Maxliberty: Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable. They have the same brain functions they are just not as developed. So if someone has more developed brain function than you does that mean you no longer possess rights? Is there a heirarchy of rights based on brain development? Please explain what the heirarchy is and how you know when you have crossed over each stage or when someone else has.
Spideynw: Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable. Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
Maxliberty:Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
They have the same brain functions they are just not as developed. So if someone has more developed brain function than you does that mean you no longer possess rights? Is there a heirarchy of rights based on brain development? Please explain what the heirarchy is and how you know when you have crossed over each stage or when someone else has.
It is not about being more advanced. It is about being advanced enough.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: A right is a "legal claim". So, as soon as one can make a legal claim. It could be 5 years old, or it could be 14. We probably need courts and child psychologists to help us out here. Even U.S. courts do not treat minors the same as adults. However, I do not agree with how the state thinks 18 or 21 is somehow magical. The question is, at what age, in a free society, would children choose to leave their home? This would probably be a pretty good bench-mark...
A right is a "legal claim". So, as soon as one can make a legal claim. It could be 5 years old, or it could be 14. We probably need courts and child psychologists to help us out here. Even U.S. courts do not treat minors the same as adults. However, I do not agree with how the state thinks 18 or 21 is somehow magical. The question is, at what age, in a free society, would children choose to leave their home? This would probably be a pretty good bench-mark...
Don't you think we need a bit more than a "pretty good benchmark" since the alternative if you haven't reached the benchmark is that you can be killed/destroyed by anyone else without any reason or justified reprisal. So at 5 years your ok but at 4 years 364 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds we can kill you. That makes perfect sense.
Spideynw:It is not about being more advanced. It is about being advanced enough.
Advanced enough for what and how is that going to be determined and by whom? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of rights if they are by definition determined by somebody else?
Maxliberty: Spideynw:It is not about being more advanced. It is about being advanced enough. Advanced enough for what and how is that going to be determined and by whom? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of rights if they are by definition determined by somebody else?
Again, a "right" is a "legal claim", meaning, one has to be advanced enough to bring a case to court to be able to make a legal claim. It would be determined by the courts.
Do you think the law can stop people from "abusing" or killing their children? Who should determine what "abuse" is in your world? In your world, at what point can someone consent to being killed? Do you not recognize that very, very few people kill their children? Do you not recognize that the other parent can bring a case to court? Do you not recognize that "child abuse" laws are not magical, and that child abuse is still rampant?
I do not dispute that this is a difficult issue to address. However, parents killing their own children is extremely rare, and I see no reason why it would be anymore common if it were legal. In fact in a free society, people would be so wealthy, that it would probably go down even more.
Babies have rights, even unborn ones.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: Babies have rights, even unborn ones.
OK, let's play. How do we know if a baby wants to die?
Spideynw: Maxliberty: Spideynw:It is not about being more advanced. It is about being advanced enough. Advanced enough for what and how is that going to be determined and by whom? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of rights if they are by definition determined by somebody else? Again, a "right" is a "legal claim", meaning, one has to be advanced enough to bring a case to court to be able to make a legal claim. It would be determined by the courts. Do you think the law can stop people from "abusing" or killing their children? Who should determine what "abuse" is in your world? In your world, at what point can someone consent to being killed? Do you not recognize that very, very few people kill their children? Do you not recognize that the other parent can bring a case to court? Do you not recognize that "child abuse" laws are not magical, and that child abuse is still rampant? I do not dispute that this is a difficult issue to address. However, parents killing their own children is extremely rare, and I see no reason why it would be anymore common if it were legal. In fact in a free society, people would be so wealthy, that it would probably go down even more.
The point is, in your world, the individuals rights are determined by someone else. You don't really have rights if they are not intrinsic to you. We are not discussing the law we are discussing when someone has these rights and when they begin. What you have stated is that you are not sure who has rights and when exactly they begin. You can only reference that people have to go to court for their rights to be determined. What if there are no courts?
Your entire construct rests on some third party determining what your rights are.
Maxliberty: The point is, in your world, the individuals rights are determined by someone else. You don't really have rights if they are not intrinsic to you. We are not discussing the law we are discussing when someone has these rights and when they begin. What you have stated is that you are not sure who has rights and when exactly they begin. You can only reference that people have to go to court for their rights to be determined. What if there are no courts? Your entire construct rests on some third party determining what your rights are.
