E. R. Olovetto:t 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.
How would you go about doing that? Knock on the door and ask to test for the child's mastery of language?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Spideynw: 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? 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.
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.
What if a 20-yea-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal?
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."
Spideynw:No one can own anyone else. It is an impossibility.
WTF you just described an entire theory where people own people for the first 20ish years of their lives?
Spideynw: 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? 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.
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.
Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again?
Spideynw: 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 anyone else. 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.
nirgrahamUK: Spideynw:I would disagree. its somewhat interesting that you disagree; it would be greatly more interesting for me to understand why you disagree
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 anyone else. 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.
By killing people, the murderer can't coherently or meaningfully object to being killed himself. Enslaving him, or whatever else the victim might like is allowed, because it is less than death.
Nothing formal would need to take place for the husband to be able to act on his wive's behalf. There are well-established procedures for kinship. Kin's claims are always greater than outsiders, yet in the instance of there being no kin (or none discovered yet), anyone may enslave the murderer. It is not theft to take from a thief. By his own actions, the murderer abandoned any valid legal claims to self-ownership.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
filc: Spideynw:No one can own anyone else. It is an impossibility. WTF you just described an entire theory where people own people for the first 20ish years of their lives?
yeap. Spideynw is holding onto a pet theory and has convinced himself he is right even though he continually makes statements like this.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: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. . How would you go about doing that? Knock on the door and ask to test for the child's mastery of language?
E. R. Olovetto: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. .
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.
.
Lack of creativity is not an argument.
It may very well be easy to get away with locking a child in a dungeon and not being caught for decades. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with recent news events regarding such situations. Somehow, enough suspicion was raised to act.
It is important to remember that the exclusionary rule (a la 4th amendment) is not compatible with libertarian law, nor consistent with the history of common law. read
JackCuyler:Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights.
And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Sorry, I meant that no one can own another critical thinking human. The problem with the internet.
E. R. Olovetto: Lack of creativity is not an argument.
It is when an impossible situation is claimed as an argument against a valid system.
Capital Pumper:Interesting, this thread has turned into an episode of Star Trek.
Gotta love Star Trek
filc:Issue A) If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent?
How does a child all of a sudden gain the ability to decide on whether or not she wants sex? Is it not just that she develops?
filc:Issue B) If you agree that this person inherently enters into a state of being owned how can you use the opposite premise to oppose social contract? In other words, if you believe it is legitimate that a child is born into slavery against her/his consent than arn't they just as liable to being born into a contract, and/or social contract without their consent?
No, because children do not have the ability to consent or not consent.
filc: Stranger:Because it then becomes an argument between parent and child instead of an argument between parent and random other adult. Not true. The argument I am hearing is that the child is owned. It matters not that she is my child or I gave birth to her. Those details just outlined how i came into ownership of her. If I understand spidey's argument correctly than I own the child entirely. The Parent/child relationship is just another aspect of that ownership. But the child is property, according to spidey, my property.
Stranger:Because it then becomes an argument between parent and child instead of an argument between parent and random other adult.
Not true. The argument I am hearing is that the child is owned. It matters not that she is my child or I gave birth to her. Those details just outlined how i came into ownership of her. If I understand spidey's argument correctly than I own the child entirely. The Parent/child relationship is just another aspect of that ownership. But the child is property, according to spidey, my property.
Yes, until the child comes of age.
filc:I'm not saying I agree to it. I'm asking how the child arbitrarily stops becoming property simply out of self awareness or rational thought.
Because it is the only criteria that can be used.
filc:If a child can think themselves out of ownership my argument is I never really owned the child in the first place and the child is not my property. Had the child been my property she could never leave, she'd be my slave until I gave her permission to go.
A child is not a log.
filc:If we want to call children property we can't make up arbitrary rules on the fly.
Why do you think we need arbitration?
filc:Either they are property, and they are owned indefinitely until traded away or set free, or they are not property.
No need for that. They are property until they develop. I don't get what is so difficult about it.
Spideynw: Capital Pumper:Interesting, this thread has turned into an episode of Star Trek. Gotta love Star Trek
Screw gold, we should have our money backed by latinum!
filc:What I understand is your definition for property arbitrarily changes for humans. And I also understand that you did not answer my question about being born into contracts.
It does because humans are a special case.
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.
Semantics game. I could say the same thing about an animal.
Spideynw: Semantics game. I could say the same thing about an animal.
