How would you go about doing that? Knock on the door and ask to test for the child’s mastery of language?
What if a 20-yea-old is being kidnapped? Obviously, she can’t bring a case to court. Therefore, the kidnapping is not illegal?
WTF you just described an entire theory where people own people for the first 20ish years of their lives?
Straw man. I didn’t say anything about morality. Care to try again?
By killing people, the murderer can’t coherently or meaningfully object to being killed himself. Enslaving him, or whatever else the victim might like is allowed, because it is less than death.
Nothing formal would need to take place for the husband to be able to act on his wive’s behalf. There are well-established procedures for kinship. Kin’s claims are always greater than outsiders, yet in the instance of there being no kin (or none discovered yet), anyone may enslave the murderer. It is not theft to take from a thief. By his own actions, the murderer abandoned any valid legal claims to self-ownership.
yeap. Spideynw is holding onto a pet theory and has convinced himself he is right even though he continually makes statements like this.
Lack of creativity is not an argument.
It may very well be easy to get away with locking a child in a dungeon and not being caught for decades. I’m sure a lot of people are familiar with recent news events regarding such situations. Somehow, enough suspicion was raised to act.
It is important to remember that the exclusionary rule (a la 4th amendment) is not compatible with libertarian law, nor consistent with the history of common law. read
And when exactly does a baby/toddler ever consent?
Sorry, I meant that no one can own another critical thinking human. The problem with the internet.
It is when an impossible situation is claimed as an argument against a valid system.
Gotta love Star Trek
How does a child all of a sudden gain the ability to decide on whether or not she wants sex? Is it not just that she develops?
No, because children do not have the ability to consent or not consent.
Yes, until the child comes of age.
Because it is the only criteria that can be used.
A child is not a log.
Why do you think we need arbitration?
No need for that. They are property until they develop. I don’t get what is so difficult about it.
Screw gold, we should have our money backed by latinum!
It does because humans are a special case.
Semantics game. I could say the same thing about an animal.
No. It’s actually your on-going misunderstanding. Not semantics. You don’t think the child breaths on their own and has the individual potential to realize that. How many people don’t even know what natural rights are? So are people able to subdue and rape them because they don’t understand what a natural right is?
What valid system? For your “system of rights” to be played out fully, people would have to uphold that nobody has rights when they are asleep. Also, anyone could make threats like holding a gun to another and get away with it because they didn’t pull the trigger. You are either ignoring potentiality completely or making arbitrary distinctions.
What is an impossible situation? Here is the recent story of the German guy with a dungeon. Are you saying that nobody is ever found out, still?
What does that mean? That the baby can decide on things? It can go out and get a job? It can have sex if it wants to?
-
You won’t likely have any choice besides hiring your own army. Why would most people pay more to defend child rapists when they can agree to not rape children, even their own, and pay less? A PDA is just a service. People pay for what they want. You like to toss out the “reality card”, yet seem to have no grasp on reality yourself.
-
As for finding evidence, be creative. I gave you examples before and 90% of this is repeating myself to you. A kid sees a school nurse and says, “Daddy (let’s call him Brody) touches me there and he says he loves me.”, or says nothing and the nurse sees odd scars. As for “getting past your PDA”, you assume that you will have a PDA who will protect you at all costs against charges of child abuse.
They obviously will protect you to some degree, because who would hire a PDA who just had agreements with other PDAs to turn over their own clients based on a mere accusation. I think something like this is reasonable to expect, even if pre-existing guidelines weren’t agreed to. The school nurse finds what looks like dried semen on your daughter’s underwear. Pervhunt Inc. sends a rapid response team over and quickly verifies one sample, then sends another for DNA testing after a few quick statements.
Pervhunt calls the nurse back to see if the child’s security provider is on record, and to ask for the nurse’s email address to send the claim number regarding her possible future reward. Pervhunt then faxes the lab results and statements taken from the nurse and/or daughter to Brody’s PDA, Acme Inc., along with a request for temporary waiver of disseisin and a request to contact Brody.
The request for waiver of disseisin, would be a statement by Brody that he agrees that Pervhunt, or say, their subcontractor for temporary child placement, Friends of Babies, takes custody of Brody’s child while he is eliminated as a possible suspect. This is necessary because we assume that Brody wouldn’t just come out and say, “Children are like animals. She is my property and I will rape her if I want.” YOU wouldn’t say that IF YOU were Brody right? (Please amuse me with an answer to this last question, instead of just ignoring it.)
If Brody truly isn’t guilty of raping his daughter, he would probably be anxious to give a swab of DNA, get his beloved daughter back, and help Pervhunt find the real criminal. Acme is a general security provider vs. a specialist firm, but both ultimately aim at resolving disputes. They might object to a certain level of invasive investigation without certain levels of evidence, but why should they support their client grandstanding about 30 seconds of cotton swabbing after what was found on his daughter?
I’ve explained to you before that the exclusionary rule (4th amendment) was not part of common law and is incompatible with libertarianism. Yes, it is a very grave risk to Pervhunt’s bottom line to take action on mere accusations. It may be possible that You, Acme, and Pervhunt had pre-existing terms that such situations (you refuse to give DNA) would lead to your contract being canceled and your protection being dropped. Even if these agreements did not exist, Pervhunt’s next move would likely be to stake you out. They will look for you dropping a soda can or tissue and documenting the collection of your DNA. As soon as they have the link they are going to arrest and try you.
3/4. There certainly would be a market for legal defense. This is just an easy case because it is clear that a 3 year old can’t consent to sex. I acknowledge that there is a continuum problem, but you wish to deny children any rights.
Stopping you from raping children is not merely “telling you how to raise your kids” because rape is not raising kids. Enough people would support that spanking aids a child by teaching morals and the temporary fear/redness are outweighed by the benefit, such that I don’t suspect anyone would take the economic risk of calling such actions child abuse. The same goes for feeding kids fast food, or raising them without religion, or raising them with X religion.
I hope that these more valid concerns are the impetus for your grandstanding, not that you are a child rapist or honestly believe that such things should be allowed.