I think you are using bad semantics. People don't have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court, they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle. Even if a person can't explain his position to a lawyer it doesn't invalidate his rights as individual. On what basis does the arbitrator decide who is guilty and who is not if not on the basis of NAP? NAP is a construct which is not related to the capability to present oneself in court. This is a universal construct.
I believe NAP should be applied to animals just as to babies, babies are not special creatures. You don't acquire guardianship for the baby because someone has interests in his genes, that's ridiculous. You acquire guardianship in order to eliminate potential conflicts with other interested parties. Sometimes there are no other interested parties except yourself, but this still doesn't mean you can kill the baby.
Eugene, I agree with your feelings on how the NAP should be applied.
In the first chapter of Human Action, Mises wrote that causality must be known by an actor for them to be fit for action (this is not moral restorability of consequence). He also states that an infant is not an acting man, because they act out of biological instinct. I, however, disagree with this and that animals that know of and act by awareness of causality are not the same as acting man.
People don't have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court, they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle
I already acknowledged self ownership is a right. I have two questions. If their is an infringement upon self ownership how would you recognize it? Do grievances magically articulate themselves out of thin air?
In that case how can you punish people for killing their children if the children are their property?
First, who is "you?"
No one can punish (take action against) a person for disposing of their property without violating the non-agression principle, in which case the individuals doing and supporting the punishing are acting in the capacity of a State. In a stateless society, people would be "punished" by actions of others on the free market. The freedom to associate includes the freedom not to associate, and association includes exchange. It is impossible, from the view point of economics, to predict what the market outcome would be since it depends on the choices and valuations of many individuals, but if individuals want children to be protected they could make choices that would have the effect of maximizing child welfare. For instance:
A father kills his child. If this occurs on property he owns, then no direct action can be taken against him. That is, no individuals can go onto the father's property and arrest him, demand that he perform various actions such as consenting to have himself tried in a court, and so on, unless the father consents to allow such actions be taken against him. To move preemtively against the father would violate the NAP, it would constitute a usurpation of authority away from the individual (the father).
However, as fas as the father is a member of society, he is involved in market interactions with others. Thus he relies on others to sell him products and to buy his products. As knowledge of his action diffuses throughout the community, his avenues to transact may be cut off and he may be thus penalized directly. He may eventually submit to the demands of others that he perform actions in order to right the wrongs that they accuse him of, so that he may eventually be allowed back into society. Or, unable to right his wrongs in the eyes of his fellow men and unable to endure their scorn and unable to subsist because of their unwillingness to associate, he may impose exile upon himself.
Or, since in a free society every individual would likely need to cross the privately owned properties of many individuals in the course of everyday life, the father would find that he is not able to leave his property. The owners of the commonly used thoroughfares (roads, sidewalks and the like) are paid to produce a product that conforms to the demands of the consumers, or else they quickly lose business to competitors. As soon as consumers of the thoroughfares hear that Mr. X has killed his child, they may pay to keep Mr. X off of any roads they use. But it really works in reverse. One road bans Mr. X and so consumers prefer that road or thoroughfare, and the owner of that road profits by anticipating the wants of the consumers. Other roads follow, seeing the profit being made by the other road owners by banning Mr. X. Eventually, Mr. X is hampered from going anywhere, to the extent that consumers wish to keep him off of the roads that they are paying to use.
At the same time, consumers who are concerned with the plight of children who may be neglected by their parents could voluntarily pool their resources and form a corporation that could buy children from neglectful parents. Or, they could offer on the market, contracts between the corporation and parents where the parents agree to satisfy certain requirements of the child in exchange for money.
The explanation for how Mr. X would be "forced" to go to court/prison and make restitution of some kind follows just the same logic as above. Certain easements may be allowed. Thus, the owners of various roads, while banning Mr. X from using their roads for conducting business, grant easements for his travelling to a prison/courthouse where he may voluntarily submit to a trial. If this is what consumers want, they patronize the businesses that are participating in creating this product. The product being created is "allowing Mr. X passage to prison and nowhere else." Of course, if Mr. X no longer wants to be in prison he can leave at any time, but the community can make his life as difficult as they choose, so long as they do not initiate force against him. The market could similarly pressure Mr. X to sign a contract agreeing to take actions to right his wrongs, or to perform certain labor, etc.
So maybe I can also represent a deer, so that if someone kills it, I can claim I represent the family of the deer, or the deer itself since it is not capable of rational discource. I think if the non-aggression principle is universal, then it doesn't matter whether someone uses aggression against a baby, a dog or a deer. In all of these cases aggression was used, and in all of these cases those individual creatures had the right not to be aggressed against. Even if they can't claim this right, someone else can claim this right for them, perhaps a lawyer.
