nirgrahamUK:but jack, your keyboard did not consent to you typing on it...
You are correct, and had my keyboard rights, I would have violated them.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Knight_of_BAAWA:I'd like to see you tackle his thought
But you're suggesting this involves thought. How rude of you.
Daniel Muffinburg: I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility.
I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility.
liberty student: Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?
Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?
Knight_of_BAAWA: I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around.
I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around.
Again, what is there for liberty student to tackle, since Daniel Muffinburg's entire point rests on him begging the question as to whether parents have a responsibility to maintain their child?
tacoface: Daniel Muffinburg: I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility. liberty student: Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning? Knight_of_BAAWA: I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around. Again, what is there for liberty student to tackle, since Daniel Muffinburg's entire point rests on him begging the question as to whether parents have a responsibility to maintain their child?
Oh, Gawd. I was no where near 100% sure on my position. It was a hasty response to LS's question, which, inadvertently derailed a thread that was already derailed.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
tacoface: liberty student: Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning? Knight_of_BAAWA:I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around. Again, what is there for liberty student to tackle, since Daniel Muffinburg's entire point rests on him begging the question as to whether parents have a responsibility to maintain their child?
Knight_of_BAAWA:I'd like to see you tackle his thought, rather than evading. Please do so. I'd so enjoy watching you flail around.
No it doesn't tacoface. Daniel makes a statement and LS asks a question that g-d knows what that question has to do with anything.
It's obvious why LS asked the question.
JackCuyler:You are correct, and had my keyboard rights, I would have violated them.
but the very reason it lacks rights is that "consent" and "refusal" are teleological terms erroneously applicable to an object impervious to teleological analysis . in lay terms we dont explain the keyboards 'behaviour' by considering its 'point of view' and its 'reasons' and 'motivations'. its is not a moral agent. it lacks reason and will.
the keyboard does not give consent or refuse it, it is not amongst the realm of things that could do so. the challenge is to demonstrate where the boundary is vis the development of a material-with-human-dna to human-being
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
tacoface:It's obvious why LS asked the question.
No. It is not obvious.
nirgrahamUK: the challenge is to demonstrate where the boundary is vis the development of a material-with-human-dna to human-being
the challenge is to demonstrate where the boundary is vis the development of a material-with-human-dna to human-being
Isn't that what the AI people do?
they are certainly involved . An aside: I studied AI as a substantial portion of my undergraduate degree. interesting stuff
Spideynw:I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative.
I am not "nitpicking". If by, not be completely consistent and more consistent than the alternative, you mean completely inconsistent, I agree with you. Your position is that some beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future have rights, while other beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future do not. The only distinction between the two is an arbitrary amount of time. I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
Spideynw:Why should having sex with a baby/toddler be illegal?
Sex with a being with rights, without consent, is a violation of those rights. Violations of rights should be illegal. Sex with a cow should not be illegal, regardless of consent, because a cow has no rights. Typing on my keyboard, without its consent, should not be illegal, because my keyboard has no rights. Sex with an unconscious woman should be illegal, because she is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, she will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it's presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. Do you see how this position, the alternative to yours, is completely consistent? No need for any exceptions or arbitrary boundaries between who has rights and who doesn't.
Spideynw:And if having sex with a baby is illegal, who gets to bring a case to court for the baby in a stateless society and why? By why, I mean by what right?
This is of a question of enforceability, not legality. I grant that it may be difficult, or even impossible, to bring every case of rights violations to justice. That does not mean that these violations do not exist, nor does it somehow magically transform these acts of aggression into non-aggression. However, here again, you are ignoring time. There is no reason to think that in a stateless society, there would be the equivalents of the state's statutes of limitations. That is, there's nothing stopping an adult for taking a parent to court for crimes committed against him or her when he or she was a child. The diddled five year old will grow up to be an angry eighteen year old who will drag Dad to court. By the right of being the victim, to answer the second question.
There are other alternatives, of course. We really cannot predict how a stateless society would handle such things. Here are two possible scenarios.
As a parent is a custodian of the child's rights, physical/sexual abuse could certainly be seen as an abandonment of that custodianship. This would allow that custodianship to be homesteaded. If it became public knowledge that you are raping your toddler, anyone could homestead the custodianship of your child's right, removing him from your home, by force if necessary.
