I was pondering age restrictions on drugs and at first thought I was against them. However, I began to think more about the relationship between parents and their children. It is largely agreed amongst us Austrians that the parent does not OWN the child, but has laid claim to a right to homestead it. They have taken up the responsibility of caring for and preserving the child's health and well-being. They have agreed to take responsibility for the body that the child will own once he or she has matured. So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental and (at the very least) manipulative to the mind and body, would that mean that a parent who allows 'their' child to consume such substances is violating their 'contract' with the child and lose their right to homesteading him or her? These aren't the same as age restrictions, per se, but they are closely related. Have I made an error? If not, how would it be enforced? Is it enforceable without causing injustice to others?
Or does the parent only have what is on their property and what it is used for. A parent has a right to force drugs off his or her property, like any other property owner. And if a child used drugs anyway while off their parents' property it would still be a violation of property because the child is using the bedrooms and is consuming the food the parent has allowed the child to use for free (as a sort of investment the parents makes, hoping to get paid off by the well-being and happiness of the child). If both parties are fine with one, the other, or both using vices, is it a fair agreement? To what extent is the child able to partake in such agreements?
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
Beefheart: They have agreed to take responsibility for the body that the child will own once he or she has matured. So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental and (at the very least) manipulative to the mind and body, would that mean that a parent who allows 'their' child to consume such substances is violating their 'contract' with the child and lose their right to homesteading him or her?
They have agreed to take responsibility for the body that the child will own once he or she has matured. So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental and (at the very least) manipulative to the mind and body, would that mean that a parent who allows 'their' child to consume such substances is violating their 'contract' with the child and lose their right to homesteading him or her?
If you say that the "contract" a parent has with their child can be broken as soon as they "do something bad for the child's health" than that could get extremely messy and almost anything the parent does could have their right's taken away.
But I suppose there is a line somewhere, since a parent can not actually aggress against a child. If giving drugs is accepteble, is perhaps just a smudge of rat poison acceptable as well? When are we violating the babies rights (let's assume the child is a baby)? I suppose that would be up to a neutral arbitor to decide whether they were actually poisoning a child. You obviously can't give a baby 2 gallons of vodka, because you'd kill it.
In any case, age restrictions don't help, ever.
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!
How about this: Infants are to be considered animals until they can demonstrate human action. Oh wait!
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Whatever the relationship between the parent and the child and the policy on drugs, it does not concern you.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
No, it doesn't concern us--quite so. Unless the parent is visibly forcing such drugs on the child, that is.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, it doesn't concern us--quite so. Unless the parent is visibly forcing such drugs on the child, that is.
Children typically don't enjoy the taste of medicine. You always have to force them.
Relevance? None. Because the OP was not talking about medicine, was it? No. So why'd you bring that up? Wanted to use a red herring? Wanted to drop a strawman?
The degree to which unhealthy acts are allowed to be performed will be decided by the self organizing self governing groups of human beings that form. The "correctness" of the placement of what constitutes a danger to the child's health and what does not will be decided on the grand scale. Whoever produces the best children will be dominant. I kinda cringe on the word dominant because I envision physical dominance, but that isn't what I meant. A requirement to survive is the element of objectivity that every human must seek. This rules out the initiation of physical dominance.
It is largely agreed amongst us Austrians that the parent does not OWN the child, but has laid claim to a right to homestead it.
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."
The state should have no role in policing parent/child relationships unless it has become blatantly obvious that the parent is encouraging so called "negative activities" at which point, it might become necessary to intervene. Otherwise, I don't think the state should play a role.
Beefheart: So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental
So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental
I think a life without drugs and alcohol is detrimental. I think life is detrimental. I think drugs and alcohol are necessary to get through the detriment of life.
existence is elsewhere
twistedbydsign99: The degree to which unhealthy acts are allowed to be performed will be decided by the self organizing self governing groups of human beings that form. The "correctness" of the placement of what constitutes a danger to the child's health and what does not will be decided on the grand scale. Whoever produces the best children will be dominant. I kinda cringe on the word dominant because I envision physical dominance, but that isn't what I meant. A requirement to survive is the element of objectivity that every human must seek. This rules out the initiation of physical dominance.
Well, that sounds like jungle collectivism not like a free society. Why should any group be allowed (by whom) to decide about personal behavior.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag:Well, that sounds like jungle collectivism not like a free society. Why should any group be allowed (by whom) to decide about personal behavior.
nhaag not really. There is black, white, and gray areas in ethics. For example, self defense is right, murder is wrong, but whether a specific act was self defense or murder is kind of a murky gray area. Surely there will be clear areas, but just as surely there will be gray ones. So when it comes to is a general act x child abuse or is it not, well can you not see certain cases where that is a gray area? My solution to the problem of gray areas is allowing human beings to group with other human beings who discern in a similar manner. If there is an easier way I would like to clear up my thinking on the issue.