Why stop at deer? Why not become an advocate of rocks or trees or streams? All of these things have in common that they cannot speak or reason. What will a rock say in the witness stand? What will a deer sitting in the plaintiff's seat have to say for himself or herself? As far as claiming to represent the deer, you have no rights in the deer if you are not its owner. Hence, you cannot represent it. Similarly for a rock or a stream. Genetic relatives of a child do have rights in that child, that is, they have rights in guardianship if the parents are relinquishing their rights to care for the child. This is why I don't agree that parents can just abandon their child any which way they please. It is true that parents must be free to relinquish care of their child but only in a manner that permits the other potential holders of guardianship rights a chance to claim those rights. Simply abandoning a child in the forest is homicide, possibly murder and the other potential holders of guardianship rights certainly have a case against the parent or parents who did the abandoning.
Clayton -
Why stop at deer? Why not become an advocate of rocks or trees or streams? All of these things have in common that they cannot speak or reason. What will a rock say in the witness stand? What will a deer sitting in the plaintiff's seat have to say for himself or herself? As far as claiming to represent the deer, you have no rights in the deer if you are not its owner. Hence, you cannot represent it. Similarly for a rock or a stream. Genetic relatives of a child do have rights in that child, that is, they have rights in guardianship if the parents are relinquishing their rights to care for the child. This is why I don't agree that parents can just abandon their child any which way they please. It is true that parents must be free to relinquish care of their child but only in a manner that permits the other potential holders of guardianship rights a chance to claim those rights. Simply abandoning a child in the forest is homicide, possibly murder and the other potential holders of guardianship rights certainly have a case against the parent or parents who did the abandoning. I disagree with this. Life should have rights. Even if you disagree that life itself guarantees rights, deer do have some capability for understanding causality. | Post Points: 35
I think you are using bad semantics. People don't have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court,
If someone has a "right" this simply means that, if a dispute were argued verbally, a person would be able to justify that he had acted in the right. So, "rights" only exist in the context of verbal argument. If you and I put up our fists to start fighting and then you kick me and I say "foul! you have no right to kick in a fight!" this would be laughable. There are no rights in violent conflict, there are just wins and losses.
they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle.
*yawn
Even if a person can't explain his position to a lawyer it doesn't invalidate his rights as individual.
You can't make an argument in court if you can't speak.
On what basis does the arbitrator decide who is guilty
I believe questions of guilt would be irrelevant in free market law.
and who is not if not on the basis of NAP? NAP is a construct which is not related to the capability to present oneself in court. This is a universal construct.
The NAP is just a philosophical idea, nothing more. Law is eminently practical, it has to do with settling disputes without resort to violent conflict. That is its only purpose and the domain of "correct" solutions is only limited by the consideration of what will prevent resort to violent conflict.
I believe NAP should be applied to animals just as to babies, babies are not special creatures.
Babies aren't special but the people who will resort to violent conflict to defend the baby are in that they are cunning human beings, far more dangerous assailants than deer, rocks or streams.
You don't acquire guardianship for the baby because someone has interests in his genes, that's ridiculous.
I think you do. Why else do we assign guardianship to the parents rather than just any person chosen at random? This is how humans organize the rights to guardianship, it is in precedence order of genetic relatedness to the child.
You acquire guardianship in order to eliminate potential conflicts with other interested parties. Sometimes there are no other interested parties except yourself, but this still doesn't mean you can kill the baby.
The world is a very dangerous place for young children without genetic relatives.
Life should have rights.
The bacteria in my colon are alive. What are their rights?
I don't think you can use the depravity argument for children. Children do have some rights, even though less rights than adults. Its not that once a child becomes adult suddenly he has all the property rights of an adult, surely this has to be a gradual process in which the child acquires more and more rights as he grows up. At first the basic right to own parts of his body, then some basic property rights, and so forth. So if children have rights, surely animals have some minimal rights as well.
What is the substance of these rights that are aquired? Where are the rules governing them written down?
Obviously, my conception of rights is grossly different from yours. No one has any rights, except as may be determined through rational, deliberative discourse. I do not assume that an intelligent, adult human necessarily has rights any more than a child or an animal. They are all in the same position of not having any rights at any time, up until they are able to assert that they do indeed have a right. Determination of rights is a process, not an either/or proposition.
For instance, assume two individual who are both capable of rational, deliberative discourse, named Mary and Steve.
