nirgrahamUK:does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights?
An egg on it's own will never in the future be able to give consent, neither will sperm.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I;m more consistent. According to you, the pacifist would consider suicide murder. I am sorry. I misrepresented the pacifist position. I should have said a pacifist would say, "killing someone else is always murder". So no, the pacifist's morals are more consistent than yours.
Daniel Muffinburg:I;m more consistent. According to you, the pacifist would consider suicide murder.
I am sorry. I misrepresented the pacifist position. I should have said a pacifist would say, "killing someone else is always murder". So no, the pacifist's morals are more consistent than yours.
How is that being more consistent?
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."
nirgrahamUK:are foetuses human? and do they have full rights?
Sure. A fetus will in time, presumably, mature into a being with can think critically.*
No. Alone, that is, without conception, neither will mature into a being with can think critically.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Joe: isn't the "kicker" with foetuses and abortion that the foetus is an unwanted parasite in the case of an abortion? And why stop at the reproductive cells, can't you make potential life out of pretty much any cell via cloning?
isn't the "kicker" with foetuses and abortion that the foetus is an unwanted parasite in the case of an abortion?
And why stop at the reproductive cells, can't you make potential life out of pretty much any cell via cloning?
This.
JackCuyler:Sure. A fetus will in time, presumably, mature into a being with can think critically.*
This. And what Joe said is consistent.
nirgrahamUK:Isn't there a semantic misunderstanding?. perhaps i misinterpret spidey (im sure he will tell me!)
Seems spot on to me.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:Rape implies lack of consent. Lack of consent implies reasoning abilities.
Lack of consent in no way implies reasoning abilities. Driving implies the ability to steer and shift. Not driving implies neither the ability nor inability to steer and shift. You seem to be under the impression that one needs to choose to withhold consent. That's simply not true. You may not have sex with me unless I say yes. The reason for me not saying yes, by choice or inability, is not your concern. I have not said yes, and therefore you have no right to sex with me.
JackCuyler:Lack of consent in no way implies reasoning abilities. Driving implies the ability to steer and shift. Not driving implies neither the ability nor inability to steer and shift. You seem to be under the impression that one needs to choose to withhold consent. That's simply not true. You may not have sex with me unless I say yes. The reason for me not saying yes, by choice or inability, is not your concern. I have not said yes, and therefore you have no right to sex with me.
Good catch.
Joe: I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child.?
I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child.?
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the reality of psychological and physical trauma.
Capital Pumper:Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the reality of psychological and physical trauma.
I did as to why its immoral.
K.C. Farmer:Are we looking at the child as property or as a human being?
Until children have the ability to think critically, they are just like animals or any other non-critical thinking object, as such, they are considered property.
K.C. Farmer:Do the parents of the child own said child and have the right to do with the child as they wish - which includes killing the child?
In law, one must have standing to bring a case against another. How is a baby to bring a case against his parent? If the baby cannot, then by what right does anyone else have a right to bring a case against the parent?
K.C. Farmer:That would at least be consistent with the abortionist, incest position. At what point then does a person stop being property?
Regardless of whether or not one thinks children have rights that supersede the rights of the parents, I think everyone agrees that at some point in a child's life, the child reaches a point where he can make decisions. No one knows the exact point in each person's life that this occurs. It would have to be dealt with by the market. Current U.S. law says 18. I think children gain the ability to think critically at a far younger age. I have heard that dogs have the mentality of a 3 year old human. So I would guess sometime after 3 but before 18.
K.C. Farmer:Of course, an anarcho-capitalist society would lack the mos maiorum from which pater familias is derived. So, without mos maiorum, how does an anarcho-capitalist have claim to an infant as property?
The parents produced the child.
but jack, your keyboard did not consent to you typing on it...
consent is a teleological notion, not a causal one. you need to apply it and its absence only to 'persons' that are conceptualised teleologically. i.e. by reference to their thoughts and willed actions (as opposed to chemical and electrical reactions)
When you say that
JackCuyler:You may not have sex with me unless I say yes.
If we are not greedy reductionists, perhaps we acknowledge that there is some degree of 'complexity of machine' which is to be honoured by qualifying it as 'reasoning' and which is best (instrumentally) conceptualised and understood by adopting a teleological stance towards it.
