet your criteria for someone having rights!
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*. Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent? It is a trade off. You are hiring private police, not a personal mafia. It is a shared protection or distribution of risk. Then it is not a market. Because there would be other PDAs offering services, that would not take away my parental rights. And the PDA that offered to take away my parental rights would go out of business really fast.
Incorrect. You are forgetting that PDAs are for-profit (well, earn from their service anyhow).
Would you like to pay more for a PDA that defends child molesters, or less because they profit from taking them in? I'm not sure about you, but I don't think most people object to punishing child molesters (even when it is their own kid). They don't even need to understand the whole philosophical argument where you are coming up short too.
Keep in mind that you are not hiring a personal mafia. You are purchasing a service designed to protect people besides yourself. You do not have access to hitmen ready to risk their lives on your whim. In order to maintain a profitable business, the PDA needs to make it clear that they will protect a customer from another customer.
E. R. Olovetto:Based on what principal???? How is this consistent with children not having rights RIGHT THEN? The man who is asleep doesn't meet your criteria for someone having rights!
Because if someone is asleep, one can wake him up and ask him if it is OK to harm him. One cannot just "wake up" a child and ask him if it is OK to kill him. Seems pretty simple to me.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Based on what principal???? How is this consistent with children not having rights RIGHT THEN? The man who is asleep doesn't meet your criteria for someone having rights! Because if someone is asleep, one can wake him up and ask him if it is OK to harm him. One cannot just "wake up" a child and ask him if it is OK to kill him. Seems pretty simple to me.
Aren't you aggressing against him by waking him up? What gives you the right to do so? He must have no rights while asleep and I could shoot him in the head then.
E. R. Olovetto:Would you like to pay more for a PDA that defends child molesters,
Of course not! Haven't you read anything I have posted? The PDA may decide I am molesting my child and come after me! Why would I want to pay them to do that??!?!?!?!?
Do you pay car dealerships to go after people that buy their cars and don't use their turn signals, when you buy one of their cars? Nope? Well then, what do you base your assumptions on? Definitely not reality.
E. R. Olovetto:Aren't you aggressing against him by waking him up?
Nope. Not if it is just to ask him a question and let him go back to sleep.
E. R. Olovetto:What gives you the right to do so?
The right to wake someone up? Are you mad? Where in reality has there ever been a case of someone taking someone else to court over being woken up?
E. R. Olovetto:He must have no rights while asleep and I could shoot him in the head then.
As an arbitrator, I would say you are in the wrong, since you did not wake him up and ask him first.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Would you like to pay more for a PDA that defends child molesters, Of course not! Haven't you read anything I have posted? The PDA may decide I am molesting my child and come after me! Why would I want to pay them to do that??!?!?!?!? Do you pay car dealerships to go after people that buy their cars and don't use their turn signals, when you buy one of their cars? Nope? Well then, what do you base your assumptions on? Definitely not reality.
Well, it is a big risk for them to do this without some EVIDENCE..... I would like my company to have a reputation for not invading peoples' homes without evidence, because this ends up costing more too.... If I trust that my company does its due diligence before arresting people, why would I care that I have to agree to not molest my own children.
Anyhow, we've come full circle again and it is not worth repeating this with you. The car dealer analogy isn't applicable... use security examples.
E. R. Olovetto:Well, it is a big risk for them to do this without some EVIDENCE.....
First of all, is there going to be more than one PDA? Second of all, how would my PDA investigate the molestation of the child of someone else and get past their PDA? Also, why would I pay some company to make sure I am not molesting my own children? Lastly, what the hell is "molesting" anyways?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Aren't you aggressing against him by waking him up? Nope. Not if it is just to ask him a question and let him go back to sleep. E. R. Olovetto:What gives you the right to do so? The right to wake someone up? Are you mad? Where in reality has there ever been a case of someone taking someone else to court over being woken up? E. R. Olovetto:He must have no rights while asleep and I could shoot him in the head then. As an arbitrator, I would say you are in the wrong, since you did not wake him up and ask him first.
