Conza88: Libertarian_for_Life:What I'm just trying to understand, is what "trustee-ownership" means if nothing can be done to a child against his will? Ok. Essentially it is easier to understand as "guardianship rights". The parents own the right to guard the child.
Libertarian_for_Life:What I'm just trying to understand, is what "trustee-ownership" means if nothing can be done to a child against his will?
Ok. Essentially it is easier to understand as "guardianship rights". The parents own the right to guard the child.
Oh ok, that makes a lot more sense, I was looking at it in a different way.
Thanks for clearing that up, I think I'm with Rothbard on this one.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Conza88: tacoface:The context of your sentence implies that you believe there should be a uniform legal system under which property violations are to be considered. This is is inherently authoritarian as there will be people unwilling to live by your laws. Except it doesn't imply that. You are confused.
tacoface:The context of your sentence implies that you believe there should be a uniform legal system under which property violations are to be considered. This is is inherently authoritarian as there will be people unwilling to live by your laws.
Except it doesn't imply that. You are confused.
If you do not believe there should be a uniform legal code, why then did you bring up the concept of legality in your example? How are you judging its legality if you don't think there should be a uniform legal code?
Add to this the fact you believe in an objective morality points to the conclusion you must think there should be a uniform legal system.
Conza88: tacoface:Your judgement that retaliation against a violation of property rights must be proportional is authoritarian. You wish to assert your subjective opinion on others as to how they can defend their property. Murray Rothbard is authoritarian?
tacoface:Your judgement that retaliation against a violation of property rights must be proportional is authoritarian. You wish to assert your subjective opinion on others as to how they can defend their property.
Murray Rothbard is authoritarian?
Yes.
Conza88:So is Stephan, Kinsella?
Conza88:It's not a subjective opinion of mine.
It is entirely subjective.
Conza88: tacoface:Is not fully owned? Are they partly owned? Are you making a concession here? Not at all. What gave you that impression? I was providing the wrong position and disagreeing with it.
tacoface:Is not fully owned? Are they partly owned? Are you making a concession here?
Not at all. What gave you that impression? I was providing the wrong position and disagreeing with it.
Conza88:A child is not fully owned by it's parents (their property)
It seemed odd that you felt the need to put fully before owned.
Conza88: The parents don't have any property rights over their child, so how could they be violated? lol
The parents don't have any property rights over their child, so how could they be violated? lol
What an absurd idea.
tacoface:why then did you bring up the concept of legality in your example?
It was an example of what would be justifiable / allowed / permissible if you believe children are property and can be owned by their parents.
tacoface:Add to this the fact you believe in an objective morality
Personal morality is subjective. Political ethics is not, it is objective.
tacoface:It is entirely subjective.
The arguments are not.
tacoface:Judging from your statement that Kinsella concluded punishment must be proportional, yes.
Ah, the victim decides to what extent if at all, but it cannot exceed that which is justified. Then it goes from justice, to the initiation of violence.
tacoface:It seemed odd that you felt the need to put fully before owned.
Just trying to make the absurd more clear and explicit.
tacoface: Conza88: The parents don't have any property rights over their child, so how could they be violated? lol What an absurd idea.
Except its not, nor have you even attempted to show it as the case. All you've done is take pot shots from the side lines on this discussion.
Libertarian_for_Life: Oh ok, that makes a lot more sense, I was looking at it in a different way. Thanks for clearing that up, I think I'm with Rothbard on this one.
No worries.
Conza88: tacoface:Add to this the fact you believe in an objective morality Personal morality is subjective. Political ethics is not, it is objective.
Excuse me~~!!! I'm a noob anarchist~ Why are political ethics objective?
Conza88: It was an example of what would be justifiable / allowed / permissible if you believe children are property and can be owned by their parents.
And the justifiablity hinged on the concept of a uniform legality, a point you can't seem to grasp. If it didn't, you had no point to make.
Conza88: Ah, the victim decides to what extent if at all, but it cannot exceed that which is justified. Then it goes from justice, to the initiation of violence.
I don't care for Kinsella's abstractions. In reality, if someone violates my property rights, I will base the extent of my retaliation on what I feel is justified, against the consequences my actions may have on me. The only way you can make me accept your views is to impose them on me by force.
