scineram:Then can they force circumcision?
Yes.
I stick by the "if you live under my roof" theory. As long as the child is dependent on the parent, the parent has full rights to determine the dependents welfare.
However, the child has certain "innate" rights that protects all humans. This includes a right to self-preservation which means the parent cannot kill the child at a whim, but can force the child to go to their room when they misbehave.
It also means the parent can "force" certain medical procedures, such as an appendectomy , tonsillectomy , or circumcision...if the parent believes it is in the child's best long-term interests.
A child can, at any time, declare themselves "independent" and become responsible for their own actions and livelihood. At this point they become free agents and can enter into any consentual or contractual relationship that they choose.
Jonas: scineram:Then can they force circumcision? Yes. I stick by the "if you life under my roof" theory. As long as the child is dependent on the parent, the parent has full rights to determine the dependents welfare.
I stick by the "if you life under my roof" theory. As long as the child is dependent on the parent, the parent has full rights to determine the dependents welfare.
Exactly. I would hasten to add, though, that this power diminishes as the child matures. At eight days, there's no question of parental authority. At eight years, that's less clear. At eighty years, the parents have no say whatsoever. The key is:
In principle, exactly. Which will never happen with a newborn, but could easily happen with a teenager. Another way to look at parental authority is to ask exactly how a child goes about "divorcing" his parents? For the newborn, it's irrelevant, because it can't follow any procedure. For the twenty-year-old, it's again irrelevant, because there's nothing you can really do to stop him moving out. But in the case of an abused ten-year-old? Clearly he has a right not to be abused, and a sensible way to express that right is to make a change of guardian. But how would that play out in a libertarian legal system? And how would the sequal play out, if the new guardian turns out to be abusive as well?
--Len
Len Budney: Exactly. I would hasten to add, though, that this power diminishes as the child matures. At eight days, there's no question of parental authority. At eight years, that's less clear. At eighty years, the parents have no say whatsoever. The key is:
I do feel that even though maturity increases gradually there needs to be a singular moment when the entity stops being a dependent and becomes a free agent. This moment can only be decided on by the entity that is seeking free agent status.
I know you believe in a continuum, but for legal and consistency reasons there needs to be something well defined.
Well, anarchists aren't big on "legal" reasons--and "consistency" scares me. It sounds like making the mature ones suffer for the sake of "consistency" with a rule geared to the immature ones.
Seriously, though, I don't see a problem with handling specific cases on their own merits. In proportion as we anarchists eschew rules, we favor litigation. Any rule based on correlative factors, like age, IQ, weight, etc., will at best be "often" right. I do think we owe our kids at least this much integrity, not to impose our will on them unnecessarily.
Len Budney: "consistency" scares me... ...I don't see a problem with handling specific cases on their own merits.
"consistency" scares me...
...I don't see a problem with handling specific cases on their own merits.
For a group of people to get along, whether you call that a society or not, they need to agree on certain, consistent, standards. In my example, the standard for determining when an entity is a free agent is when they request free agent status and remove themselves as a dependent from their guardians. There are no correlative factors. It can happen at any age, at any time, and by anyone with any IQ.
There would need to be some arbitration involved...the two-year-old having a tantrum and says "I don't want to live here anymore" can't be considered to have just become a free agent. But this arbitration can be handled in the same way that property right disputes and other criminal issues are...by a third-party that is hired by the two parties to arbitrate the dispute.
For a group of people to get along, whether you call that a society or not, they need to agree on certain, consistent, standards.
I'm all for it: in my corner of the free world, my neighbors will all be Christians, and prostitutes won't be able to buy groceries. At least, if I can find a neighborhood like that to live in. That's completely uncontroversial as long as the standards are "enforced" non-coercively.
There's even room for some levels of force, for example under contractual arrangements that turn violators into trespassers. Bouncers can throw out people who dress too skimpily for family fun night at the bowling alley.
But when "standards" mean "laws that can be enforced coercively," we need to be extremely careful. We risk opening the door to laws against anything imaginable by reinterpreting it as aggression. Remember "second-hand smoke kills"?
