Because that’s nonsense. Why would two parties get into a dispute over things they have no control of?
Universality.
Why is it either absolute control or no control? Why not limited control?
What is universal about the two options you presented?
And, why do you feel this is a foundational ethical requirement?
I don’t “feel” that way. It’s the foundation of ethics and science in general.
You didn’t really answer any of the questions. That’s fine, but is that really how you want to leave it?
I’m not in the semantics game. If you disagree, spell out your disagreement.
On universality, I don’t disagree, I just don’t get what you mean.
On ownership, I think I did spell it out: Why not limited ownership? Is there some reason ownership has to be all-or-nothing, even with respect to children?
But it is moral is it not? If it is moral, why would I be royally screwed?
So you have a million dollars to spare?
No, do you want to bet that I cannot argue that killing or having sex with a child would be beneficial to the child?
Just like you pose retarded arguments that giving a bath to a child that has rights is moral? Yes, I could.
Assuming the child has rights, which is what is at debate here. You have not shown that they do.
So if you bury your property, it is not your property anymore? What if I bury my property on my land?
Well of course. All morality is subjective. So it will be riddled with just as much nonsense as those that argue that giving a bath to a being with rights without consent is moral.
You’re again confusing subjective ontological with subjective epistemic. Please STOP doing that.
It is a question of balancing morals. Which is more wrong - to violate someone’s rights or stand by while they are dying? I believe letting them die is more wrong. Which is more immoral? To violate someone’s rights or let them take risky behaviors? Here, I would say violating their rights. However, you would be screwed because THEY don’t value things the same way. Unless they were more grateful to you for your help in overcoming their addiction, they would sue you. I never said that you didn’t have to face the legal consequences of an action, even a moral one. If they choose to bring you to court, they can.
I sure don’t. But a person’s current financial status is not an indicator of their valuation of things. If I was totally broke, I wouldn’t value everything at $0. So regardless of my financial position, I value the life of someone who is neither criminal nor suicidal more than I value a million dollars. My actions reflect this. If they choose to sue me… well, you can’t get blood from a stone. Guess I’d be an outlaw.
And again, I’m sure you could argue that, if you wanted. Hopefully, you can’t argue it and be intellectually honest with yourself, or I fear for your family, but your ability to argue it isn’t an issue. It is really up to the child, when they become able to press their claim. If they felt it was beneficial, they won’t sue you. If you kill them, obviously they cannot press charges, but I’m sure there would be plenty of volunteers to do it for them.
Fine. Give me an argument for the NAP that is totally devoid of normative statements. If you can’t, then your argument is rooted in morality as well.
You have not shown that they do not. You asked how we were to know what was okay and what was not in caring for a child with rights, which I answered.. If you are looking for a purely logical proof that a child has rights, there isn’t one. There is also no purely logical proof that you have rights.
You are assuming the child’s body was your property to begin with. Since I disagree, this question is pointless. If I kill you and bury you on my land, are you now my property?
I tend to be very logical. I just don’t accept the same starting axioms you do, so my logic brings me to different conclusions.
I think everyone here is, for the most part, being quite logical in their deductions from their ethical axioms - that’s the scary part.
It seems that starting with a few (or just one) normative axioms deemed to be absolutely, universally correct and reasoning with flawless logic will always lead eventually to some absurd or abhorrent result, requiring “interpretations” that render the supposed absoluteness and universality of the axioms meaningless. I cannot prove this, but I challenge anyone who disputes this to provide a counterexample.
what must the counterexample show?!?
AJ,
Logical deductions are not wrong. They are logical. It is the ‘interpretations’ that vary. You seem to usually or always confuse between metaphysics and epistemology. What is - is. What that ‘is’ - is, that varies. AJ another clue that should be obvious is the heavy debate on this topic. When a topic is as heavily debated as this one is, especially on such core issues to the varying theoreticals, it is obvious that this topic is not settled in the least as to what is correct. This topic is easily an elephant with various blind people touching it in different spots - not getting the whole picture of what it is they are touching, to use a common scientific analogy.
*A good argument does not reject logic, episteme, metaphysics, etc… A good theory is open to all valid ways of verification of itself. It’s the pinnacle charm of what science is.
It doesn’t need to show anything; it would just need to be an example where taking a few (or just one) normative axioms deemed to be absolutely, universally correct and reasoning from them in a logically valid manner has not yet led to an absurd result (that you are aware of) that requires “interpretations” that render the supposed absoluteness and universality of the axioms meaningless. Then for as long as no one can show how valid logical deduction from those axioms leads to an absurd result, the counterexample would stand. For obvious reasons, the axiom or set of axioms should be one that is known to libertarians as providing an absolute foundation for making ethical decisions.
