What is the difference, besides semantics?
Well it is precisely the semantics that do all the work here. The parents do not own the child as they own a piece of furniture or a car. They can't do anything they want to it. They have to look out for its own interest and avoid harming it. There is no such requirement in the case of inanimate objects or arguably some/most animals. They own the right to care for it. But that is decidedly different from owning it, which is the exclusive right to control it in any way they wish, which they do not possess.
Byzantine, I recommend you tone it down, so I am not forced to moderate you.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I'm just wondering how the glorious anarchist future is going to sustain itself with a bunch of single 20-something men fretting over a right to view child pornography.
Presumably it would consist of more than just its intellectual advocates, much the same way that capitalism works without needing everyone to be an economist.
Jon Irenicus:Well it is precisely the semantics that do all the work here. The parents do not own the child as they own a piece of furniture or a car. They can't do anything they want to it.
Why not?
Jon Irenicus:They have to look out for its own interest and avoid harming it.
Why?
Jon Irenicus:They own the right to care for it.
And what if they think caring for it means killing it? Or raping it?
Jon Irenicus:But that is decidedly different from owning it, which is the exclusive right to control it in any way they wish, which they do not possess.
Really, selling the rights to care for a child and selling the child do not seem any different to me. Both involve the child being moved to a different location and being raised by different people. Also, having the rights to care for a child and actually owning the child do not really seem all that different to me either. In both cases, it is up to the parents what is in the best interests of the child, whether that be killing the child, beating the child, raping the child, or never harming the child.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Because it is not a mere object, being a human being, now is it? And as for the kind of dolts who think caring for the child involves raping it, I'd like to see a court that'll hinder anyone from prying the child from their hands. They have violated the child's right not to be aggressed against. Good luck finding such a "court". Most courts will in all likelihood develop standards for interpreting what is and what is not proper care of a child (and if you dislike this subjective element in the law I'd suggest you get over it.) You say you're versed in libertarian political theory and suggested earlier on that GilesStratton is confused on this; why does it seem to be the reverse?
Spideynw:Really, selling the rights to care for a child and selling the child do not seem any different to me. Both involve the child being moved to a different location and being raised by different people. Also, having the rights to care for a child and actually owning the child do not really seem all that different to me either. In both cases, it is up to the parents what is in the best interests of the child, whether that be killing the child, beating the child, raping the child, or never harming the child.
It's analogous to a deposit contract with a bank.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Spideynw: Jon Irenicus:No. They can sell their custodial rights, though. What is the difference, besides semantics?
Jon Irenicus:No. They can sell their custodial rights, though.
It is a difference I've already tried to explain. Basically, you shouldn't be allowed to own a child as you own an object. If the child is abused, he should be allowed to choose different parents if possible (e.g. doesn't apply to infants). Considering adoption as a widely acknowledge practice, this isn't a greater hazard per se even if the child accepts the false promises of another wannabe parent. As long as free choice exists, the child is theoretically in no greater danger if he's allowed to switch parents at will.
On the other hand, it is doubtful whether there is a way to cope with situation in which either the child cannot choose or he's sequestered. You could steal a child (note why custody doesn't count as ownership) if you suspect abuse, and if the child is willing to accept your custody the original parent would have no right to demand any other thing than, perhaps, the objects in its possession. In case this type of action is not possible, we could presume that the parent's protection provider is likely to charge him more due to increased danger of aggression, or even plainly refuse to provide protection for him. But there are some issues...
I'd warn against arguing too strongly and without a careful look at consequences for community action. A community that can act at the discretion of majority views, even if this happens in very few and clear-cut instances, is no longer anarchic and can indeed lead to things such as selective free-speech prohibition.
That said, if a group of child abusers leave a community and form one of their own, one can't argue for waging war (as in unitary military action, much like the state) on ethical grounds, no matter how horrible their crimes are. Ethical war is simply not going to happen. In any case, the good news is this would be extremely rare, and probably limited in time at most by the lifespan of the original homesteaders. Thinking along these lines, the same goes for communities of slave owners.
