Spideynw: Look Jon, at what point is it considered "imprisonment" to not let your children leave the house as they please?
Look Jon, at what point is it considered "imprisonment" to not let your children leave the house as they please?
All the time?
Morty:All the time?
I actually decided to change my question.
But, since you did answer the question, does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: But, since you did answer the question, does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?
Parents being imprisoned for that is excessive and unnecessary. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to crawl off the property, not to any part of the property he wants. When you go to someone's house, they can prevent you from going in certain rooms/areas, but they can't prevent you from leaving.
I think Spideynw has a point. There is a point, that may differ from one child to another, up to which that child isn't conscious. Simply put, you can consider such children alike to animals from some perspective. Of course, they eventually grow up and aren't animals anymore, so this is quite a difference.
Now free societies as concieved by libertarians do have a mechanism that makes them work, they're not utopic. Of course, one may argue for animal rights, but as far as we know it, there's no mechanism to ensure that automatically, given animals don't have higher abilities. Some people could pay to protect goats, trees or even stones, but the truth is animals, plants and inanimate objects can't act like humans: they can't rally, defect or flee to a free land.
If you consider small children similar to animals, there is no way a society can provide 100% reliable protection and be a free society at the same time. This would be, in fact, equivalent to asking PDAs to control and watch over every aspect of the parent's life. It's impossible for a 3rd party to pay beforehand for the protection of an unknown number of beings or properties, and it's impossible for the PDA to try to enforce it with absolute certainty.
LOOK HERE IS THE LINK TO MURRAY N. ROTHBARD's BOOK THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY WHERE HE EXPLAINS WHAT YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT (TO SOME EXTENT AND SORRY FOR THE ALL CAPS): http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
Morty:Parents being imprisoned for that is excessive and unnecessary. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to crawl off the property, not to any part of the property he wants. When you go to someone's house, they can prevent you from going in certain rooms/areas, but they can't prevent you from leaving.
OMG. Crawling anywhere it wants to, INCLUDES leaving the property. So, since it seems that is was so important for you to clarify someone does not have the right to go anywhere they want to on someone's property, I will re-phrase the question so that hopefully it will be much easier for you.
So, does that mean that the parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl off the property whenever he/she wants to?
Spideynw:OMG. Crawling anywhere it wants to, INCLUDES leaving the property. So, since it seems that is was so important for you to clarify someone does not have the right to go anywhere they want to on someone's property, I will re-phrase the question so that hopefully it will be much easier for you.
I was clarifying, so as to prevent misunderstandings. You said, "does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?" Which would include more than just off the property. So, the answer to your question remains.
Again, imprisonment would be excessive and unnecessary, the parents do not pose any standing threat based on that alone. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to leave, and I suppose if force is used upon the child, then just compensation.
Byzantine: Brainpolice: Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me. That's because I'm talking about how the world actually works, and you're commenting from your academic Petri dish.
Brainpolice: Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
That's because I'm talking about how the world actually works, and you're commenting from your academic Petri dish.
That's just a random appeal to realism, it doesn't make any case for you. And it's authoritarian reasoning as well.
To address the original question: I don't think that the act of viewing child pornography can be considered a crime. It would fall into the category of victimless crimes or vices. That being said, an individual owner or association can shun such behavior, but in a libertarian context there can be no official law of the land against it, lest we lapse into communitarianism. The matter is reduced to a question of social norms and personal choice. An individual could likely get away with such behavior in the privacy of their own home, and they could even get away with it somewhat in the public eye but will have to face social pressure against it. But in a libertarian context the entire community couldn't uniformly prohibit it - unless literally everyone in the community disfavored it, which isn't likely despite social norms. So it seems like there will always be at least a marginal demand for it and hence marginal participation in such behavior, short of some kind of total prohibition.
GilesStratton: 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. Now, now, every life style is as good as another. Except for biggots, they should be killed, intolerant bastards.
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.
Now, now, every life style is as good as another. Except for biggots, they should be killed, intolerant bastards.
I don't think anyone in this thread actually thinks that every life style is as good as the other. That is a misrepresentation. The point, I would think, would be that no matter what one thinks about a given lifestyle, so long as it is pursued in a voluntary context there is really nothing you can do about it short of social pressure and disassociation. It's not that all lifestyles are inherently equal in merit, it's that there has to be free competition in lifestyles and hence there cannot be some kind of uniform requirement to participate in a particular lifestyle or a uniform prohibition of a lifestyle - granted that the lifestyle in question doesn't involve aggression in and of itself. So dislike homosexuality all you want, but you don't have any authority to prohibit it on anything other than your own rightful property. A uniform prohibition, on the other hand, would reduce to communitarianism.
