A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

[Spideynw]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Spideynw

@Daniel Muffinburg

I;m more consistent. According to you, the pacifist would consider suicide murder.

I am sorry. I misrepresented the pacifist position. I should have said a pacifist would say, “killing someone else is always murder”. So no, the pacifist’s morals are more consistent than yours.

How is that being more consistent?

As I already explained, using your morals, sometimes killing someone else is immoral, sometimes it is not. Using a pacifists morals, killing someone else is always wrong. Hence, more consistent.

[Spideynw]

@JackCuyler

@nirgrahamUK

does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights?

No. Alone, that is, without conception, neither will mature into a being with can think critically.

Can a fetus, without its mother, ever mature into a being that can think critically?

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different “things”. Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing.

You must have them in your possession, and no one may hold proof of a more legitimate claim to ownership. That is all that is required to own something.

@E. R. Olovetto

No matter how many times I repeat myself you and spidey are going to keep parroting your ownership theory of wives, children and domestics straight out of the 18th century.

Most of what we say around here is straight out of the 18th century. The problem may be with you.

[Spideynw]

@JackCuyler

@Spideynw

Rape implies lack of consent. Lack of consent implies reasoning abilities.

Lack of consent in no way implies reasoning abilities. Driving implies the ability to steer and shift. Not driving implies neither the ability nor inability to steer and shift. You seem to be under the impression that one needs to choose to withhold consent. That’s simply not true. You may not have sex with me unless I say yes. The reason for me not saying yes, by choice or inability, is not your concern. I have not said yes, and therefore you have no right to sex with me.

So a child can say yes to having sex? If not, then your point is mute, because you have to have the ability in the first place to consent, to not consent. And in order to be able to consent, one needs to be able to think critically. So my point stands, that rape implies lack of consent, which implies reasoning abilities.

[Spideynw]

@Capital Pumper

@Joe

I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child.?

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the reality of psychological and physical trauma.

All kinds of things can affect a child. Who are you to decide what is best for my child?

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

Who are you to decide what is best for my child?

Who are you to decide that the child/property can be violated?

[Spideynw]

@twistedbydsign99

@Spideynw

I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative. Why should having sex with a baby/toddler be illegal? And if having sex with a baby is illegal, who gets to bring a case to court for the baby in a stateless society and why? By why, I mean by what right?

Dude… its wrong because of the terrible consequences it has for the toddler and all of us that have to deal with this individual later in life.

Are you not going to admit that many different things can affect a child’s life? If you do, then who are you to say what the best way is to treat my child? You are going down a slippery slope with that one. For example, is locking my child in her room at night bad for her in later life? What about showing her scary movies? What about spanking her? I am not asking you to answer them all specifically, just to think a little bit further. Just because you don’t like how I treat my child does not give you any right to take my child from me.

[Spideynw]

@filc

Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany?

Because she can think critically. Why do adult humans have rights whereas animals don’t? Just because they can think critically? It is the basis of libertarianism.

@filc

If I own her what justification does she have to just leave?

Because you don’t own her anymore.

@filc

she cannot just arbitrarily leave because she feels ready to.

She sure can.

@filc

In effect she was born into slavery unto me.

Nope.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

What is required to own a car or 100 acres of land? Is it the same or can you tell the difference between these two things? Children are different “things”. Recognizing what things are is not immaterial philosophizing.

You must have them in your possession, and no one may hold proof of a more legitimate claim to ownership. That is all that is required to own something.

Incorrect. You can’t encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children.

[Spideynw]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Spideynw

@Daniel Muffinburg

I see what you mean now. Would having sex with a 3-year-old be illegal?

It would depend on the child. If the child can bring a case to court, yes. At that point, the child can probably bring a case to court.

What about a 20-year-old whose body you dismember? Obviously, she can’t bring a case to the court. Is that also not illegal?

Are you saying she is dead? If not, she could still bring a case to court. If she is dead, then that is a very good question. It has been suggested that one would need to give legal standing to someone else before you die, so that that person can represent you in case of death. What happens if both are dead? Well, I guess that would be up to arbitration to decide. I don’t have all the answers for every situation.

[Spideynw]

@filc

Also how social contract is still unjustified where raip is somehow.

A social contract does not exist, so it is not justified. As to having sex with one’s child, the question is, why would anyone have standing to bring a case against the parent on behalf of the child, when we do not even know what the child wanted and the child is unable to grant rights to someone else to represent her?

