Or sleeping... or comatose.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GilesStratton: Spideynw:You see, the only way we can know if someone's rights have been violated is if they have the ability to consent. I wonder mute people would fare in your idea of a libertarian society.
Spideynw:You see, the only way we can know if someone's rights have been violated is if they have the ability to consent.
I wonder mute people would fare in your idea of a libertarian society.
Can this mute individual not write? If one is mute, blind, deaf, & incapable of writing, then maybe they would be a rather huge problem (sans the possibility that such an individual's family might realize how incapable this individual may be of autonomy, & may take responsibility).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Can this mute individual not write?
And if a pen and paper aren't handy? Of the mute has extremely poor handwriting, or better yet, can't write at all?
Better yet, what if somebody has an accent that you don't understand, you then proceed to mug them and therefore can't be sure that they're refusing to comply. Hence when they take out their wallet you merely see it as a sign of consent.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jon Irenicus: Or sleeping... or comatose.
Would you still buy insurance from a company that stops providing for people that go into a deep coma? I guess not. Bottom line is you can't extend that argument to people that were previously able to consent.
Why? That just means the insurance agency will use force. It does not mean it will do so in the protection of a right that somehow vanishes when you are not able to express consent... and thus one may conclude it is aggressing.
Jon Irenicus: Why? That just means the insurance agency will use force. It does not mean it will do so in the protection of a right that somehow vanishes when you are not able to express consent... and thus one may conclude it is aggressing.
Okay, what about protection agencies and private courts that stop enforcing the rights of such people?
What about them? BTW, in case it is unclear, I do not hold to the view that rights vanish along with the ability to express consent...
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Okay, what about protection agencies and private courts that stop enforcing the rights of such people?
They lose buisness?
Jon Irenicus: What about them? BTW, in case it is unclear, I do not hold to the view that rights vanish along with the ability to express consent...
I was under the impression that you extend the situation of people born without the ability to express consent to those that lose this ability at some point, thereby trying to argue that the former should have the same rights as the latter category. So I was trying to explain that this extension cannot be made, as the situations are rather different.
GilesStratton: Nitroadict:Can this mute individual not write? And if a pen and paper aren't handy? Of the mute has extremely poor handwriting, or better yet, can't write at all? Better yet, what if somebody has an accent that you don't understand, you then proceed to mug them and therefore can't be sure that they're refusing to comply. Hence when they take out their wallet you merely see it as a sign of consent.
lol what? I would promptly be arrested, after a trial (or two; being that there would most likely be multiple courts etc.) in which I promptly hire Alan Shore, whom somehow miraculously claims the victim is to blame for "miscommunicating" consent to being robbed, & I am found guilty of not only the criminal act of mugging, but of the sheer audacity to blame the victim, & possibly of questionable intelligence to go with an imaginary lawyer as my defense.The hypothetical is important, however, I admit that.
Nitroadict:lol what? I would promptly be arrested, after a trial (or two; being that there would most likely be multiple courts etc.) in which I promptly hire Alan Shore, whom somehow miraculously claims the victim is to blame for "miscommunicating" consent to being robbed, & I am found guilty of not only the criminal act of mugging, but of the sheer audacity to blame the victim, & possibly of questionable intelligence to go with an imaginary lawyer as my defense.The hypothetical is important, however, I admit that.
My point was simply this: abiltiy to consent is a poor starting point for rights. If not for other reasons then because it cannot be ascertained at the time.
Right but then you at least agree that consent is not all there is to it to possessing rights. At best it's an indicator. So it does not follow from the fact that a child cannot express consent that it does not possess rights, and thus that "anything goes" with relation to it.
Jon Irenicus: I was under the impression that you extend the situation of people born without the ability to express consent to those that lose this ability at some point, thereby trying to argue that the former should have the same rights as the latter category. So I was trying to explain that this extension cannot be made, as the situations are rather different. Right but then you at least agree that consent is not all there is to it to possessing rights. At best it's an indicator. So it does not follow from the fact that a child cannot express consent that it does not possess rights, and thus that "anything goes" with relation to it.