...So, you are okay with someone walking into your house, up the stairs, and waking you up at 3 A.M. to ask if having just done so is okay?
Stop with this nonsense and just admit you are wrong.
If what you are saying is that it is reasonable to expect that the man, when woken up, would object to a certain set of negative rights being violated, I say that it is reasonable to expect the same from a child when he grows up. You are trying to make some arbitrary distinction based on the time required. I say that the principal of potentiality is universal.
Spideynw:I know I love going to a car dealership that tells me I can buy their car, but only if I use the turn signal for at least three seconds anytime I make a turn
Spideynw:Oh wait, none of them do! And you base your hypothesis on what again? Fantasy? Because it most definitely is not based on reality.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Well, it is a big risk for them to do this without some EVIDENCE..... First of all, is there going to be more than one PDA? Second of all, how would my PDA investigate the molestation of the child of someone else and get past their PDA? Also, why would I pay some company to make sure I am not molesting my own children? Lastly, what the hell is "molesting" anyways?
1. undoubtedly
2. They happen upon evidence of molestation. Please think creatively, it isn't that hard.
3. You don't have the option not to, or at least I don't suspect that PDAs who defend child molestors would be popular and common.
4. I am not bothering with a good answer for this now.
I'm not sure why everyone's gone off on a tangent on a series of simple, commonly asked questions. Doing some research in ancap you would have had the answer to this before you asked.
Aster_Lacnala: It seems many of the thought experiments make a few simplifying assumptions, and one that is of particular interest here is that many don't seem to consider the guardianship of those incapable of doing it themselves - children, for example.
Negative. Ancaps don't believe in egalitarianism. It is understood that people's level of productivity vary. Our answer has been an economic one, always has.
Division of Labor
Law of Comparative Advantage.
Inside those two concepts you will find marginal productive workers still able to offer a competative value on the market. They also help the market as a whole, and society as a whole. THey are a part of the economic growth system. On the other hand, if we promote welfare marginaly productive individuals are removed from system. Not only are they no longer proudcing for the market as a whole, but their sustenance and lively hood is maintained by extracting wealth from the market and the economy as a whole.
So welfare operates by removing marginally productive workers from the economy than taxing the market to maintain them. Ancap's offer the opposite, we allow them to continue to work. Offering economic output to society and maintaining a living on their own while doing it.
As for Abortion. The market will find a way. See Block's argument about Abortion as Eviction.
And for whatever genius brought up the PDA's turning into Tyrants argument. Lets keep that thread to another discussion. We understand you would like to arbitrarily remove PDA's from the laws of Profit and Loss. The rest are not so delusional.
Look em up.
E. R. Olovetto:...So, you are okay with someone walking into your house, up the stairs, and waking you up at 3 A.M. to ask if having just done so is okay?
And you derived this from what I said how?
E. R. Olovetto:Stop with this nonsense and just admit you are wrong.
Stop making assumptions about my stance.
E. R. Olovetto:If what you are saying is that it is reasonable to expect that the man, when woken up, would object to a certain set of negative rights being violated, I say that it is reasonable to expect the same from a child when he grows up.
Really? You think waiting years is reasonable huh? I have to wait until my child is six years old before I can find out if I can spank her at 1? Tell me, how do I go back to when she was one year old to spank her?
Snowflake:So where most roads require you to follow certain rules
You think road owners will have rules? Why? To be more specific, let's say I own a road. I would probably paint some lines on it and put up lights or what have you. But otherwise, I would not care what the drivers did. The reason being, is that if a driver causes an accident by not following the guidelines, I as the road owner have no standing in the case. The problem is between the driver of the car that caused the accident, and the person he caused an accident with.
Snowflake:i think most PDAs will require you to follow certain rules.
Really? Then why wouldn't I just go find one that doesn't require me to follow parenting rules as established by the PDA?
Snowflake:My question is, don't you think that the PDAs will require you not to abuse your children?
