-
[quote user="QuisCustodiet"] @ToxicAssets The issue is whether or not the implicit contract between two consenting biological parents (or only one in the case of rape [Edit: see A at bottom]) is a valid contract. A lot of libertarians (Rothbard, Block, etc.) argue that no implicit contract is valid. [/quote] Valid to whom? The judeo-cristian
-
[quote user="Wheylous"] If we are to assume that all children have the same rights, then it is the same conclusion. [/quote] All children have the equal right to be taken care by their legal guardian. However some children don't have legal guardian to whom this right would apply. It's exactly the same thing as saying all men have the
-
Holy crap... This is almost beyond non-sense. Parents who have engaged in voluntary or accidental conception resulting from voluntary actions are considered thus responsible for the well being of their offspring at least until they reach a certain maturity level. And parents (that is, mothers) who were raped cannot be held morally responsible. What's
-
Well, it is a violation if this specific sort of breach of contract is considered unlawful aggression. Otherwise it's not. Consider by whom? By any justice mechanism of decision being applyied to sort out the specific situation, given specific circumstances. Is it possible to know a priori what things are and what aren't instances of unlawful
-
[quote user="z1235"] Of course. I submit that the risk/reward ratio for the IA (initiation of aggression) option for any human is (slowly but surely) becoming prohibitively unattractive, as the superiority of VA propagates through the social norms and gets discerned by human minds. Only humans who deem IA inevitable are the ones who find its
-
[quote user="z1235"] Except hostility is not the common practice at all. If it was, there'd be no society and humans to debate about this stuff today. [/quote] For several things people do, many forms of hostile dispositions are useful and also the common practice, either to be used as negative leverage in negotiations, or as a crime-and
-
While I won't necessarily disregard the factors you suggested, I think one of the main factors that drive unemployment figures up is the general means and disposition of people not to work for a living. In the past, people needed to work more than they need today. When being out of a job in practice meant having to eat leftover soup and stale bread
-
[quote user="z1235"] Of course you are free to do whatever you want whenever you want it. [/quote] I haven't said that. You are not free to do whatever you want. Your range of possibilities is restricted by the means you are able to put to use and the real or perceived costs of your decisions. To claim something requires little costs.
-
[quote user="Wheylous"] ^ Ladida, no property rights, something, something else. [/quote] Oh, no… Of course, you do have property rights in the real world. Sure thing. They are just not "natural". In a state of nature scenario you have no rights of any kind. No right to property, no human rights, not even the right to live
-
The standard answer is something confuse on the grounds of who claimed the land first by homesteading it. Or something like that. My answer is: there are no natural rights. To back up any claim or position what you need is to be able to generate and leverage the necessary and sufficient defenses against any real or plausible threat to it. That holds