Of course, if you ask my opinion, I agree, they do have rights. I'm merely pointing out the difficulties of enforcing those rights when consenting is absent.
I agree that it's difficult. I'm just trying to determine whether a parent has free rein to do whatever they wish to their child, i.e. whether children possess any rights at all or not.
Mutes can still communicate. So they would fare just fine.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Jon Irenicus: No, I meant it. From an inability to express consent it does not follow that one's rights have not been violated... what do eggs have to do with anything, BTW? We're not speaking of potential, but of capacity. And the issue here is that the development of rational faculties is gradual, and not an on/off matter.
No, I meant it. From an inability to express consent it does not follow that one's rights have not been violated... what do eggs have to do with anything, BTW? We're not speaking of potential, but of capacity. And the issue here is that the development of rational faculties is gradual, and not an on/off matter.
Look Jon, it is simply irrational to assume that a child did not want to have sex with their parent. Granted consent was not given, but it was not witheld either. Again, it can only be rape if someone has the ability to reason, as such has the ability to withold or grant consent. Because otherwise, we do not know.
But we do know the child is a being with the capacity for rationality (knowledge we lack with respect to animals). And we know that the development of rationality is gradual (and thus by no means clear-cut.) And we have no idea whether the child would consent or not. So it would seem the best (most reasonable) option is to be as minimally invasive as possible, whilst acting within the child's best interests, i.e. not to aggress against the child, allowing for the possibility of restitution where possible (e.g. in the case of bathing it nude.) Courts will have discretion in interpreting whether a parent has acted in a child's best interests or not, and it is dubious (in the extreme) that any court will take at face value the claim of a parent who had sex with their child, to be looking out for its well-being. If they honestly believed this, the court may refuse to continue enforcing their custodial rights, due to their incompetence, leaving the child up for grabs by the more competent.
My point is that it is fatuous to argue that because someone cannot consent to an action, that it therefore follows one may carry out the action out on them. The precise opposite seems to be the case.
Jon Irenicus:Courts will have discretion in interpreting whether a parent has acted in a child's best interests or not,
Mary Ruwart: Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
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."
Juan: Hm. So again it's been assumed that children don't known what their best interests are...Well, this is no different than governments working for the best interest of their subjects.
And yet, children are not capable of rational argumentation, so yes, parents may be forced to coerce their children sometimes.
I was thinking about this. Kids are capable of some rational thinking for sure. After the age of 5 or so, they definitely have the ability to leave. But most kids stay. They realize it is in their best interest to stay close to their parents.
And the majority of kids who run away? Not very good parenting, sometimes downright dangerous or life threatening.
I'm not sure kids are any less capable of rational decision making than 30 something year old slobs who live with their parents.
liberty student:I was thinking about this. Kids are capable of some rational thinking for sure. After the age of 5 or so, they definitely have the ability to leave. But most kids stay. They realize it is in their best interest to stay close to their parents.
The point is, by the time children are rational there's no point using violence against them anyway. The best person to judge this of course, if the parent.
If the child did not initiate the sexual action, then they cannot be said to have consented. Many (even most) children willingly have sexual play with other children. But they do not often do so with adults. If an adult sees a child in some act of sexual exploration and decides to join in, without having been invited, the adult has violated the rights of the child. That the child might have consented if they were, say, ten years older, does nothing to change the fact.
The fact is that children can give consent. They do consent to sexual activity with other children. They exhibit no such consent, normally, to sexual activity with adults. So the assumption that an adult who initiates sexual activity with a child is molesting the child, is a perfectly reasonable one.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall:If the child did not initiate the sexual action, then they cannot be said to have consented.
Many (even most) children willingly have sexual play with other children. But they do not often do so with adults.
