Aquila:Killing someone else's cow is indeed aggression...against his property.
I was talking about killing your own cow.
Aquila:Human beings cannot be property.
Of course they can be.
Aquila:Just because a human cannot make a legal claim, whether this be due to youth or a mental handicap, does not mean it is justified to kill him.
Sure it does.
Aquila:I have heard several sensible arguments in favor of legalizing abortion in this thread, but this babies have the same rights as animals business is not one of them.
Sensible is not an objective measurement. So who cares what you think is sensible?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Marko: nhaag: It is true the unborn has now way to file a complaint. That is the way it is. And if there is no one to claim retribution, there is no one to be punished(if you are religious, your religion might tell you that some stuff if punished by god though). Again, it is a simple as that,no? What about the father?
nhaag: It is true the unborn has now way to file a complaint. That is the way it is. And if there is no one to claim retribution, there is no one to be punished(if you are religious, your religion might tell you that some stuff if punished by god though). Again, it is a simple as that,no?
It is true the unborn has now way to file a complaint. That is the way it is. And if there is no one to claim retribution, there is no one to be punished(if you are religious, your religion might tell you that some stuff if punished by god though). Again, it is a simple as that,no?
What about the father?
It is assumed the father agreed to it. But yes, the father does have rights to the fetus as well. We are talking about whether or not the fetus has rights. It does not.
Humans have rights. If the fetus does not have rights, then it cannot be human. If the fetus is not a human, then at what point are you willing to grant the collection of cells its humanity? Is it when the fetus begins to take the form of a human? Is it at the first heartbeat, first brainwaves first breath, first meal, first steps, first words, first slice of bread consumed, first job acquired, first STD acquired, first signs of balding, first signs of dementia, first (insert arbitrary criterion)? The problem is that we have no objective means by which to determine at which point a person acquires individual rights and thence becomes entitled to the protection of his body from external harm by others--that is, from a violation of his property rights.
I’m not sure how I can state the following without sounding offensive (arguing over the tubes is difficult), so please know that I intend no disrespect.
So if I understand your position correctly… if I murder Bob but not Bob’s wife and kids, then I have to pay retribution to the surviving family. But if I murder the entire family, then wupteedoo! I’m off scot-free because there’s no one else to claim retribution. Here that murderers? Make sure you murder all the kinsmen of your victims too because then you won’t have to face punishment!
This is the logical conclusion of the argument that you and spidey seem to be putting forth. I sincerely apologize if I’ve misunderstood your position—please correct me if this is so.
Would you agree that it's necessary to have some sort of earthly mechanism of punishment to dissuade violent people from violating the NAP? The faint possibility of punishment in the afterlife is not exactly an effective method of stopping criminals.
Aquila:Humans have rights.
Only humans? Another sentient race would not have rights? If another would, then why, if they are not human?
Aquila:If the fetus does not have rights, then it cannot be human
Humanity is dependent on science, not philosophy.
Aquila:The problem is that we have no objective means by which to determine at which point a person acquires individual rights
Actually we do. Humans acquire rights once we reach the age of consent.
I've noticed it mentioned a few times now about the problem of identifying the point at which an ownable blob of organic matter becomes a self-owning moral agent. It is an example of a Sorites problem.
I have uploaded a pdf by a philosopher, Laurence Goldstein on Sorites.
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: Only humans? Another sentient race would not have rights? If another would, then why, if they are not human?
Twi'leks would, but I don't know about those Geonosians. They seem rather too insect-like to me.
Spideynw:Humanity is dependent on science, not philosophy.
And as I have pointed out at least a dozen times, modern science cannot establish the point at which a blob of cells becomes "human"--any point at which one makes this determination must necessarily be arbitrary.
Spideynw: Aquila:The problem is that we have no objective means by which to determine at which point a person acquires individual rights Actually we do. Humans acquire rights once we reach the age of consent.
So it's OK to murder babies?
Look bub, I don't know if you're trolling or if you're just smoking some seriously good shit, but either way, I can't be bothered to keep responding to you.
nirgrahamUK: I've noticed it mentioned a few times now about the problem of identifying the point at which an ownable blob of organic matter becomes a self-owning moral agent. It is an example of a Sorites problem. I have uploaded a pdf by a philosopher, Laurence Goldstein on Sorites.
That is indeed the question I wrestle with. I will check out the pdf, thanks.
Abort the damn parasites. I don't get why there is such an in depth discussion on abortion. It makes me think that this entire thread was started just so Aquila can troll and push his views about abortion. A woman has the right to decide whether or not she wants someone or something feeding off of her for 9 months regardless of whether or not she wanted to be pregnant. If she wants to kill the fetus she has that choice. There is no way around it. She is her own property, her sexual organs are her property. Not unless you want the State to take control of her sexual organs and regulate what goes on with them and coerce her into what someone else think's is right, you can go ahead and think that, but that completely undermines her liberty, and is inconsistent with libertarianism. You can claim that pro-choice is pro-death, but those pro-lifers aren't much into life if they want to regulate someone elses.
Firstly, I fit into neither camp and have no established view on abortion (as I've pointed out at many times). Every position I've taken has been one of a devil's advocate so that I may better understand this issue and hopefully develop a view of my own. Secondly, those "damn parasites" are the future of the human race. It sounds to me as if you have a beef with nature and the way in which the human race is furthered, namely procreation and childbearing. Thirdly, while you aptly pointed out concerns for the mother's liberty, you overlooked the right of the child to not be slaughtered. Fourthly, this is a voluntary forum and you are free to post or not post in threads as you see fit. If you consider my lovingly composed posts to be trolling, then why dignify them with your opinion on the issue?