First of all, way to ignore my questions.
Second of all, A RIGHT IS A LEGAL CLAIM. Rights only exist in courts.
Third of all, courts would only not exist if there were only two adults left on earth.
And yes, a neutral third party is the best one to make the decision.
I know you are alive because you are typing. So you have life. I know you have liberty, because you are typing. I would guess you have property, because I would guess you are typing on your computer. So you have life, liberty, and property. A right to life, liberty, and property is a legal claim to those.
Spideynw: Esuric: Babies have rights, even unborn ones. OK, let's play. How do we know if a baby wants to die?
How do we know if anybody that is unable to directly communicate even if the communication is just temporarily interrupted like sleeping wants to die? What does wanting to die have to do with anything? You act as if this irrational idea of giving consent as the determining factor in life is some universal given. You can't even establish when this event occurs or how we are going to recognize it in every case.
People that believe life begins at conception have none of these inconsistent issues to deal with.
Spideynw:OK, let's play. How do we know if a baby wants to die?
Stupid question; babies are too young to grasp concepts such as suicide or even death for that matter.
Spideynw: A RIGHT IS A LEGAL CLAIM. Rights only exist in courts.
A RIGHT IS A LEGAL CLAIM. Rights only exist in courts.
By using the definition of rights as short-hand for the logical extension of property, are you suggesting that rights only arise at the behest of some self-proclaimed 'court'? So then there is no natural law, only court ordered decisions?
Spideynw: First of all, way to ignore my questions. Second of all, A RIGHT IS A LEGAL CLAIM. Rights only exist in courts. Spideynw:Third of all, courts would only not exist if there were only two adults left on earth. And yes, a neutral third party is the best one to make the decision. I know you are alive because you are typing. So you have life. I know you have liberty, because you are typing. I would guess you have property, because I would guess you are typing on your computer. So you have life, liberty, and property. A right to life, liberty, and property is a legal claim to those.
Spideynw:Third of all, courts would only not exist if there were only two adults left on earth.
So the critical factor in determining if rights exist for you is actually courts. So if there are no courts then no one has any rights. For example right now there are places that have no courts and in those places if one person kills another person then there is no violation of rights. Have i got that right?
Do corrupt courts count?
Are rights subjective based on the court determination? So a court could rule that all Jews have no rights and that would be acceptable?
Spidey, sure I can communicate with Chinese people without speaking. But by the same token, if I hit a child and he then moves away, he's communicating with me. Taking this line of thought further, if I hit a child who then starts crying I think I can safely say that he doesn't approve of my behaviour (hitting him). So where is this arbitrary cut off line between where killing babies is acceptable and it isn't?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Spideynw: Again, a "right" is a "legal claim", meaning, one has to be advanced enough to bring a case to court to be able to make a legal claim.
Again, a "right" is a "legal claim", meaning, one has to be advanced enough to bring a case to court to be able to make a legal claim.
Whose court? What if the concept of third-party arbitration is foreign to the individual in question? Have my rights been assaulted if I do not take you to court? Or, are rights bound up in the individual?
Excellent post, Giles.
Spideynw:I know you are alive because you are typing. So you have life. I know you have liberty, because you are typing. I would guess you have property, because I would guess you are typing on your computer.
And if I were sleeping how would you distinguish me from a baby?
GilesStratton: Spidey, sure I can communicate with Chinese people without speaking. But by the same token, if I hit a child and he then moves away, he's communicating with me. Taking this line of thought further, if I hit a child who then starts crying I think I can safely say that he doesn't approve of my behaviour (hitting him). So where is this arbitrary cut off line between where killing babies is acceptable and it isn't?
And I have ever said it is just about communication. It is also about intelligence, or more specifically, having the mental capacity to grant consent to something against our instincts.
What is the arbitrary line, in your world Giles, when people can consent to having sex, being killed, being tortured, or selling their productivity? We all have some arbitrary line when this occurs, and why you all cannot figure that out is beyond me.
Maxliberty: Spideynw:I know you are alive because you are typing. So you have life. I know you have liberty, because you are typing. I would guess you have property, because I would guess you are typing on your computer. And if I were sleeping how would you distinguish me from a baby?