These terms seem heavily stacked against my assertion, because all one who disagrees need do is produce additional sets of axioms until I and/or people who agree with me tire of looking for absurd conclusions and proving that the logic reaching them is sound. The vagueness of language in general makes my side of the challenge many times more difficult as well. It’s like a game that I don’t expect to be able to win (indeed, as long as new axioms are suggested I cannot), but I think the process will be illustrative.
I was thinking last night, there is a possibility we haven’t considered, and one that was quickly rejected that shouldn’t be.
First, does everything consist of property? If we allow the existence of things which are not property, and thus cannot be rightfully owned, then it is very plausible that humans fall into this category. I have not considered yet either the implications of this, nor how you would differentiate - it is more half a thought than a full thought.
In cases of collective property, you can have a tragedy of the commons, but this isn’t always true. Corporations are built around the idea of collective property. The key difference is that a corporation has a board of directors and officers to manage the property. The owners choose who manages it, and in fact cannot use it themselves as that would infringe upon other peoples’ property. If I own a share of American Airlines stock, I own part of every plane, but I don’t get to fly for free.
Taken to the example of children, could children be said to be collectively owned by the community? In which case, children are property, but the parent isn’t the sole owner, merely the manager, and may lose this position if he/she mismanages the property. I don’t know that I hold this view, but it would seem to solve the moral dilemmas that have been brought up.
He just said it is a criminal act to feed my child. Anyone else see something wrong with this, or is it just me?
You posed an argument saying it was not criminal to rape and murder your children, and you have a problem with my saying it is criminal to feed them?
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/a-minarchist-challenge-to-anarcho-capitalists/9446/228
Care to weigh in on the papers?
If it is physical & scarce.
No, it’s not.
See Hoppe on this: discussed in The Scarcity of Time, notes on Hoppe’s lecture regarding scarcity, and Hoppe’s TSC:
Let us start with an elucidation of the precondition necessary for the concept of property to emerge.1 For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property. If, let us say, due to some paradisiac superabundance of bananas, my present consumption of bananas does not in any way reduce my own future supply (possible consumption) of bananas, nor the present or the future supply of bananas for any other person, then the assignment of property rights, here with respect to bananas, would be superfluous. To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources.2 It does not need much comment to see that there is indeed scarcity of goods, of all sorts of goods, everywhere, and the need for property rights is thus evident. As a matter of fact, even if we were to assume that we lived in the Garden of Eden, where there was a superabun dance of everything needed not only to sustain one’s life but to indulge in every possible comfort by simply stretching out one’s hand, the concept of property would necessarily have to evolve. For even under these “ideal” circumstances, every person’s physical body would still be a scarce resource and thus the need for the establishment of property rules, i.e., rules regarding people’s bodies, would exist. One is not used to thinking of one’s own body in terms of a scarce good, but in imagining the most ideal situation one could ever hope for, the Garden of Eden, it becomes possible to realize [p. 9] that one’s body is indeed the prototype of a scarce good for the use of which property rights, i.e., rights of exclusive ownership, somehow have to be established, in order to avoid clashes.
- Incidentally, the normative character of the concept of property also makes the sufficient precondition for its emergence as a concept clear: Besides scarcity “rationality of agents” must exist, i.e., the agents must be capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, they must be able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems. If there were no such capability of communication, normative concepts simply would not be of any use. We do not, for instance, try to avoid clashes over the use of a given scarce resource with, let us say, an elephant, by defining property rights, for we cannot argue with the elephant and hence arrive at an agreement on rights of ownership. The avoidance of future clashes in such a case is exclusively a technical (as opposed to a normative) problem.
No they aren’t.
No.
Except it doesn’t.
I’m not going to debate the concept of property - like I said, it was only half an idea. However, I would debate that corporations are collective property. If there are 100 shares of X, Inc. and I own a share, I own 1% of X, Inc. But you can’t point to any given part of X, Inc. and say that is the 1% I own. Rather, I own 1% of every part, collectively with the other shareholders.
You are both wrong. Children are potential self owners, but until the child “demonstrates that he has them [full rights of self-ownership] in nature”, the parents have first claim to “trustee” or “guardianship rights”, which involves overseeing the child’s growth - “It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc.” - Which would be a blatant violation of the “trustee” / “guardianship” of the child, is it not?
Feeding, bathing, clothing them - would not be a violation of the “trustee” / “guardianship”. Since that actually constitutes taking care of the child. There are no positive obligations on the parents however, but if they choose to abandon the baby, they must actually do so. Throwing your jumper into the closet does not constitute abandonment.
Can I ask.. have either of you read Block’s paper?