There is no second point.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stranger:A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it.No, the parents simply have custody, not ownership.
Stranger:A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it.
Those are both forms of property.
No, they are not.
That's an assertion, Knight.
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: That's an assertion, Knight.
If I made up my own definition of property I could equally assert anything is mine as well.
Aster_Lacnala:We have those who say that active harm, or even neglect, of a child represents a lack of homesteading, and therefore anyone can take it from them.
The parents have first claim to the child's guardianship rights.
Aster_Lacnala:But if we bring this back to the original issue, then anybody else can lay claim to a fetus from a mother that is planning an abortion.
You mean a mother that is planning an eviction, no?
The mother has first claim to the child's guardianship rights.
Aster_Lacnala:the mother would be required to evict it in such a way that the fetus was not destroyed since it isn't hers to destroy.
Yes. And where does the problem still exist?
Have you read the associated papers? Long list of objections addressed there if you have more. i.e stem cells and the fetus - which is what I think you are getting at?
Aster_Lacnala:That's an assertion, Knight.
Maybe not so much a problem, conza, as a hiccup... how long do you give to the new homesteader to find a suitable replacement? If my car breaks down at someone else's house, then presumably I shouldn't be required to perform the impossible of carrying it home. There must be time to call a tow truck and get it hauled away. If the property owner demands I immediately move it, and I can't because the tow truck can't make it for hours, or perhaps even over a day, is he immediately allowed to demolish it? In the same way, if someone doesn't immediately have the ability to move the fetus from the pregnant woman, when she is ready to "evict", is she required to delay the procedure? For how long?
Knight_of_BAAWA: In "The Measure of a Man", the idea of self-ownership is addressed. Much as the Star Trek world tends to come off as socialist-utopian, with this episode we see the full force of individual rights laid out. We have liberty or slavery, the upshot goes--especially liberty or slavery vis-a-vis The State/Starfleet/UFP. It is, in some respects, an example of Argumentation Ethics--complete with argumentation! In "The Drumhead", we see an example of the adage "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"--especially being vigilant to prevent abuses by the State. It is certainly apropos more than ever in the 16 years or so since that episode first aired--what with Gitmo and other rendition camps. And with the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. We must watch the watchers--although they don't watch so much as demand that our lives be laid bare for them. That our existence as we knew it is over. We exist to serve them--very much like Borgthink.
In "The Measure of a Man", the idea of self-ownership is addressed. Much as the Star Trek world tends to come off as socialist-utopian, with this episode we see the full force of individual rights laid out. We have liberty or slavery, the upshot goes--especially liberty or slavery vis-a-vis The State/Starfleet/UFP. It is, in some respects, an example of Argumentation Ethics--complete with argumentation!
In "The Drumhead", we see an example of the adage "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"--especially being vigilant to prevent abuses by the State. It is certainly apropos more than ever in the 16 years or so since that episode first aired--what with Gitmo and other rendition camps. And with the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. We must watch the watchers--although they don't watch so much as demand that our lives be laid bare for them. That our existence as we knew it is over. We exist to serve them--very much like Borgthink.
Aye, I also noticed a common theme in those two episode that actions have logical implications. Specifically speaking: rationalizing the sacrifice/violation of certain liberty permits the obviation of all liberty. To deny that would be inconsistent, and ignoring its role as pretext for the violation for rights. Like you said, it's either liberty or slavery.
Knight_of_BAAWA: What's also great about those episodes is the fact that they have Picard Speeches. Much as you can't really go wrong creating a videogame where you kill Nazis, you can't go wrong with a Picard speech.
What's also great about those episodes is the fact that they have Picard Speeches. Much as you can't really go wrong creating a videogame where you kill Nazis, you can't go wrong with a Picard speech.
I couldn't think of more exemplary catalyst, for the intellectual devastation of neocons than a Picard speech.
Aster_Lacnala: We have those who say that active harm, or even neglect, of a child represents a lack of homesteading, and therefore anyone can take it from them.
You may only homestead unowned property. If parents give up the stewardship of their child's rights, then that stewardship is unowned and therefore homestead-able. I'm not sure how that leads to...
Aster_Lacnala:But if we bring this back to the original issue, then anybody else can lay claim to a fetus from a mother that is planning an abortion. If that is so, then the fetus would seem to become the property of the pro-lifer. In this case, the mother would be required to evict it in such a way that the fetus was not destroyed since it isn't hers to destroy. It must be given to the pro-lifer intact and alive.