I personally set the bar fairly low, in terms of 'due complexity' , it is not a divide between cleverer adults and stupider adults, or 5 year olds and 25 year olds, but it seems to me to lie somewhere between conception and early infancy. it is largely a question of science. I also think that perhaps it will be later acknowledged that some animal species are of sufficient reasoning capacity as to merit acknowledgement as sovereign (but then they would be judged as moral beings) i.e. the higher-apes etc. but its a case of the jury being out as far as im concerned. not enough data.
Continuum problems plague us everywhere it seems.
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
JackCuyler: Spideynw:Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition. With that definition, sleeping people cannot be raped if they are not awakened during the act. Those who have been drugged or knocked unconscious cannot be raped.
Spideynw:Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition.
With that definition, sleeping people cannot be raped if they are not awakened during the act. Those who have been drugged or knocked unconscious cannot be raped.
I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative. Why should having sex with a baby/toddler be illegal? And if having sex with a baby is illegal, who gets to bring a case to court for the baby in a stateless society and why? By why, I mean by what right?
nirgrahamUK:Continuum problems plague us everywhere it seems.
So it would seem. I agree though that children become rational very quickly, despite their parents lack of understanding.
Spideynw:I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative. Why should having sex with a baby/toddler be illegal? And if having sex with a baby is illegal, who gets to bring a case to court for the baby in a stateless society and why? By why, I mean by what right?
Dude... its wrong because of the terrible consequences it has for the toddler and all of us that have to deal with this individual later in life.
Spideynw: 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: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.
^^ This is where an abolutist or "objective" conception of the NAP can lead. Far from being "objective," so-called objective ethical theories seem more like logical stilts for people to justify outlandish (and thoroughly subjective) ideas.
Why is it subjective? Because each person gets to define what they mean by "aggression," or gets to decide who has rights in what situations. Except that the person's subjective view has an extra dose of apparent validity because it's supposedly objective in the same way an objective fact is.
In response, objective ethicists endlessly expound more and more detailed theories to prevent outrageous possibilities like the one quoted, even though many do admit at some point that the law is really going to be decided on the market. If that were true, though, the fervor for deciding the fine points of these theories seems unwarranted. Why argue the fine points of homesteading, etc. day-in-day-out, if these are merely suggestions for future PDA entrepreneurs (or whatever shape jurisprudence and law enforcement happens to take on)?
Why is it the fervor for deciding the fine points of libertarian law deemed warranted? Because utilitarianism/consequentialism is "bad."
Well, anti-utilitarianism/anti-consequentialism made sense in the context of a (territorial monopolist) state, but does it really make sense outside that context? Or does it merely linger as a remnant because the idea of fully eliminating the State is so new?
Under a state I wouldn't want to allow for utilitarian (by which I mean "greatest good for the greatest number of people") calculus, because the State could use it to license any atrocity (think Holocaust). Even pure consequentialism (without the notion of "greatest good for greatest number") could be turned against the people because of the presumption that the State knows best, or because it has a monopoly over the media or the "experts." However, these problems are part and parcel with the State and not a result of subjectivism and consequentialism per se. I don't think they automatically carry over to social structures that have no territorial monopolies.In other words, perhaps those who criticize consequentialism and subjectivism are really criticizing Statism, or those notions specifically within the Statist context, and then refusing to re-evaluate these assumptions when considering other contexts. I thought most libertarians before recently used to be something like minarchists, and minarchy is still a statist context for purposes of deciding whether to promote consequentialism and subjectivism. Even a "night watch" state can arguably more easily wriggle its way out of its confines if allowed such notions to determine what are acceptable actions to take. I can see for instance under a Constitution (one that primarily limits state power) why we would want the Constitution to operate as if it were the "objective," indisputable truth. We would want no consequentialist justifications for abridging it (think PATRIOT Act, etc.), nor any subjective interpretations of it (think Commerce Clause).
Perhaps the disgust with consequentialism and subjectivism in the Statist context was so strong, and libertarians had such a tradition of arguing against these [proximate causes of evil] full stop without referring specifically to these notions in the context of a State (because the State was a given!), that the idea carried over.
Ditching the assumption of territorial monopolist States is such a huge paradigm shift that it wouldn't be surprising if there were some tendency to forget to re-evaluate every last concept under the new paradigm, especially those with strong traditional backing and emotional attachment (not to mention the semantic "inertia" of old words not quite suited to new contexts).
Why anarchy fails
I don't think that is a very good reason. Don't let Statists read that, they will think of all sorts of things
Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany?
If I own her what justification does she have to just leave? she cannot just arbitrarily leave because she feels ready to. I own her. In effect she was born into slavery unto me.
