Political Theory

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

wilderness — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:32:26 GMT

Stranger:

This may well be so, but it is irrelevant to a justice system.

No. It's relevant.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:28:44 GMT

Why do you persist in your strawman? Why?

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Stranger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:27:04 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Motive and mitigating/extenuating circumstances are usually taken into account in any justice system.

Would someone whose house you violated be liable to compensate you for defending his home?

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:25:23 GMT

Motive and mitigating/extenuating circumstances are usually taken into account in any justice system.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Stranger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:23:39 GMT

wilderness:

risk doesn't mean one needs to take it, it merely means it's present. cause the child might after all be crying over spilled milk. I mean it's plain as day and simple that a person would need to be certain before pulling off a stunt of going into a house that is not their's. It's obvious.

This may well be so, but it is irrelevant to a justice system.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

wilderness — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:33:13 GMT

Stranger:

wilderness:
Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered.

What you call "real world risk" is cause for open warfare.

yes, never thought otherwise

Stranger:

You could be killed entering the home,

yes, never thought otherwise

Stranger:

and then someone would come collect justice for you.

maybe, doesn't surprise me if yeah or neah

Stranger:

But then how would we know who is in the right?

If they are murdering the child, then stopping the murder is right. If it isn't murder, then the person can be charged with trespassing and the family in the household if they are not murdering the child might commit self-defense and kill the person that took the risk upon entering the house.

Stranger:

You had no cause to violate the sovereignty of the household, you came in unannounced, you are guilty and your death was not criminal, but accidental.

I never said they came in unannounced and if the child is being murdered if that is true, then no, the person is not guilty. The people killing the child are guilty of murder.

risk doesn't mean one needs to take it, it merely means it's present. cause the child might after all be crying over spilled milk. I mean it's plain as day and simple that a person would need to be certain before pulling off a stunt of going into a house that is not their's. It's obvious.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:10:23 GMT

Stranger:
I am getting a strong impression that none of the people arguing against ownership of children have ever had any children.

I'm getting the strong impression that such doesn't matter.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Juan — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:55:34 GMT

Stranger:
The sovereignty of the household is inviolable.

No such thing as "the sovereignty of the household" - only individuals are sovereign.

Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice,

No such thing as "family justice" - justice is related to individual rights - it has nothing to do with 'family'.

You are waaaay confused....

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Stranger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:49:40 GMT

wilderness:
Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered.

What you call "real world risk" is cause for open warfare. You could be killed entering the home, and then someone would come collect justice for you. But then how would we know who is in the right? You had no cause to violate the sovereignty of the household, you came in unannounced, you are guilty and your death was not criminal, but accidental.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

wilderness — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:56:06 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

Now the cry isn't in itself justification...

Right. This is a real world risk. Somebody may storm the house and find out the cry was on TV and such a person would face the consequences by the property owners, or may find a child being murdered. Any number of if's, and's, or but's. This whole intellectual exercise is dried up and doesn't have relevance anymore in my opinion other than becoming an abstraction that the mind may find fun and enjoyment in moving all the pieces about the game board and watching the scenarios change due to slight variations introduced in this nifty fantasy.

It was relevant for only a short while for me.

good day thread...

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Sam Armstrong — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:42:33 GMT

Now the cry isn't in itself justification of or even a certain guarantee that the parents have done something wrong. For example, if the parents are simply letting their child starve, and it is crying for food, there would be no way for you to rightfully enter the house and take the kid. This would be a violation of the parents property right in their house, and they would not have aggressed against anyone. You may very well wish to take the consequences of said violation and take the kid out of there anyway, but the parents would have the right just the same to forcibly repel you from their property.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

wilderness — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:33:00 GMT

What does that mean? Hearing a child cry in suffering pain by the coercive will of another is the nightmare of a mother and a father. a nightmare worse than that is to hear this and not be able to do anything about it. i've had those nightmares. I am a father.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Stranger — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:29:37 GMT

I am getting a strong impression that none of the people arguing against ownership of children have ever had any children.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

wilderness — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:49:36 GMT

Stranger:

wilderness:
4 - child yells loud enough or somehow gets the message out and a by-passer hear's the call. they want to take the risk to defend the child and go in. The same as any entrepreneur venture the risk is present that NO return of payment for the work done will happen. that's the free market.

Children scream and yell all the time for all sorts of tantrum, and it is common for parents to use moderate violence against them to correct their behavior. That does not mean the child's rights have been violated.

Or the child is screaming cause they are being killed and a third party hears it happening and go in. Maybe knock at the door first. Call some friends up and have them come for back-up. The friends would be really pissed if it was a child merely having a tantrum. Make the call. What to do... it's crunch time. make the shot in the basket, kick the ball in the net or pass it off to a player that might have a better shot... what to do, what to do. anything can be made risky. heck I might choke on this piece of bread.. do i eat it or not.

Re: "Trustee-ownership" of children

Sam Armstrong — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:20:08 GMT

Stranger:

You are still not getting the point. No "third party" other than the children has had his rights violated, and so no one is entitled to any kind of retributive payment.

This is completely is bypassed if the child does indeed want you to protect it. It then transfers the retributive payment to you (a third party). If the child is unable to communicate it's want of justice or indeed unable to conceive of justice (either because it's too young, or indeed dead) then anybody who knows about it has the right to homestead the claim, and pursue or indeed forgive it. This is of course anyone who is not involved in the aggression or conspiracy to aggress against the child. Much in the same way that the son who kills his parents does not inherit the right forgive his own crime, so too do the parents not inherit the right to forgive themselves the crime.