Wilmot of Rochester:I think a life without drugs and alcohol is detrimental. I think life is detrimental. I think drugs and alcohol are necessary to get through the detriment of life.
Everything in moderation.
My solution to the problem of gray areas is allowing human beings to group with other human beings who discern in a similar manner.
Then at least you know where to drop the bomb, no?
my guess is that there would be a pretty big demand for stopping things like that (Justice for Children Alliance or something I am sure could get a lot of donation money). Lawyers could stand to make a lot of money by helping the children take their parents to court and getting a % of the damages awarded.
Juan:So people who think that beating children up is not criminal should all get together and create a nice little child beating 'community' ?
Me personally? I would not accept beating of children in my community. But you can see the gray area creeping in right? We can say that beatings are wrong, what about spankings? What about slaps on the wrist? Maybe you could say that the NAP says no physical force against a child, but there are always situations like when the child is going to grab a hot pan on the stove. So for physical violence against children I would say there are clear cases for not using physical force, cases for using physical force, and some cases where its hard to say.
my guess is that force necessary to stop a child from hurting another child or person would be appropriate.
to the extent that additional 'punishment' one feels necessary to convince a child that damaging things or hurting others is wrong i guess is where the grey area comes into play.
if one child put a hot iron on another - is it appropriate to put a hot iron on that child so as to learn by example?
as far as age restrictions on drugs...i am not sure. when is poisoning someone considering poisoning someone.
"here kid, i know this smells like drano but its really good for you."
"here kid, this meth will help you get your homework done faster."
i guess in both cases someone is offering a substance that posseses some toxicity to it. one is just more lethal i guess.
Me personally?
how do you think the issue of child abuse would be addressed in a free society?
Juan:I'm not talking about you personally. I'm wondering how does morality based on 'community' aka mob rule work.
Well first off community in the definition I gave was how people naturally chose to associate, so don't think like "state" or something. Imagine groups of people geographically distributed so that people next to each other have the least conflict in value systems. Not by virtue of some external force, but by virtue of the natural desire to be around people that are like us. Then the way justice works in a local is pretty obvious, the people in the area will naturally agree on what is right and wrong. Objective morality would come into play when we determine if the people in the local classified the right acts as morally justified, or whether they chose the wrong acts as morally justified. If they chose the wrong acts as morally justified, it stands to reason that by doing things they should not do, their society will suffer.
I think what you may be poking at Juan is what about those people who feel exactly the opposite of you. I don't think anyone is justified in simply invading another community for holding another value system. If it was me I would try to exhaust peaceful means. Financial incentives and argumentation. If that fails then I think its up to a society to decide if invasion is within its moral character. All I was trying to say about gray areas was that usually these societies will have objective rights and wrongs. Like killing for fun is wrong and killing for defense is ok. However the classification of a single act as either murder or self defense can be a gray area.
Juan:I don't think what you describe is what I would regard as a free society. First, communities don't have any moral standards since communities don't exist. Individuals are moral agents, communities are not.
A community to me is a grouping of individuals who fit together in their value systems. I think that thing exists. It isn't the same class as an individual though, but it does have certain properties an individual doesn't have even though it is a collection of individuals.
Juan: Even assuming that the collectivistic concept of community is somehow valid the idea that every single member will agree to some arbitrary community standard is hardly realisitc. So unless you have complete and unanimous consent (which in practice is impossible) you still need to justify the moral standards of the mob in some reasonable way - or admit that what you describe is mob rule.
I don't think having a charter for a community is beyond reason, but certainly it doesn't have to be that way. You are right that in reality the place we put ourselves will be in some ways imperfect, and therefore the actions of others will sometimes discomfort us. But I hardly think that a libertarian would live among statists had he the option of a libertarian society. Surely the libertarian society would have its factions and disagreements, but nothing like being in the center of a socialist nightmare.
Could it not be that the people who require objective justification of action would most prefer to be around people like that? And if they found the murky subjectivists so intolerable that they would not interact with them? I mean all I'm arguing for at the root is freedom of association basically. Perhaps taken further than what most people mean by it.
Stranger:Children typically don't enjoy the taste of medicine. You always have to force them.
Yup. I, for one, don't really see a kid sticking needles in his arm or toking on a joint voluntarily.
Political Atheists Blog