Your problem filc is that you are trying to define some arbitrarily theoretical definition of ownership, while we are discussing material problems of arbitration that affect the real world. In the real world, parents don’t sue their own children to enslave them, because they continue to exercise control over them and to give them favors as they will need their children to care for them in their old age. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship.
My problem is I see inconsistencies in the reasoning that children are born into ownership. My other problem is your evading the two questions. And my final problem is I am attacking the theory here, not the practicality. So the stuff about sueing is a red herring at this point.
I’m still waiting for someone to make a clear case on how a child is property. And if a child IS property how do you reconcile the two points I posted above.
I’m not trying to be stubborn. I’m asking because I want to know, it’s pretty substantial difference. thats all. [:)]
A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it. Allowing so would result in an increase in social conflict and possibly open war, not to mention the destruction of the child.
That is all.
Thanks Now please answer the following.
I already answered it.
P.S. Here is what the state does about child slavery: nothing.
Lets say my neighbor steals my lawnmower. I take him to court. The court rules in his favor for whatever reason. Does that mean he never stole the lawnmower from me? Just because I presented a case and won/lost doesn’t change the fact that my lawnmower was stolen.
In other words positive law now arbitrarily defines when a child stops becoming property and starts becoming a human? Positive law defines when you own an object and when your ownership of that object arbitrarily stops?
I’m talking hypothetically speaking here. I’m aiming at a principle that defines children as property. You havn’t provided me one. You just gave me an example of why. What if a child sued the court for ownership of his/her person and lost? If we follow property from its origination than the child has no case to take her body back away from it’s rightful owner.
The principle you seem to provide is as follows.
Property is defined as objects which cannot sue you in court. Do you agree to this?
Now please answer my second question.
If a child has been raped or beaten and kept in a shed for most of its life, is nobody outside of the family allowed to take it? Why? That would be destroying it!?!?!?
The Haiti link is a big non sequitur BTW.
No it doesn’t. You’re not initiating the violence, you are helping another defend against it. Self defense.
False dichotomy. These are not the only options. There is a third way, Libertarian way.
Evictionism. The Libertarian solution that blows the abortion issue out of the water. Below is part of a summation in form of chart.
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
- Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
- Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
- Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach - Block & Whitehead
Abortion (Audio Lecture) - Block
Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children’s rights - Block
No, they are both violating the non-aggression principle.
And as such, your minarchist challenge to the Anarcho-capitalists fails completely.
There is.
Yes I agree with Block’s idea’s.
Yes, your house of cards is on fire. Run!
There’s some sense to what you are saying, but it can’t apply in all cases. Parents own their children insomuch as they aid it in reaching a state of moral agency.
A child’s nature as a potential actor-producer makes it different than animals or stones.
Thank you conza88 for bringing this back full circle. 
However, to me it seems a problem still exists. We have those who say that active harm, or even neglect, of a child represents a lack of homesteading, and therefore anyone can take it from them. But if we bring this back to the original issue, then anybody else can lay claim to a fetus from a mother that is planning an abortion. If that is so, then the fetus would seem to become the property of the pro-lifer. In this case, the mother would be required to evict it in such a way that the fetus was not destroyed since it isn’t hers to destroy. It must be given to the pro-lifer intact and alive. (Hopefully, the pro-lifer has a surrogate mother lined up.)
More immaterial philosophizing.
You can’t take other people’s children without killing them all. Just accept it.
I could if i presented a case to a local arbiter. According to your theory, the child would stop being your slave and start being mine. 
You have understood absolutely nothing about parenting. The child wants to remain with his parents irrespective of whether you think it is being brought up properly. It will do so, and the parents will defend the child to the death.
Are you ready to go to war and fight to your death to take someone else’s child from them?
In “The Measure of a Man”, the idea of self-ownership is addressed. Much as the Star Trek world tends to come off as socialist-utopian, with this episode we see the full force of individual rights laid out. We have liberty or slavery, the upshot goes–especially liberty or slavery vis-a-vis The State/Starfleet/UFP. It is, in some respects, an example of Argumentation Ethics–complete with argumentation!
In “The Drumhead”, we see an example of the adage “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”–especially being vigilant to prevent abuses by the State. It is certainly apropos more than ever in the 16 years or so since that episode first aired–what with Gitmo and other rendition camps. And with the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. We must watch the watchers–although they don’t watch so much as demand that our lives be laid bare for them. That our existence as we knew it is over. We exist to serve them–very much like Borgthink.
What’s also great about those episodes is the fact that they have Picard Speeches. Much as you can’t really go wrong creating a videogame where you kill Nazis, you can’t go wrong with a Picard speech.
I would never take a child away from a parent. I don’t give myself that authority. You pretend I care not for the relation of parents and children. You also pretend that I think I hold some sort of authority over how parents should care for their children. I don’t. Don’t attack my character.
What I understand is your definition for property arbitrarily changes for humans. And I also understand that you did not answer my question about being born into contracts.
The definition of property changes for each form of property.
How do you reconcile my second point Stranger?
No, the parents simply have custody, not ownership.