Danny: Juan, if you saw me wandering into the street blazing drunk, insisting that I wanted to kill myself, would you stop me? If yes, then QED. If no, and you would condemn anyone who would, then reductio.
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."
maxpot46: Len Budney:they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them. So you're saying that sexuality is learned, not innate? I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
Len Budney:they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them.
So you're saying that sexuality is learned, not innate? I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
Of course it's innate. But that doesn't mean two-month-old babies innately want to have intercourse with adults. That was a reductio, of course, but broadly speaking, the sex drive is linked to puberty. Babies can tell when something feels nice, or at least I assume so, but it doesn't become a primal need until the gametes are in production and the delivery apparatus is throbbing like the motor on a monster truck.
Somewhere in between babyhood and puberty, kids these days learn (too much) about sex. That may make them insterested, but doesn't turn them into testosterone-squirting horny teenagers--to do that, you have to include testosterone. And the interest ramps up, just as puberty itself is not an instantaneous process.
But I'm not even talking about urges primarily: I'm talking about basic knowledge. A randy teen and an ovulating female are likely to figure it out very quickly, by trial and error, even if they were raised with a complete information blackout about sex. What distinguishes the latter from the former is a bit of programming put over on us by our genes, which are designed to inject themselves into the future as efficiently as possible. A young child doesn't know where to stick the parts unless someone tells him. He can't think, "I'd sure love to shove this into a vagina," because he doesn't know what a vagina is. He can't think, "I'd like something just like this, only bigger, shoved up my rump," because the idea has never occurred to him... until someone tells him. Which these days happens around age four, I suppose.
So I agree with you that "sex is innate." But it's a huge leap from that to, "toddlers will naturally invent all the positions of the Kama Sutra," and it's an equally huge leap to, "young children want their various orifices impaled by adults, even though it's reproductively useless, physically dangerous and emotionally confusing."
--Len.
Len: Don't forget Kinsey. No reference library is complete without him. Baloney aside, though, kids don't know what parts go where until they're told.
Donny with an A: Juan, if you saw me wandering into the street blazing drunk, insisting that I wanted to kill myself, would you stop me? If yes, then QED. If no, and you would condemn anyone who would, then reductio.
Juan, if you saw me wandering into the street blazing drunk, insisting that I wanted to kill myself, would you stop me? If yes, then QED. If no, and you would condemn anyone who would, then reductio.
As an aside, I can't endorse your approach, if I understand it right. You seem to be saying, "Lets get real! Sometimes ya just gotta coerce." In practice I'm as guilty as you, since I discipline my kid. To which you'd probably reply, "QED." But the notion immediately generalizes to taking drunks into "protective custody" and regulating carbon emissions to "save the earth." This is a case where the ZAP is hard to apply quite right, but that doesn't justify what amounts to renouncing the ZAP.
For the record, by the way, I'd ask, "Whose property is this drunk standing on?" You appear to be assuming "public" roads, which creates your dilemma. Since nobody owns it, nobody can do anything with Mr. Drunk. In a free world, the road's owner would either evict or detain him on a trespassing charge, and when events finish taking their course he will either have slept it off, or found his way back into his own home, where he's 100% free to kill himself--and I would not stop him, and very well might help him defend himself against invaders attempting to "save his life."
Juan: If his case is two extreme, and children of age two are too young to be consenting to sex with adults, how is that consistent with your views about self-ownership and consent and with your criticisms of our position? And at what age do you draw the line? I do not know - wich is part of my point.
If his case is two extreme, and children of age two are too young to be consenting to sex with adults, how is that consistent with your views about self-ownership and consent and with your criticisms of our position? And at what age do you draw the line?
Well, your conceding that you don't know and that you think age two is too young is pretty much inconsistent with your previous objections to our position. In fact, it places you close to our position such that the point of diagreement between us is a matter of degree, not kind. What we seem to disagree on is the approximate age in which children ought to have full exercise of their rights. To sum up: You do now appear to agree that children below a certain age shouldn't have full exercise of their rights; the disagreement just appears to be at what age.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Juan: Len: Don't forget Kinsey. No reference library is complete without him. Baloney aside, though, kids don't know what parts go where until they're told. What does baloney allude to ? You're clearly denying reality so that it conforms to your naive and/or puritan prejudices.
Please read carefully. I said "kids don't know where the parts go until they're told." This can be proven by induction, so it's hardly a "denial of reality." On the day a baby is born, it doesn't know anything about the function of its sexual organs. On the day it conceives offspring, it does know what to do with its organs. Therefore, there was a first day on which the child actually understood that penises are specially shaped for insertion into vaginas. There is also a first day on which they realize that penises are reasonably adaptible for insertion into pretty much anything, including mouths, rectums, nostrils and pencil sharpeners. Prior to that first day, they don't know where the parts go.