Even if not seen as legal, your neighbors could simply take the child, and shoot you if you try and interfere. While this would apparently violate your rights, who would prosecute? What jury would convict? Would the shooter be seen as a convict or a hero? Rights violation or not, who would do anything about it? Do you think those who engage in sex with small children would somehow become more popular in a stateless society?
nirgrahamUK: JackCuyler:You are correct, and had my keyboard rights, I would have violated them. but the very reason it lacks rights is that "consent" and "refusal" are teleological terms erroneously applicable to an object impervious to teleological analysis . in lay terms we dont explain the keyboards 'behaviour' by considering its 'point of view' and its 'reasons' and 'motivations'. its is not a moral agent. it lacks reason and will.
I agree. My position, however, is that a fetus/infant/toddler/child has rights due to the fact that he or she will be a moral agent sometime in the future, in exactly the same way that an unconscious person has rights.
Lack of consent is not the same as refusal, and should not be confused. Saying, "Yes," is consent. Saying nothing is neither consent nor refusal. When it comes to sex, there is either consent (a conscious choice) or there is rape. There does not need to be refusal for there to be rape, only the lack of consent.
JackCuyler:Lack of consent is not the same as refusal, and should not be confused. Saying, "Yes," is consent. Saying nothing is neither consent nor refusal. When it comes to sex, there is either consent (a conscious choice) or there is rape. There does not need to be refusal for there to be rape, only the lack of consent.
this is only true when you view consent and refusal as explicit materialised movements. they do not conceive of consent and refusal as the teleological categories that they are. your perception is skewed entirely to outward appearances
JackCuyler: My position, however, is that a fetus/infant/toddler/child has rights due to the fact that he or she will be a moral agent sometime in the future, in exactly the same way that an unconscious person has rights.
unconscious people are merely people that do not engage in outward behaviours. their reasoning and their willing goes on unobserved by outsiders, and they may lack self awareness. the fact that people can forget that they had particular thoughts at particular times in their past does not mean that at those times they did not have thoughts.
consciousness has two meanings i am aware of, one is referrent to external appearances, the person is unconcious they don't respond to external stimuli as you might expect a 'concious' person to. what does this tell us about their reason and their will?
another meaning i am aware of is particular kind of self-awareness. but in the absence of this reflective, inner-looking view, does this mean that nothing is being viewed, nothing thought, no use of reason or will? these are thorny questions....
Interesting, this thread has turned into an episode of Star Trek.
That and "The Drumhead" are two of my favorite episodes.
Capital Pumper:Interesting, this thread has turned into an episode of Star Trek.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That and "The Drumhead" are two of my favorite episodes.
I just finished watching part of the Drumhead in the related video section. Quite the coincidence I must say.
Specifically, what did you like about the two episodes?
Would those who are pro child 'ownership' please reconcile these two issues.
Issue A) If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent? In other words, if I own the child how is it that I arbitrarily stop owning her because she ages? If she is property how is your argument not arbitrary that your property rights to that child somehow are lost by the childs age or awareness. How can you treat the child on the one hand property just like a TV, Horse, or a bench, and than on the other hand grant an arbitrary exception of age? If I own her she is mine, she can't just come to me and say that I no longer own her because shes 23. She's mine. I own her.
Issue B) If you agree that this person inherently enters into a state of being owned how can you use the opposite premise to oppose social contract? In other words, if you believe it is legitimate that a child is born into slavery against her/his consent than arn't they just as liable to being born into a contract, and/or social contract without their consent?
The concept that the unmatured can be considered property as a car is property seems to fumble on those points.
I'd like it if someone explained how those two items can be reconciled.
filc:If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent?
Because it then becomes an argument between parent and child instead of an argument between parent and random other adult.
The problem is ridiculous anyway. Family bonds and debts remain over the generations, and the parent continues to control the child through the process of inheritance (if the parent is wise enough to set aside an inheritance).
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Because it then becomes an argument between parent and child instead of an argument between parent and random other adult.
Not true. The argument I am hearing is that the child is owned. It matters not that she is my child or I gave birth to her. Those details just outlined how i came into ownership of her. If I understand spidey's argument correctly than I own the child entirely. The Parent/child relationship is just another aspect of that ownership. But the child is property, according to spidey, my property.
I'm not saying I agree to it. I'm asking how the child arbitrarily stops becoming property simply out of self awareness or rational thought. If a child can think themselves out of ownership my argument is I never really owned the child in the first place and the child is not my property. Had the child been my property she could never leave, she'd be my slave until I gave her permission to go.