Aquila: So if I understand your position correctly… if I murder Bob but not Bob’s wife and kids, then I have to pay retribution to the surviving family. But if I murder the entire family, then wupteedoo! I’m off scot-free because there’s no one else to claim retribution. Here that murderers? Make sure you murder all the kinsmen of your victims too because then you won’t have to face punishment!
I wouldn't want to speak for nhaag so I will just briefly point out that in your scenario it is still very easy for the murdered to - so to say - press for justice from beyond the grave. All they need to do is to leave behind a will stating what they wish to do with their murderer.
But in the case of abortion how can an unrelated third party ever show that in pressing charges against its closest relation - the mother - he is merely being an agent of the child?
Aquila: Spideynw: Only humans? Another sentient race would not have rights? If another would, then why, if they are not human? Twi'leks would, but I don't know about those Geonosians. They seem rather too insect-like to me.
Way to avoid answering my questions. Hopefully one day you will be intellectually honest enough to discuss this subject.
Aquila:So it's OK to murder babies?
For the parents or guardians to do so, yes, it should be legal.
Aquila:Look bub, I don't know if you're trolling or if you're just smoking some seriously good shit, but either way, I can't be bothered to keep responding to you.
Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make me a "troll" or mean I am smoking some seriously good shit. And I understand if you are unable to respond to my points, if you don't have any valid ones to make yourself.
Spideynw: Aquila:Twi'leks would, but I don't know about those Geonosians. They seem rather too insect-like to me. Way to avoid answering my questions. Hopefully one day you will be intellectually honest enough to discuss this subject.
Aquila:Twi'leks would, but I don't know about those Geonosians. They seem rather too insect-like to me.
This is hardly called for. Aquila has been writing long, detailed, and well-thought-out posts in this thread, and you are the one who has failed to address many of the points brought up. Regardless of what you think of the topic at hand, I think that he has contributed enough and approached the debate politely enough to at least earn some civility in responses.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Aquila:So if I understand your position correctly… if I murder Bob but not Bob’s wife and kids, then I have to pay retribution to the surviving family. But if I murder the entire family, then wupteedoo! I’m off scot-free because there’s no one else to claim retribution. Here that murderers? Make sure you murder all the kinsmen of your victims too because then you won’t have to face punishment!
In a sense, that's true. If an entire family gets murdered, nobody else can really claim retribution. That doesn't mean that the murderer(s) won't be punished in some other way, such as ostracism. I imagine abortion could work similarly.
Justin Spahr-Summers: In a sense, that's true. If an entire family gets murdered, nobody else can really claim retribution.
In a sense, that's true. If an entire family gets murdered, nobody else can really claim retribution.
Which is not to say they can not authorise an entity to seek retribution for them - even in their death.
"A problem might arise in the case of murder—since a victim’s heirs might prove less than diligent in pursuing the murderer, or be unduly inclined to let the murderer buy his way out of punishment. This problem could be taken care of simply by people stating in their wills what punishment they should like to inflict on their possible murderers. The believer in strict retribution, as well as the Tolstoyan opponent of all punishment, could then have their wishes precisely carried out. The deceased, indeed, could provide in his will for, say, a crime insurance company to which he subscribes to be the prosecutor of his possible murderer."
Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard
Justin Spahr-Summers:This is hardly called for. Aquila has been writing long, detailed, and well-thought-out posts in this thread, and you are the one who has failed to address many of the points brought up. Regardless of what you think of the topic at hand, I think that he has contributed enough and approached the debate politely enough to at least earn some civility in responses.
Thanks for your opinion. Did you have anything worthwhile to add? Because he did not answer my questions, and he obviously has no desire to engage in an honest discussion. Please point out any valid points you think he has. I would be happy to address them. Anyone can make long thought-out posts that are completely meaningless. It is my experience, when someone says "babies" or "children" or "fetus" that most reasoning is thrown out the window.
Aquila: Firstly, I fit into neither camp and have no established view on abortion (as I've pointed out at many times). Every position I've taken has been one of a devil's advocate so that I may better understand this issue and hopefully develop a view of my own. Secondly, those "damn parasites" are the future of the human race. It sounds to me as if you have a beef with nature and the way in which the human race is furthered, namely procreation and childbearing. Thirdly, while you aptly pointed out concerns for the mother's liberty, you overlooked the right of the child to not be slaughtered. Fourthly, this is a voluntary forum and you are free to post or not post in threads as you see fit. If you consider my lovingly composed posts to be trolling, then why dignify them with your opinion on the issue?
You seem to be pushing a pro-life stance (or at least that's what I'm getting instead of a neutral position). I'd hardly say those "damn parasites" are the future of the human race. That's a pretty big assumption to make on who's the "future" of mankind. Beef with nature? In reality a lot of the people who have kids should not have kids, they need to have abortions (economically it's not feasible for some to have so many kids, but with the help of the State they make it happen). Seeing someone on welfare with 5 kids isn't very natural, is it? It doesn't make any sense. It's only prolonging what shouldn't be. I don't have any problem with how we procreate, but I don't want to control it. Overlooked the right of the "child" not to be slaughtered? Again, what about the rights of the woman? I'm not dignifying your post, I'm pointing them out for what they are.
It's fundamentalism like this (spouted off as "truth" -- a highly subjective conlusion) that causes many rational people to shun Libertarianism altogether. In one instance people read how it is the most peaceful and civilized way to live and then they read stuff like this -- that parents can murder their own children with virtual impunity (no, ostricization is not even close to sufficient punishment for such a heinous act.) Has it occured to you that, given the conclusions you've reached with your interpretation of Natural Law, perhaps a reevaluation is in order? Personally, I find Kinsella's interpretation much more appealing.