Byzantine: Morty:We're more "fretting over" the consistent application of the non-aggression principle, which I've been led to believe is rather important. I may put this in my sig: biology trumps ideology.
Morty:We're more "fretting over" the consistent application of the non-aggression principle, which I've been led to believe is rather important.
I may put this in my sig: biology trumps ideology.
Then you'll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view.
Byzantine: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:A community that can act at the discretion of majority views, even if this happens in very few and clear-cut instances, is no longer anarchic and can indeed lead to things such as selective free-speech prohibition. It depends on what you've agreed to beforehand. If you move into an Amish village and decide to liven the place up with some impromptu blues jams on your front yard, and the elders vote that you have to stop it, well, you shouldn't have moved into an Amish village. Go move into the blues' musicians village down the road.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:A community that can act at the discretion of majority views, even if this happens in very few and clear-cut instances, is no longer anarchic and can indeed lead to things such as selective free-speech prohibition.
It depends on what you've agreed to beforehand. If you move into an Amish village and decide to liven the place up with some impromptu blues jams on your front yard, and the elders vote that you have to stop it, well, you shouldn't have moved into an Amish village. Go move into the blues' musicians village down the road.
If they hear it loud enough, it's aggression by acoustic pollution.
And to put it differently, unless there's a contract I sign before I move there, if the elders rule against me, that's no free community. Don't count lack of taxation and of other statist things as the single definitive measure of freedom. And this fact is quite true, there's was/is no intricate market to support anarcho-capitalism in such a village.
Byzantine: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Then you'll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view. It's pretty obvious that homosexuality is the ultimate short-sighted view.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Then you'll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view.
It's pretty obvious that homosexuality is the ultimate short-sighted view.
[sarcasm] Yes, along with masturbation, drug users and even those who don't eat healthy, let the heretics that go against nature die. [/sarcasm]
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:And to put it differently, unless there's a contract I sign before I move there, if the elders rule against me, that's no free community.
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."
Jon Irenicus:Because it is not a mere object, being a human being, now is it?
What does it matter that it is a non-living vs. living organism. Animals do not have rights. Or are you not versed in that subject of the Austrian school, namely "rights"?
Jon Irenicus:And as for the kind of dolts who think caring for the child involves raping it, I'd like to see a court that'll hinder anyone from prying the child from their hands.
Might makes right, right? So are you a statist now? Plus, how do we know the child wants to be removed from their parent?
Jon Irenicus:They have violated the child's right not to be aggressed against.
A child has no right to not be aggressed against. It cannot reason. Therefore it cannot withold consent.
A parent however does have the right to seek justice from someone who harms their child. Since the child is their property.
Jon Irenicus:Good luck finding such a "court".
There would be no luck needed in an anarchist society.
Jon Irenicus:Most courts will in all likelihood develop standards for interpreting what is and what is not proper care of a child
It would be irrelevant what the courts decide, since there would be no violations of rights. I think what would be more important would be what societal norms develop. If society at large decided raping your child is despicable, it would probably be very difficult to operate in society if you were caught doing it. Plus, you would probably have to worry about some extremist coming after you and killing you. There are natural laws, like we all die. You do realize this, right?
Jon Irenicus:and if you dislike this subjective element in the law I'd suggest you get over it.
This is an intellectual discussion. Get over yourself already.
Jon Irenicus:You say you're versed in libertarian political theory and suggested earlier on that GilesStratton is confused on this; why does it seem to be the reverse?
Because apparently you do not understand it either.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:If the child is abused, he should be allowed to choose different parents
Once a child can "choose", they have rights.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:and if the child is willing to accept your custody the original parent would have no right to demand any other thing than, perhaps, the objects in its possession.
Again, once a child can choose, then the child has rights.
Spideynw:A child has no right to not be aggressed against. It cannot reason.