Conza88: Except its not, nor have you even attempted to show it as the case. All you've done is take pot shots from the side lines on this discussion.
You are clearly deluded if you think a child is not owned by its parents. It is an easy observation to make. Until a child decides it can provide its own protection, it is its parents property. You tried to justify the theft of a child by an unrelated institution.
In all three cases, you have shown a propensity toward authoritarianism. In the first case you expressed your desire for a monopolistic legal system, in the other two you tried to justify interfering with other peoples property rights.
It is clear you have a long way to develop intellectually, so this is the last I will post on this topic.
tacoface:In all three cases, you have shown a propensity toward authoritarianism. In the first case you expressed your desire for a monopolistic legal system,
this is AJ type weak.
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
ShroomyD:Excuse me~~!!! I'm a noob anarchist~ Why are political ethics objective?
"For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a "political" ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such "political ethical" questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for "Smith" — the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat — to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]"
Also this.
Conza88: Personal morals are subjective - they are influenced by culture, nature, nurture, friends, family, community, whatever... Ethics (Political) on the other hand is objective. "Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:• ownership of one's own self,• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership -either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.These rules -which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”- can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind." - Ethics of Liberty
Personal morals are subjective - they are influenced by culture, nature, nurture, friends, family, community, whatever...
Ethics (Political) on the other hand is objective.
"Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:• ownership of one's own self,• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership -either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.These rules -which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”- can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind." - Ethics of Liberty
tacoface:And the justifiablity hinged on the concept of a uniform legality, a point you can't seem to grasp.
I grasp it. I just don't think legal positivism has anything to do with liberty.
tacoface: If it didn't, you had no point to make.
Do you have a political ethical objection to a parent putting a bullet through their property? I don't, since it is their property and they can do what they want with it. I'm assuming you don't either.
On the other hand, do you have a political ethical objection to a parent putting a bullet through their child's head? Since you contend that parents own their children, and are their property... I don't see how you can without contradicting yourself.
tacoface:In reality, if someone violates my property rights, I will base the extent of my retaliation on what I feel is justified, against the consequences my actions may have on me. The only way you can make me accept your views is to impose them on me by force.
"For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a "political" ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors [*, or the extent he would feel justified in retaliation'*]. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such "political ethical" questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression.[5]"
You obviously don't believe in normative rights. Say a legal institution declares it legal / permissible to rape women, you'd have no objections (besides personal) ?
tacoface:The only way you can make me accept your views is to impose them on me by force.
The question is whether force is justified or not. You can reject natural law all you want, the result won't have anything to do with justice though.
tacoface:In reality, if someone violates my property rights, I will base the extent of my retaliation on what I feel is justified
Is this universal, or are you special pleading?
You miss a bill payment, you have violated the creditors property rights. Am I allowed / justified in blowing your brains out for doing so?
tacoface:You are clearly deluded if you think a child is not owned by its parents.
No, you are clearly deluded that a person can be justly owned by another as their property.
tacoface:You tried to justify the theft of a child by an unrelated institution.
Wouldn't be theft, since the parent had given up their guardianship rights by violating them. Were beaten as a child, or want to beat your own kids? Is that where this objection stems from? Scared that if you smack your child, some third party will take them away? Remember though, child would have to consent, that institution is not the state, and the institution could take the parents to a DRO. The parents naturally have first claim to the guardianship rights, so the institution / 3rd party would have to prove the parents are acting / violating the child and not guarding them anymore, but aggressing. Violence isn't the answer.
tacoface: In the first case you expressed your desire for a monopolistic legal system
No I didn't.
tacoface:In all three cases, you have shown a propensity toward authoritarianism.
No I haven't. And oh the irony!
You want your very own slave. You want to own another human being, and call them your property... and yet you have the gall to call ME an authoritarian!
tacoface:in the other two you tried to justify interfering with other peoples property rights.
Parents don't own their children. A person is not a piece of property that can be legitimately owned by anyone else.
tacoface:It is clear you have a long way to develop intellectually
Speak for yourself.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc. And do you not see a problem of circularity when a child's property rights are violated?
E. R. Olovetto: You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc.
You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc.
And do you not see a problem of circularity when a child's property rights are violated?
