Children's rights

Maxliberty:

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.  

I have never made that argument.  For one to have rights, one must be able to both communicate and to have rational thought.  A dog and baby can both communicate, but neither of them has rational thought.

Spideynw:

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.

Why is it that you are dependent on a court to decide what rights you have? By definition it cannot be a right if it requires permission of somebody else. Is your right to live a function of whether a court approves or not?

If you do not know what your rights are, why would another human being know what they are? Your position is completely illogical. If rights are not universal then all the philosophical discussion on this forum can come to an end because everything becomes completely arbitrary and subjective.

Spideynw:

If not, then stop with this nonsense that it is not the courts that decide this stuff.

  Maybe a court decides for you, which is fine if you want to enslave yourself to the courts, but not me brother, I am free and I understand what rights I have that are inherent to me.

Spideynw:

For one to have rights, one must be able to both communicate and to have rational thought.

Only in the wacko pro-child molestation/murder world you are trying to create. You are just making assertions, you have not demonstrated logically your arguement that rights only originate from communication (however that is defined) and rational thought (however that is measured). You have only demonstrated that you are an advocate of child molestation and murder.

The good news is your in good company on this forum, Jon, LS, Baawa.....

Maxliberty:

Why is it that you are dependent on a court to decide what rights you have?

At what point does someone have a right to have sex, kill his or her self, or have pain inflicted on his or her self, in your world?

.

I have been reading Rothbard's take on adoption and a market for custody rights. What if I were to assert that a practice, even if voluntary between two consenting adults and a consenting child, lowers the status of people into variables and makes them into commodities determined by market equations? (/Devil's Advocate; I'm paraphrasing here).

Ok, I'll bite.

What if you did assert that?  So what?

Children do have all the same rights as anyone else, but they are held under guardianship, and thus things like consent are subject to approval of their guardian. The guardian is something like an ethical fiduciary, bound to making decisions they rationally believe are in the child's best interest.

Whenever there's a gray line of whether the guardians are doing what's in the child's best interest, a judicial hearing should decide the matter as best possible.

@ gotlucky: I am paraphrasing another's words here.

 

My response to the above assertion is this.

The very institution of adoption itself is considered a commodity, regardless of whether it is traded with money. Under this government we negotiate taxes when we marry and must obtain a marriage license, which implies cost. We have to 'buy' permission to be married, to own a car, countless other things.  This is not even an economic decision voluntarily decided upon either; it is forced by the government and thus is a monopoly on marriage as a commodity. If not a market equation, why is a monopoly equation preferable?

There is also the virtual inevitability that the majority of adoption agencies would operate on a non-profit basis. 

 

 

What do you think? Is my logic sound here?