Mary punches Steve in the face, completely unprovoked. She was really mad and just felt like she needed to hit someone.
Let's say Steve and Mary talk things out, and they agree, thorough discourse, upon a solution to the satisfaction of both of them: Mary will cut Steve's lawn for the next 3 months. Mary has recognized Steve's right to his person (including not being punched in the face).
Another possibility is that Mary refuses to talk to Steve. The dispute is not settled. Mary has not recognized Steve's right. No process has occured which we could point to and say that Mary has recognized Steve's right to not be punched in the face. In fact, Mary is refusing to recognize a right that Steve is claiming. It makes no sense, then, to say that Steve has a right or doesn't have a right. All that can be said is that there is a dispute between Steve and Mary which has not been resolved.
So rights are either recognized or not between individuals.
Okay so let's assume Bob killed a child, and a random block Jones sues Bob for that. The arbitrator listens to the dispute between Jones and Bob. Jones claims that Bob killed a child and it was not his right to do so. The arbitrator asks Jones why was Bob wrong in killing the child. Jones answers: "Bob was wrong in killing the child because it caused me an emotional distress." But then the arbitrator asks, "what property was harmed?" What will Jones answer?
Autolykos: First off, I don't know how you can say that "most libertarians" think murder can be punished with capital punishment.
First off, I don't know how you can say that "most libertarians" think murder can be punished with capital punishment.
How should murder be punished, if at all?
Autolykos: Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
I disagree with this. Although morality is a concept humans undoubtedly grasp, I don't believe that it is a concept limited to humans. I would say your average dog understands right from wrong, albeit something his owners taught him. They feel guilt and hide their eyes, mope around when they are sad and they avert their eyes when they feel guilt. Also, there are many accounts of the family dog protecting his family members, even sacrificing his life, and this is a matter of right vs. wrong, what the animal ought to do versus doing nothing or protecting himself versus another person.
I'm assuming by morality you mean the ability to establish values that are right from wrong.....
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
Okay so let's assume Bob killed a child, and a random block Jones sues Bob for that. The arbitrator listens to the dispute between Jones and Bob. Jones claims that Bob killed a child and it was not his right to do so. The arbitrator asks Jones why was Bob wrong in killing the child. Jones answers: Bob was wrong in killing the child because it caused me an emotional distress. But then the arbitrator asks, what property was harmed? What will Jones answer?
The arbitrator would first want to know where the child's guardian is. If the guardian can be found, then the case reverts to a dispute between the guardian and Bob. If Jones wants to pitch in monetary assistance to the guardian, he is free to do so, but he may not pre-empt the guardian's right to speak on behalf of the child. If the guardian can not be found or does not exist, then the child's guardianship rights can be homesteaded and, in the act of attempting to avenge the child's death, Jones is homesteading them. Hence, Jones becomes the child's guardian and may prosecute Bob's alleged violation of his newly acquired guardianship rights in the child.
Regarding a previous post, parents do not own children. It is impossible for a human being to own and thereby exercise unlimited control of another human being. Coerced labor involves an element of consent. Resistance, non-cooperation, or gasp (crying) is always an alternative even if the result is death.
I never claimed that unlimited control of another human was possible. Although, it should be obvious to anyone that a large degree of control is possible. Examples of control of others includes slavery and murder. My claim is that ownership is evident through certain actions, such as freely exchanging or disposing of things.
If I give birth to a child and immediately sell my child to another, have I not demonstrated ownership? If I do not own the child, who does? The child cannot be said to own itself, it has no self-ownership, because it cannot meet any challenge to ownership of itself, just like the animal. Like the animal, the child cannot contest others, it cannot engage in rational, deliberative discourse.
I haven't had time to think it through to a sound concept.
What I do know is that life is more than just a scarce physical entity. Life itself needs to be defined, but I cannot do so yet. I need more empirical evidence and understanding of what it actually is. Until then, using a NAP towards what we believe is life is best.
There are aggression that I cannot avoid currently, such as the accidental killing of life with many things I do. Microscopic life is the greatest victim of this.
But, even if this sounds completely absurd, we give rights to human life, because of some belief that humans have the ability to act. If other life is found to have the same ability to act (due the the ability to understand causality), then logically they have the same rights as humans. Maybe not all life has this ability, and if rights are given to only those who can act, then we still have to acknowledge the rights of other life forms.
I don't think the sale constitutes a sale of the child but, rather, a sale of guardianship rights over the child. The parent who sells a child they have given birth to is essentially discharging any duties to care for the child as well as transferring the right to guardianship (excluding unwanted care of the child from others). There was a big thread on this subject some time back, I'll try to search it up.
