I agree, hopefully we like it for the same reasons. That’s a theory of natural rights I can get behind!
Here’s that same paper in an easy-on-the-eyes PDF.
Obviously a parent will object to the rape of a 3-year-old as well as that of a 20-year-old and attempt to extract justice from the perpetrator, which may or may not end up in court depending on the perpetrator’s ability to defend himself.
In both case this demonstrates ownership of the child. The only difference is that a 20-year-old also has the ability of self-defense, hence can also demonstrate self-ownership. That and parental ownership are not mutually exclusive.
Non-Sequitur. And no it does not demonstrate ownership of any kind.
Also an 8 year old is capable of self defense, are they then self owners? When will you give up this tiring dead end of a debate? You have re-defined terms to keep your logic consistent. This is essentially the act of being delusional.
Assuming for the sake that you’re correct: when does the parent no longer own the child? And you must have an objective, hard-set answer. Nothing else will do.
The moment a child is capable of self-defense, he must able to fend for himself without his parents’ protection. That means that his parents no longer control his actions, and the child can defend his body from what he perceives as their aggression. That does not mean that the parents cannot continue to provide the child with protection from strangers.
When the child decides to assume control of himself. Absent some coming-of-age ritual, there is not going to be an objective, hard-set answer.
Repitition
Parents do not control their children’s actions. They may compell their actions or guide their actions but actions of a child are controlled by the child itself. There is no steering wheel from which to control a child. This isn’t Avatar IRL. Even if you connected electric shock prongs to a child he’d be acting by his own will in fear of getting shocked.
If parents could however control the actions of their children they wouldn’t be human. They’d be robots.
More repetition. So self defense is now the criteria for determining who has the right to own their body? Why are you changing the criteria? How is it your incapable of staying consistent with your argument?
So what is it? Now all quadriplegics are homesteadable? Or would you like to revert back to the silly notion that only people who go to a court can beg for rights from a judge? Let us know when you can stick to a single principle.
Point?
Whether the child likes it or not it assumes control of that body long before it’s left it’s mothers womb. A baby controls it’s body. A child is not a robot. There is no joystick to controlling a child.
People are not homesteadable in any circumstances.
Oh except children who are not people?
AJ, thanks for the great Hasnas paper. With lucid writing it very closely describes my intuition about the evolution of societal rules and norms. It is the best reasoned argument for limited government I have read by far. Perhaps you should start a separate thread about it (if no one has done it already).
One caveat that persistently kept popping in my mind while reading it was that the evolution of “empirical natural rights” (as the evolved means toward peace as a primary value) described in the paper is perhaps the typical process of a state formation through history. As technology enabled the spread of commerce beyond the microcosm of a tribe, clan, and a village, the evolution of societal rules and norms was forced to cover larger territories with varying landscapes of micro-evolved rules and norms. The state probably evolved as the means to synchronize these variations into a coherent (thus sustainable) set of rules and norms (i.e. law). Who knows, perhaps – as you describe in your great post (Why Anarchy Fails) – technology (e.g. the internet and the ever increasing interconnectedness transcending the need for physical proximity) may be the force that makes the state’s coherence-inducing ability obsolete. It would be the ultimate irony if the force that historically brought the state into existence (technology and inter-connectedness beyond a village) ends up making it obsolete.
Z.
[EDIT: Just saw that you’d already started a thread on the article so disregard the above suggestion to do so.]
Non hard-set, non-objective answer. Rejected as such. Try again. Your stance REQUIRES a hard-set, objective answer. Failure to elucidate one will unravel your stance.
Can’t say that I care about your expectations.
Then I can’t say that you’ll ever be taken seriously in this topic.
What are you, the son of juan? I’m only posting in these topics so that innocents aren’t contaminated by pseudo-logic.
So you’ve decided to contaminate them with your illogic instead.
Haha. If anything Knight and I can be cousins =P
Anyway I don’t know if Aristotle supported rape or not. I do know that the consistent libertarian position is that “sex between consenting adults parties” is no one’s business except the business of those involved.