First of all, I was making a point that our system grants a status of "ownership" to people regarding things. People can lose this judicial status by violating the property rights of others. Embordering a 50,000 acre circle but only making use of a ring of the outside 1 acre thick and barring others from making use of the inside is called forestalling. This really had nothing to do with children at this point, but it isn't hard to connect the dots. You've conveniently ignored several of my questions.
To answer yours: maybe. I don't understand what you mean though. I am not suggesting that pre-rational children can own property or that they own themselves. I contend that they do have some basic negative rights, to not be abused, raped, or murdered, though. Again, it is true that they cannot bring claims themselves, but another person can in essence "homestead the unowned child", since the abusive parent loses any enforceable claim to guardianship based on their actions.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: To answer yours: maybe. I don't understand what you mean though. I am not suggesting that pre-rational children can own property or that they own themselves. I contend that they do have some basic negative rights, to not be abused, raped, or murdered, though. Again, it is true that they cannot bring claims themselves, but another person can in essence "homestead the unowned child", since the abusive parent loses any enforceable claim to guardianship based on their actions.
You are mistaken about the nature of justice. When you violate someone else's rights and they obtain restitution, you are not "abandoning" any of your property to homesteading. (In fact homesteading scarce resources is a contradiction in terms.) Your property is being expropriated to the benefit of your victim.
There is no such parallel to the rights of children. Whatever accusations a third party can bring against parents, they are not themselves victims, and therefore they are not entitled to any kind of compensation. The only thing they can prove in court is that the parents are bad parents, not that they are themselves the rightful parents.
The sovereignty of the household is inviolable. Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business. Anything else is a slippery slope to Waco.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:You are mistaken about the nature of justice.
Stranger:When you violate someone else's rights and they obtain restitution, you are not "abandoning" any of your property to homesteading. (In fact homesteading scarce resources is a contradiction in terms.)
Stranger:There is no such parallel to the rights of children. Whatever accusations a third party can bring against parents, they are not themselves victims, and therefore they are not entitled to any kind of compensation.
Do you understand now? Will you finally kill your strawman?
Stranger:The sovereignty of the household is inviolable.
Stranger:Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What is being claimed is that a third party can let it be known that the parents are violating the rights of the child, and the third party can seek some sort of justice for the child--NOT FOR THEMSELVES. Let me repeat that just so you'll finally kill your idiotic strawman: WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED IS THAT A THIRD PARTY CAN LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE PARENTS ARE VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, AND THE THIRD PARTY CAN SEEK SOME SORT OF JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD--NOT FOR THEMSELVES.
And then what? The child remains with his parents.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stranger:Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business.If I see a parent slicing a child's arm with a knife, I will make it my business. Anything else is a slippery slope to the Holocaust.
How would you obtain this information without violating the sovereignty of the household?
Stranger:And then what? The child remains with his parents.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If I see a parent slicing a child's arm with a knife, I will make it my business. Anything else is a slippery slope to the Holocaust.
Stranger:]How would you obtain this information without violating the sovereignty of the household?
Your problem is a complete lack of ability to think in the abstract.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Not necessarily. And no: this is not collectivism. This is about rights. Being a parent is not a blank check to do to your child whatever you want. Believing otherwise destroys the concept of rights and morality. Perhaps you should re-think your stance.
Not necessarily. And no: this is not collectivism. This is about rights. Being a parent is not a blank check to do to your child whatever you want. Believing otherwise destroys the concept of rights and morality. Perhaps you should re-think your stance.
It's great that you believe that, but it has no relevance to a system of justice.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Are you seriously telling me that you think you can only obtain that information by violating the sovereignty of the household? Seriously? You think there's no other way?
Yes, and you have not provided any other approach.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not necessarily. And no: this is not collectivism. This is about rights. Being a parent is not a blank check to do to your child whatever you want. Believing otherwise destroys the concept of rights and morality. Perhaps you should re-think your stance.
Stranger:It's great that you believe that, but it has no relevance to a system of justice.
Stranger:Yes, and you have not provided any other approach.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I don't actually need to. You need to show that such is the sole way.
I don't know why I need to give you a lesson in epistemology, but I can't prove the absence of something. You, on the other hand, could invalidate my argument with a single counter-example.