Okay, so unlike property rights, guardinship rights include duties. For example if you are a guardian of a baby, you have a duty to feed it, otherwise someone else might claim guardianship over the baby claming that you did not function as guardian.
What about guardianship of animals, is ther such thing? As I previously said, some animals are definitely more emotionally and intellectual complex than infants.
Regarding a previous post, parents do not own children.
If parents do not own children, who does? The answer cannot be that the children have self-ownership, because the child cannot engage in rational, deliberative discourse. The child cannot assert its rights, any more than the animal.
If I have a child and immediately sell it, I am demonstrating my ownership. The child does not have self-ownership, or else it could assert that it had certain rights. As humans grow and change as they develop in the course of a lifetime, many develop into beings capable of asserting their rights. But the rights do not exist apart from the ability of individuals to assert, in specific instances, that a right was violated by another.
The difference between animals and babies is obvious. Babies enjoy allegedly more so called legal rights because it is more likely someone makes a claim on behalf of a baby than a dog. Presently in the United States legal system claimants are typically in the order of parents, immediate family, and the state. Obviously the state has a vested interest in future revenues. The state wants to make sure all of the Citizen Cattle grow up to graze on the United States farm so they can be milked on demand. This concept of claim is not alien to the present system. People make claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog gets shot by a neighbor. People defend claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog bites someone.
This concept of claim is not alien to the present system. People make claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog gets shot by a neighbor. People defend claims on behalf of dogs all the time. For instance if your dog bites someone.
This is why babies and dogs don't have rights. Making a claim "on behalf of" implies that the claimant is acting in the same way that the baby or dog would act. But it is not only impossible to know, it is nonsensical to speak of the rational actions of creatures not capable of acting rationally. If my hammer is misused and I sue the person I lent it to, am I making a claim "on behalf of" the hammer? Surely, the hammer would not have wanted to be abused in such a way. The only difference is that the hammer is a non-thinking lump as compared to the pre-rational baby and non-rational though thinking dog. None of the three have the capacity to make a claim.
No, guardianship rights do not include duties beyond a minimal amount required to ensure that the potential guardianship rights of others is not trampled. To retain guardianship rights, however, you must care for the child. Otherwise, another potential guardian can successfully argue that you have de facto abandoned your guardianship rights. For example, a grandparent might argue that a parent who is neglecting to feed their child has ceded the right to be the guardian of the child. This happens.
What about guardianship of animals, is ther such thing?
Guardianship is a right to exclude unwanted care of a child. If a parent owned its child, the parent could cook it up for dinner if he or she felt like. The parent does not own the child but only owns the guardianship rights over the child. He or she may not eat the child or otherwise dispose of it in a manner that violates the rights of other potential guardians ("right of first refusal"). In doing something that violates the rights of other potential guardians, the parent is essentially ceding his or her ownership in guardianship rights over the child to the next-of-kin if they choose to take on those rights.
I feel like a broken record.
You said that the guardian cannot kill the child because it can violate the rights of other potential guardians. But why should it be so? What if my utility for the child is to eat it, who says the utility for "care" is more important than the utility for "eating"?
It's not a question of utility, it's a question of whether you may deny the right of first refusal in guardianship rights to all other potential guardians of the child. You may not and doing so is a tort against them. If a parent murders his child, he has ceded the right of guardianship by ending care for the child. Legally, the grandparents of the dead child are now its guardian and may bring suit against the parent for murder. This is all just technicalities to resolve the question "who may speak on behalf of who?" and this same problem exists even in the case of murder of an adult (who may now no longer speak for himself or herself).
damn, when I clicked on this link I was hoping for a banned really grotesque youtube video.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I think you are using bad semantics. People don't have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court, they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle.
By court I do not mean U.S. Federal Court or anything like that. Whatever the form of society is, to the extent that there is a free market in police, courts and so on there will be settlement of disputes according to the preferences of the consumers. And when disputes arise, whatever system of justice there is may be resorted to, or individuals may settle their dispute outside of court. The party who is claiming a right has to show that their property was violated.
Even if a person can't explain his position to a lawyer it doesn't invalidate his rights as individual. On what basis does the arbitrator decide who is guilty and who is not if not on the basis of NAP? NAP is a construct which is not related to the capability to present oneself in court. This is a universal construct.
All a person needs to do is participate in the process. Animals and babies can't participate, except as passive observers or evidence.
Okay I think we touched several issues here.
