Spidey, if inserting your penis into a 3-year-old is not illegal because the 3-year-old cannot bring a case to court, then is the rape of a 20-year-old also not illegal while it is occurring since the 20-year-old, while she is being raped, cannot bring a case to court?
I had always seen Spidey’s position as being that parents owned their children.
In which case the ability to take something to court is not the factor that’s relevant.
Mind you I find this view abhorrent in that it allows rape, torture and murder of children.
He said in another thread that inserting his penis into a 3-year-old is not illegal because the 3-year-old cannot bring a case to court. He didn’t specify that this would be because the parents owned the child.
So, what? Spidey is the modern day Aristotle?
Which thread does Spidey talk about this, anyway?
I’ve got the feeling that Aristotle would be offended by that comparison.
In “A Minarchist Challange to Anarcho-Capitalists.” It’s difficult to get a direct answer from Spidey. Usually, when he is cornered, he makes a statement that contradicts his basic philosophy, asks a question in an attempt to divert the discussion, or accuses the the other person of playing a semantics game.
I’m not sure why Justin Laws asked that.
I don’t see how it can be stated that rights are determined by law, without being guilty of circular reasoning.
I haven’t been able to take Aristotle quotes seriously since I found out he was in favor of raping children. He was brilliant for his time, and I guess most people like Aristotle. lol
I think I heard that on an anarchist fellow’s youtube video. Well, whatever. It seemed reasonable; all the Greeks did.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
Plato apparently opposed it, felt that it caused a lot of social problems. It doesn’t say whether Aristotle endorsed it or not, but he apparently wrote about several of the arguments in favor of it. I couldn’t find my original source.
If Spidey’s logic was sound we’d be able to homestead retarded people or folks with alhzeimers as property and do with them as we please.
- Spidey’s Position: Homestead the retards and make them your slaves.
- My position. Retards self own themselves despite the level of rationality they have. Allow them to seek their own means and place them in the market, the division of labo****r. The law of comparative advantage ensures that even the retards can offer economic output and the aggregate production of the economy will have been better off than had they not.
Indeed you see this today where those who are less productive are allowed to work in grocery stores and situations that suit them best. Had we not had rediculous minimum wage laws you’d see more of this.
- Spidey: Homestead humans and make them slaves.
- Capitalist way: They own themselves. Place them in the market and let them work for their own means. Division of labor + Law of comparative advantage + private ownership of the means of production(IE each person owns his body, period, their mental capacity is irrelevant.)
Anoither argument SPide and Stranger makes is that if you cannot present yourself to a court you have not rights. This is a stupid argument as in many situations there may BE NO COURT. Or you may be coerced from going to court from your ‘slave owner’. or as Spidey has called ‘property owner’. He argues that if a man is murderd, if no trial takes place than no rights were violated.
This is foolish. If two men live in the mountains isolated from society, one murders the other it was still a violation of rights. Courts ect… are irrelevant.
Sipdey has acknowledged that it is wrong to homestead self-owners. His issues are two-fold, are all children of all ages, even down to zygotes, self owners?
2; the relation of needing to care for a self-owner without being able to communicate with the self-owner to establish continual consent, poses problems not only for the care giver, but for 3rd parties watching the care giver
The reliance on courts is merely a side of the argument detailing de-facto rights, the aforemention questions require a de jure or ‘in principle’ analysis…
Your mountain men.. the one that was murdered was not accorded his principled /teleological/ rights, in fact, this was not acknowledge, and de facto he was a rightless person. In principle he has the same right as any self owner, he /teleological/ refused his killing, which is what makes the killing a murder. if he had not been a self-owner his killing would not have been a murder. We go away understanding that there has been a travesty of justice, natural law was not the law in fact, at this time and place. that is what a travesty of justice always means. it always contrasts what happens with what should have happened under conditions of justice, i.e. principles of justice made fact.
What about the fact that, regardless of philosophical conclusions about rights, child molestation probably would be illegal under anarchy…
There would probably be a KKK for child molesters that wouldn’t be persecuted by PDAs due to their widespread support.
Slippery slope. You are probably right, but doesn’t that also imply (like it or not) that anything with widespread support (majority?) is going to end up being made legal (the law) anyway? Wouldn’t that mean convergence to monopoly law and a (democratic) state?
Z.
Spidey’s criteria for not being a self owner is an arbitrary level of mental capacity. If you don’t meet that level your up for grabs. You stop being a self owner if you drop below that threshold. You can then be homesteaded as property.
Likewise, though he has denied it, I could homestead a sleeping person for the hours they are asleep. The argument against this is that the person is only incapacitated for a period of time and is expected to wake. This the opposite however of his argument regarding children, as technically the same could be said for kids.
As for the court thing, thats such a silly argument it’s ridiculous. Courts don’t decide your rights. They only give weight to enforcing them. A man who is holding his child as a slave is likely to practice coercion to keep his child from presenting a case. What of situations where a father raises his kids in the country in the absence of a justice provider?
The likelyhood that a father holding his child as a slave will let that child present a case in court is just as likely as a good willed person working in the execution chamber.
The human condition is a slippery slope.
Well, maybe somewhat. David Friedman makes the case that violating others rights is expensive so even if people aren’t libertarians, they will eschew non-libertarian law. I just think that people feel so strongly about children that it will be an exception.
Yeah, I agree, “like it or not”. I guess thats why I don’t feel the need to get bogged down in deciding whether or not babies own themselves, or if amoebas own themselves. I already know the answer. It may not be “right” but no amount of argumentation is going to make me forget that I love babies and don’t care about single celled organisms.
Well said.
I agree.
Human history has repeatedly shown that economics (cost) is often not a deciding parameter in people’s decisions and preferences. For some (probably beneficial) reason, evolution has imprinted beliefs as an inevitable aspect of the human condition, and most people would go a long (and costly) way toward shaping their environment to reflect those beliefs. This, I believe, is a powerful force that would pull any potential ancap society toward majority (mob) rule and monopoly law reflecting the beliefs of that majority, theories of objective/absolute/natural right and wrong notwithstanding.
I agree. (See above.) We find (believe) slaughtering a pig and eating it for dinner to be “right” (acceptable) not because it’s objectively/absolutely/naturally “right” but simply because most of us (the majority) find (believe) it to be acceptable and “right”. Puppies, maybe not so much. Nothing objective/absolute/natural about it, just like with anything else involving large groups of humans.
Z.
To a degree, yes. It’s inevitable that the common law arrived at by a society will change to some degree based on the character, beliefs, and preferences of the individuals that comprise that society. What degree? That depends. See also here.
Well stated. I am continually in awe at the daily debate on all the little particulars. Why argue so vigorously about such things, especially now, if we’re not going to be policymakers?
Agreed, but…
…“reflecting the beliefs of that majority” YES, but just because the law reflects the majority’s beliefs doesn’t mean there will be a monopoly on law in the sense that one group of people will get to administer it. As for mob rule, this gets into the question of why society has to be organized territorially.
Kudos, that Hasnas paper is EPIC