Therefore it cannot withold consent.
Juan:You mean, children never say to their parents "don't hit me" ?
Sorry, I thought I had made it clear earlier. Children do get to a point where they can reason enough to choose. This would probably be that point.
What has this to do with humans possessing rights, exactly? My point is you are treating the child as if it were an object.
No. I am saying that courts will have significant discretion in dealing with matters that involve such things as age boundaries, standards of care and the like. This is so now and this will continue to be so, so long as there are fuzzy elements in the world.
So when is it that it suddenly acquires the ability to reason? Or perhaps you should realize this is incoherent, black and white nonsense and that like ryanpatgray said earlier, it is more a matter of a continuum than an on and off matter.
Ipse dixit.
It would be irrelevant what the courts decide, since there would be no violations of rights. I think what would be more important would be what societal norms develop.
Seeing as it is their decisions that determine innocence or guilt, it'd hardly be irrelevant, and seeing as this is the very matter in contention. no, it's not at all clear why their decision is irrelevant.
You do realize this, right?
Again, relevance?
I suggest you lose your attitude and get over yourself instead.
Or perhaps you don't, and require instruction on the matter...
Jon Irenicus:What has this to do with humans possessing rights, exactly? My point is you are treating the child as if it were an object.
If you are saying that owning an animal is treating the animal as an object, then yes, I am treating the child as an object. But objects are just "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object) which we all are anyways. So what?
Jon Irenicus:No. I am saying that courts will have significant discretion in dealing with matters that involve such things as age boundaries, standards of care and the like. This is so now and this will continue to be so, so long as there are fuzzy elements in the world.
Current parenting laws are pretty fubar, so I doubt it.
Jon Irenicus:So when is it that it suddenly acquires the ability to reason? Or perhaps you should realize this is incoherent, black and white nonsense and that like ryanpatgray said earlier, it is more a matter of a continuum than an on and off matter.
Of course it is not black and white. That is why there needs to be courts. Every situation is different.
Jon Irenicus:Seeing as it is their decisions that determine innocence or guilt, it'd hardly be irrelevant, and seeing as this is the very matter in contention. no, it's not at all clear why their decision is irrelevant.
I am just saying that if a court decides that the child is not old enough to consent, then the case would be thrown out.
I mean really Jon, please explain to me what it means to "care" for your child. At what point is the line crossed? If a father is bathing his daughter's private parts, is that considered molestation? What if he films it? Can you tell me what "pornography" is? At what point is the child no longer under the care of his/her parents?
Really, all these issues would be addressed in a free market. Your statement that "a court would take away a child that was raped" is unfounded. This is not necessarily what would happen in a stateless society.
So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to?
Byzantine:I love how all the self-reliant, freedom-talking libertarians get all squishy and emotional when they see that life choices have consequences.
Didn't Ethics of Liberty have a chapter addressing this? Somebody find the page (on mises) and post it. Lets get this over with.
Please don't try define the problem out of existence, when you know full well I meant an inanimate object and not a sentient being. If you're confused about children, then read this. Notice, no mention of full ownership over a child, but a merely ownership qua trustee, meaning there are limits to what a parent can do. I still object to this kind of language, as one does not own other humans, but trustee ownership is at least nowhere near as objectionable. Again, you need to explain why a human being can be treated as a mere object, and when this is no longer possible.
I mean really Jon, please explain to me what it means to "care" for your child. At what point is the line crossed? If a father is bathing his daughter's private parts, is that considered molestation? What if he films it? Can you tell me what "pornography" is? At what point is the child no longer under the care of his/her parents? Really, all these issues would be addressed in a free market. Your statement that "a court would take away a child that was raped" is unfounded. This is not necessarily what would happen in a stateless society.
On the contrary, it is well-founded. Rape is by definition nonconsentual aggression. Courts that were in the business of shielding malfeasors from their actions could hardly be considered courts at all. I'm not sure how bathing a child in the nude could be considered on par with rape, nor does it justify it. Perhaps some individuals will be disturbed by it and they can sue later on. I never even mentioned pornography. I questioned your argument that a child is a mere object to be used in any way the parent pleases.