1.Do children have rights? My conclusion for now is that this is not an important issue. Naturally small children are never parts of any dispute, its their guardian and other individuals that have the dispute. But what is the dispute about? It is about whether the interaction with the child was justified or not. A set of valid and invalid interactions have to be written somewhere. Such set of interactions can be called a set of childrens rights, and it can be called by using another definition. So this is all semantics, and it doesn't really matter.
2. Do infants and some animals have equal rights? My current conclusion is that they do. I think it is speciesist to think otherwise since the emotional and intellectual complexity of infants and some animals is quite similar.
3. Can animals have guardians? Currently I believe they cannot since if it is permissible to eat animals or use them for scientific experiments, then how can someone claim to be guardian and eat the animal while beings its guardian? However the exception to this would be a conditional transfer of ownership rights which would include guardianship duties for the animal.
Now one of my conclusion from all of this is that a mother can give birth to a baby and then kill it after a month or two, as long as she does not do it publically in order not to cause excessive emotional distress.
Sounds like Jones doesn't have a case. But most people here are horrified by parents killing their children (not in self-defense), so it would be relatively easy to prevent as well as punish child-killers through market mechanisms, such as ones I suggested above. If creatures unable to engage in rational discourse, to act and plan for themselves are granted rights, we must ask who has granted those rights, and by what process?
But that is precisely my point, that no individual has a duty to another, unless a real (physical, verbal) contract exists. A mother owes her child nothing, at least she cannot be forced to serve it without violation of the NAP.
If creatures unable to engage in rational discourse, to act and plan for themselves are granted rights, we must ask who has granted those rights, and by what process?
The real issue is that granting phantom rights to non-persons is a thinly veiled cover for expanding one's own rights. "Your poor, oppressed car has a right to be liberated by me!" is hardly a persuasive case for granting human rights to cars.
^
Well it doesn't matter how you call it, but obviously no one will find me guilty if I stop a parent from maiming his child, regardless of whether the child has other potential guardians.
Strawberry Cupcakes:Life should have rights.
Then by definition plants should have rights! Like Autolykos, I am an "unabashed speciesist." In fact, I have revealed the logical inconsistency of vegan (and "animal rights") morality on another board with this hypothetical construct, which isn't unrealistic as humans do have natural predators:
I am going to dive straight into a hypothetical scenario, in an endeavour to explain why I do not view Vegetarians as morally superior to Carnivores or Omnivores. The Scenario Two races of intelligent Alien Vampyres emerge upon planet earth. How this occurs is up to your imagination. But these Vampyres have distinctly different attributes: the first race, Vampyre I, is blue skinned; the second race, Vampyre II, has a skin of fluorescent green. Vampyre I is capable of consuming either the humans or animals of earth; by contrast, Vampyre II has historically preyed upon Vampyre I. It is incapable, however, of digesting most animals; yet for some unknown reason, Vampyre II is also capable of preying upon the newly discovered humans. So here, in a simple chart, is how I organize the eating requirements of the rational races of life: Humans~ Can consume plants and animals, and often their byproducts. Vampyre I~ Can consume human and animal blood. Vampyre II~ Can consume the blood of Vampyre I (its historical prey), as well as that of humans. A Few Other Facts/Restrictions Neither Vampyre can communicate with each other, or the animals (including humans) of earth. Each Vampyre, however, is extraordinarily intelligent. In fact, Vampyre II is the most intelligent life yet known, with Vampyre I in second place. Both races are notably more intelligent than humans. Intellectual Hierarchy: ^Vampyre II ^Vampyre I ^Humans ^Animals (arguably) ^Plants (arguably) Both Vampyres also cannot live on cold blood; that is to say, the Vampyres must consume their blood within five minutes of their prey's death. Thus, humans, vampyres, and animals cannot come to a peaceful agreement to simply transfer blood without death. Considering Vampyre Morality Vampyres have been feeding off humanity for several years now; indeed, the human population is gradually declining. I, however, have been lucky, and nothing unfortunate has befallen me. I begin to wonder: are the Vampyres simply pure evil? But I develop several plausible theories before discarding any. The Arguments 1- The Morality of Eating is Based upon Intelligence. Where we can, we should eat the least intelligent form of life possible. Humans should eat plants; Vampyre I should eat animals; and Vampyre II should eat humans! As humans are far from the intelligence of Vampyre I, Vampyre II should indeed solely eat humans. It would be wrong and immoral, based upon the factor of intelligence, to do otherwise. 