No. It's actually your on-going misunderstanding. Not semantics. You don't think the child breaths on their own and has the individual potential to realize that. How many people don't even know what natural rights are? So are people able to subdue and rape them because they don't understand what a natural right is?
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: Lack of creativity is not an argument. It is when an impossible situation is claimed as an argument against a valid system.
What valid system? For your "system of rights" to be played out fully, people would have to uphold that nobody has rights when they are asleep. Also, anyone could make threats like holding a gun to another and get away with it because they didn't pull the trigger. You are either ignoring potentiality completely or making arbitrary distinctions.
What is an impossible situation? Here is the recent story of the German guy with a dungeon. Are you saying that nobody is ever found out, still?
It is thought Fritzl planned to imprison his daughter Elisabeth shortly after he started abusing her when she was 11. Shortly afterwards he first applied for permission to convert the cellar at his home in the town of Amstetten. Elisabeth, 42, was imprisoned in the warren of soundproofed rooms for 24 years until she was freed at the weekend. She was repeatedly raped by Fritzl and gave birth to seven of his children there, one of whom died shortly after birth. Three of them - Kerstin, 19, Stefan, 18, and five-year-old Felix - were held captive with her and never saw sunlight until they were released. The three others - Lisa, 16, Monika, 14, and Alexander, 12 - were adopted and brought up by Fritzl and his wife Rosemarie. Fritzl told the authorities his "missing" daughter had dumped them as babies on his doorstep because she was unable to cope. Fritzl spent six years building the network of windowless rooms spreading from the cellar to beneath the garden. After being granted permission in 1978, he was allowed in 1983 to extend it into proper quarters with rooms and running water. Elisabeth was locked up there in 1984. Fritzl faced a court yesterday for the first time, appearing calm and in control. He was remanded in custody. Police said he had admitted raping and imprisoning Elisabeth and he has been placed on suicide watch. His lawyer Rudolf Mayer said: "He is really hit by this. He is very serious but he is emotionally broken." The case started to unfold when Kerstin fell ill and had to be taken to hospital. She remains in a critical condition because of the effects of lack of oxygen and is undergoing dialysis.
It is thought Fritzl planned to imprison his daughter Elisabeth shortly after he started abusing her when she was 11.
Shortly afterwards he first applied for permission to convert the cellar at his home in the town of Amstetten.
Elisabeth, 42, was imprisoned in the warren of soundproofed rooms for 24 years until she was freed at the weekend.
She was repeatedly raped by Fritzl and gave birth to seven of his children there, one of whom died shortly after birth.
Three of them - Kerstin, 19, Stefan, 18, and five-year-old Felix - were held captive with her and never saw sunlight until they were released.
The three others - Lisa, 16, Monika, 14, and Alexander, 12 - were adopted and brought up by Fritzl and his wife Rosemarie.
Fritzl told the authorities his "missing" daughter had dumped them as babies on his doorstep because she was unable to cope. Fritzl spent six years building the network of windowless rooms spreading from the cellar to beneath the garden.
After being granted permission in 1978, he was allowed in 1983 to extend it into proper quarters with rooms and running water. Elisabeth was locked up there in 1984.
Fritzl faced a court yesterday for the first time, appearing calm and in control. He was remanded in custody. Police said he had admitted raping and imprisoning Elisabeth and he has been placed on suicide watch.
His lawyer Rudolf Mayer said: "He is really hit by this. He is very serious but he is emotionally broken."
The case started to unfold when Kerstin fell ill and had to be taken to hospital.
She remains in a critical condition because of the effects of lack of oxygen and is undergoing dialysis.
K.C. Farmer: How is this position? A human child is born with property rights, specifically self-ownership.
How is this position?
A human child is born with property rights, specifically self-ownership.
What does that mean? That the baby can decide on things? It can go out and get a job? It can have sex if it wants to?
Spideynw: 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.
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.
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?
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.
1. You won't likely have any choice besides hiring your own army. Why would most people pay more to defend child rapists when they can agree to not rape children, even their own, and pay less? A PDA is just a service. People pay for what they want. You like to toss out the "reality card", yet seem to have no grasp on reality yourself.
2. As for finding evidence, be creative. I gave you examples before and 90% of this is repeating myself to you. A kid sees a school nurse and says, "Daddy (let's call him Brody) touches me there and he says he loves me.", or says nothing and the nurse sees odd scars. As for "getting past your PDA", you assume that you will have a PDA who will protect you at all costs against charges of child abuse.