The fact is that children can give consent. They do consent to sexual activity with other children. They exhibit no such consent, normally, to sexual activity with adults.
So the assumption that an adult who initiates sexual activity with a child is molesting the child, is a perfectly reasonable one.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:In either case, I find it highly unlikely that as many people will share his cultural values in a free society as he seems to think, and I doubt that most people would personally be willing to become violent themselves in their opposition to a given cultural identity group. Do you really believe that people in a free society would be tolerant towards child pornography? You're deluded.
Brainpolice:In either case, I find it highly unlikely that as many people will share his cultural values in a free society as he seems to think, and I doubt that most people would personally be willing to become violent themselves in their opposition to a given cultural identity group.
Do you really believe that people in a free society would be tolerant towards child pornography? You're deluded.
You're not responding to my actual argument, which is that a cultural norm against something like watching child pornography in your own home (a vice) does not justify a breach of non-aggression. All you can do is try to disassociate, express yourself against it and prohibit it on your own rightful property. But a communitarian norm of such matters that is legally enforceable by violence is not consistant with libertarianism. Yes, watching child pornography may be widely shunned as a vice, but this doesn't justify a law against it or any of kind of violence against someone.
Even if it is assumed that it is something that merits punishment (which it isn't), the punishment of violence against someone's person is not proportional to the act of watching something on a television or computer screen, which doesn't qualify as a crime by any common sense definition of crime. Breaches of cultural norms that do not pertain to violence and property in and of themselves do not justify violence. Libertarianism cannot be reconciled with such communitarianism. People can be as intolerant of it as they please, but violence is not justified.
On the idea of an "age of consent": there is no single "age of consent", for consent is qualatative rather than quantative in nature. Consent is something to be determined by the particular qualities of a social phenomenon. Any determiniation of consent is always on a case by case basis that takes into account the will and behavior of all the people in the given scenario. A uniform "age of consent" inherently constitutes a one-size-fits-all regulation that decides the case in advance irrespective of its particulars. Different people mentally and physically mature at different rates, and what's most relevant to the question of consent are the particulars of their behavior as individuals, not some kind arbitrary predetermined quota meant to increase law enforcement's catches on alleged sex offenders so that more funding is thrown at the bureaucracy of the prison-industrial complex.
A teen-ager is not a child.
Hm. So again it's been assumed that children don't know what their best interests are...Well, this is no different than governments working for the best interest of their subjects.
Children learn to exploit their rational faculty through nurture and habituation. Until they learn to reason independently, how on earth are they to determine where their interests lie and how to achieve them? States involve adults substituting their judgement for those of other adults, who require no such habituation. So it is disanalogous. Of course the parent cannot force the child not to leave should it decide to do so.
Hi, newby here *waves*
I would call myself a libertarian apart from the intellectual property thing, which is the reason I have not previously joined here and no longer financially support this org or LRW. Every time I reach for my credit card there's an article by Kinsella or someone that makes me put it away again.
This topic is a great example of the confusion or outright hypocrisy of the anti-IP stance.
There's 2 issues here, the right to control such images and the right to create them in the first place.
It is simply logically incoherent to claim any kind of control over photographs, text, or whatever, of any kind, while claiming individuals do not have the right to make contracts on such things. If it's OK for you to steal music or software because it's your recording equipment and the owner "doesn't lose anything" then by your own argument child porn is perfectly peachy. End of discussion.
Face it, either you DO agree with that or you DON'T but please don't insult people by claiming you believe both at the same time. Save that for Orwell novels.
I get the same "WTF?" feeling when I hear how it's a terrible crime that the goverment "steals" the value of your savings by printing more dollars (it's their press right?). They're 'only' devaluing your previous productivity by diluting the value of your store of value, same as 'sharing' music or software devalues the producers store of value, which according to Kinsella et al if perfectly fine, heck it's admirable that they'd spread the wealth, right? Freedom! We can all be rich by stealing!