If we want to call children property we can't make up arbitrary rules on the fly. Either they are property, and they are owned indefinitely until traded away or set free, or they are not property.
Your problem filc is that you are trying to define some arbitrarily theoretical definition of ownership, while we are discussing material problems of arbitration that affect the real world. In the real world, parents don't sue their own children to enslave them, because they continue to exercise control over them and to give them favors as they will need their children to care for them in their old age. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.
Stranger:Your problem filc is that you are trying to define some arbitrarily theoretical definition of ownership, while we are discussing material problems of arbitration that affect the real world.
My problem is I see inconsistencies in the reasoning that children are born into ownership. My other problem is your evading the two questions. And my final problem is I am attacking the theory here, not the practicality. So the stuff about sueing is a red herring at this point.
I'm still waiting for someone to make a clear case on how a child is property. And if a child IS property how do you reconcile the two points I posted above.
I'm not trying to be stubborn. I'm asking because I want to know, it's pretty substantial difference. thats all.
filc: I'm still waiting for someone to make a clear case on how a child is property. And if a child IS property how do you reconcile the two points I posted above.
A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it. Allowing so would result in an increase in social conflict and possibly open war, not to mention the destruction of the child.
That is all.
Stranger: A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it. Allowing so would result in an increase in social conflict and possibly open war, not to mention the destruction of the child. That is all.
Thanks Now please answer the following.
filc:Issue A) If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent? In other words, if I own the child how is it that I arbitrarily stop owning her because she ages? If she is property how is your argument not arbitrary that your property rights to that child somehow are lost by the childs age or awareness. How can you treat the child on the one hand property just like a TV, Horse, or a bench, and than on the other hand grant an arbitrary exception of age? If I own her she is mine, she can't just come to me and say that I no longer own her because shes 23. She's mine. I own her.
filc:Issue B) If you agree that this person inherently enters into a state of being owned how can you use the opposite premise to oppose social contract? In other words, if you believe it is legitimate that a child is born into slavery against her/his consent than arn't they just as liable to being born into a contract, and/or social contract without their consent?
filc: Thanks Now please answer the following.
I already answered it.
P.S. Here is what the state does about child slavery: nothing.
filc: Issue A) If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent? In other words, if I own the child how is it that I arbitrarily stop owning her because she ages? If she is property how is your argument not arbitrary that your property rights to that child somehow are lost by the childs age or awareness. How can you treat the child on the one hand property just like a TV, Horse, or a bench, and than on the other hand grant an arbitrary exception of age? If I own her she is mine, she can't just come to me and say that I no longer own her because shes 23. She's mine. I own her.
Lets say my neighbor steals my lawnmower. I take him to court. The court rules in his favor for whatever reason. Does that mean he never stole the lawnmower from me? Just because I presented a case and won/lost doesn't change the fact that my lawnmower was stolen.
In other words positive law now arbitrarily defines when a child stops becoming property and starts becoming a human? Positive law defines when you own an object and when your ownership of that object arbitrarily stops?
I'm talking hypothetically speaking here. I'm aiming at a principle that defines children as property. You havn't provided me one. You just gave me an example of why. What if a child sued the court for ownership of his/her person and lost? If we follow property from its origination than the child has no case to take her body back away from it's rightful owner.
The principle you seem to provide is as follows.
Property is defined as objects which cannot sue you in court. Do you agree to this?
Now please answer my second question.
Filc:Issue B) If you agree that this person inherently enters into a state of being owned how can you use the opposite premise to oppose social contract? In other words, if you believe it is legitimate that a child is born into slavery against her/his consent than arn't they just as liable to being born into a contract, and/or social contract without their consent?
Stranger: filc: I'm still waiting for someone to make a clear case on how a child is property. And if a child IS property how do you reconcile the two points I posted above. A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it. Allowing so would result in an increase in social conflict and possibly open war, not to mention the destruction of the child. That is all.
If a child has been raped or beaten and kept in a shed for most of its life, is nobody outside of the family allowed to take it? Why? That would be destroying it!?!?!?
The Haiti link is a big non sequitur BTW.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Aster_Lacnala:Now, the idea of a Private Defense Agency gives credence to the idea that it is perfectly acceptable under the non-aggression principle to initiate force against someone else who has initiated force.