Jonas:There would need to be some arbitration involved...the two-year-old having a tantrum and says "I don't want to live here anymore" can't be considered to have just become a free agent. But this arbitration can be handled in the same way that property right disputes and other criminal issues are...by a third-party that is hired by the two parties to arbitrate the dispute.
I would figure unless this child has a willing new guardian, the whole scenario is moot.
Jonas: Scineram: Then can they[parents] force circumcision? Yes.
Scineram: Then can they[parents] force circumcision?
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."
Len: I'm all for it: in my corner of the free world, my neighbors will all be Christians, and prostitutes won't be able to buy groceries. There's even room for some levels of force, for example under contractual arrangements that turn violators into trespassers. Bouncers can throw out people who dress too skimpily for family fun night at the bowling alley.
Charles Anthony: I can see the two-year old dumping his piggy bank in front of the third-party as payment.
I can see the two-year old dumping his piggy bank in front of the third-party as payment.
That is why you will not see two-year-old children as free agents.
Juan: Libertarianism - NAP include the mutilation of children. I think I've learnt something today. ps: circumcision is by no means a form of violent sexual abuse - no way.
I agree with you, circumcision is by no means abuse. Which is why it doesn't fall under the NAP.
Juan:I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word 'sarcasm'.
That is why Al Gore invented emoticons, to allow you to avoid this type of confusion.
Another thing I am wondering about is whether an entity can be forced to become a free agent.
I do not feel that an entity is a free agent until they request this status for themselves. But can a parent eventually force their child into free agent status? Do I really want my 50-year-old son living in the basement while I pay for his room and board? Sure, I chose to create a new entity and thus bear responsibility to this entity...but that should probably have some time limit.
Then again, it is quite possible that if my child has severe Down's Syndrome or some other major disability, I could easily be responsible for it's welfare for several decades...perhaps even my entire life. That is something I need to consider before having a child.
My first instinct is that a human does not gain free agent status until it chooses to become a free agent, and cannot be forced to accept this responsibility by anyone else. But various societal variables would exist that would make this happen sooner-or-later for most people.
Can I chop my childs arm off if they're still under my protection?
Len Budney: I do not agree that a 2-yo cannot decide to give or withhold consent. I do not agree that sexual contact with a 2-yo is necessarily child abuse. (I do agree that they're not mature enough to understand or live up to the ramifications of pregnancy, but at 2, that's not much of an issue.) In fact, I find it very easy to visualize a 2-yo enjoying the heck out of someone older giving them sexual pleasure. I rest my case. People like you and Juan are probably the biggest reason most people fear anarchy: they fear that the members of a free society will be more like you than like themselves. Our biggest task in advocating anarcho-capitalism is to convince them that they're wrong--that a free society will not tolerate such scum.
I do not agree that a 2-yo cannot decide to give or withhold consent. I do not agree that sexual contact with a 2-yo is necessarily child abuse. (I do agree that they're not mature enough to understand or live up to the ramifications of pregnancy, but at 2, that's not much of an issue.) In fact, I find it very easy to visualize a 2-yo enjoying the heck out of someone older giving them sexual pleasure.
I rest my case.
People like you and Juan are probably the biggest reason most people fear anarchy: they fear that the members of a free society will be more like you than like themselves. Our biggest task in advocating anarcho-capitalism is to convince them that they're wrong--that a free society will not tolerate such scum.
I see.
I claim that it is possible == I advocate it
I advocate it == I must commit it if consensual
I must commit it if consensual == I will commit it regardless of consent
I've never understood this type of reasoning to be consistent with mathematical logic, but then again, I'm not a mathematician.
Infiltration of libertarian ranks by such scum is our single biggest credibility problem today. Non-aggressive purging of them, by shunning, is absolutely necessary (but not sufficient) to spreading the concept of liberty.
Shun the unpopular to promote liberty? This is downright interesting.
Oddly enough, I identified as a libertarian long before my research in sexology brought me to this understanding of childhood sexuality. Any 'infiltration' went in the other direction.
Meanwhile, just stay out of my neighborhood.
Or you'll commit nonagression on me?
You may have credibility problems that have nothing to do with me.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Len Budney: Jonas: scineram:Then can they force circumcision? Yes. I stick by the "if you life under my roof" theory. As long as the child is dependent on the parent, the parent has full rights to determine the dependents welfare. Exactly. I would hasten to add, though, that this power diminishes as the child matures. At eight days, there's no question of parental authority. At eight years, that's less clear. At eighty years, the parents have no say whatsoever.{...}
Exactly. I would hasten to add, though, that this power diminishes as the child matures. At eight days, there's no question of parental authority. At eight years, that's less clear. At eighty years, the parents have no say whatsoever.{...}
This would, of course, include female circumcision? How about ritual scarification, foot binding, or tattooing? Would those only be permissible before the child can understand and withhold consent, or would you be able to force a clearly unconsenting child to submit to such practices?
Danno, amused by the joy of liberty and the sanctity of the individual.
Sounds like a fancy name for abandonment. There are no positive obligations in libertarian law, so a child can be given up by its parents.
--Len.
I can sell my child into slavery?
banned:Can I chop my childs arm off if they're still under my protection?
You're asking the right sort of question. You can authorize medical procedures, including painful or risky ones, so you obviously have some authority. You can't kill your child, so your authority obviously has limits. How are those limits defined, given that the child is (at the start of its life at least) not a rational being?
What about tribal tattoos? Subdermal locater chips? Braces? Cosmetic surgery, in the case of hideous scarring? In the case of mere ugliness? Ear piercing? Head shaping ?
It's clear that a list of laws specifying age limits for every conceivable thing parents might do with their children is impossible. Trolls on this very thread illustrate that with their random examples--for example, decrying foot-binding, while declaring that a two-year-old is likely to "enjoy the heck out of" being diddled.
The interesting question, for those of us approaching the discussion seriously, is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything. And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are. That's the question some of us tried to address many pages ago, but were sidetracked by chatter from the peanut gallery.
What i've learned:
Violently mutilating the child's genitals without his consent is completely justified (almost a duty!); however, if the child consents to oral pleasure, he is obviously unfit to make such decisions, per the parent's infinite wisdom (mutilated genitals notwithstanding).
This is why transient cultural aesthetics have no good place in important ethical discussions.
The interesting question, for those of us approaching the discussion seriously, is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything.
For me, the line is whether the procedure has any short- or long-term medical benefits. No, you cannot simply cut off your child's arm on a whim, simply because they are your property. You also must take into consideration the damage inflicted versus the possible benefits.
spires: Violently mutilating the child's genitals without his consent is completely justified (almost a duty!);
Violently mutilating the child's genitals without his consent is completely justified (almost a duty!);
I can't believe you, and others, equate circumcision with violent genital mutilation. There is no medical reason behind genital mutilation...it is simply a means for a male-dominated culture to supress women. Same goes for foot binding. Comparing those and other similar procedures to circumcision is like comparing clipping your toenails to chopping off your feet.
Jonas: I can't believe you, and others, equate circumcision with violent genital mutilation. There is no medical reason behind genital mutilation...it is simply a means for a male-dominated culture to supress women. Same goes for foot binding. Comparing those and other similar procedures to circumcision is like comparing clipping your toenails to chopping off your feet.
Then Let your kid circumsize himself when he needs it.
Len Budney: ... is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything. And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are. That's the question some of us tried to address many pages ago, but were sidetracked by chatter from the peanut gallery.
... is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything. And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are. That's the question some of us tried to address many pages ago, but were sidetracked by chatter from the peanut gallery.
Here's a question then,
What justifies the parents having a monopoly on the raising of a child?
Circumcision is an interesting topic.
Considering that full grown adults willingly get the procedures I don't see how you can call it universally abusive. This situation seems to be best handled with Rothbard's method for determining the legitimacy of police coercion.
We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply.
Parents can circumcise their child so long as the child does not object after he is grown.
Ultimately, circumcision is no different than many other procedures. They are, literally, violent and involve risk. Procedures done to save lives and those done to alter lifestyles are not objectively different. People only hold life saving procedures to be different because they assume that everyone would consent to them, though that is not actually the case.
Peace
banned: Len Budney: ... is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything. And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are. That's the question some of us tried to address many pages ago, but were sidetracked by chatter from the peanut gallery. Here's a question then, What justifies the parents having a monopoly on the raising of a child?
Until the child is able to object, homesteading.
No they aren't. The doctor or midwife proforming delivery has full ability to whisk your child away and homestead it before you can.
banned: No they aren't. The doctor or midwife proforming delivery has full ability to whisk your child away and homestead it before you can.
Even though its been inside your wife for 9 months? Interesting.
Quiet, the adults are talking.
Juan:Children are persons, not property.
Then what prevents conflict between two people claiming the same baby? Clearly there must be a system to determine who is the legitimate parent, thus we can say that one has a property right over the baby.
People are self owning because they demonstrate that they. People who do not demonstrate the power of self determination, like infants and vegetables, must neccessarily be treated differently under the law. This is not abusive towards them, it is a more humane solution than expecting them to function as a normal adult.
JonBostwick: Even though its been inside your wife for 9 months? Interesting. Quiet, the adults are talking.
If a retard comes into your house and you let it eat your food have you homesteaded it?
EDIT: Ahh nevermind, I see the fallacy
Jon: This is not abusive towards them, it is a more humane solution than expecting them to function as a normal adult
banned: JonBostwick: Even though its been inside your wife for 9 months? Interesting. Quiet, the adults are talking. If a retard comes into your house and you let it eat your food have you homesteaded it?
Dodge and Weave.
People have as much self ownership as they demonstrate. An infant demonstrates its ability to live, so no one is allowed to kill it; and similarly no one is allowed to violate its person. However, an infant is not able to care for itself, and unable to object in meaningful way to being cared for, so a parent is allowed to use their own discretion to care for it.
For the mentally deficient the same applies. A vegetable can not be killed, but person who the strongest claim is allowed to determine the care he receives. If that person chooses not to care for them, then we can consider the person to be unclaimed and any charitable person can take over that duty. If no takers are found, he will die.
In the case of a "retard" he probably could form consent so this discussion is pretty unnecessary. If the "retard" that entered your house was not able to form consent and was uncared for, you could claim him as a ward. I'd consider that as an improvement over him being homeless, wouldn't you?
Juan: Let's see. Forcing children to attend church may be, perhaps, an example of humanism at work ?
There is no "force" involved if the child wishes to remain under the protection of the parent. Requiring your child go to church in order to reap the benefits of your labor (Funding, housing) is completely humane.
Juan: Jon: This is not abusive towards them, it is a more humane solution than expecting them to function as a normal adult Let's see. Forcing children to attend church may be, perhaps, an example of humanism at work ?
Parents force children to do lots of things. Children complain, but ultimately, they prefer to do those things over being an orphan.
Of course we are talking about infants, if anyone is being abused its the other people in the church.
Making child go to church or eating vegetables is a seperate issue from guardianship over infants. Children are able to control where they walk or what they eat. Infants are not, thats the difference.
Jon: Parents force children to do lots of things. Children complain, but ultimately, they prefer to do those things over being an orphan.
Almost forgot to say this.
Imagine a woman has a child and then abandons it. The child is adopted by a couple who raise it, but a year later the woman decides she wants it back. Who gets the baby? The homesteading principle says the adoptive parents do, atleast until the child is able to determine for himself who he wants to live with.
I find this to be the most just outcome. If not for the adoptive parents the child would be dead and the woman whould not have the option of demanding it back.
JonBostwick: Of course we are talking about infants, if anyone is being abused its the other people in the church.
Yeah, just like in capitalism the workers are abused, etc.
Juan: Jon: Parents force children to do lots of things. Children complain, but ultimately, they prefer to do those things over being an orphan. I was not talking about infants - but children. Now, people living under totalitarian states are forced to do lots of things. Subjects complain, but ultimately they prefer to live instead of being shot. I guess they are free after all.
Not analogous.
No one suggested shooting children and if people were allowed to reject the state's authority over them our job would be done, wouldn't it?
Juan:Subjects complain, but ultimately they prefer to live instead of being shot. I guess they are free after all.
Who's doing the shooting?