Look Jon, at what point is it OK for children to have sex with their parents and why?
Bizarre question, but when they're actually capable of formulating consent. That's the bare minimum.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Sure but that's independent of whether children have rights (and like I said if one says they do not, one must point out when it is they suddenly do qualify for them.) No one is speaking of strict enforcement or monitoring. Just whether there are things a parent is not justified in doing to their children, such as raping them.
So dislike homosexuality all you want, but you don't have any authority to prohibit it on anything other than your own rightful property.
Obviously teh gayz!11!! will be the end of Western civilization.
Brainpolice:To address the original question: I don't think that the act of viewing child pornography can be considered a crime. It would fall into the category of victimless crimes or vices. That being said, an individual owner or association can shun such behavior, but in a libertarian context there can be no official law of the land against it, lest we lapse into communitarianism.
Byzantine doesn't actually seem to be calling for a law against viewing child pornography. Instead he seems to be saying that large numbers of people will spontaneously erupt into violence against people who view child pornography, and he says this without bothering to clarify what constitutes "child pornography". Even allowing for a strong cultural conservative bias, this just seems bizarre to me, and not realistic at all.
Brainpolice:. It's not that all lifestyles are inherently equal in merit, it's that there has to be free competition in lifestyles and hence there cannot be some kind of uniform requirement to participate in a particular lifestyle or a uniform prohibition of a lifestyle - granted that the lifestyle in question doesn't involve aggression in and of itself.
Which there isn't now, gays are protect by the state and today's thoughtpolice. Are we even allowed to say gay anymore?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
macsnafu:Even allowing for a strong cultural conservative bias, this just seems bizarre to me, and not realistic at all.
I hear parents are very enthusiastic about child abuse of all sorts. Which is exactly why everybody on these forums is an authority on the matter.
Jon Irenicus:Bizarre question, but when they're actually capable of formulating consent. That's the bare minimum.
OK, so, we obviously agree on this point, that children do not have the ability to consent at birth.
Now, do animals have rights?
If it can be shown that they possess the same cognitive abilities as humans, yes. If not, no.
Like Koko, the nipple loving gorilla?
Jon Irenicus: If it can be shown that they possess the same cognitive abilities as humans, yes. If not, no.
People, it's like saying scientists prove it and the state passes a law. Let's be honest, it either happens by itself or not. Either people or animals themselves stand up for animal rights, or nothing happens. And as long as the second option is downright impossible, the first isn't going to lead to an animal rights revolution. Get serious.
I don't care if it'll "happen" or not. I am merely giving the criterion for rights. If an animal can meet it, it does not differ from a human essentially in that particular way.
Jon Irenicus: I don't care if it'll "happen" or not. I am merely giving the criterion for rights. If an animal can meet it, it does not differ from a human essentially in that particular way.
While I agree with you, I must ask: what level of cognition qualifies as human level?
The ability to make explicit inferences (primarily), to carry out extended chains of reasoning (ties into the former), to plan long term, to abstract (e.g. engage in mathematical reasoning) and so on.
Jon Irenicus: The ability to make explicit inferences (primarily), to carry out extended chains of reasoning (ties into the former), to plan long term, to abstract (e.g. engage in mathematical reasoning) and so on.
So what about retarded people?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to get a better feel for what you are saying here.
What of them? The retardation would have to be very severe to eliminate the prospect of rational thought. If it were severe enough, so that their capacity was utterly absent at best they'd have a custodian of some sort. Animals are not even capable of all this in principle, but if some were then one would have to extend the recognition of rights to them as well.
I think that the best (or perhaps, the only practical) solution to the problem of children is the application Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, until the child is able to make rational descisions (at which point he is no longer really a child), then the parent must do for the child what they believe to be in the best interest of the child. For example, at a very young age I would have liked for my parents to let me toddle down the street unattended, feed me nothing but candy, and let me relieve myself wherever I wanted. I can see in retrospect that their prohibiting such things was in fact in my best interest. Had I known then what I do now, which is to say, had I been able to make rational decisions, I would have had no desire to do those things in the first place. But I had to grow into my rational capacity first.
If a parent's paternalism is too overbearing, or if it extends beyond the necessary into the abusive, let the child sue for damages when he or she grows up. I'm sure that this will create incentive (beyond that normally held by parents) for rules and discipline to be made in a fair and reasonable manner. And a market justice system will ensure that frivolous claims by bitter young adults against their parents are minimized
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I don't get what the big deal is of denying rights to the retarded.