If I'm "planning" on abandoning my car, but have not yet done so, you can't come claim it. It's still mine. I have no obligation to keep it in prestine shape so that you approve once I abandon it. What if I change my mind and plan to keep it? The same goes for a woman's fetus. You can't claim it just because she's thinking about having an abortion or even planning the abortion. You have to wait until after she actually gets an abortion. What comes out, you may or may not want.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
How is this position?
A human child is born with property rights, specifically self-ownership. Parents act as his agents based on the fact that they have provided the genetic material. Parents are under no obligation to care for the child, but upon doing so relinquish their status as agents allowing others to step in. The prospective sponsors of the child must present evidence to an agreed upon arbitrator that the parents have relinquished their status as agents to the child unless the parents have voluntarily given up this status. In the event parents are not around - either they died or simply abandoned the child - then the arbitrator who the parents had association with would decide who would gain sponsorship of the child.
The relationship between the child and the child's agents (parents or sponsors) must follow the NAP. This relationship continues until the child reaches an established age of majority or some other method - established by the free market. There may also be a point where a child has the option to choose his agent(s).
I tend to agree with Block's position on the abortion issue.
nirgrahamUK: JackCuyler:Lack of consent is not the same as refusal, and should not be confused. Saying, "Yes," is consent. Saying nothing is neither consent nor refusal. When it comes to sex, there is either consent (a conscious choice) or there is rape. There does not need to be refusal for there to be rape, only the lack of consent.this is only true when you view consent and refusal as explicit materialised movements. they do not conceive of consent and refusal as the teleological categories that they are. your perception is skewed entirely to outward appearances
JackCuyler:Lack of consent is not the same as refusal, and should not be confused. Saying, "Yes," is consent. Saying nothing is neither consent nor refusal. When it comes to sex, there is either consent (a conscious choice) or there is rape. There does not need to be refusal for there to be rape, only the lack of consent.
nirgrahamUK:unconscious people are merely people that do not engage in outward behaviours. their reasoning and their willing goes on unobserved by outsiders, and they may lack self awareness. the fact that people can forget that they had particular thoughts at particular times in their past does not mean that at those times they did not have thoughts.
nirgrahamUK:consciousness has two meanings i am aware of, one is referrent to external appearances, the person is unconcious they don't respond to external stimuli as you might expect a 'concious' person to. what does this tell us about their reason and their will?
K.C. Farmer:Oh there would be much worse things to do than take away his child.
That would depend on how the father feels.
K.C. Farmer:You could blackmail him for money (something Block defends in Defending the Undefendable), you could go all out Vanderbilt on him ("Sue him, the law is too slow, I'll destroy him."), or any number of legal, justifiable ways to handle immoral people.
Agreed. But we are discussing what exactly should be legal.
K.C. Farmer:I then ask this. Is a person who has been molested by his parent when he was a child justified in killing his parent in retaliation when he has reached the ability to think rationally?
I would say most likely not. Is a child justified in killing her parents because she did not like her diapers being changed? Or because they let her watch "too much" television? Or locked her in her room at night?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
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.
You are playing a semantics game. Did you have a better definition?
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler:Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?That my cat's decedents may have the ability to think critically in no way implies that my cat has such an ability. You're conflating evolution with maturing.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?
JackCuyler:Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
filc:Are children and animals the same in the realm of moral agents?
In that neither of them are moral agents, yes.
filc:As such can we treat children like animals?
Legally speaking, yes. Of course, at some point in a child's life, the answer becomes no.
filc:If children are incapable of rationally consenting than how is social contract unjustified?
I don't understand what the two have in common.
filc:Seems to me t hat if raiping a child is ok, than so is social contract?
Why? Social contracts have to do with all humans. Having sex with a child is just talking about children, not all humans.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: There's some sense to what you are saying, but it can't apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency. More immaterial philosophizing. You can't take other people's children without killing them all. Just accept it.
E. R. Olovetto: There's some sense to what you are saying, but it can't apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency.
There's some sense to what you are saying, but it can't apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency.
More immaterial philosophizing.
You can't take other people's children without killing them all. Just accept it.
What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different "things". Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing.
No matter how many times I repeat myself you and spidey are going to keep parroting your ownership theory of wives, children and domestics straight out of the 18th century.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
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.
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.
Can a fetus give consent in the future without the mother?
Spideynw: JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler: Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?That my cat's decedents may have the ability to think critically in no way implies that my cat has such an ability. You're conflating evolution with maturing. How does someone derive the right to represent the child against her parents? Also, is sex inherently wrong? If not, then why is sex wrong with a child whereas changing the child's diaper is not?
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler: Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?That my cat's decedents may have the ability to think critically in no way implies that my cat has such an ability. You're conflating evolution with maturing.
Spideynw: JackCuyler: Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?
JackCuyler: Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
How does someone derive the right to represent the child against her parents? Also, is sex inherently wrong? If not, then why is sex wrong with a child whereas changing the child's diaper is not?
Changing a child's diaper keeps it clean and safe from infection. If you left an infant to roll around in its own waste, you would be ceding any guardianship rights as well.
Sex serves no purpose with pre-rational children. Females can't even reproduce. Remember your purpose, the reason why you have any sort of ownership rights to a child at all? You get these rights from aiding their advancement to a state of moral agency, not from creating them. Raping toddlers is not aiding them. How can you continue to argue against this?
JonBostwick: nirgrahamUK:are foetuses human? and do they have full rights? does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights? Bogus. A fetus is not comparable to a gamete by any scientific criteria.
nirgrahamUK:are foetuses human? and do they have full rights? does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights?
Bogus. A fetus is not comparable to a gamete by any scientific criteria.
So it is not a scientific fact that they are both organisms?
Daniel Muffinburg: 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. How is that being more consistent?
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?
As I already explained, using your morals, sometimes killing someone else is immoral, sometimes it is not. Using a pacifists morals, killing someone else is always wrong. Hence, more consistent.
JackCuyler: nirgrahamUK:does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights? No. Alone, that is, without conception, neither will mature into a being with can think critically.
No. Alone, that is, without conception, neither will mature into a being with can think critically.
Can a fetus, without its mother, ever mature into a being that can think critically?
E. R. Olovetto: What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different "things". Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing.
You must have them in your possession, and no one may hold proof of a more legitimate claim to ownership. That is all that is required to own something.
E. R. Olovetto:No matter how many times I repeat myself you and spidey are going to keep parroting your ownership theory of wives, children and domestics straight out of the 18th century.
Most of what we say around here is straight out of the 18th century. The problem may be with you.
JackCuyler: 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.
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.
So a child can say yes to having sex? If not, then your point is mute, because you have to have the ability in the first place to consent, to not consent. And in order to be able to consent, one needs to be able to think critically. So my point stands, that rape implies lack of consent, which implies reasoning abilities.
Capital Pumper: 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.? Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the reality of psychological and physical trauma.
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.
All kinds of things can affect a child. Who are you to decide what is best for my child?
Spideynw:Who are you to decide what is best for my child?
Who are you to decide that the child/property can be violated?
twistedbydsign99: 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: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.
Are you not going to admit that many different things can affect a child's life? If you do, then who are you to say what the best way is to treat my child? You are going down a slippery slope with that one. For example, is locking my child in her room at night bad for her in later life? What about showing her scary movies? What about spanking her? I am not asking you to answer them all specifically, just to think a little bit further. Just because you don't like how I treat my child does not give you any right to take my child from me.
filc:Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany?
Because she can think critically. Why do adult humans have rights whereas animals don't? Just because they can think critically? It is the basis of libertarianism.
filc:If I own her what justification does she have to just leave?
Because you don't own her anymore.
filc:she cannot just arbitrarily leave because she feels ready to.
She sure can.
filc:In effect she was born into slavery unto me.
Nope.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different "things". Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing. You must have them in your possession, and no one may hold proof of a more legitimate claim to ownership. That is all that is required to own something.
Incorrect. You can't encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children.
Daniel Muffinburg: 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?
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.
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?
Are you saying she is dead? If not, she could still bring a case to court. If she is dead, then that is a very good question. It has been suggested that one would need to give legal standing to someone else before you die, so that that person can represent you in case of death. What happens if both are dead? Well, I guess that would be up to arbitration to decide. I don't have all the answers for every situation.
filc:Also how social contract is still unjustified where raip is somehow.
A social contract does not exist, so it is not justified. As to having sex with one's child, the question is, why would anyone have standing to bring a case against the parent on behalf of the child, when we do not even know what the child wanted and the child is unable to grant rights to someone else to represent her?
Aster_Lacnala:If that is so, then what right have we to limit another person's aggression?
I think this is an extremely good question. I don't think there is a legal right to limit another person's aggression using violence against that person. I think in a libertarian society, only peaceful means could be employed legally to try to seek compensation. I also think that if someone is too violent, people will take matters into their own hands and react violently. If someone harmed my child, I would probably kill him, regardless of the consequences, and hope for the best. I think there would be less road rage on the roads, simply because people would be more fearful of other driver's reactions. I think it would overall be a much more civilized society.
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)
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 would disagree.
E. R. Olovetto: Incorrect. You can't encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children.
I can't for the life of me picture what "forestalling" of children involves.
Spideynw:I would disagree.
its somewhat interesting that you disagree; it would be greatly more interesting for me to understand why you disagree
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:I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative. I am not "nitpicking". If by, not be completely consistent and more consistent than the alternative, you mean completely inconsistent, I agree with you. Your position is that some beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future have rights, while other beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future do not. The only distinction between the two is an arbitrary amount of time. I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
Spideynw:I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative.
I am not "nitpicking". If by, not be completely consistent and more consistent than the alternative, you mean completely inconsistent, I agree with you. Your position is that some beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future have rights, while other beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future do not. The only distinction between the two is an arbitrary amount of time. I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
How about when is killing another adult human not murder? Go! Some example questions. Is it murder when I kill someone who stabbed me in the leg? How about when they pulled a gun on me? How about if the gun was not loaded? Is it murder if I shoot the person in the back while running off with my television? Etc., etc.
JackCuyler:As a parent is a custodian of the child's rights, physical/sexual abuse could certainly be seen as an abandonment of that custodianship. This would allow that custodianship to be homesteaded. If it became public knowledge that you are raping your toddler, anyone could homestead the custodianship of your child's right, removing him from your home, by force if necessary.
This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site. Does everyone just take a piece of the child? Or is it a mad rush to the home to see who gets the child first?
JackCuyler:Even if not seen as legal, your neighbors could simply take the child, and shoot you if you try and interfere. While this would apparently violate your rights, who would prosecute?
Whomever he had appointed to represent him in case of his death.
JackCuyler:What jury would convict?
One that is neutral and understands that killing someone is wrong.
JackCuyler:Would the shooter be seen as a convict or a hero?
A convict. Just because you don't like how someone treats his child does not give you any right to act on it.
JackCuyler:Do you think those who engage in sex with small children would somehow become more popular in a stateless society?
Nope. I think they would fear for their lives even more so than they do now.
JackCuyler: Spideynw: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? This is of a question of enforceability, not legality. I grant that it may be difficult, or even impossible, to bring every case of rights violations to justice. That does not mean that these violations do not exist, nor does it somehow magically transform these acts of aggression into non-aggression. However, here again, you are ignoring time. There is no reason to think that in a stateless society, there would be the equivalents of the state's statutes of limitations. That is, there's nothing stopping an adult for taking a parent to court for crimes committed against him or her when he or she was a child. The diddled five year old will grow up to be an angry eighteen year old who will drag Dad to court. By the right of being the victim, to answer the second question.
Spideynw: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?
This is of a question of enforceability, not legality. I grant that it may be difficult, or even impossible, to bring every case of rights violations to justice. That does not mean that these violations do not exist, nor does it somehow magically transform these acts of aggression into non-aggression. However, here again, you are ignoring time. There is no reason to think that in a stateless society, there would be the equivalents of the state's statutes of limitations. That is, there's nothing stopping an adult for taking a parent to court for crimes committed against him or her when he or she was a child. The diddled five year old will grow up to be an angry eighteen year old who will drag Dad to court. By the right of being the victim, to answer the second question.
Given that your premise is correct that it is legally wrong for parents to have sex with their children, this seems acceptable. Of course, I disagree with your premise.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: Incorrect. You can't encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children. I can't for the life of me picture what "forestalling" of children involves.
It may be that you lock them away in your shed out back, keeping them from learning language, or just otherwise abusing them and attempting to maintain possession without valid ownership rights.You would be then forestalling if a person who wants to genuinely be a guardian of the child tries to homestead them.