Spare me the hypocrisy, please. Yeah sure, they 'force' you to earn dollars - but who forces you to steal a certain band's music? If what they do to 'money' is wrong and theft then it's wrong and theiving to do it to people's IP. End of discussion.
Regarding the children element, first let me say I totally despise the use of children to make a point, though it's a very valid question in this example. Far too often destruction from govermnet comes with the false claim of "for the baybees!"
However I feel an important principle is being missed here. Responsibility can ONLY come with associated rights, ie power. No right, ie no power, then no responsibility. I cannot control the weather thus I bear no responsibility for it. If a parent is "responsible" for a child then they must have power over that child, whether you wish to call it ownership or not, the responsibility comes with rights and power or there IS no responsibility. As such, to keep things simple, I'd say parents DO own their children. You can fidget over the details if you like but in blunt terms if the parents do not have ownership and power over their children then they have no responsibility to them either.
The idea that YOU, through your opinion or mob vote, have power over other people's children or parenting goes totally against the NAP. As such pure libertarian principle should be to turn a blind eye to anything a parent does with THEIR child. So following libertarian principles the answer to the question must be thus:
If the filmer is the child's parent then it's perfectly acceptable, even if 99.9% of us loathe the very idea of it, likewise the copying, sharing, selling or renting of such material is also fine. End of discussion.
Alternatively we wish to believe multiple things at the same time, which sadly seems all too common, even among libertarians. As for all the waffle about where rights come from I'd have thought it obvious - human rights stem from the basic principle of "Do onto others.." No further nitpicking about self-awareness or anything else required. We respect human rights because we're human. Those who break that pact are enemies of us all.
"I wanna steal music cos I can get away with it" does not fit within that pact any more than stealing bread, gold or other people's children.
My own take? That we should move with the times and technology and acknowledge intellectual property as real, valuable, property. That includes unauthorised photos or video of our children. We should have a say in how our likeness or images are used, just as copyright laws protect logos and trademarks, model releas forms are required for mass broadcast etc.
As for the point a child owns themselves and is no longer the propery of the parents, keep it simple, puberty, ie the point they become reproducing adults themselves. Why make it complicated?
Yes, that does mean parents could film their own children and sell the results to peacefully purchasing fellow perverts. Either that or you accept mob rule determining what's done with your property, in which case why not just call yourself a statist instead of a libertarian?
I guess I missed it somewhere but I was under the impression that libertarianism supports free markets, the right to contract and private property? Unless you want to steal it or it involves baybees?
*sigh*
Sceptic:I would call myself a libertarian apart from the intellectual property thing, which is the reason I have not previously joined here and no longer financially support this org or LRW. Every time I reach for my credit card there's an article by Kinsella or someone that makes me put it away again
Oh man, you made me laugh.
Sceptic:hat we should move with the times and technology and acknowledge intellectual property as real, valuable, property.
But it isn't real property. There is no element of scarcity to it. I don't want to take this thread offtopic, but the definition of property is not flexible. That is how we get into these problems with the state and shifting legal foundations.
Strawmen are wonderful things, aren't they?
Brainpolice:You're not responding to my actual argument, which is that a cultural norm against something like watching child pornography in your own home (a vice) does not justify a breach of non-aggression. All you can do is try to disassociate, express yourself against it and prohibit it on your own rightful property. But a communitarian norm of such matters that is legally enforceable by violence is not consistant with libertarianism. Yes, watching child pornography may be widely shunned as a vice, but this doesn't justify a law against it or any of kind of violence against someone.
All I've maintained is that such people wouldn't be accepted into many communities, confined to their own community they'd quickly die out. I don't know why you're implying otherwise.
Sceptic:Hi, newby here *waves*
Hello sceptic! Welcome to the Mises forum!
I forgot, sorry.
Jon Irenicus:Children develop their rational faculty through nurture and habituation. Until they learn to exploit this capacity how on earth are they to determine where their interests lie and how to achieve them ?