2- The Morality of Eating is Based Upon Having a Brain It is wrong to eat any creature in possession of a brain. Vampyres I and II have what is known as a "super-brain". The knowledge which they, the deep explorers of time and space, can comprehend is far beyond the understanding of humans. Using this argument, plants and herbivores are the most moral life-forms alive! By contrast, in merely existing, carnivores and omnivores are immoral. Well, we can extend one exception: humans. For humans can choose whether to consume animals with a brain. They can choose to dine on other Life, namely plants, with of course supplementary nutrient to boot. Now, if we accept this theory, that eating animals with a brain is intrinsically immoral, then that means Vampyre I and II are immoral in their very nature! Morally, Vampyres I and II are obliged to starve, just like carnivores and omnivores (that consume brainy animals). 3- The Morality of Eating any Life Must be Based Solely on the NAP (Applicable to All Life-Forms) According to this theory, it is morally wrong to Aggress upon any Form of Life. Plants, detritivores (who consume only dead things), scavengers, and others which eat no Living Organisms, are, of course, the most moral creatures! A human, indeed, can choose only to eat non-living byproducts of his fellow animals/plants (perhaps milk, cheese, etc.), or the dead corpses of his fellow animals (i.e., scavenging). Of course, this diet is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to sustain under these conditions. Vampyres, however, do not even have a chance. Morally, they must consume nothing: for they can eat nothing that is non-Living, since the blood cannot be allowed to cool for any more than five minutes. Practically, they must kill for their meals; waiting for humans to die is essentially impossible. 4- The Morality of Eating is Based Purely upon Necessity This theory posits that, as these creatures, both humans and Vampyres, are essentially required to kill and eat Living Organisms, they must! Humans, under this theory, can eat both animals or plants without any loss of morality. Vampyre I can equally prey upon humans as animals, with no loss of morality. And Vampyre II, of course, can either choose to dine on its historic prey, Vampyre I, or its new prey, the humans. Necessity due to the nature of Vampyres and humans determines that eating life, regardless of form or species, is necessary for the continuation of existence. And of course, in the natural world, the predator/prey relationship consists of animals hunting plants, animals hunting animals. The prey may try to run or fight, defending itself from being devoured, but prey has no right morally against being eaten. This is to say nothing of the inter-race relationships of the Intelligent Races (humans, Vampyre I, and Vampyre II). That is an entirely different matter, as the non-aggression principle must be adhered to with members of the same species, if higher intelligence is truly possessed. If we apply argument 1, that of intellectual hierarchy, then that conflicts with the very nature and interests of man, seeing that he shall be eaten as the sole food source of Vampyre II; moreover, sticking strictly to this argument has the side effect of prejudice against lower intelligence [i.e., It is slightly more morally acceptable for Vampyre II to eat a comatose retard, but not for him to eat the next Einstein; and that humans, being inferior to Vampyre I, are ok for Vampyre II to eat, but not Vampyre I]. If we apply argument 2, Vampyres I and II shall simply starve; both morally and practically, this option does not make any sense, unless Vampyres I and II are a moral evil in themselves, which I cannot accept. Simply, it is not very natural. However, if we apply the NAP to all Life (argument 3), then it conflicts with the very nature of both Man and of Vampyre: neither can feasibly survive. Thus, Argument 4 is the only acceptable, consistent stance, as far as I know.
A Few Other Facts/Restrictions Neither Vampyre can communicate with each other, or the animals (including humans) of earth. Each Vampyre, however, is extraordinarily intelligent. In fact, Vampyre II is the most intelligent life yet known, with Vampyre I in second place. Both races are notably more intelligent than humans.