[Spideynw]

@Aster_Lacnala

If that is so, then what right have we to limit another person’s aggression?

I think this is an extremely good question. I don’t think there is a legal right to limit another person’s aggression using violence against that person. I think in a libertarian society, only peaceful means could be employed legally to try to seek compensation. I also think that if someone is too violent, people will take matters into their own hands and react violently. If someone harmed my child, I would probably kill him, regardless of the consequences, and hope for the best. I think there would be less road rage on the roads, simply because people would be more fearful of other driver’s reactions. I think it would overall be a much more civilized society.

[Spideynw]

@nirgrahamUK

@Daniel Muffinburg

What about a 20-year-old whose body you dismember? Obviously, she can’t bring a case to the court. Is that also not illegal?

you are estopped against claiming rights against being dismembered/otherwise killed by others. (since historically your person violated the rights of a rational 20-year old person)

I would disagree.

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

Incorrect. You can’t encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children.

I can’t for the life of me picture what “forestalling” of children involves.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Spideynw

I would disagree.

its somewhat interesting that you disagree; it would be greatly more interesting for me to understand why you disagree [:P]

[Spideynw]

@JackCuyler

@Spideynw

I am not sure why you are nitpicking this. It may not be completely consistent, but it is more consistent than the alternative.

I am not “nitpicking”. If by, not be completely consistent and more consistent than the alternative, you mean completely inconsistent, I agree with you. Your position is that some beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future have rights, while other beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future do not. The only distinction between the two is an arbitrary amount of time. I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.

How about when is killing another adult human not murder? Go! Some example questions. Is it murder when I kill someone who stabbed me in the leg? How about when they pulled a gun on me? How about if the gun was not loaded? Is it murder if I shoot the person in the back while running off with my television? Etc., etc.

@JackCuyler

As a parent is a custodian of the child’s rights, physical/sexual abuse could certainly be seen as an abandonment of that custodianship. This would allow that custodianship to be homesteaded. If it became public knowledge that you are raping your toddler, anyone could homestead the custodianship of your child’s right, removing him from your home, by force if necessary.

This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site. Does everyone just take a piece of the child? Or is it a mad rush to the home to see who gets the child first?

@JackCuyler

Even if not seen as legal, your neighbors could simply take the child, and shoot you if you try and interfere. While this would apparently violate your rights, who would prosecute?

Whomever he had appointed to represent him in case of his death.

@JackCuyler

What jury would convict?

One that is neutral and understands that killing someone is wrong.

@JackCuyler

Would the shooter be seen as a convict or a hero?

A convict. Just because you don’t like how someone treats his child does not give you any right to act on it.

@JackCuyler

Do you think those who engage in sex with small children would somehow become more popular in a stateless society?

Nope. I think they would fear for their lives even more so than they do now.

@JackCuyler

@Spideynw

And if having sex with a baby is illegal, who gets to bring a case to court for the baby in a stateless society and why? By why, I mean by what right?

This is of a question of enforceability, not legality. I grant that it may be difficult, or even impossible, to bring every case of rights violations to justice. That does not mean that these violations do not exist, nor does it somehow magically transform these acts of aggression into non-aggression. However, here again, you are ignoring time. There is no reason to think that in a stateless society, there would be the equivalents of the state’s statutes of limitations. That is, there’s nothing stopping an adult for taking a parent to court for crimes committed against him or her when he or she was a child. The diddled five year old will grow up to be an angry eighteen year old who will drag Dad to court. By the right of being the victim, to answer the second question.

Given that your premise is correct that it is legally wrong for parents to have sex with their children, this seems acceptable. Of course, I disagree with your premise.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

Incorrect. You can’t encircle a great donut of land and not make use of the inside, barring others from making use of it. This is forestalling. The same principle applies to children.

I can’t for the life of me picture what “forestalling” of children involves.

It may be that you lock them away in your shed out back, keeping them from learning language, or just otherwise abusing them and attempting to maintain possession without valid ownership rights.You would be then forestalling if a person who wants to genuinely be a guardian of the child tries to homestead them.

You yourself can have no rights if children don’t have a minimum amount of negative rights as well. The rights of adults qua moral agents rest upon these rights of children and the incapacitated.