They obviously will protect you to some degree, because who would hire a PDA who just had agreements with other PDAs to turn over their own clients based on a mere accusation. I think something like this is reasonable to expect, even if pre-existing guidelines weren't agreed to. The school nurse finds what looks like dried semen on your daughter's underwear. Pervhunt Inc. sends a rapid response team over and quickly verifies one sample, then sends another for DNA testing after a few quick statements.
Pervhunt calls the nurse back to see if the child's security provider is on record, and to ask for the nurse's email address to send the claim number regarding her possible future reward. Pervhunt then faxes the lab results and statements taken from the nurse and/or daughter to Brody's PDA, Acme Inc., along with a request for temporary waiver of disseisin and a request to contact Brody.
The request for waiver of disseisin, would be a statement by Brody that he agrees that Pervhunt, or say, their subcontractor for temporary child placement, Friends of Babies, takes custody of Brody's child while he is eliminated as a possible suspect. This is necessary because we assume that Brody wouldn't just come out and say, "Children are like animals. She is my property and I will rape her if I want." YOU wouldn't say that IF YOU were Brody right? (Please amuse me with an answer to this last question, instead of just ignoring it.)
If Brody truly isn't guilty of raping his daughter, he would probably be anxious to give a swab of DNA, get his beloved daughter back, and help Pervhunt find the real criminal. Acme is a general security provider vs. a specialist firm, but both ultimately aim at resolving disputes. They might object to a certain level of invasive investigation without certain levels of evidence, but why should they support their client grandstanding about 30 seconds of cotton swabbing after what was found on his daughter?
I've explained to you before that the exclusionary rule (4th amendment) was not part of common law and is incompatible with libertarianism. Yes, it is a very grave risk to Pervhunt's bottom line to take action on mere accusations. It may be possible that You, Acme, and Pervhunt had pre-existing terms that such situations (you refuse to give DNA) would lead to your contract being canceled and your protection being dropped. Even if these agreements did not exist, Pervhunt's next move would likely be to stake you out. They will look for you dropping a soda can or tissue and documenting the collection of your DNA. As soon as they have the link they are going to arrest and try you.
3/4. There certainly would be a market for legal defense. This is just an easy case because it is clear that a 3 year old can't consent to sex. I acknowledge that there is a continuum problem, but you wish to deny children any rights.
Stopping you from raping children is not merely "telling you how to raise your kids" because rape is not raising kids. Enough people would support that spanking aids a child by teaching morals and the temporary fear/redness are outweighed by the benefit, such that I don't suspect anyone would take the economic risk of calling such actions child abuse. The same goes for feeding kids fast food, or raising them without religion, or raising them with X religion.
I hope that these more valid concerns are the impetus for your grandstanding, not that you are a child rapist or honestly believe that such things should be allowed.
E. R. Olovetto:Changing a child's diaper keeps it clean and safe from infection.
So? Does a child have positive rights?
E. R. Olovetto:Sex serves no purpose with pre-rational children.
The purpose is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I own my child or not. Because otherwise you don't get to decide how I treat my child. So, how do you derive a right to tell me how to treat my child?
wilderness: Spideynw:Who are you to decide what is best for my child? Who are you to decide that the child/property can be violated?
Spideynw:Who are you to decide what is best for my child?
Who are you to decide that the child/property can be violated?
The parent. Now, can you answer my question?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Changing a child's diaper keeps it clean and safe from infection. So? Does a child have positive rights? E. R. Olovetto:Sex serves no purpose with pre-rational children. The purpose is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I own my child or not. Because otherwise you don't get to decide how I treat my child. So, how do you derive a right to tell me how to treat my child?
No... A child does not have positive rights per se. In order to maintain guardianship of a child though, the parent does have positive obligations. They can either assume these obligations to aid the child or abandon them. If abandoning them, they may not forestall others from acquiring guardianship of the child.
It is only possible to "own" your child insomuch as you are aiding them in reaching a state of moral agency. The child is simply not recognized as yours when you rape it.
E. R. Olovetto: The child is simply not recognized as yours when you rape it.
These are questions; not attacks or positive statements.
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
Spideynw: The parent. Now, can you answer my question?
That's not natural rights. That's a might makes right view. To believe the child doesn't have rights is to tumble into inconsistency, as you've demonstrated throughtout this thread and others. As Confucius has pointed out, and I think he had a point to an extent. The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting.
wilderness:The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting.