States involve adults substituting their judgment for those of other adults, who require no such habituation. So it is disanalogous.
Of course the parent cannot force the child not to leave should it decide to do so.
Sceptic:Yes, that does mean parents could film their own children and sell the results to peacefully purchasing fellow perverts.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:You're not responding to my actual argument, which is that a cultural norm against something like watching child pornography in your own home (a vice) does not justify a breach of non-aggression. All you can do is try to disassociate, express yourself against it and prohibit it on your own rightful property. But a communitarian norm of such matters that is legally enforceable by violence is not consistant with libertarianism. Yes, watching child pornography may be widely shunned as a vice, but this doesn't justify a law against it or any of kind of violence against someone. All I've maintained is that such people wouldn't be accepted into many communities, confined to their own community they'd quickly die out. I don't know why you're implying otherwise.
I don't see how it follows even from a fairly common cultural norm against it that such people will necessary be completely exiled from communities. Economic incentives are to sell homes to people, and it's not likely that such people are particularly "out of the closet" about such things to begin with (I.E. it's not likely that people will know who the hell is watching the stuff anyways). I don't know why you always tend to insist that the inevitable result of freedom is that people who practise vices are exiled from communities. I think you just have a strong preferance for disassociation and superimpose this onto your vision of libertarianism. But I don't think it logically follows from libertarianism that every single identity group atomistically isolates into their own enclaves, which simply is not realistic or practical for the functioning of a society.
GilesStratton:All I've maintained is that such people wouldn't be accepted into many communities, confined to their own community they'd quickly die out.
Jon Irenicus:But we do know the child is a being with the capacity for rationality (knowledge we lack with respect to animals).
That is irrelevant with respect to whether or not a child consented or witheld consent to an action.
Jon Irenicus:And we know that the development of rationality is gradual (and thus by no means clear-cut.)
Agreed. I am not claiming there is some line, like age 18, where a child all of a sudden has the ability for rational thought. I would guess it is usually far younger, around 5 or 6 years old. Again, it is up to the child when they want to claim their rights.
Jon Irenicus:And we have no idea whether the child would consent or not.
Exactly, just like animals. Again, only someone that has the ability to consent can actually be raped. Because rape is sex without consent, by definition. But we have no way to know if a child consented to it or not.
Jon Irenicus:So it would seem the best (most reasonable) option is to be as minimally invasive as possible, whilst acting within the child's best interests, i.e. not to aggress against the child, allowing for the possibility of restitution where possible (e.g. in the case of bathing it nude.)
This is simply a slippery slope argument. Is spanking a child assault? Is not letting a child crawl off the property imprisonment? Is taking a child to the store kidnapping? I am sorry. I understand you find child sex apprehensible, as I do. But it does not make it illegal.
Jon Irenicus:Courts will have discretion in interpreting whether a parent has acted in a child's best interests or not, and it is dubious (in the extreme) that any court will take at face value the claim of a parent who had sex with their child, to be looking out for its well-being.
Not really. Courts are no better than parents at determining whether they are doing good by their children. This is a completely statist appeal, that government knows best.
Brainpolice: On the idea of an "age of consent": there is no single "age of consent", for consent is qualatative rather than quantative in nature. Consent is something to be determined by the particular qualities of a social phenomenon. Any determiniation of consent is always on a case by case basis that takes into account the will and behavior of all the people in the given scenario. A uniform "age of consent" inherently constitutes a one-size-fits-all regulation that decides the case in advance irrespective of its particulars. Different people mentally and physically mature at different rates, and what's most relevant to the question of consent are the particulars of their behavior as individuals, not some kind arbitrary predetermined quota meant to increase law enforcement's catches on alleged sex offenders so that more funding is thrown at the bureaucracy of the prison-industrial complex.
I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is some uniform "age of consent". It most definitely is a case by case basis, and up to the child.