Why would they? The PDA that does not require me to not abuse my children would be the PDA that would get my money, because I have no desire to raise my children how someone else would want me to raise them. Not only that, but there is the problem of determining what exactly "abuse" means.
Snowflake:Actually people feel very strongly about babies and stuff.
And actually, people feel very strong about parental rights, and stuff.
Snowflake:Its not unreasonable to think that in an anarchist society people might violate the NAP to stop child abuse.
Did I ever say it was unreasonable?
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Well, it is a big risk for them to do this without some EVIDENCE..... First of all, is there going to be more than one PDA? Second of all, how would my PDA investigate the molestation of the child of someone else and get past their PDA? Also, why would I pay some company to make sure I am not molesting my own children? Lastly, what the hell is "molesting" anyways? 1. undoubtedly 2. They happen upon evidence of molestation. Please think creatively, it isn't that hard. 3. You don't have the option not to, or at least I don't suspect that PDAs who defend child molestors would be popular and common. 4. I am not bothering with a good answer for this now.
1. So why would I not choose one that does not dictate to me how to treat my child?
2. Can you please answer the question in full?
3. So, you don't think there is a huge market for "defense attorney's"?
4. Figures.
laminustacitus: However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound.
However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound.
Agreed.
laminustacitus: See Edward Feser's eviceration of it, and Rothbard as a philosophy:
See Edward Feser's eviceration of it, and Rothbard as a philosophy:
Feser has a bad haircut, and is a bit of a crank. Adam Knott's writings examining NR theory of the Rothbardian strain are much more lucid IMO.
laminustacitus: Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis in the claim that the law as enforced by PDAs would be based upon the NAP in anarcho-capitalism. For all we know, the PDAs might become tyrants-for-hire.
This is true, however it only applies to Rothbard's conception of ancap, not to David Friedman's.
liberty student:This is true, however it only applies to Rothbard's conception of ancap, not to David Friedman's.
I have read Rothbard and Friedman and can't tell a difference, aside from style of presentation, emphasis and their persuasion technique.
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
liberty student: laminustacitus:However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound.Agreed.
laminustacitus:However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound.
I'm trying to get a grip on the statement, are we contrasting against other NAP promulgations? which/what?
Lastly, what the hell is "molesting" anyways?
Let me give an example. This happened in a community near mine, so I'm not making up unlikely events here. A father inserts his genitalia into his three-year old daughter's orifices.
Now, spideynw, are you honestly telling me that you believe the father has a right to do this? And that in an Ancap society the PDAs that flourish in the market are those that protect this?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala:Let me give an example. This happened in a community near mine, so I'm not making up unlikely events here. A father inserts his genitalia into his three-year old daughter's orifices.
That sounds like a man inserting his genitalia into his 3 year old daughter's orifices. Now, can you prove to me the child did not want it?
Aster_Lacnala:Now, spideynw, are you honestly telling me that you believe the father has a right to do this?
Yes, just like a man has the right to stick his genitalia into his animal's orifices as well.
Aster_Lacnala:And that in an Ancap society the PDAs that flourish in the market are those that protect this?
And you think that PDA's will flourish that protect animal abuse? Or animal murder? Or suicide? Or drug use? Blah, blah, blah. Your morals are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not there is a dispute, and whether or not the one party has "standing", meaning a valid claim. A baby/toddler is unable to have standing, as such there is no legal issue. Now, of course, if the other parent disagrees with the action, then there would be standing, for the other parent, since the other parent would be considered a co-owner. And please do not conflate this to mean I condone someone harming his or her child.
Spideynw,
YOUR SICK. Period.
wilderness: Spideynw, YOUR SICK. Period.
Do you eat animals that have to be killed for you first? YOUR SICK TOO. Period. Grow up.
Spideynw: Grow up.
Grow up.