I think he has it backwards, depending on his use of microcosm. The way we are oriented in our families would tend to be the way we orient society. The power differential between child and parent is much greater than citizen and government.
My problem with Spideynw's argument is that he's trying to use the Non Aggression Principle to confuse the issue of property rights. The NAP or Harm Principle is derived from the two axioms below, which are deemed self-evident by libertarians (Rothbard and Hoppe). If you deny Axiom #1 or Axiom #2, then you can't hold the Harm Principle as being true. I also see no wiggle-room or conditions to self-ownership.
Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.” Axiom #2 (derived from Axiom #2): “each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or mixes his labor with." Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.” If this is an argument against the libertarian position or natural rights, then I can see where he's coming from, but that's not the argument. He's accepted the Harm Principle and has rejected Axiom #1 - or at least has distorted it. If you don't believe in natural rights, then how did you come to the NAP?
Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.”
Axiom #2 (derived from Axiom #2): “each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or mixes his labor with." Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.” If this is an argument against the libertarian position or natural rights, then I can see where he's coming from, but that's not the argument. He's accepted the Harm Principle and has rejected Axiom #1 - or at least has distorted it. If you don't believe in natural rights, then how did you come to the NAP?
Axiom #2 (derived from Axiom #2): “each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or mixes his labor with."
Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.” If this is an argument against the libertarian position or natural rights, then I can see where he's coming from, but that's not the argument. He's accepted the Harm Principle and has rejected Axiom #1 - or at least has distorted it. If you don't believe in natural rights, then how did you come to the NAP?
Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.”
If this is an argument against the libertarian position or natural rights, then I can see where he's coming from, but that's not the argument. He's accepted the Harm Principle and has rejected Axiom #1 - or at least has distorted it. If you don't believe in natural rights, then how did you come to the NAP?
Axiom 1) references a man understandable by teleology. now... who disputes that some genetic material severed from 'parents' has an emergent mind and is understood through teleological analysis, whereas other genetic material is just that and no more, and can only be understood through causal analysis (teleology is inappropriate)?
K.C. Farmer:Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.”
Its not aggression thats wrong its the initiation of it right? Harm doesn't seem quite the same as those things. I feel I can be legitimately harmed in many ways they don't violate NAP.
filc: filc:Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany? 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.
filc:Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany?
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.
Except in the case of humans. Unless you just want to ignore the reality that humans at first cannot think critically and later on can.
filc: 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: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?
It is arbitrary. So what? Why do you think humans need arbitrators if nothing is subjective?
filc: Spideynw:She sure can. But if she's my property I can keep her chained in my basement as a sex slave indeffinately.
Spideynw:She sure can.
But if she's my property I can keep her chained in my basement as a sex slave indeffinately.
Not legally, once she reaches the age of consent.
filc: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.
Well, if I shoot someone in the woods, and no one finds out about it, well then nothing would ever happen to me, now would it? But nowhere in what I have said did I ever say that was legal, just as I have never said anywhere that keeping someone locked up in your basement is legal. So quit lying.
filc:If my neighbor steals my lawnmower and I take him to court, but the courts side with him. Did he not steal my lawnmower?
Why did the court decide he did not steal your lawnmower?
filc: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.
So, you were wrong.
filc:Likewise how is it that she could arbitrarily go to court and steal the ownership of her body from me?
She reached the age of consent.
filc: filc:In effect she was born into slavery unto me. Spideynw:Nope. Oh? Do you have a new definition for slavery to? Convenient.
filc:In effect she was born into slavery unto me.
Spideynw:Nope.
Oh? Do you have a new definition for slavery to? Convenient.
You were implying that she was a slave to you forever. I was saying no she was not.
Daniel Muffinburg:What if a 20-yea-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can't bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal?
Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents?
twistedbydsign99: K.C. Farmer:Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.” Its not aggression thats wrong its the initiation of it right? Harm doesn't seem quite the same as those things. I feel I can be legitimately harmed in many ways they don't violate NAP.
Quote is Rothbard's definition. While the use of the term "harm" may not reflect the same thing as "aggression", the definition of the principle is clear.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument. How about when is killing another adult human not murder?
JackCuyler:I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
How about when is killing another adult human not murder?
By definition, murder is a subset of killing. I would have to give some thought to what constitutes murder and what does not, but to claim all killing is murder is to, at the very least, make an grammatical error.
Spideynw: 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: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?
When I abandon my car, does everyone just take a piece of it? Or is it a mad rush to the home to see who gets the car first? I'm certainly not the first person to mention this. The trustee ownership and the ability to sell the trust is pure Rothbard. I'm making two additional assertions - that anything that can be sold and retained can be homesteaded when unowned, and that aggression up a child is an abandonment of trustee ownership.
Be honest, there have been way funnier posts in these forums. I don't deserve that much credit.
Spideynw: 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: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.
I didn't ask how you would see him, but how you think he would be generally viewed. I honestly think a pedo-killer would generally be seen as a hero. Since you disagree, why then:
Spideynw: I think they would fear for their lives even more so than they do now.
If people will generally see killers of baby rapists as murders, and juries will convict them as such, why would baby rapists have more to fear than they do now?
Spideynw: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.
Sure.
My premise: All moral agents, including potential moral agents, have the right to be free from aggression.
Your disagreement: Some potential moral agents have rights, while other potential moral agents do not, and the distinction is purely arbitrary.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
twistedbydsign99: wilderness:The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting. I think he has it backwards, depending on his use of microcosm. The way we are oriented in our families would tend to be the way we orient society. The power differential between child and parent is much greater than citizen and government.
I think it has to do with role-modeling. What we accept in the family is what people will tend to accept in society. If it's ok in the household, then what counter view is there? It will be accepted in society at large. So if the parent can violate the child, the analogy (the education) will sustain itself into society at large.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent?
When he or she matures. (I.E. "at some point in the future") Again with your ignoring of time. An unconscious woman cannot consent until she wakes. A toddler cannot consent until he matures. The only difference is the amount of time.
Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. I didn't say anything about morality. Care to try again?
Substitute "morals" with "criteria".
E. R. Olovetto:By killing people, the murderer can't coherently or meaningfully object to being killed himself.
Of course he can. It is his body.
E. R. Olovetto:Enslaving him, or whatever else the victim might like is allowed, because it is less than death.
If he agrees with it, sure.
E. R. Olovetto:It is not theft to take from a thief.
This is extremely simplistic to compare stealing an item to taking a life.
E. R. Olovetto:By his own actions, the murderer abandoned any valid legal claims to self-ownership.
No he did not. He did not stop being a sentient being just because he killed someone else.
wilderness: Spideynw: Semantics game. I could say the same thing about an animal. No. It's actually your on-going misunderstanding. Not semantics. You don't think the child breaths on their own and has the individual potential to realize that. How many people don't even know what natural rights are? So are people able to subdue and rape them because they don't understand what a natural right is?
No, they are able to because no one else has a more valid claim to the child than they do.
E. R. Olovetto:No... A child does not have positive rights per se. In order to maintain guardianship of a child though, the parent does have positive obligations.
Determined by whom?
E. R. Olovetto: What valid system? For your "system of rights" to be played out fully, people would have to uphold that nobody has rights when they are asleep. Also, anyone could make threats like holding a gun to another and get away with it because they didn't pull the trigger. You are either ignoring potentiality completely or making arbitrary distinctions. What is an impossible situation? Here is the recent story of the German guy with a dungeon. Are you saying that nobody is ever found out, still?
Note that in this case it was the children themselves who escaped after reaching adulthood, there was no one on the outside patrolling and looking for imprisoned children in cellars.
This entire thread can be summed up as denouncing an anarchist system because it implies that parents would own their children, and so a state is needed such that, and the minarchists never complete this sentence but that is what they imply, the state will own all children and have the power to invade the household and reallocate children to new households at will. (A power that, it must be noted from the Austrian man's example, the state does not even claim today.)
So instead of claiming that a state is needed to provide welfare to the poor, or national defense, or inflationary banking, all arguments that have been thoroughly debunked, the minarchists have now invented a new claim, that a state is needed such that parents will not be able to own their children, the justification of which is that some men lock up their children in cellars and therefore the state needs to own children and households. The fact that it is utterly implausible for a state to prevent this is completely irrelevant to them.
Additionally, note that parents owning their children does not in any way imply that children have no rights. In fact, in a dispute involving their parents and a complete stranger, a child will always side with his parents. It matters not how "abused" you consider the child's rights to be. To take the child away from the parents, you must violate both their rights, and thus you must prove that you own the child instead of the parents.