Granted it's possible, in theory, for a child to figure out where the parts go entirely by trial and error, say, prior to puberty. It's vanishingly unlikely, though, since the kid would have to have an unclothed vagina laying around the house to experiment with--and presumably he has custodial parents around who periodically dust, straighten the chairs, and put away any naked vaginas left lying around the livingroom floor.
So you'll have a devil of a time explaining how a child decides all on his own, with no input from anyone else, that he'd like to engage in anal sex with an adult. It doesn't do any good to reply, "You're just denying reality. Pre-schoolers are actually all desperate for a little anal action."
gplauche: You do now appear to agree that children below a certain age shouldn't have full exercise of their rights; the disagreement just appears to be at what age.
maxpot46:One, I am 100% aware of his location and surroundings at all times -- most of the time he's with me or my wife, and at all other times is with trusted adults in a safe environment. Two, even though he's six, I've trained my kid not to be a dumb@$ -- he's not going to tolerate a stranger even talking to him, let alone playing with his pee-pee.
You are obviously infringing on his right to decide to have sex with grownups by training him so. How dare you.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Juan:So, how do you know he's not a rational actor ? Because you're a clueless puritan like Len who don't want to face reality ?
Now that was rude and uncalled for. Do try to be civil. Otherwise, you'll have to be moderated.
Juan: gplauche: You do now appear to agree that children below a certain age shouldn't have full exercise of their rights; the disagreement just appears to be at what age. Not exactly. Age is not the important issue. Consent is. You seem to be saying that despite a child giving his/her consent, the action is still not consensual because the child is not really a rational actor. So, how do you know he's not a rational actor ? Because you're a clueless puritan like Len who don't want to face reality ? You want to reduce the problem to an objective one - you want to be able to say that before the age of ten (say) children are not rational actors. That's simply not true.
Well, now I'm not sure on what basis you can say that age 2 is too young. What makes age 2 too extreme?
gplauche: Now that was rude and uncalled for. Do try to be civil. Otherwise, you'll have to be moderated.
Juan:If you agree that children have individual rights, then they should be free do engage in sex if they so wish (consent)
A child is UNABLE to give consent in any rational sense. That is what makes them CHILDREN.
maxpot46: One, I am 100% aware of his location and surroundings at all times -- most of the time he's with me or my wife, and at all other times is with trusted adults in a safe environment. Two, even though he's six, I've trained my kid not to be a dumb@$ -- he's not going to tolerate a stranger even talking to him, let alone playing with his pee-pee. MacFall: You are obviously infringing on his right to decide to have sex with grownups by training him so. How dare you.
MacFall: You are obviously infringing on his right to decide to have sex with grownups by training him so. How dare you.
Juan:That's just circular reasoning.
No it is not. Children in rights theory are people who are incapable of exercising their rights rationally by virtue of their age. To deny that is to say that there is no such thing as a child.
Juan: gplauche: Now that was rude and uncalled for. Do try to be civil. Otherwise, you'll have to be moderated. So, it's OK to make threats like this : "Please be aware that I'm not the only one in Pittsburgh who shares my views on the matter, and a high percentage of us consistently carry concealed weapons." That's a civil and polite remark I suppose (in Len's world)
Did he treaten to initiate force against you? No, not really. He implied he would be willing to defend his and his child's rights against initiations of force. And even if he did make an uncivil threat against you, that doesn't justifiy you being uncivil to me.
Juan: Well, now I'm not sure on what basis you can say that age 2 is too young. What makes age 2 too extreme? Children at two can't even speak sometimes. But as I said, I don't have a hard and fast rule. On the other hand I don't think you're really addressing my position. If you agree that children have individual rights, then they should be free do engage in sex if they so wish (consent)
I don't think you've really addressed my position. You've pretty much ignored my main points in favor of voicing your unsupported opinion. It seems to me that your position is only different from mine in terms of degree (what age is too young) and in not being as clearly thought out (the why).
Juan: Do you realize that your solution to the problem is not really a solution, just a 'conventional' answer ?
I reject the sort of Kantian-style, deontological, extreme rationalist, a-contextual conception of the NAP that you seem to have. It's not possible or even desireable to deduce the whole of libertarianism and all its applications ex nihilo from the NAP. My position is not merely conventional, it is philosophical and grounded in eudaimonistic theory of virtue ethics and natural rights (a form of natural law).
Juan:What happens when I sign a contract but then claim that I didn't have full information, so my decision wasn't actually 'rational' ?
This question you posit does not follow from my position and is yet another mischaracterization. I get the distinct impression you aren't making much of an effort to engage us in serious debate. You've shown no evidence of even attempting to understand my position, including important distinctions and points I have made, because you've mainly ignored or mischaracterized them in your responses.
MacFall: Juan:That's just circular reasoning. No it is not. Children in rights theory are people who are incapable of exercising their rights rationally by virtue of their age. To deny that is to say that there is no such thing as a child.
That's precisely what he's doing, i.e., denying the standard non-circular distinction between children and adults in rights theory.
Juan:I think that actually illustrates my point. It may just happen that despite maxpot46's so called training, his son would choose to do something maxpot46 thinks is not right. So, what happens then ?
Rights are abstractions until they are exercised rationally. A child does not have the capacity to exercise their rights rationally - THEREFORE THEY ARE CHILDREN. Get it? As a custodial agent, he can stop the child from acting in a manner in which he believes the child would not act if his son were a rational agent, which he is not. If a parent fails to act in that way, he is neglecting his role as custodian.
If he does so in a manner that is harmful to his son, let him recompense later. But to say that a parent who enforces the rules of their household is violating the rights of the child is absurd, because the child's rights are subject to the parents' judgment of what is good for them - that is, what the child would have chosen if he or she were a rational agent at that time.
To prove my point, there are a great number of things to which children object upon which a parent must insist in order to maintain their custodial role. Children don't like having thier diapers changed much of the time. Children don't like being fed much of the time. Children not restrained in a crib or playpen may fall down the stairs. Children run out in front of cars unless they are prevented from doing so. Children will drink poison unless they are made to understand that it will harm them. Children will get themselves into situations into which they would NOT enter as adults.
This is because children are not rational agents - they are purely sensual beings at first, and gradually grow into their rational capacity. Until the time that they obtain that capacity, to the extent that they lack it, they are not in possession of their rights. Their parents are, and must exercise it for them to the best of their own judgment. That's what it means to be a parent.
But the question of sex is an easy one - children don't solicit adults for sex. They cry for food, or changing, or affection - but they don't cry for sexual attention. If they want it, they'll just play with themselves. It is indefensible to say that a child who allows an adult to assert him or herself sexually upon that child is consenting in any meaningful way.
gplauche: MacFall: Juan:That's just circular reasoning. No it is not. Children in rights theory are people who are incapable of exercising their rights rationally by virtue of their age. To deny that is to say that there is no such thing as a child. That's precisely what he's doing, i.e., denying the standard non-circular distinction between children and adults in rights theory.
I noticed, and I'm wondering if it is worth it to continue at this point. I don't usually debate someone who won't accept objective definitions of basic concepts.
gplauche: And even if he did make an uncivil threat against you, that doesn't justifiy you being uncivil to me.
I reject the sort of Kantian-style, deontological, extreme rationalist, a-contextual conception of the NAP that you seem to have.
It's not possible or even desireable to deduce the whole of libertarianism and all its applications ex nihilo from the NAP
Len, I'm not sure that regulating carbon emissions could be justified on the same basis as grabbing a drunk who's headed into traffic. I'm pretty sure stopping a child who'se planning to have sex could be justified on the same basis. To be clear though, I'm focusing on coercing the child, and not the person who the child wants to have sex with. I think the latter kind of case is a little more difficult to think about; I'm not sure how exactly I'd approach that argument except to say that it seems like rape in the same way that taking advantage of a seriously drunk girl would be.
MacFall: I noticed, and I'm wondering if it is worth it to continue at this point. I don't usually debate someone who won't accept objective definitions of basic concepts.
So, it's OK to make threats like this : "Please be aware that I'm not the only one in Pittsburgh who shares my views on the matter, and a high percentage of us consistently carry concealed weapons."
i don't know what threat you think you see there, but there isn't one. Any more than pointing out that I will defend myself if attacked. The only way you could feel threatened by that is if you planned to attack me. Similarly, the only way my statement above could be taken as a threat is if you plan to have improper relations with the young people of Pittsburgh.
I do think it's healthy to point out such facts of reality, though. You're passionately defending child abuse, at least in theory. It's healthy to remember that crossing the line from theory to practice will have dire consequences. Assault someone from around here, you'll promptly discover your mistake. Molest a child around here, and the same will happen.