Stranger:I don't know why I need to give you a lesson in epistemology
E. R. Olovetto:I am not suggesting that pre-rational children can own property or that they own themselves.
However children do understand property rights better than most adults, try taking a child's favorite toy, what is the reply? Mine. How can you conceive of a human being that does not own itself? Parents are gaurdians in my opinion not owners.
Stranger:The sovereignty of the household is inviolable. Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business. Anything else is a slippery slope to Waco.
Stranger, might I ask your stance on this related issue? How do you feel about parents that beat a child in the household, but hide their actions in public or when other people are around? In other words, how do you feel about parents engaging in immorality.
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:The sovereignty of the household is inviolable. Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business. Anything else is a slippery slope to Waco. Stranger, might I ask your stance on this related issue? How do you feel about parents that beat a child in the household, but hide their actions in public or when other people are around? In other words, how do you feel about parents engaging in immorality.
I don't like it.
Stranger:How would you obtain this information without violating the sovereignty of the household?
This is a problem for EVERY crime that is committed. Part of any crime is the continued non submission to justice. This has to be taken into account when ever some retributive payment is made. The cost of determining the guilt falls on the guilty party. Not admitting guilt/not repaying the rights violation when you are indeed guilty is in itself a continued aggression against the originally aggressed against party. Thus any retributive payment would include the act of violating to a lesser extent the rights of that party, namely breaking and entering the property of the criminal to gain the proof of their guilt. If indeed they are not guilty of violating anyone's rights, they then have a right to pursue retribution for their own rights violation, namely what ever the costs are of breaking and entering someone's house, plus what ever they have to pay in order to obtain that retributive payment from the other guilty party. This is a risk that anybody trying to obtain proof from the alleged criminal takes.
Sam Armstrong: Stranger:How would you obtain this information without violating the sovereignty of the household? This is a problem for EVERY crime that is committed. Part of any crime is the continued non submission to justice. This has to be taken into account when ever some retributive payment is made. The cost of determining the guilt falls on the guilty party. Not admitting guilt/not repaying the rights violation when you are indeed guilty is in itself a continued aggression against the originally aggressed against party. Thus any retributive payment would include the act of violating to a lesser extent the rights of that party, namely breaking and entering the property of the criminal to gain the proof of their guilt. If indeed they are not guilty of violating anyone's rights, they then have a right to pursue retribution for their own rights violation, namely what ever the costs are of breaking and entering someone's house, plus what ever they have to pay in order to obtain that retributive payment from the other guilty party. This is a risk that anybody trying to obtain proof from the alleged criminal takes.
You are still not getting the point. No "third party" other than the children has had his rights violated, and so no one is entitled to any kind of retributive payment.
Stranger: You are still not getting the point. No "third party" other than the children has had his rights violated, and so no one is entitled to any kind of retributive payment.
if i'm off on what your saying, then let me know.
1 - if a child in a household has their liberty violated, in other words, they have had physically aggression placed against them and the child(ren) don't like it then they can seek help from somebody off the household's property.
2 - the child likes getting beat up and so no problem
3 - children can't leave to get help but that may also mean nobody else in society knows about the incident so sadly nothing will be done
4 - child yells loud enough or somehow gets the message out and a by-passer hear's the call. they want to take the risk to defend the child and go in. The same as any entrepreneur venture the risk is present that NO return of payment for the work done will happen. that's the free market.
wilderness:4 - child yells loud enough or somehow gets the message out and a by-passer hear's the call. they want to take the risk to defend the child and go in. The same as any entrepreneur venture the risk is present that NO return of payment for the work done will happen. that's the free market.
Children scream and yell all the time for all sorts of tantrum, and it is common for parents to use moderate violence against them to correct their behavior. That does not mean the child's rights have been violated.
No one's saying otherwise. You REALLY need to learn to not concoct strange scenarios which have no place in the discussion, such as believing that anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF is claiming that a third party would have a right to restitution in this case.
This is completely is bypassed if the child does indeed want you to protect it. It then transfers the retributive payment to you (a third party). If the child is unable to communicate it's want of justice or indeed unable to conceive of justice (either because it's too young, or indeed dead) then anybody who knows about it has the right to homestead the claim, and pursue or indeed forgive it. This is of course anyone who is not involved in the aggression or conspiracy to aggress against the child. Much in the same way that the son who kills his parents does not inherit the right forgive his own crime, so too do the parents not inherit the right to forgive themselves the crime.