I could wake you up and talk to you and reason with you. Is this really a serious question?
Maxliberty:So the critical factor in determining if rights exist for you is actually courts. So if there are no courts then no one has any rights. For example right now there are places that have no courts and in those places if one person kills another person then there is no violation of rights. Have i got that right?
A court is just a third party that judges a dispute between two or more parties appointed by both parties to rule on the dispute.. So every place in the world has "courts". So no, you did not have it right.
Maxliberty:Do corrupt courts count?
What is "corrupt"?
Maxliberty:Are rights subjective based on the court determination?
Who else would you put forward to rule on rights violations? Do you have some magical fairy that you have been hiding from the world?
Maxliberty:So a court could rule that all Jews have no rights and that would be acceptable?
Sure, and then no one would ever use it again. I guess a grocery store could sell rotting tomatoes and call them fresh too.
JackSkylark: Spideynw: Again, a "right" is a "legal claim", meaning, one has to be advanced enough to bring a case to court to be able to make a legal claim. Whose court?
Whose court?
A court decided upon by the two parties having a dispute.
JackSkylark:What if the concept of third-party arbitration is foreign to the individual in question?
Teach them. I don't know. Is this a serious question?
JackSkylark:ave my rights been assaulted if I do not take you to court?
No, again, rights are a legal claim. And yes, you have still been assaulted, but your rights have not.
JackSkylark:Or, are rights bound up in the individual?
I am not really sure what you are asking.
It seems to me you just have not studied how private law/courts would work. Here is a good article.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf
Spideynw:And I have never said it is just about communication. It is also about intelligence, or more specifically, having the mental capacity to grant consent to something against our instincts.
No, your initial point was nothing more than that baby's cannot inform their potential aggressor that they would prefer not to be killed. In any case, I would argue that when a child flinches after being struck or more importantly actively (as opposed to reactively in the previous example) backs away or begins to cry after being abused they are communicating that they wish you to stop such actions. All they lack is the ability to communicate their preference to you on such actions.
The same goes for a Chinese person. They can't literally tell you that they wish you to stop hitting them or to put the gun down. What they can do is make various gestures that imply they wish you to stop these actions. Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms in that depending on your culture various signals may mean different things. The fact of the matter is that there is no way for you to know their preferences.
GilesStratton: Spideynw:And I have never said it is just about communication. It is also about intelligence, or more specifically, having the mental capacity to grant consent to something against our instincts. No, your initial point was nothing more than that baby's cannot inform their potential aggressor that they would prefer not to be killed. In any case, I would argue that when a child flinches after being struck or more importantly actively (as opposed to reactively in the previous example) backs away or begins to cry after being abused they are communicating that they wish you to stop such actions. All they lack is the ability to communicate their preference to you on such actions.
Same thing with animals. So is it wrong to kill an animal or take its property? I know when an animal does not like what I am doing to it by how it responds.
And again, at what point is it OK to have sex with someone, kill someone, or hurt someone?
But we're not talking about animals because you don't believe any animals have rights. On the other hand, you believe some humans have rights but others, children and the mentally retarded, don't. So my point is not about what conditions are necessary for one to have rights, but given your criteria why are the groups you believe to be excluded, indeed excluded. IOW, I'm talking to you entirely on your own grounds here because I believe your position to be fundamentally contradictory.
As for your last question, that depends on a number of issues that can't really be determined a priori but must be judged by experience. And even then, it can never be known for certain. For example, for it to be OK to hurt somebody they must have some conception of what it means to hurt and consent to it, with the burden of proof being on the potential "aggressor" to prove that they do consent.
I Think the part that is missing from this discussion and may be confusing many people is that this is in relation to what the government can or should do in regards to law. As I strongly support liberty and find most of the people here to be refreshingly intelligent I really really really hope that the people here speaking about molesting and killing children or otherwise do not find this to be morally acceptable. I believe the point is that the government is not the authority on values or morals therefore should have a limited ability to make laws regarding such. So for all those confused and quite frankly disturbed, while it may not be illegal to do such things society should step in and oppose such ills. The problem is that being a member of society if i were faced with a parent molesting a child there is likely to be a death or at least some violent intervention. However with liberty logic I would also be guilty of murder and my defense of it being morally wrong would be shut down in a court of law(unless the Court uses judgment and is regulated by the community not government standards) However I am fairly new in this line of thought so do not have all the answers on how to end my little conundrum. In the end molesting children is wrong no matter how you want to put intelligent arguments on the orgins of morality
GilesStratton:But we're not talking about animals because you don't believe any animals have rights.