You yourself can have no rights if children don't have a minimum amount of negative rights as well. The rights of adults qua moral agents rest upon these rights of children and the incapacitated.
trulib: The Scenario So here's how things would go: Bob rapes his 3 year old daughter. Evidence of the rape is discovered, by chance, by a nursery nurse. The nurse calls the 'Friends of Babies' organization. 'Friends of Babies' knock at Bob's door and start asking him questions. Bob starts getting nervous, but denies it. Friends of Babies are confident in their assessment that Bob's lying, so they break into his house and forcibly remove the child from him. Bob calls his PDA, telling them an evil gang has taken his child away from him, for no good reason. Bob's PDA investigates. There's a trial. If Bob is found innocent, 'Friends of Babies' are guilty of child kidnap. If Bob is found guilty, the libertarian court declares that, by raping his child, Bob loses the right to continue bringing it up. Rape is not consistent with homesteading the right to bring up a child, so Bob's right to bring up his daughter is declared abandoned. The court awards the right to bring up the child to the other claimant: the Friends of Babies organization. The Friends of Babies organization rehomes the child, perhaps with a relative, or finds adoptive parents for it. Friends of Babies publicizes the fact that Bob is a child rapist. He is added to all the (privately-produced) sex offenders registers. Voluntary actions, such as boycotts of Bob, make Bob's life a misery. The rest of the scenario I have not read about anywhere, but I think the scenario would continue thusly: Bob's daughter grows up and claims self-ownership. If she wants restitution or retribution for being raped as a child, she may bring a claim against her father. The libertarian court will decide on a suitable punishment for Bob, for the crime of child rape. The burden of proof to show that the sex was consentual (should Bob wish to make this defense) will be prima facie on Bob. He will have to prove that his daughter made an informed decision to have sex. No sensible court would be convinced of this in the case of a 3 year old.
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:
1. Bob has sex with his 3 year old.
2. He films it and puts it on the internet.
3. Friends of Babies does not exist.
4. Doh. I mean, why would I fund a company, that might take my child from me and then make me prove I did nothing wrong?
nirgrahamUK: Spideynw:I would disagree. its somewhat interesting that you disagree; it would be greatly more interesting for me to understand why you disagree
Partly, because what you posted was pretty vague. Also partly because he still owns his body.
Let's use an example, and maybe we can agree. Let's say someone dismembers my wife. Let's say she made me her legal representative upon her death. So now my options are to take him to court, or something else. Are you saying if I choose something else (killing him), that his representative could not take legal action against me? I would beg to differ, since he still owned his body. Just because he killed my wife does not mean that his body becomes my property, just because I am my wife's legal representative. No one can own another rational being. It is an impossibility. As such, his legal representative could seek compensation from me. However, I do think the court would take into account the fact that he dismembered my wife, and as such, the compensation would probably be very little.
Spideynw:Because she can think critically. Why do adult humans have rights whereas animals don't? Just because they can think critically? It is the basis of libertarianism.
So the definition of property applied to humans is arbitrarily defined. If I owned her she would be mine indefinitely until I consented she could go or sold her. Thats what property is my friend.
You need to re-read the concept of ownership. You don't just arbitrarily lose property because it's aged.
Spideynw:Because you don't own her anymore.
According to you I do. She's mine, she is my property. I own her. Just because she woke up randomly one day with her own 'conscious?' I no longer own her? How is your distinction NOT arbitrary?
Spideynw:She sure can.
But if she's my property I can keep her chained in my basement as a sex slave indeffinately. She would be unable to leave or present a case to the courts. I would be morally and legally justified as she would be unable to present a case thereby arbitrarily breaking my ownership of her. Your system describes nothing negative in that scenario.
If my neighbor steals my lawnmower and I take him to court, but the courts side with him. Did he not steal my lawnmower? Does the court somehow dictate what actually did happen? Likewise just because a court rules in my childs favor to leave is no left theft of my property. The difference is it's condoned theft through the courts. It was MY property and I never agreed to giving it up.
Likewise how is it that she could arbitrarily go to court and steal the ownership of her body from me? The whole theory you've constructed is entirely arbitrary.
Spideynw:Nope.
Oh? Do you have a new definition for slavery to? Convenient.