Jon Irenicus: What of them? The retardation would have to be very severe to eliminate the prospect of rational thought. If it were severe enough, so that their capacity was utterly absent at best they'd have a custodian of some sort. Animals are not even capable of all this in principle, but if some were then one would have to extend the recognition of rights to them as well.
Right, but do people have the right to kill severely retarded people like they were animals?
Hypothetically of course.
This reminds me of a news story that happened in my state a while back. It involved a couple who were charged with slavery because they forced mentally handicapped people to work for them.
macsnafu: Brainpolice:To address the original question: I don't think that the act of viewing child pornography can be considered a crime. It would fall into the category of victimless crimes or vices. That being said, an individual owner or association can shun such behavior, but in a libertarian context there can be no official law of the land against it, lest we lapse into communitarianism. Byzantine doesn't actually seem to be calling for a law against viewing child pornography. Instead he seems to be saying that large numbers of people will spontaneously erupt into violence against people who view child pornography, and he says this without bothering to clarify what constitutes "child pornography". Even allowing for a strong cultural conservative bias, this just seems bizarre to me, and not realistic at all.
Well that would be blatantly inconsistant with the non-aggression principle, while watching child pornography in fact would not violate it. If someone watches child pornography on their computer in the privacy of their home, a mob of people who break into their house or who attack them are simply aggressors. Byzantine has a tendency to advocate conservative-communitarian positions. 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. Absent a state, there is no institutional mechanism to uniformly externalize the enforcement of such violence and the cost of violence is increased, and hence the incentives towards violences are reduced.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:. It's not that all lifestyles are inherently equal in merit, it's that there has to be free competition in lifestyles and hence there cannot be some kind of uniform requirement to participate in a particular lifestyle or a uniform prohibition of a lifestyle - granted that the lifestyle in question doesn't involve aggression in and of itself. Which there isn't now, gays are protect by the state and today's thoughtpolice. Are we even allowed to say gay anymore?
Gays are hardly protected by the state. Hell, it's hardly the case that straights are protected by the state, and they're the dominant sexual identity. There have been endless communitarian anti-gay laws throughout various states for years, and we have states where it is illegal for them to enter into marriage contracts. Minority groups generally do not actually benefit from the state. This idea that the state actually does protect the rational self interest of minority groups makes no sense at all. It just panders to them. Traditionally throughout history, such groups usually have had lesser status as citizens of a given state. How many times do I have to clarify to you that the state generally goes against the rational self interest of all of its subjects, regaurdless of cultural identity?
A free society qua society doesn't uniformly "allow" or "disallow" something of this nature. "Society" doesn't decide, individuals decide such matters relative to their own personal domains and associate for the purposes of mutual or reciprical goals out of self-interest.
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:Gays are hardly protected by the state. Hell, it's hardly the case that straights are protected by the state, and they're the dominant sexual identity. There have been endless communitarian anti-gay laws throughout various states for years, and we have states where it is illegal for them to enter into marriage contracts. Minority groups generally do not actually benefit from the state. This idea that the state actually does protect the rational self interest of minority groups makes no sense at all. It just panders to them. Traditionally throughout history, such groups usually have had lesser status as citizens of a given state. How many times do I have to clarify to you that the state generally goes against the rational self interest of all of its subjects, regaurdless of cultural identity?
What do you think happens to employers who refuse to hire gays on account of their sexual orientation, how about teachers who refuse to teach homosexuals, or children that discriminate against gays, or anybody of any "importance" who mentions homosexuality in the wrong tone of voice?
I'm convinced that you don't leave your home if you don't think that gays are protected by the state. Just like all other minorities it has become unthinkable to consider them any different from the rest of us. Of course, if you agreed to this statement it would undermine your belief that the state isn't an egalitarian institution. So I see why you have a vested interest in denying reality.
Right, but do people have the right to kill severely retarded people like they were animals? Hypothetically of course.
Their custodian would interfere, I assume, and in that case one would not have the right to do so, but otherwise if they are completely lacking in the ability to reason, I guess one must answer "yes".
So, since none of them have, none of them have rights, right? Specifically, because, as far as we have found, none of them can reason, right?
Because they cannot and never will be able to. Yeah.
Jon Irenicus: Because they cannot and never will be able to. Yeah.
No it is simply because they cannot. You see, the only way we can know if someone's rights have been violated is if they have the ability to consent. Otherwise, women are killing hundreds of people throughout their lives everytime they eject an egg, because it has the potential to reason if fertilized. Your argument cannot be consistent, as such it is contradictory.
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.
All right, I apologize for mistaking your intentions.
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.