But, using your logic, they would have rights. So now, we are talking about animals.
GilesStratton:On the other hand, you believe some humans have rights but others, children and the mentally retarded, don't.
And you believe they do but for some reason that animals do not...
GilesStratton:So my point is not about what conditions are necessary for one to have rights,
Well that is the only way this discussion will be resolved, because it is about rights.
GilesStratton:but given your criteria why are the groups you believe to be excluded, indeed excluded.
Because they either do not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions or they cannot communicate, at all.
GilesStratton:IOW, I'm talking to you entirely on your own grounds here because I believe your position to be fundamentally contradictory.
Great. I am waiting for you to show it.
GilesStratton:As for your last question, that depends on a number of issues that can't really be determined a priori but must be judged by experience.
And I believe the exact same thing. So I don't know why you even asked the question as to when the arbitrary line is that someone can make a legal claim.
GilesStratton:For example, for it to be OK to hurt somebody they must have some conception of what it means to hurt and consent to it,
Well, animals cannot ever know this. So is it ever OK to kill animals? Of course, you will not answer this.
Joshdennis:So for all those confused and quite frankly disturbed, while it may not be illegal to do such things society should step in and oppose such ills.
Why are such things "ills"? Is killing an animal an "ill"?
Joshdennis:The problem is that being a member of society if i were faced with a parent molesting a child there is likely to be a death or at least some violent intervention.
You think laws stop people from molesting their children? You think children know what "molesting" is so they can report it to the authorities?
Joshdennis:In the end molesting children is wrong
No it is not.
Joshdennis:I really really really hope that the people here speaking about molesting and killing children or otherwise do not find this to be morally acceptable.
I am not an advocate of child molestation or murder. I find it quite abhorrent and would definitely kill anyone that did it to my child.
God, I hate quote bombs.
Spideynw: GilesStratton:but given your criteria why are the groups you believe to be excluded, indeed excluded. Because they either do not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions or they cannot communicate, at all.
Well, which is it, is it the mental capacity to make decisions or the inability to communicate? Presumably it has to be one or the other.
In any case, your discussion of animals is entirely irrelevant, we're not talking about my views here, but yours. You don't believe that animals have possess rights presumably because they lack some characteristics that humans possess. Now, given what you've already said (that you're not talking about the ability to communicate, which only leaves your criteria of rational capacity left) it's coherent for you to exclude animals from possessing rights.
Children, on the other hand, can demonstrate that they don't wish to be hurt. Actions taken by small children (once again, as opposed to reactions) such as backing away, crying or whatever else are a clear sign that a given child simply does not wish to be hurt.
Spideynw:Well, animals cannot ever know this. So is it ever OK to kill animals? Of course, you will not answer this.
It's OK to kill animals in the sense that you're not violating any rights. Morally, however, it's disgusting.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: Hey, are you a vegetarian ?
No, there's nothing better than a good steak. I think it's quite clear what I meant though.
It's really not.
OK, I think burning your dog alive for the fun of it is morally wrong. Better?
Spideynw: Maxliberty: Spideynw:I know you are alive because you are typing. So you have life. I know you have liberty, because you are typing. I would guess you have property, because I would guess you are typing on your computer. And if I were sleeping how would you distinguish me from a baby? I could wake you up and talk to you and reason with you. Is this really a serious question?
If you woke me up, then I wouldn't be sleeping. Let me help you. Two people are sleeping A and B, one is a child and one is an adult. Without waking them how can you tell they have rational capacity you require for rights?
Spideynw:A court is just a third party that judges a dispute between two or more parties appointed by both parties to rule on the dispute.. So every place in the world has "courts". So no, you did not have it right.
Every place does not have courts. By your own defintion, only every place with 3 people or more has teh ability to have courts. If people can not agree on a third party to arbitrate then there are no courts and therefore no rights, by your logic. I don't think you even uncerstand what you are saying.