Both Vampyres also cannot live on cold blood; that is to say, the Vampyres must consume their blood within five minutes of their prey's death. Thus, humans, vampyres, and animals cannot come to a peaceful agreement to simply transfer blood without death. Considering Vampyre Morality Vampyres have been feeding off humanity for several years now; indeed, the human population is gradually declining. I, however, have been lucky, and nothing unfortunate has befallen me. I begin to wonder: are the Vampyres simply pure evil? But I develop several plausible theories before discarding any. The Arguments 1- The Morality of Eating is Based upon Intelligence. Where we can, we should eat the least intelligent form of life possible. Humans should eat plants; Vampyre I should eat animals; and Vampyre II should eat humans! As humans are far from the intelligence of Vampyre I, Vampyre II should indeed solely eat humans. It would be wrong and immoral, based upon the factor of intelligence, to do otherwise. 2- The Morality of Eating is Based Upon Having a Brain It is wrong to eat any creature in possession of a brain. Vampyres I and II have what is known as a "super-brain". The knowledge which they, the deep explorers of time and space, can comprehend is far beyond the understanding of humans. Using this argument, plants and herbivores are the most moral life-forms alive! By contrast, in merely existing, carnivores and omnivores are immoral. Well, we can extend one exception: humans. For humans can choose whether to consume animals with a brain. They can choose to dine on other Life, namely plants, with of course supplementary nutrient to boot. Now, if we accept this theory, that eating animals with a brain is intrinsically immoral, then that means Vampyre I and II are immoral in their very nature! Morally, Vampyres I and II are obliged to starve, just like carnivores and omnivores (that consume brainy animals). 3- The Morality of Eating any Life Must be Based Solely on the NAP (Applicable to All Life-Forms) According to this theory, it is morally wrong to Aggress upon any Form of Life. Plants, detritivores (who consume only dead things), scavengers, and others which eat no Living Organisms, are, of course, the most moral creatures! A human, indeed, can choose only to eat non-living byproducts of his fellow animals/plants (perhaps milk, cheese, etc.), or the dead corpses of his fellow animals (i.e., scavenging). Of course, this diet is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to sustain under these conditions. Vampyres, however, do not even have a chance. Morally, they must consume nothing: for they can eat nothing that is non-Living, since the blood cannot be allowed to cool for any more than five minutes. Practically, they must kill for their meals; waiting for humans to die is essentially impossible. 4- The Morality of Eating is Based Purely upon Necessity This theory posits that, as these creatures, both humans and Vampyres, are essentially required to kill and eat Living Organisms, they must! Humans, under this theory, can eat both animals or plants without any loss of morality. Vampyre I can equally prey upon humans as animals, with no loss of morality. And Vampyre II, of course, can either choose to dine on its historic prey, Vampyre I, or its new prey, the humans. Necessity due to the nature of Vampyres and humans determines that eating life, regardless of form or species, is necessary for the continuation of existence. And of course, in the natural world, the predator/prey relationship consists of animals hunting plants, animals hunting animals. The prey may try to run or fight, defending itself from being devoured, but prey has no right morally against being eaten. This is to say nothing of the inter-race relationships of the Intelligent Races (humans, Vampyre I, and Vampyre II). That is an entirely different matter, as the non-aggression principle must be adhered to with members of the same species, if higher intelligence is truly possessed. If we apply argument 1, that of intellectual hierarchy, then that conflicts with the very nature and interests of man, seeing that he shall be eaten as the sole food source of Vampyre II; moreover, sticking strictly to this argument has the side effect of prejudice against lower intelligence [i.e., It is slightly more morally acceptable for Vampyre II to eat a comatose retard, but not for him to eat the next Einstein; and that humans, being inferior to Vampyre I, are ok for Vampyre II to eat, but not Vampyre I]. If we apply argument 2, Vampyres I and II shall simply starve; both morally and practically, this option does not make any sense, unless Vampyres I and II are a moral evil in themselves, which I cannot accept. Simply, it is not very natural. However, if we apply the NAP to all Life (argument 3), then it conflicts with the very nature of both Man and of Vampyre: neither can feasibly survive. Thus, Argument 4 is the only acceptable, consistent stance, as far as I know.
Eugene: ^ Well it doesn't matter how you call it, but obviously no one will find me guilty if I stop a parent from maiming his child, regardless of whether the child has other potential guardians.
wouldn't be so certain. If you stop him with disproportional violence (force) then you are commiting a crime.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
So in your view child abuse is legal and doesn't warrant punishment?
no need to strawman my post and appeal to emotion (oh child abuse, how bad, as if we all weren't abused in the slightest in our childhood, right?).
If the means of survival for any species came at the eating and death of another species, it is sad, but not immoral. In this case, it is up to the individual species that must consume another individual of a
different species to survive. If they chose to act in an aggressive and violent self-defense of their own existence by eating another species, I do not believe they are going against the NAP. They have no choice given the circumstance, and are allowed to fight for their own existence. Hopefully, one day the
situation could change, but until then, they have every right to do what it take to survive.
Also, sorry for the way the text is coming out. I am still having trouble figuring out how to use this reply program. It is also hard for me to edit or catch errors with this system.
I recoginzie rights as things that are unalienable not asserted. Self ownership is unalienable. Claims are asserted.
A child owns itself. A dog owns itself. Any living thing that can think owns itself. If it can think at any capacity you can't take that away only impair the ability. So far humans can successfully train babies, dogs, dolphins, and apes to do tricks. Is it ability to learn, ability to teach, or a combination of both?
Again since the unalienable right of self ownership can never be taken away, only impaired, the answer can only be children have self ownership.