Daniel Muffinburg:I see what you mean now. Would having sex with a 3-year-old be illegal?
It would depend on the child. If the child can bring a case to court, yes. At that point, the child can probably bring a case to court.
Will you people please move into reality.
Joe: I don't think that is a very good reason. Don't let Statists read that, they will think of all sorts of things
Making the argument for about baby/toddler rape so casually, without mentioning the consequences (psychological trauma/humiliation and physical mutilation followed by re-constructive surgery) might have something to do with it. No, no we must justify such a position through technicalities and moral equivalence fallacies.
filc: Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany? If I own her what justification does she have to just leave? she cannot just arbitrarily leave because she feels ready to. I own her. In effect she was born into slavery unto me.
Use this thread for reference, see if it answers some of your questions. I think Baawa adressed this topic proficiently.
filc: nirgrahamUK:does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights? An egg on it's own will never in the future be able to give consent, neither will sperm.
a foetus on its own will never in the future be able to give consent, since it requires shelter in a womb (not on its own) and material sustenance(food/oxygen i.e. not 'on its own').
so the challenge is to amp up the sophistication of the argument. to make finer distinctions.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I see what you mean now. Would having sex with a 3-year-old be illegal? It would depend on the child. If the child can bring a case to court, yes. At that point, the child can probably bring a case to court.
What about a 20-year-old whose body you dismember? Obviously, she can't bring a case to the court. Is that also not illegal?
Daniel Muffinburg:What about a 20-year-old whose body you dismember? Obviously, she can't bring a case to the court. Is that also not illegal?
you are estopped against claiming rights against being dismembered/otherwise killed by others. (since historically your person violated the rights of a rational 20-year old person)
In other words might makes right.
nirgrahamUK: Daniel Muffinburg:What about a 20-year-old whose body you dismember? Obviously, she can't bring a case to the court. Is that also not illegal? you are estopped against claiming rights against being dismembered/otherwise killed by others. (since historically your person violated the rights of a rational 20-year old person)
I do not understand.
Capital Pumper:Use this thread for reference, see if it answers some of your questions. I think Baawa adressed this topic proficiently.
yea I was hoping to know what conclusions Spidey came to on that regard. Also how social contract is still unjustified where raip is somehow.
JonBostwick: Aster_Lacnala:Now, let's throw in a powder keg - the abortion issue. A pro-life person sees an abortion as the murder of a baby, a pro-choice person does not. Now, the drama unfolds. For ease of typing, I'll abbreviate to PL and PC. So I take it that you see no just outcome arrises without the state. Am I to take it that you see the state solution as a just outcome?
Aster_Lacnala:Now, let's throw in a powder keg - the abortion issue. A pro-life person sees an abortion as the murder of a baby, a pro-choice person does not. Now, the drama unfolds. For ease of typing, I'll abbreviate to PL and PC.
So I take it that you see no just outcome arrises without the state. Am I to take it that you see the state solution as a just outcome?
No, but either side would think one of the outcomes was just and the other unjust. The state gives them a _possibility_ of changing the rules to the "just" one, while a lack of state will mean that the final answer depends on the arbiter.
Also, a few people have said that morality is subjective. If that is so, then what right have we to limit another person's aggression? If I think there is no moral objection to enslaving someone, then I can do so and unless you are the one enslaved you have no right to stop me.
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:Also, a few people have said that morality is subjective. If that is so, then what right have we to limit another person's aggression? If I think there is no moral objection to enslaving someone, then I can do so and unless you are the one enslaved you have no right to stop me.
They could subjectively not accept your actions.
Very persuasive, I agree.
LS - the Block / Kinsella position that Daniel is talking about is nuanced, but I believe it is a sound argument. I will try to put it in my own words but I implore you to read Kinsella and Block on this issue. I believe this uncomfortable area of libertarianism - parental obligations - has been solved, from a practical, legal perspective. Child rape is illegal, and so is child neglect, under libertarian law.
Abandonment / Continual Homesteading Theory
Imagine a land area made up of numerous allotments. Each one is being tended carefully by their owners, growing food. Except one allotment. This allotment is overgrown with weeds and litter and is a disgrace to the neighbours. The owner is a man named Bob, and no one has seen him for 5 years. The neighbours have tried to contact him, but he has vanished. One neighbour, Alice, decides that enough is enough, she is going to assume ownership of Bob's allotment, clear it up and grow food on it. Is this an act of aggression by Alice? If Bob turns up the next day and accuses Alice of aggressing against his property, is Alice guilty, under libertarian law?