[Spideynw]

@trulib

The Scenario

So here’s how things would go:

1. Bob rapes his 3 year old daughter.
2. Evidence of the rape is discovered, by chance, by a nursery nurse.
3. The nurse calls the ‘Friends of Babies’ organization.
4. ‘Friends of Babies’ knock at Bob’s door and start asking him questions. Bob starts getting nervous, but denies it. Friends of Babies are confident in their assessment that Bob’s lying, so they break into his house and forcibly remove the child from him.
5. Bob calls his PDA, telling them an evil gang has taken his child away from him, for no good reason.
6. Bob’s PDA investigates. There’s a trial. If Bob is found innocent, ‘Friends of Babies’ are guilty of child kidnap. If Bob is found guilty, the libertarian court declares that, by raping his child, Bob loses the right to continue bringing it up. Rape is not consistent with homesteading the right to bring up a child, so Bob’s right to bring up his daughter is declared abandoned. The court awards the right to bring up the child to the other claimant: the Friends of Babies organization.
7. The Friends of Babies organization rehomes the child, perhaps with a relative, or finds adoptive parents for it.
8. Friends of Babies publicizes the fact that Bob is a child rapist. He is added to all the (privately-produced) sex offenders registers. Voluntary actions, such as boycotts of Bob, make Bob’s life a misery.

The rest of the scenario I have not read about anywhere, but I think the scenario would continue thusly:

• Bob’s daughter grows up and claims self-ownership.
• If she wants restitution or retribution for being raped as a child, she may bring a claim against her father. The libertarian court will decide on a suitable punishment for Bob, for the crime of child rape.
• The burden of proof to show that the sex was consentual (should Bob wish to make this defense) will be prima facie on Bob. He will have to prove that his daughter made an informed decision to have sex. No sensible court would be convinced of this in the case of a 3 year old.

1. Bob has sex with his 3 year old.

2. He films it and puts it on the internet.

3. Friends of Babies does not exist.

4. Doh. I mean, why would I fund a company, that might take my child from me and then make me prove I did nothing wrong?

[Spideynw]

@nirgrahamUK

@Spideynw

I would disagree.

its somewhat interesting that you disagree; it would be greatly more interesting for me to understand why you disagree

Partly, because what you posted was pretty vague. Also partly because he still owns his body.

Let’s use an example, and maybe we can agree. Let’s say someone dismembers my wife. Let’s say she made me her legal representative upon her death. So now my options are to take him to court, or something else. Are you saying if I choose something else (killing him), that his representative could not take legal action against me? I would beg to differ, since he still owned his body. Just because he killed my wife does not mean that his body becomes my property, just because I am my wife’s legal representative. No one can own another rational being. It is an impossibility. As such, his legal representative could seek compensation from me. However, I do think the court would take into account the fact that he dismembered my wife, and as such, the compensation would probably be very little.

[filc]

@filc

Spidey, If I own the child how can she take that ownership away from me simply by having a critical thinking epiphany?

@Spideynw

Because she can think critically. Why do adult humans have rights whereas animals don’t? Just because they can think critically? It is the basis of libertarianism.

So the definition of property applied to humans is arbitrarily defined. If I owned her she would be mine indefinitely until I consented she could go or sold her. Thats what property is my friend.

You need to re-read the concept of ownership. You don’t just arbitrarily lose property because it’s aged.

@Spideynw

Because you don’t own her anymore.

According to you I do. She’s mine, she is my property. I own her. Just because she woke up randomly one day with her own ‘conscious?’ I no longer own her? How is your distinction NOT arbitrary?

@Spideynw

She sure can.

But if she’s my property I can keep her chained in my basement as a sex slave indeffinately. She would be unable to leave or present a case to the courts. I would be morally and legally justified as she would be unable to present a case thereby arbitrarily breaking my ownership of her. Your system describes nothing negative in that scenario.

If my neighbor steals my lawnmower and I take him to court, but the courts side with him. Did he not steal my lawnmower? Does the court somehow dictate what actually did happen? Likewise just because a court rules in my childs favor to leave is no left theft of my property. The difference is it’s condoned theft through the courts. It was MY property and I never agreed to giving it up.

Likewise how is it that she could arbitrarily go to court and steal the ownership of her body from me? The whole theory you’ve constructed is entirely arbitrary.

@filc

In effect she was born into slavery unto me.

@Spideynw

Nope.

Oh? Do you have a new definition for slavery to? Convenient.