No it doesn't. You're not initiating the violence, you are helping another defend against it. Self defense.
Aster_Lacnala:Now, let's throw in a powder keg - the abortion issue. A pro-life person sees an abortion as the murder of a baby, a pro-choice person does not.
False dichotomy. These are not the only options. There is a third way, Libertarian way.
Evictionism. The Libertarian solution that blows the abortion issue out of the water. Below is part of a summation in form of chart.
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)B. Eviction (pro property rights)C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no B. no C. yes
2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes B. yes C. no
3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes B. no C. no
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach - Block & Whitehead
Abortion (Audio Lecture) - Block
Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children's rights - Block
Aster_Lacnala:It does no good to presuppose one side is right - whether true or not, each side perceives themselves as right, and are acting without violation of the non-aggression principle.
No, they are both violating the non-aggression principle.
And as such, your minarchist challenge to the Anarcho-capitalists fails completely.
Joe:I do for some reason think "there has got to be some kind of reasoning out there" to disprove him
There is.
E. R. Olovetto:If a child has been raped or beaten and kept in a shed for most of its life, is nobody outside of the family allowed to take it? Why? That would be destroying it!?!?!?
Yes I agree with Block's idea's.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto:If a child has been raped or beaten and kept in a shed for most of its life, is nobody outside of the family allowed to take it? Why? That would be destroying it!?!?!?
Yes, your house of cards is on fire. Run!
There's some sense to what you are saying, but it can't apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency.
A child's nature as a potential actor-producer makes it different than animals or stones.
Thank you conza88 for bringing this back full circle. :D
However, to me it seems a problem still exists. We have those who say that active harm, or even neglect, of a child represents a lack of homesteading, and therefore anyone can take it from them. But if we bring this back to the original issue, then anybody else can lay claim to a fetus from a mother that is planning an abortion. If that is so, then the fetus would seem to become the property of the pro-lifer. In this case, the mother would be required to evict it in such a way that the fetus was not destroyed since it isn't hers to destroy. It must be given to the pro-lifer intact and alive. (Hopefully, the pro-lifer has a surrogate mother lined up.)
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
E. R. Olovetto: There's some sense to what you are saying, but it can't apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency.
More immaterial philosophizing.
You can't take other people's children without killing them all. Just accept it.
Stranger:You can't take other people's children without killing them all. Just accept it.
I could if i presented a case to a local arbiter. According to your theory, the child would stop being your slave and start being mine. :)
filc: Stranger:You can't take other people's children without killing them all. Just accept it. I could if i presented a case to a local arbiter. According to your theory, the child would stop being your slave and start being mine. :)
You have understood absolutely nothing about parenting. The child wants to remain with his parents irrespective of whether you think it is being brought up properly. It will do so, and the parents will defend the child to the death.
Are you ready to go to war and fight to your death to take someone else's child from them?
Capital Pumper:I just finished watching part of the Drumhead in the related video section. Quite the coincidence I must say. Specifically, what did you like about the two episodes?
In "The Drumhead", we see an example of the adage "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"--especially being vigilant to prevent abuses by the State. It is certainly apropos more than ever in the 16 years or so since that episode first aired--what with Gitmo and other rendition camps. And with the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. We must watch the watchers--although they don't watch so much as demand that our lives be laid bare for them. That our existence as we knew it is over. We exist to serve them--very much like Borgthink.
What's also great about those episodes is the fact that they have Picard Speeches. Much as you can't really go wrong creating a videogame where you kill Nazis, you can't go wrong with a Picard speech.
Stranger: You have understood absolutely nothing about parenting. The child wants to remain with his parents irrespective of whether you think it is being brought up properly. It will do so, and the parents will defend the child to the death. Are you ready to go to war and fight to your death to take someone else's child from them?
I would never take a child away from a parent. I don't give myself that authority. You pretend I care not for the relation of parents and children. You also pretend that I think I hold some sort of authority over how parents should care for their children. I don't. Don't attack my character.
What I understand is your definition for property arbitrarily changes for humans. And I also understand that you did not answer my question about being born into contracts.
filc: What I understand is your definition for property arbitrarily changes for humans.
What I understand is your definition for property arbitrarily changes for humans.
The definition of property changes for each form of property.
How do you reconcile my second point Stranger?
Stranger:A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it.