Maybe, but maybe not. If Bob's absence had been 5 days, rather than 5 years, clearly this would be aggression. But what if it had been 20 years, or 100 years? What if Bob's grandson suddenly appears to claim his land? Does the libertarian court award the allotment to Bob's grandson, or to the current owner, Alice's granddaughter? There has to be a boundary somewhere; there has to be some time when we say 'this allotment has been abandoned'. Determining exactly how long it takes for an allotment to be abandoned is a continuum problem, to be solved by market competition between courts.
In some sense, then, Bob has a 'positive obligation' to maintain his land - otherwise he may lose it if someone else is claiming it. In a way, he must continually homestead his property - otherwise he loses his rights to keep the land.
Applied to Children
Block applies this idea of abandonment / continual homesteading (I think that's my term, not Block's) to children. Parents own the rights to bring up their child, because they homesteaded that right. But if a parent abuses or neglects the child, it may lose the right to bring up the child. The parents must continually homestead the right to bring up the child, if they want to keep it. If someone else is claiming it (for example a 'Friends of Babies' organization), they may have a better claim to the upbringing rights of the child. Specifically, when a libertarian court declares 'this child has been abandoned'.
"The only way to attain homestead rights to the child after giving birth to it is to bring it up in a reasonable manner. Were the parents to instead abuse their child, this would not at all be compatible with homesteading it. If so, they would lose all rights to continue to keep the child". (Block, bold mine)
The libertarian courts will have to work out a boundary delineating what is reasonable and what is not. This is no different to a court determining what is a reasonable claim to have homesteaded an allotment, or how long before an allotment is to be considered abandoned. Neglecting a child for 10 minutes does not constitute abandonment, but neglecting it for a week while it starves to death certainly does. The courts will decide, and since the courts are competing for customers, no reputable court will set the boundary at the extremes of 10 minutes neglect, or one week neglect, because most people (I conjecture) believe that the proper time when a child should be rescued from neglectful parents woud lie somewhere in between these extremes. No court will want to have a reputation for taking abused or neglected children from their parents too soon, or too late, or when the abuse/neglect is only mild.
The Scenario
So here's how things would go:
The rest of the scenario I have not read about anywhere, but I think the scenario would continue thusly:
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Aster_Lacnala:Also, a few people have said that morality is subjective. If that is so, then what right have we to limit another person's aggression?
If ethics are subjective, what meaning do (normative) "rights" have? Normative rights being universally valid - as your question supposes - necessarily implies that ethics are not subjective.
To get to the bottom of this, take it back to a desert island with only three people. "What right does A have to limit B's aggression against C?" Forget about normative "rights." The question is, if you were A, what would you do? Whatever your own morality and self-interest dictate. In that situation, thinking in terms of normative rights just complicates the issue, unless we are thinking in the context of there being a monopoly State. Then rights are a very useful persuasive concept! (e.g., Declaration of Independence) The concept of normative/objective/natural rights is useful for rallying people to petition their overlords for redress, or as persuasive concepts for inciting them to revolution, because most people are prone to believe, "What's right is right. End of story!"
AJ: ^^ This is where an abolutist or "objective" conception of the NAP can lead. Far from being "objective," so-called objective ethical theories seem more like logical stilts for people to justify outlandish (and thoroughly subjective) ideas.
AJ. Stop pulling out red herrings. I don't even necessarily defend or attack objective or subjective, but to demean what you fail to understand is only making things worse. You are NOT helping - AT ALL - with statements like this. This is the kind of shit that does make me angry, and why people that swing in here making these off the cuff comments in posts do nothing to help liberty - at all.
liberty student:Spidey is taking his position to a shocking and uncomfortable extreme. I don't know that I should or shouldn't approve of it, but no one has answered his position sufficiently.
trulib, that is pretty good, but I think that the court can go further. I wrote out half a response to spidey when I was at work today and will try to finish it out now and explain. The problem with his "theory" is that he has no basis for distinguishing between a man who is asleep, or a child, or a man in a coma, or a concious, rational man who can protest his rights being violated right then.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility.
liberty student:Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?
Daniel Muffinburg:How is it an appeal to authority? Please, prove your claim.
liberty student:You refuse to provide your own argument, insisting it is synonymous with Block's and that I should research Block to find out your position.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility. liberty student:Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around.
What is there to tackle? Daniel Muffinburg simply begged the question as to whether there is a responsibility for parents to maintain their child.
No, he didn't.