Babies and dogs do have the unalienable right of self ownership. Perhaps you could cite an example of taking self ownership away from a baby or dog. You can cage the body, kill the body, perform surgery to impair the brain, but you can not take self ownership away. It is unalienable. Because self ownership is unalienable it is a right.
You are conflating the concepts of rights, self defense, claims, and actions. The right of self ownership is different than the right of self defense. Unalienable rights such as self ownership or self defense are different than claims which are asserted via action. While all of this talk about rights is semantics based on people defining rights as things which are unalienable versus asserted it doesn't matter. The concepts I am conveying are intellectually consistent and absolute.
However, before any dispute can be resolved there must be an agreement of terms or concepts. Presently in order for a claim to have standing and be valid the claimant must be claiming on behalf of themself, something that has been entrusted to them, or something they own. If claiming on behalf of something entrusted or owned the thing entrusted or owned must be incompetent or unable to make claims on its own behalf.
instead of unalienable, I could also consistently define a right as something that can never be in dispute. Self ownership can never be in dispute. Actions are what cause disputes.
As I reflect on this post I think defining a right as something that can never be in dispute is probably a better definition than unalienable. Unalienable is not an everyday word and the right to own oneself which can "never be in dispute" is something that is easily understood by many people.
Regarding animal rights:
We assign rights to animals in order to avoid conflicts with other people, and conflict avoidance is what property rights are all about. So if for example 10 people and 1 dog are stuck on an island, these 10 people will assign the dog with the right not to be killed or tortured by the people on the island. So in this sense the dog has rights even though it is unaware of them. The rights are not for the dog, they are for the people who might have conflict over the dog.
A child owns itself. A dog owns itself.
It does not make sense to speak of either babies or dogs owning anything because ownership pertains to correct assignment of property rights, a point which neither a baby nor a dog can argue. Babies and dogs have self-possession by virtue of the fact that their central nervous system is naturally controlled only by their own will. However, this should not be confused with ownership. I think this is where both Rothbard's and Hoppe's derivation of natural rights goes awry. Self-possession is a brute fact of nature. Self-ownership is derived from verbal argument regarding the correct assignment of property rights.
I recoginzie rights as things that are unalienable not asserted. ... Again since the unalienable right of self ownership can never be taken away, only impaired, the answer can only be children have self ownership.
...
These are bald assertions or opinions.
It can't be taken away because it doesn't exist to be taken away. You can't take away that which does not exist in physical reality, you cannot create a condition where the self-ownership no longer is a condition of the living being because it never existed to begin with (for animals and some humans).
No, I am saying that rights without claims (real human action) is senseless. You are implying that rights are handed down by some divine authority or exist in the ether.
This is better, I agree. I cannot dispute that I own myself, because to deny that I own myself would be contradictory. I would be arguing that I am not the owner or bearer of the argument I am making.
The rebutal or reubutting evidence is lacking boldness.
It can't be taken away because it can't be measured (yet, which may or may not ever happen). It is obviously something in physical reality, unless of course human beings aren't real or all aspects of humanity are not real, or the universe is not exclusively comprised of the things physics asserts such as time, distance, mass, light, etc...
I don't think it matters whether the right of self ownership comes from divine authority, mere existence, or aliens. I am not comprehending what you are conveying in the first sentance, perhaps you could rephrase or elaborate to help offset my lack of comprehension.
It does not make sense to speak of either babies or dogs owning anything because ownership pertains to correct assignment of property rights, a point which neither a baby nor a dog can argue
If babies do not own themselves, and as I agreed with you earlier, parents do not own babies... who owns babies?
I don't subscribe to property rights. I previously stated I only subscribe to rights that are unalienable or unable to be disputed. What are property rights? Property rights correctly labeled are property privileges...
And not only is property privileges a correct intellectual label, it is a correct free market label because the privilege of enjoying property absent threat is dependent upon non aggressive interaction with society.
Strawberry Cupcakes:If the means of survival for any species came at the eating and death of another species, it is sad, but not immoral.
Yes, but as I pointed out in argument #3 of my hypothetical construct, humans indeed have to eat other species, whether plants or animals. That is, unless you claim to live solely on byproducts and dead carcuses. Our situation, without doubt, is essentially the same as the two races of Vampyres.
So my argument is not misinterpreted as heartless: I am personally opposed to excessive, unnecessary violence against both animals and plants. (For instance, a man killing a kitten for no reason whatever, or a Vampyre killing a human without putting him to use). But, of course, I am not opposed to good uses for which mankind can put plants and animals.
To summarize my argument: