liberty student:No, parents do not. If the family is sitting around in the living room watching TV, and the Dad says to the Mom, "Hey, these kids are a burden, or not turning out as smart and obedient as I would like", they can pick the kids up, strip them of their clothes, and deposit them naked outside on the sidewalk. Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples.
Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, you do. However, you should note that there is a difference between aesthetics, etiquette, and morality. You are conflating them into a whole, and it's just not the case that they are.
liberty student:I'm not conflating anything.
Yeah, you are.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then: does a child have the right to make a slave of the parent? No sense in tippy-toeing around examples!
liberty student:Well, that's not an example
Yeah, it is.
Remember this: emotive pleas have no place.
liberty student:If your choice is starve or be a slave, that's no choice at all.
Blasted trade offs.
liberty student: As evidenced by the fact that most if not everyone here pays their taxes, observes several laws and carries state ID, the potential for a threat of force, is enough to shape behaviour.
That is because they are coerced, threatened with force, to do so.
You are not entitled to others trading with you.
If the state had somehow developed a legitimate monopoly on a certain good (which is neigh impossible on the free market) they would be able to withold trade from individuals they didn't like for whatever reason they had.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, it is.
Uhm, no it isn't. An example would be how the child would exercise a slave condition on the parent.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Remember this: emotive pleas have no place.
I'm not making emotive pleas. Your argument may be righteous, and you may be righteous, but you'll never make any headway promoting libertarianism, if you refuse to confront emotional arguments. Telling emotional beings to think and behave unemotionally is a pipe dream.
banned: liberty student: As evidenced by the fact that most if not everyone here pays their taxes, observes several laws and carries state ID, the potential for a threat of force, is enough to shape behaviour. That is because they are coerced, threatened with force, to do so.
Nonsense. They know the state is wrong, they know the state cannot stop a mass movement. It's their own fear of going it alone that paralyzes them. If there were 20 million people not paying their taxes, then the libertarians would suddenly find their testicular fortitude.
banned:You are not entitled to others trading with you.
Ok, I'll admit some ignorance, but this is just silly. You're stating the obvious.
banned:If the state had somehow developed a legitimate monopoly on a certain good (which is neigh impossible on the free market) they would be able to withold trade from individuals they didn't like for whatever reason they had.
But I'm not necessarily talking only about the state. I see posted here often, that ostracism is a legitimate punishment or enforcement tactic. That you could stop doing business with someone. Now you don't need a death pact between multiple suppliers of a rare good, but smart business says, if 99% of my customers want me to stop dealing with X, then it is in my best interest to not deal with X. I can't keep 1 customer over 99.
The threat of being ostracised by a group could have tangible physical consequences.
As Byzantine said, it is easy to argue righteousness when you're a single, childless male. When someone has kids, I'm not so sure they would be willing to acknowledge that the children are property and can be discarded like an old pair of shoes.
...and?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student:As Byzantine said, it is easy to argue righteousness when you're a single, childless male. When someone has kids, I'm not so sure they would be willing to acknowledge that the children are property and can be discarded like an old pair of shoes.
I'm sure they'd find it unimaginable and horrific, and quite rightly so, that doesn't however exclude the posibility that they'd understand the parent is well within their rights to do so.
Of course even a society in which this is possible is preferable to what we have today, as it is kids are required to attend schools to be taught exactly what the state wants them to learn, moreover kids are often taken away from their parents by the state for merely trying to do their best as a parent.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: It's their own fear of going it alone that paralyzes them.
And what is that based on?
Bodily harm.
liberty student: I see posted here often, that ostracism is a legitimate punishment or enforcement tactic. That you could stop doing business with someone. Now you don't need a death pact between multiple suppliers of a rare good, but smart business says, if 99% of my customers want me to stop dealing with X, then it is in my best interest to not deal with X. I can't keep 1 customer over 99.
Again, this is not coercion. It's a legitimate use of property. You are entitled to people not aggressing against you, but not them trading with you. Ostricism is not coercion.
liberty student: When someone has kids, I'm not so sure they would be willing to acknowledge that the children are property and can be discarded like an old pair of shoes.
Who's said children are property?
Jon Irenicus: The threat of being ostracised by a group could have tangible physical consequences. ...and? -Jon
And I am asking what the difference between being coerced and being ostracized is.
liberty student:Uhm, no it isn't.
Yeah, it actually is. You can whine all you like, but it's an example.
liberty student:I'm not making emotive pleas.
Yeah, you are. Your argument is based on the emotive plea of "living things have the right to live" to evoke sympathy.
And I never said for thinking beings to behave unemotionally. You REALLY should learn to not construct strawmen.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, it actually is. You can whine all you like, but it's an example.
Nope, I defeated you for like the 20th time now on this one.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, you are. Your argument is based on the emotive plea of "living things have the right to live" to evoke sympathy. And I never said for thinking beings to behave unemotionally. You REALLY should learn to not construct strawmen.
Speaking of strawmen, where did I state that "living things have the right to live"? You'll have to prove that or you have lost the argument.
One denies you use of your own property, the other entails others refusing you use of theirs.
Ok, got it. Thank you.
But does that mean it's not coercive? I go through this big ordeal to determine that under all circumstances, a woman can always abort a pregnancy, and then we find out that if her health or safety is threatened by the withdrawl of service meant to coerce her to perhaps not have an abortion, her right to an abortion is meaningless, because exercising it could mean death.
I don't understand how this is any different than paying your taxes only because of the threat of violence. Surely the state beating you over the head, or withdrawing it's pseudo-protection and allowing bandits to beat you over the head if you do not comply, is really not that dramatically different, is it?
I understand the right to ostracize, property etc. But it can be used to compromise or threaten other's rights to determination, can it not?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Maxliberty: banned: Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? Of course not. Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well. We do? Funny. I'm not. Maxliberty: What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide. Somebody hasn't read enough Aristotle and contemporary Aristotelian libertarians. Library Libertarians. LOL As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"
Maxliberty: banned: Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? Of course not. Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well.
banned: Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? Of course not.
Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then?
Of course not.
Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well.
We do? Funny. I'm not.
Maxliberty: What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
Somebody hasn't read enough Aristotle and contemporary Aristotelian libertarians. Library Libertarians. LOL As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"
Yes, you actually go beyond that by saying that some severely mentally handicapped people might not qualify as human and therefore in your world those people can just be taken out and shot I guess. Yeah, give me a break.
liberty student:Speaking of strawmen, where did I state that "living things have the right to live"?
It's the hidden premise of your argument, which is why I said you begged the question.
Silly child, you cannot best me.
Coercion? In a sense that mandates forceful retaliation? No. It might make life more difficult, but if a group of individuals do not wish to consort with women who abort their children that is within their right, and to force them to cooperate is to enslave them and thus destructive of the very notion of liberty. So, what it does mean is that in some communities abortion will be frowned upon, and in others it will be openly tolerated. But refusing to associate with someone is never "coercive" in the sense that force may be used against the discriminator. This is really basic to libertarianism. Her basic. negative right to liberty remains untainted - her options are simply limited. But no one ever said liberty (which is negative) entails a plethora of options...
OK. Thanks.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's the hidden premise of your argument, which is why I said you begged the question.
A "hidden premise"? So basically you can't prove it, and have lost again. Before you lecture me on strawmen, you should make sure you are not susceptible to the same charge!
Knight_of_BAAWA:Silly child, you cannot best me.
Because I don't care, you are already defeated.
liberty student:A "hidden premise"?
Yes. That's what begging the question means, little one. It is to create an unstated secondary proposition related to the first proposition, and which the first proposition relies on but yet is not proven. Thus, the question is "begged" because it's not been proved. Examples are "who created the universe"--begging the question that the universe was created in the first place, and "have you stopped beating your wife", begging the question that you have, in fact, beaten your wife.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes. That's what begging the question means, little one. It is to create an unstated secondary proposition related to the first proposition, and which the first proposition relies on but yet is not proven. Thus, the question is "begged" because it's not been proved. Examples are "who created the universe"--begging the question that the universe was created in the first place, and "have you stopped beating your wife", begging the question that you have, in fact, beaten your wife.
Can you show the exact phrase or phrases where I begged the question? If you can't prove it, then you have lost and should leave the argument.
liberty student:Can you show the exact phrase or phrases where I begged the question?
Already did. You should re-read the exchange.
I see. So you admit you have posted another strawman. Lame. How many times can someone lose an argument in 2 days? Let alone against someone who could care less if he wins?
liberty student:I see. So you admit you have posted another strawman.
Thus showing that you don't know what a strawman is.
Kid, quit while you're behind.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Kid, quit while you're behind.
But I don't care if I come in last.
And yet you keep responding....
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet you keep responding....
Because I know you absolutely must have the last word. You should read some Sun Tzu.
liberty student:Because I know you absolutely must have the last word.
No me!
Maxliberty: Do we agree that life starts at some point? At whatever point that you would agree it starts then the human life has rights after that point, true? So the question is the starting point. Which is the original question I proposed. I have an answer for it and all the pro-abortion people do not. So until the pro-abortion people can specify when life begins they can't argue that I am not correct.
Do we agree that life starts at some point? At whatever point that you would agree it starts then the human life has rights after that point, true? So the question is the starting point. Which is the original question I proposed. I have an answer for it and all the pro-abortion people do not. So until the pro-abortion people can specify when life begins they can't argue that I am not correct.
I believe that life is a continuous process that began billions of years ago. It has never truly stopped since, and won't likely stop here on earth until the sun itself burns out.
Now here is a question for you. If a pregnant woman owns herself, as I think we all agree she does, in your mind, does she have the right to drink alcoholic beverages and use drugs while pregnant? If she ingested chemicals that lead to the child being disfigured would she be punished in your perfect world?
I am really enjoying this discussion for what it's worth.
Militant: Maxliberty: Do we agree that life starts at some point? At whatever point that you would agree it starts then the human life has rights after that point, true? So the question is the starting point. Which is the original question I proposed. I have an answer for it and all the pro-abortion people do not. So until the pro-abortion people can specify when life begins they can't argue that I am not correct. I believe that life is a continuous process that began billions of years ago. It has never truly stopped since, and won't likely stop here on earth until the sun itself burns out. Now here is a question for you. If a pregnant woman owns herself, as I think we all agree she does, in your mind, does she have the right to drink alcoholic beverages and use drugs while pregnant? If she ingested chemicals that lead to the child being disfigured would she be punished in your perfect world? I am really enjoying this discussion for what it's worth.
There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression.
My view is very different than the pro-abortion group because I believe that once a person agrees to take care of another person they are obligated to at least not cause intentional harm. The pro-abortion crowd and in particular this group does not believe that people can have any obligations despite their voluntary consent to care for other persons. So if you go to the hospital the doctors and such in their world have no obligation to actually provide the care they said they would. This is how they arrive at the conclusion that it is acceptable for parents to starve their children to death. In truth the failed ideology of Rothbard and the like is not even possible in the human context it only exists in the library libertarian fantasy world.
Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression.
I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy?
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy?
yes
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy? yes
Eating unhealthily?
GilesStratton: Maxliberty: GilesStratton: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy? yes Eating unhealthily?
As long as the mother isn't intentionally trying to harm the baby she is free to do as she likes.
So you're saying that the mother can do every drug under the sun, smoke like a chimney, guzzle absinthe and eat McDonalds three times a day for the entirety of her pregnancy, which would ultimately cause the baby to be born crippled for life, and yet an abortion should be illegal, why?
GilesStratton:So you're saying that the mother can do every drug under the sun, smoke like a chimney, guzzle absinthe and eat McDonalds three times a day for the entirety of her pregnancy, which would ultimately cause the baby to be born crippled for life, and yet an abortion should be illegal, why?
Because babies have a right to their mothers, since they implicitly invite it when they invite sex, even though it didn't exist at that point and even though no formal invitation was made. The baby does not have a right to what the mother puts into her body. So a mother who's mentally devistated by her pregnancy can ingest poison to kill herself instead of being forced by Max's gang to take care of the baby.
Maxliberty:My view is very different than the pro-abortion group because I believe that once a person agrees to take care of another person they are obligated to at least not cause intentional harm.
And with whom was this agreement made vis-a-vis pregnant woman/zygote?
I know--you pro-slavery people just hate women.
GilesStratton:I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy?
Maxliberty:yes
Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction.
GilesStratton: So you're saying that the mother can do every drug under the sun, smoke like a chimney, guzzle absinthe and eat McDonalds three times a day for the entirety of her pregnancy, which would ultimately cause the baby to be born crippled for life, and yet an abortion should be illegal, why?
If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression. Having bad habits may cause harm to the child but that is not sufficient to punish or prohibit the mother from engaging in behavior you don't approve of.
Maxliberty:If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression.
It's still aggression, regardless. If we keep to your idea that abortion is not taking responsibility for one's actions, and is in fact murder, then necessarily it follows that anything the mother does which harms the zygote or fetus, even without malice, is aggression. After all: not taking care of the fetus by not smoking or whatnot is not taking responsibility for one's actions!
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
banned: GilesStratton:So you're saying that the mother can do every drug under the sun, smoke like a chimney, guzzle absinthe and eat McDonalds three times a day for the entirety of her pregnancy, which would ultimately cause the baby to be born crippled for life, and yet an abortion should be illegal, why? Because babies have a right to their mothers, since they implicitly invite it when they invite sex, even though it didn't exist at that point and even though no formal invitation was made. The baby does not have a right to what the mother puts into her body. So a mother who's mentally devistated by her pregnancy can ingest poison to kill herself instead of being forced by Max's gang to take care of the baby.
When one person willingly accepts the obligation to care for another person then they are obligated to at least do no intentional harm to the person under their care. When the woman's body willing accepts and begins caring for the baby the mother is now obligated to at least do no intentional harm. Pretty simple if you believe as I do that people are responsible for their actions.
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: So you're saying that the mother can do every drug under the sun, smoke like a chimney, guzzle absinthe and eat McDonalds three times a day for the entirety of her pregnancy, which would ultimately cause the baby to be born crippled for life, and yet an abortion should be illegal, why? If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression. Having bad habits may cause harm to the child but that is not sufficient to punish or prohibit the mother from engaging in behavior you don't approve of.
It's ridiculous to decide legality based on intent.