Spideynw: Maxliberty:Do corrupt courts count? What is "corrupt"?
For general purposes one might define corrupt as not being impartial. I can certainly imagine one might agree to a court and then later discover the court was corrupted by a bribe or something. Are you rights still to be determined by a corrupt judge?
Spideynw: Maxliberty:Are rights subjective based on the court determination? Who else would you put forward to rule on rights violations? Do you have some magical fairy that you have been hiding from the world?
I don't need anyone to put forward to determine what rights are and when they have been violated. Rights are intrinsic to the person and universal. Courts and legal processes are for determining facts and dealing with restitution not for determining what rights exist.
Spideynw: Maxliberty:So a court could rule that all Jews have no rights and that would be acceptable? Sure, and then no one would ever use it again. I guess a grocery store could sell rotting tomatoes and call them fresh too.
But with your logic, then the holocaust was not a violation of anybody's rights because the courts having given all power over to Hitler, his determination that they had no rights was legitimate.
Spideynw: Same thing with animals. So is it wrong to kill an animal or take its property? I know when an animal does not like what I am doing to it by how it responds. And again, at what point is it OK to have sex with someone, kill someone, or hurt someone?
This is your arguement Spidey because you do not base rights on anything to do with being human. Your basis of rights is on going to court based on some rational ability test that you have not defined. If a dog communicates that it does not like your attempt to kill it then by your logic the dog is equal to an adult human and superior to a human child.
GilesStratton:LibertyStudent, I think this largely misses the point. My point wasn't that primitives are incapable of logic but that they've not cultivated this capability.
That's a broad sweeping generalization. You're assuming a low level of technology equals low developed cognitive capacity. It's simply not true.
GilesStratton:I can't communicate with Chinese people and vice versa I don't think for a second this makes it fair game for us to kill one another wantonly.
That is why nearly every culture develops non-verbal ways of communicating non-aggression, whether a handshake or an open palm, arms outstretched sideways, bowing or an invitation to sit together.
Anyway, we're off topic. I simply don't lke the western trend to front running and confirmation bias based on a perceived cultural and technological superiority.
LibertyStudent, whether and the the extent to which "primitives" are capable of reasoning is largely beyond the point. Although, I'd agree with you that they are, for the sake of the argument there's not much of a difference between them and small children over in the Western world when it comes to the point Spidey is attemtping to make.
Maxliberty:If you woke me up, then I wouldn't be sleeping. Let me help you. Two people are sleeping A and B, one is a child and one is an adult. Without waking them how can you tell they have rational capacity you require for rights?
Why would I not wake them up? Is this a serious question?
Maxliberty: Spideynw: Maxliberty:Are rights subjective based on the court determination? Who else would you put forward to rule on rights violations? Do you have some magical fairy that you have been hiding from the world? I don't need anyone to put forward to determine what rights are and when they have been violated. Rights are intrinsic to the person and universal. Courts and legal processes are for determining facts and dealing with restitution not for determining what rights exist.
I think this is the crux of the problem, is that you do not understand that you are arguing against yourself. See, I am arguing for parent's rights. You are arguing for children's and animal's rights. For example, at what point can someone consent to having sex in your world? Or when can an animal consent to being "tortured"? Again, do you know of some magical being that has this information and you are hiding it from us? If not, then stop with this nonsense that it is not the courts that decide this stuff.
Maxliberty: Spideynw: Maxliberty:So a court could rule that all Jews have no rights and that would be acceptable? Sure, and then no one would ever use it again. I guess a grocery store could sell rotting tomatoes and call them fresh too. But with your logic, then the holocaust was not a violation of anybody's rights because the courts having given all power over to Hitler, his determination that they had no rights was legitimate.
Really? At what point did I argue that Hitler's or the court's authority was legitimate?
Spideynw: Maxliberty:If you woke me up, then I wouldn't be sleeping. Let me help you. Two people are sleeping A and B, one is a child and one is an adult. Without waking them how can you tell they have rational capacity you require for rights? Why would I not wake them up? Is this a serious question?
The question as demonstrated by this example is how can you know whether a sleeping person meets your test for having rights? If someone is murdered in their sleep how can you be sure they met your rational test when they were sleeping. Your philosophy requires some sort of demonstration or action in order for the person to have rights followed by some court being required to be in agreement.