Why, because the majority thinks that should be the case? Is that how markets work, the majority rule? Or do markets serve everyone, every single individual? If everyone, then why would dispute resolution be a special case and result in majority rule in a stateless society?
That’s about right.
Can you show me where I made that claim? If not, will you admit your lie?
Did I ever claim you did?
Nice. Now, what about the other questions you either avoided or answered with questions?
If this was meant to represent my stand, then it is a gross misrepresentation. Once she gets away, she most assuredly could bring a case against him.
This is also a gross misrepresentation of my ideas, if it is meant to be such. I have never claimed to know how the market would resolve such a situation.
Such as?
Seems pretty spot on. If a child is unable to consent, and if that is the only criteria that a parent can use to determine if he is violating his child’s rights, then that means anything a parent does to a child is a violation of the child’s rights, since the child cannot consent to anything. As such, the parent would be legally obligated to put the child in the wilderness and hope for the best.
I think there are categories of interactions - some that require consent and others that require the absence of refusal. So to use your examples, with the addition of sex:
Were you to bathe me without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don’t think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth without my consent, but also without my refusal, I don’t think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place your penis in my mouth without my consent, I think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to bathe me despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights.
Were you to place a milk-filled bottle in my mouth despite my refusal, I think you would be violating my rights.
Are you saying that the parents have positive obligations?
I’m curious, did you arrive at this conclusion solely through logical reasoning?
So on one hand, if you do not give consent yet do not withhold consent, your rights have not been violated. On the other hand, if you do not give consent yet do not withhold consent, your rights have been violated. I am confused. How does that help me as a parent know if I am violating my child’s supposed rights?
I apologize. You did not. One of your question was rather leading, but possibly I read more into it than i should have. I should have answered this:
With: No. Nothing I’ve said so far would lead to that conclusion, and that is not my position.
However, right after questioning where you made that claim, you made that claim:
I should reword and say that the conclusion I draw is that parent’s seem to be legally obligated to do nothing to help their child survive.
So you would say children can give consent? Or are you saying that even though children cannot give consent, that does not mean that anything a parent does to his child is violating the child’s rights?
The funny thing about all this is that I bet Spidey doesn’t have the balls to express his “theory” to his wive and two young daughters.
Is there something wrong with my statement?
Why would I be afraid to tell my wife that I think children don’t have rights? Are you afraid to tell people that animals don’t have rights? Regardless, I talk to my wife about everything. And if you are wondering, she will not talk to me about this subject. She gets upset.
Spidey your conflating guardianship with property and thats why your having a hard time reconciling the point at which a child’s rights are being violated. You apparently are in fear that spanking or disciplining a child is considered a violation of rights. You want to be given the authority to discipline your child. And you should have that. So to reconcile this you assign children as property. This gives you the power to do everything you desire and more.
Under guardianship covers all this already however, disciplining your child is not necessarily a violation of rights. Discipline is often an act promoting the successful capacity of the child. I know there are those that would debate that but I’d rather debate that then justified infanticide.
So under guardianship disciplining your child can be seen as ok.
Owning a child however changes the entire spectrum. It removes any responsibility a parent has at developing a productive person.
Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created.
- Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified?
- Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified?
If the answer is no, please explain why. If your answer is yes no further explanation is needed.
Stranger
In a free society it’s entirely possible for a 13 year old child(or younger) to present a case to a court, even if ad-hoc or with help. But a father could practice coercion over his ‘property’ and prevent him from doing so. The ability to present a case to a judge does not constitute being human and does not constitute having rights. Being human is a biological attribute. The ability to act is one of those attributes but specifically having the ability to present a case in court does not magically make you a human with rights. In some rural areas there may be no judge. Does that mean everyone is non-human? The concept is retarded.
We build a framework of principles and our positive law forms around that not the other way around. We don’t create principles to from positive law. Principles come first.
Nir
Spidey’s fallacy is the conflation of property rights onto people. He seems to shy away from it’s logical conclusions. Feel free to also answer the two questions I mentioned above.
By your logic and spidey’s I could homestead a senior citizen suffering from ‘altimers’(Spelling?). I could then do with him and his body as I please. He seems to make an arbitrary exception to this fact. But there are people of all ages who for long periods of time are incapable of being their own guardian and making rational decisions. If he followed his concept logically you would be able to homestead these people and do with as you please.
The fallacy here is a new definition of human. The definition is ‘being able to think coherently makes you human and gives you human rights’. This is not what constituets a human however.
Children are placed in positions of responsibility on a daily basis. Some children who’s parents are sick must make decisions for them. Children are entirely capable of thinking critically and making moral decisions. The only reason why they do not commonly do this is because they are under the wing of their parent.
The belief that children are incapable of having rational preferences and making a certain level of decisions for themselves is entirely false. If children did not have human preferences they really would be property, they’d never dispute anything you ever asked for and they would need no discipline. They’d be robots.
My third question is this, besides the two I posted above which I do wanted answered. Whats your beef against guardianship? You can still discipline your child as needed(within reason). The idea of guardianship is fostering an environment which promotes better development for their persons.
Making a child ownership removes all responsibilities a parent has as being a parent, including discipline. They can do wtf they want.
Additional reasons why children are human
- Treating a child as property and not as a child will have long term phsycological consequences to the child. Specifically if the child is neglected, abused, ect… By your logic the child should just magically forget all of these unforsaken events the day they realize they have ‘rights’. This is not true however because the child WAS human BEFORE hand. The child WAS human while she/he was being raiped and abused.
- You argue that children have not human rights, despite the fact they are human, simply because they are currently incapable of approaching a court, ignoring the fact that a parent wouldn’t allow it. I use the same argument to claim that children do have rights. Property is property, it cannot arbitrarily stop being property. If something can just wake up one day and realize it has rights, then walk away, it is not property, it never was. It is something entirely different.
- Property remains property under an owner indefinitely until traded or sold. If we are to flirt with the idea that a person is property than we cannot arbitrarily make a special case pet definition of property just for humans. That alone is a huge fallacy in the argument. “OH yes children are property but they get special rules”. What? No. Property is property. Either you own it or you do not. What if a boy lives with his dad out in the mountains. No courthouse around? Is he his dads property forever?
Sure, what do you want to do about it?
You only have the rights that other people are willing to protect. Imaginary rights established on abstract philosophical principles are of no material consequence unless there is an agency embracing those principles and capable of economically protecting them. Rights that make no economic sense cannot exist.
No, it means they are humans with no rights.
I’m fairly confident in the fact that a 4 y ear old would be able to ascertain whether or not they wanted to be raiped. Might does not make right. The only reason why a child could not present a case to a judge is because they were not yet taught. Such things are generally pushed farther up the list.
Most grown adults today do not know how to present a case in court. Fortunately the division of labor provides lawyers. By your logic though all of these adults who cannot present themselves in court adequately are homesteadable as property.