Spideynw: Oh boy, here we go again with rights. So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
Oh boy, here we go again with rights.
So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
If you think that all humans have rights and you think that you are human, you have such rights as well. If you think that child is human being, he definitely has the same rights too. Other animals definitly are not humans so they do not have human rights. If you violate other humans particular right, you show by your action, that you do not believe that humans have such right, so until you are human being you do not have this right as well. If you beat a child that means, that you do not have right not to be beaten yourself - anyone can beat you as well.
Byzantine: In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else.
In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else.
I don't think so. You can purchase life, liberty and/or property, but you can't purchase right to life, liberty and/or property.
Spideynw: Why not?
Because children are humans and have the same rights as their parents or any other human being has.
Spideynw: Why?
Spideynw: And what if they think caring for it means killing it? Or raping it?
Then anyone could legally kill or rape that killer or raper.
Now, now, every life style is as good as another. Except for biggots, they should be killed, intolerant bastards.
Spideynw: Again, once a child can choose, then the child has rights.
I would say once a child became human being, then the child has human rights. IMO human became human once he was born.
nibbler491: So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to?
Mentally retarded people are not brain-dead. Anyways, as far as I know they have enough mental capacity to consent.
Jon Irenicus:Please don't try define the problem out of existence, when you know full well I meant an inanimate object and not a sentient being. If you're confused about children, then read this. Notice, no mention of full ownership over a child, but a merely ownership qua trustee, meaning there are limits to what a parent can do. I still object to this kind of language, as one does not own other humans, but trustee ownership is at least nowhere near as objectionable. Again, you need to explain why a human being can be treated as a mere object, and when this is no longer possible.
So, as I tried to clarify a couple of posts back, something does not have to be an inanimate object to be property. Again, animals can be owned, and are not inanimate objects. Therefore children can also be owned, even though they are not inanimate objects.
And yes, there probably are limits. Again, in a stateless society, I would be very interested to see what would happen.
Jon Irenicus:On the contrary, it is well-founded. Rape is by definition nonconsentual aggression.
First of all, it is only "aggression" if it is non consensual. And for it to be "non consensual", the being in question has to have the ability to consent. Otherwise, anytime we kill an animal to eat it or to get its skin, it would be considered murder, since they cannot consent to it.
Spideynw: nibbler491: So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to? Mentally retarded people are not brain-dead. Anyways, as far as I know they have enough mental capacity to consent.
And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent.
nibbler491:And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent.
So? Does that mean your niece's parents do not have rights over the child anymore? Is she now considered imprisoned against her will if they do not let her leave and do whatever she wants?
Parental rights and children's rights are not black and white.
Spideynw: nibbler491:And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent. So? Does that mean your niece's parents do not have rights over the child anymore? Is she now considered imprisoned against her will if they do not let her leave and do whatever she wants? Parental rights and children's rights are not black and white.
Yet you seem to be claiming that they are. Parents own children.
That seems pretty black and white to me.
That applies to the lower animals - it is questionable that one would apply it to animals with developed reasoning ability, and certainly not humans. Moreover, children present a unique problem in that they will eventually become fully fledged reasoners, and this is a gradual process, meaning it is not merely a matter of "on and off" reasoning.
So how does inability to consent warrant being allowed to do whatever one wishes to someone else?
nibbler491: Yet you seem to be claiming that they are. Parents own children. That seems pretty black and white to me.
I am saying parents own their children until they can reason (in other words, consent). It really is dependant on the child at what point they want to claim their rights.
So I guess you are right. In that respect it is pretty black and white.
Jon Irenicus:So how does inability to consent warrant being allowed to do whatever one wishes to someone else?
Look Jon, at what point is it OK for children to have sex with their parents and why?