Stranger: wilderness:4 - child yells loud enough or somehow gets the message out and a by-passer hear's the call. they want to take the risk to defend the child and go in. The same as any entrepreneur venture the risk is present that NO return of payment for the work done will happen. that's the free market. Children scream and yell all the time for all sorts of tantrum, and it is common for parents to use moderate violence against them to correct their behavior. That does not mean the child's rights have been violated.
Or the child is screaming cause they are being killed and a third party hears it happening and go in. Maybe knock at the door first. Call some friends up and have them come for back-up. The friends would be really pissed if it was a child merely having a tantrum. Make the call. What to do... it's crunch time. make the shot in the basket, kick the ball in the net or pass it off to a player that might have a better shot... what to do, what to do. anything can be made risky. heck I might choke on this piece of bread.. do i eat it or not.
I am getting a strong impression that none of the people arguing against ownership of children have ever had any children.
What does that mean? Hearing a child cry in suffering pain by the coercive will of another is the nightmare of a mother and a father. a nightmare worse than that is to hear this and not be able to do anything about it. i've had those nightmares. I am a father.
Now the cry isn't in itself justification of or even a certain guarantee that the parents have done something wrong. For example, if the parents are simply letting their child starve, and it is crying for food, there would be no way for you to rightfully enter the house and take the kid. This would be a violation of the parents property right in their house, and they would not have aggressed against anyone. You may very well wish to take the consequences of said violation and take the kid out of there anyway, but the parents would have the right just the same to forcibly repel you from their property.
Sam Armstrong: Now the cry isn't in itself justification...
Now the cry isn't in itself justification...
Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered. Any number of if's, and's, or but's. This whole intellectual exercise is dried up and doesn't have relevance anymore in my opinion other than becoming an abstraction that the mind may find fun and enjoyment in moving all the pieces about the game board and watching the scenarios change due to slight variations introduced in this nifty fantasy.
It was relevant for only a short while for me.
good day thread...
wilderness:Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered.
What you call "real world risk" is cause for open warfare. You could be killed entering the home, and then someone would come collect justice for you. But then how would we know who is in the right? You had no cause to violate the sovereignty of the household, you came in unannounced, you are guilty and your death was not criminal, but accidental.
Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice,
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."
Stranger:I am getting a strong impression that none of the people arguing against ownership of children have ever had any children.
Stranger: wilderness:Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered. What you call "real world risk" is cause for open warfare.
What you call "real world risk" is cause for open warfare.
yes, never thought otherwise
Stranger: You could be killed entering the home,
You could be killed entering the home,
Stranger: and then someone would come collect justice for you.
and then someone would come collect justice for you.
maybe, doesn't surprise me if yeah or neah
Stranger: But then how would we know who is in the right?
But then how would we know who is in the right?
If they are murdering the child, then stopping the murder is right. If it isn't murder, then the person can be charged with trespassing and the family in the household if they are not murdering the child might commit self-defense and kill the person that took the risk upon entering the house.
Stranger: You had no cause to violate the sovereignty of the household, you came in unannounced, you are guilty and your death was not criminal, but accidental.
You had no cause to violate the sovereignty of the household, you came in unannounced, you are guilty and your death was not criminal, but accidental.
I never said they came in unannounced and if the child is being murdered if that is true, then no, the person is not guilty. The people killing the child are guilty of murder.
risk doesn't mean one needs to take it, it merely means it's present. cause the child might after all be crying over spilled milk. I mean it's plain as day and simple that a person would need to be certain before pulling off a stunt of going into a house that is not their's. It's obvious.
wilderness: risk doesn't mean one needs to take it, it merely means it's present. cause the child might after all be crying over spilled milk. I mean it's plain as day and simple that a person would need to be certain before pulling off a stunt of going into a house that is not their's. It's obvious.
This may well be so, but it is irrelevant to a justice system.
Motive and mitigating/extenuating circumstances are usually taken into account in any justice system.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Motive and mitigating/extenuating circumstances are usually taken into account in any justice system.
Would someone whose house you violated be liable to compensate you for defending his home?
Why do you persist in your strawman? Why?
Stranger: This may well be so, but it is irrelevant to a justice system.
No. It's relevant.