A child is, as a matter of objective fact, not a rational agent. An adult is, as a matter of objective fact, a rational agent. They are distinct.
The concept of rights, which are realized through rational exercise, do not apply to children in the same way that they apply to adults. "Childhood" consists of being incapable of rational exercise to some extent, and therefore not being in full posession of one's rights. A parent is the executor-in-trust of those rights until such time as the child becomes rationally capable.
The adult's decisions as an adult do not resemble the child's decisions as a child. The parent, as the child's guardian, must act as a rational agent in the place of the child. This means that the child will be prevented from doing things that it wants to do, and that in no way violates libertarian ethics.
That is not circular reasoning.
Juan:Ah, fine. You can reject it all you want. That doesn't mean that my position can be disregarded as mere 'opinion' while yours have some superior status.
Well, if you don't provide substantive arguments for your position and don't address the main points of our own arguments, then we can.
Juan: I, on the other hand, reject formal legalism.
I do too. I'm not engaging in it.
Juan: It's not possible or even desireable to deduce the whole of libertarianism and all its applications ex nihilo from the NAP Your opinion. Desireable to whom anyway ? Just another attempt to smugle personal preference as objective 'fact'.
I've made arguments supporting this position elsewhere. I have a working paper, in need of revision, on my website critiquing the Kantian/Hoppean approach to praxeology and arguing in favor of an Aristotelian approach. So I won't go into it here. I was just pointing out that we appear to approach libertarianism from very different philosophical traditions.
Len: You're passionately defending child abuse, at least in theory.
It is no less a fact than the definition of the color blue. Words have meanings for a reason.
An adult always acts rationally. They may act wrongly, in that they do not achieve the end they seek, but an adult, alert and unimpaired, is always rational. A child is not. A child, as I said before, is guided not by reason, but mainly by sense, if not by sense alone.
Len, I'm not sure that regulating carbon emissions could be justified on the same basis as grabbing a drunk who's headed into traffic.
Both involve coercion. Except for a bit of admitted hypocrisy as regards my son, I'm a non-aggression absolutist, and would condemn all coercion equally. Recall, though, that the solution to the drunk in traffic problem lies with the owner of the road. It isn't coercion when he grabs the drunk.
...it seems like rape in the same way that taking advantage of a seriously drunk girl would be.
That's a pretty good parallel, because it bridges the gap between the drunk and the child. I'd condemn you for sleeping with a seriously drunk woman. But, if you saw a sloppy drunk girl heading to bed with someone--her boyfriend, or a random stranger, would you forcibly prevent them? Of course not. Unless they're doing it in your bedroom, of course. So for me, this perfectly parallels the suicidal drunk.
If I saw my seven-year-old going into a man's bedroom, you bloody betcha I'd intervene. And I'd treat it as attempted rape. But unfortunately a coherent natural-law justification isn't available (that I know of). But I'll admit hypocrisy sooner than hand my child over to a predator.
It seems to me that people are misunderstanding or deliberately avoiding certain valid points Juan has made. He is asking "how do you know if a child is a rational actor or not?" Perhaps this question can be answered in the field of psychology or neuroscience, but so far all I have heard is something along the lines of "they are not rational actors because they are children and children are by definition not rational actors." Perhaps Im missing something here but it certainly seems like circular reasoning to me.
Juan: Len: You're passionately defending child abuse, at least in theory. I'm consistently defending individual rights. I'd say that you on the other hand are trying to justify your prejudices and the use of lethal force - wich strikes me as a bit unlibertarian, but to each his own.
Find me ONE solid example of a child seeking a sexual relation with an adult entirely on its own initiative, and without any sexualization by, e.g., the adult in question, or another adult or older child. Then we can talk about this "right" to sleep with adults that you defend so passionately.
majevska: It seems to me that people are misunderstanding or deliberately avoiding certain valid points Juan has made. He is asking "how do you know if a child is a rational actor or not?" Perhaps this question can be answered in the field of psychology or neuroscience, but so far all I have heard is something along the lines of "they are not rational actors because they are children and children are by definition not rational actors." Perhaps Im missing something here but it certainly seems like circular reasoning to me.
Children are not rational actors because those persons who we DO consider to be rational actors do not act like children. They are defined by their rational capacity which is manifested in their action, which is wholly and undeniably, categorically different.
Red and green are both colors, and they are not the same color. Children and adults are separated conceptually by the same kind of distinction.
