So? Does a child have positive rights?
The purpose is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I own my child or not. Because otherwise you don’t get to decide how I treat my child. So, how do you derive a right to tell me how to treat my child?
The parent. Now, can you answer my question?
No… A child does not have positive rights per se. In order to maintain guardianship of a child though, the parent does have positive obligations. They can either assume these obligations to aid the child or abandon them. If abandoning them, they may not forestall others from acquiring guardianship of the child.
It is only possible to “own” your child insomuch as you are aiding them in reaching a state of moral agency. The child is simply not recognized as yours when you rape it.
is this true when you have sex with a something and it is not a thingamajig that can be understood by teleological analysis ? or is it only true in other cases?, like when it can be understood by such teleological analysis? or when the thing that you do it , regardless of it having a ‘mind’ or not, has a particular conventional appeal or disgust related to it?
These are questions; not attacks or positive statements.
That’s not natural rights. That’s a might makes right view. To believe the child doesn’t have rights is to tumble into inconsistency, as you’ve demonstrated throughtout this thread and others. As Confucius has pointed out, and I think he had a point to an extent. The family is a microcosm of society. You are protraying a society in which the state can violate the rights of others. I mean it is simply another order of parenting.
I think he has it backwards, depending on his use of microcosm. The way we are oriented in our families would tend to be the way we orient society. The power differential between child and parent is much greater than citizen and government.
My problem with Spideynw’s argument is that he’s trying to use the Non Aggression Principle to confuse the issue of property rights. The NAP or Harm Principle is derived from the two axioms below, which are deemed self-evident by libertarians (Rothbard and Hoppe). If you deny Axiom #1 or Axiom #2, then you can’t hold the Harm Principle as being true. I also see no wiggle-room or conditions to self-ownership.
Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.”
Axiom #2 (derived from Axiom #2): “each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or mixes his labor with."
Harm Principle (derived from Axiom #1 and #2): “No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combatted with the full powers of the law.”
If this is an argument against the libertarian position or natural rights, then I can see where he’s coming from, but that’s not the argument. He’s accepted the Harm Principle and has rejected Axiom #1 - or at least has distorted it. If you don’t believe in natural rights, then how did you come to the NAP?
Axiom 1) references a man understandable by teleology. now… who disputes that some genetic material severed from ‘parents’ has an emergent mind and is understood through teleological analysis, whereas other genetic material is just that and no more, and can only be understood through causal analysis (teleology is inappropriate)?
Its not aggression thats wrong its the initiation of it right? Harm doesn’t seem quite the same as those things. I feel I can be legitimately harmed in many ways they don’t violate NAP.
Except in the case of humans. Unless you just want to ignore the reality that humans at first cannot think critically and later on can.
It is arbitrary. So what? Why do you think humans need arbitrators if nothing is subjective?
Not legally, once she reaches the age of consent.
Well, if I shoot someone in the woods, and no one finds out about it, well then nothing would ever happen to me, now would it? But nowhere in what I have said did I ever say that was legal, just as I have never said anywhere that keeping someone locked up in your basement is legal. So quit lying.
Why did the court decide he did not steal your lawnmower?
So, you were wrong.
She reached the age of consent.
You were implying that she was a slave to you forever. I was saying no she was not.
Her legal representative could. I am not sure how it would be handled if she did not designate a legal representative. Maybe it would default to her parents?
Quote is Rothbard’s definition. While the use of the term “harm” may not reflect the same thing as “aggression”, the definition of the principle is clear.
By definition, murder is a subset of killing. I would have to give some thought to what constitutes murder and what does not, but to claim all killing is murder is to, at the very least, make an grammatical error.
When I abandon my car, does everyone just take a piece of it? Or is it a mad rush to the home to see who gets the car first? I’m certainly not the first person to mention this. The trustee ownership and the ability to sell the trust is pure Rothbard. I’m making two additional assertions - that anything that can be sold and retained can be homesteaded when unowned, and that aggression up a child is an abandonment of trustee ownership.
Be honest, there have been way funnier posts in these forums. I don’t deserve that much credit.
I didn’t ask how you would see him, but how you think he would be generally viewed. I honestly think a pedo-killer would generally be seen as a hero. Since you disagree, why then:
If people will generally see killers of baby rapists as murders, and juries will convict them as such, why would baby rapists have more to fear than they do now?
Sure.
My premise: All moral agents, including potential moral agents, have the right to be free from aggression.
Your disagreement: Some potential moral agents have rights, while other potential moral agents do not, and the distinction is purely arbitrary.
I think it has to do with role-modeling. What we accept in the family is what people will tend to accept in society. If it’s ok in the household, then what counter view is there? It will be accepted in society at large. So if the parent can violate the child, the analogy (the education) will sustain itself into society at large.
When he or she matures. (I.E. “at some point in the future”) Again with your ignoring of time. An unconscious woman cannot consent until she wakes. A toddler cannot consent until he matures. The only difference is the amount of time.
Substitute “morals” with “criteria”.
Of course he can. It is his body.
If he agrees with it, sure.
This is extremely simplistic to compare stealing an item to taking a life.
No he did not. He did not stop being a sentient being just because he killed someone else.
No, they are able to because no one else has a more valid claim to the child than they do.
Determined by whom?
Note that in this case it was the children themselves who escaped after reaching adulthood, there was no one on the outside patrolling and looking for imprisoned children in cellars.
This entire thread can be summed up as denouncing an anarchist system because it implies that parents would own their children, and so a state is needed such that, and the minarchists never complete this sentence but that is what they imply, the state will own all children and have the power to invade the household and reallocate children to new households at will. (A power that, it must be noted from the Austrian man’s example, the state does not even claim today.)
So instead of claiming that a state is needed to provide welfare to the poor, or national defense, or inflationary banking, all arguments that have been thoroughly debunked, the minarchists have now invented a new claim, that a state is needed such that parents will not be able to own their children, the justification of which is that some men lock up their children in cellars and therefore the state needs to own children and households. The fact that it is utterly implausible for a state to prevent this is completely irrelevant to them.
Additionally, note that parents owning their children does not in any way imply that children have no rights. In fact, in a dispute involving their parents and a complete stranger, a child will always side with his parents. It matters not how “abused” you consider the child’s rights to be. To take the child away from the parents, you must violate both their rights, and thus you must prove that you own the child instead of the parents.