Spideynw. You're totally and completely sick. You find a fetish in these threads to spout your advocation for child rape. This IS lower than z's comments in the other thread at least he was only trying to tell me a computer is a microwave.
sir. it is you that needs to re-evaluate your life.
wilderness: Spideynw: Grow up. Spideynw. You're totally and completely sick. You find a fetish in these threads to spout your advocation for child rape.
Spideynw. You're totally and completely sick. You find a fetish in these threads to spout your advocation for child rape.
Really? I advocate child rape? Where exactly did this happen? Or are you just lying because you don't like my argument?
You say a baby and toddler has no legal standing. so you advocate 'RAPE AWAY'
f-in' absurd. i'm done with this thread.
wilderness:You say a baby and toddler has no legal standing.
Correct
wilderness:so you advocate 'RAPE AWAY'
Really? Where did I say that?
wilderness:f-in' absurd. i'm done with this thread.
Well, if you just want to leave after lying, I guess that is your choice. I would hope the moderators would take that into account, that you are posting lies.
not sure how it could be known, but if somehow word got out that someone was raping their child, I think it would be pretty easy to raise a bunch of money and hire a militia to break into that person's house and kidnapp/rescue their baby, and then sort of pay the parent a fee for breaking and entering as well as a reverse ransom. Also its likely that parent would be shunned from the community, as nobody would want to associate with someone who raped an infant.
Joe:not sure how it could be known, but if somehow word got out that someone was raping their child, I think it would be pretty easy to raise a bunch of money and hire a militia to break into that person's house and kidnapp/rescue their baby, and then sort of pay the parent a fee for breaking and entering as well as a reverse ransom.
The same could be done to someone that was using drugs, or raping his dog. What is your point?
Joe:Also its likely that parent would be shunned from the community, as nobody would want to associate with someone who raped an infant.
I would guess that he would be, at the least, looked down upon. At most, someone might kill him. But legally speaking, it would not be legal to kill him.
Spideynw:I would guess that he would be, at the least, looked down upon. At most, someone might kill him.
might?
highly doubt someone would steal someone's drugs (and then pay them restitution on the spot) for the purpose of ridding their community of drugs. If someone wanted to rid his community of drug users, one could just stop conducting business with drug users and try and convince all or most of his neighboors to do the same.
what is your point?
Joe: highly doubt someone would steal someone's drugs (and then pay them restitution on the spot) for the purpose of ridding their community of drugs. If someone wanted to rid his community of drug users, one could just stop conducting business with drug users and try and convince all or most of his neighboors to do the same. what is your point?
That "I think it would be pretty easy to raise a bunch of money and hire a militia to break into that person's house and kidnapp/rescue their baby," is still illegal. So again, what is your point?
Spidey already made a long post about this here.
nirgrahamUK: liberty student: laminustacitus:However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound.Agreed. I'm trying to get a grip on the statement
I'm trying to get a grip on the statement
I reject natural rights theory. Sorry I missed this.
So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
I never said it wasn't 'illegal' or that it would be morally justifiable, I just think that things like that would probably happen. Although, maybe not, becaues I would also guess that people would adapt to be more respecting of of others rights in a free society.
wilderness:Spideynw. You're totally and completely sick. You find a fetish in these threads to spout your advocation for child rape.
As much as I disagree with Spideynw's position, this is going way too far. He is not advocating for child rape. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of everything he has said. He is simply claiming that child rape by said child's parents should not be illegal. Nowhere have I seen him say that parent ought to rape their children.
It's the same argument used for a number of libertarian issues. I think all drugs should be legal. That in no way implies I think people ought to use heroin.
Personally, I find his argument rather weak, and have attacked it on occasion. But I've made sure to attack his actual argument. I don't believe there is a need to misrepresent his argument to argue against it.
JackCuyler:So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary.
What is your point? Do you think "molestation" and "child abuse" are not completely arbitrary? If not, what is "child molestation" and "child abuse"? In other words, how does one know that one has molested or abused a child? Is it when they cry after we do something to them? Can a child have legal standing? A dog can whine too if we hit one. So what? Does that mean someone can bring a case against him and make him suffer for it?