Juan has thus far ignored my Aristotelian distinctions between rational capacity and diminished rational capacity, on the one hand, and between capacity and how well one exercises that capacity, on the other. He has persistently mischaracterized my position as grounding rights in 'how well one exercises that capacty'. This is obviously not my position. What you raise above is an epistemic question that is distinct from the fundamental philosophical one we are here debating, which is the basis for rights and their full exercise.
What makes it non-circular is that nobody is defining "children" by an age range. The definition of "children" for the purposes of ethical discussion is, "humans that aren't rational actors." Juan is arguing that by that definition, two-year-olds aren't "children"--but he hasn't even tried to prove it. I think it's safe to argue that the collection of "children" is non-empty, since it contains newborns.
Implicit in Juan's argument is the assumption that the ability to articulate consent suffices to make one a rational actor. That's easily enough disproven: parrots can be taught to articulate consent, but they aren't rational actors. Retarded, insane or otherwise disabled people can also be made to articulate consent by various means, but that doesn't make them consenting. That's the first problem with his view, and it's major.
Another problem is that "rational actor" is not in fact a binary condition. My child was able to pick which color shirt to wear before he could talk. It would be tough to build a convincing case that a pre-verbal one-year-old can consent to sex, and it's just plain obvious that he can't consent to, say, lifelong slavery. Just as intelligence occupies a continuum, so too does rationality. We do our best to treat rights as unconditional, even when people are stupid or irrational, and our effort falls short when we deal with the insane, the mentally disabled, and children.
Len: Find me ONE solid example of a child seeking a sexual relation with an adult entirely on its own initiative, and without any sexualization by, e.g., the adult in question, or another adult or older child. Then we can talk about this "right" to sleep with adults that you defend so passionately.
...But unfortunately a coherent natural-law justification isn't available (that I know of). But I'll admit hypocrisy sooner than hand my child over to a predator
MacFall: An adult always acts rationally. They may act wrongly, in that they do not achieve the end they seek, but an adult, alert and unimpaired, is always rational.
gplauche: Juan has thus far ignored my Aristotelian distinctions between rational capacity and diminished rational capacity, on the one hand,
Len, the original example of the drunk entering the road was a parallel to the child's choice to have sex, not to the adult's choice to try to have sex with the child. If you think that it would be condemnable to stop the drunk, I don't see how you could consistently argue that it would be permissible to stop the child. Perhaps you'd take a different view if you knew that the drunk girl going upstairs with the guy would be emotionally scarred as badly as a child would be after being molested by a pervert, but were unable to convince her of this due to her inebriated state?
In any case, I agree that taking that position doesn't commit you to a view on the justifiability of the adult's actions. For example, we might imagine a person approaching the drunk and trying to arrange a situation in which the drunk would let the person hit him in her car. If the drunk agreed, after being convinced by the driver, we might still say that the driver would be wrong to go ahead and hit the drunk because the drunk was not in a position of being able to offer consent. I think it would be perfectly fair to stop the driver and say, "You sick ***; you're going to murder that guy!" even if he could truthfully say that the drunk had given him permission, if we had reason to suspect that the driver had somehow obtained that consent due to an incapacity in the decision making of the drunk.
Len Budney: majevska: It seems to me that people are misunderstanding or deliberately avoiding certain valid points Juan has made. He is asking "how do you know if a child is a rational actor or not?" Perhaps this question can be answered in the field of psychology or neuroscience, but so far all I have heard is something along the lines of "they are not rational actors because they are children and children are by definition not rational actors." Perhaps Im missing something here but it certainly seems like circular reasoning to me. What makes it non-circular is that nobody is defining "children" by an age range. The definition of "children" for the purposes of ethical discussion is, "humans that aren't rational actors." Juan is arguing that by that definition, two-year-olds aren't "children"--but he hasn't even tried to prove it. I think it's safe to argue that the collection of "children" is non-empty, since it contains newborns. Implicit in Juan's argument is the assumption that the ability to articulate consent suffices to make one a rational actor. That's easily enough disproven: parrots can be taught to articulate consent, but they aren't rational actors. Retarded, insane or otherwise disabled people can also be made to articulate consent by various means, but that doesn't make them consenting. That's the first problem with his view, and it's major. Another problem is that "rational actor" is not in fact a binary condition. My child was able to pick which color shirt to wear before he could talk. It would be tough to build a convincing case that a pre-verbal one-year-old can consent to sex, and it's just plain obvious that he can't consent to, say, lifelong slavery. Just as intelligence occupies a continuum, so too does rationality. We do our best to treat rights as unconditional, even when people are stupid or irrational, and our effort falls short when we deal with the insane, the mentally disabled, and children. --Len.
Hmmm... I have to think about this more.