If you are talking about corrupt families, I would not want to fight to the death, but perhaps a more elaborate solution. Bribe them or maybe use some subterfuge. After all a violent taking of the children will cause damage to the actual child that has to be considered. Its not as clear cut as your false analogies.
Why are you continually obtuse ITT? Not everyone cares that 2+2=4. The simple fact is that you’ve an error in your calculus. You claim to be libertarian (I think), and I’ve found myself agreeing with you on other things in the past. Children and invalids not having basic negative rights isn’t compatible with the rest of your supposed beliefs. In other words, to you 2+2=4 and 5+5=10 but maybe 1+3=82.
Taking child rapists as slaves, albeit temporarily, would be profitable in many cases I believe. Prisoners/parolees are revenue generators for PDAs. Again, people will be happy to pay a little less because their security firm gets money for capturing rapists. That subscribers have to agree to not rape their own children isn’t a big deal to most people.
You have provided possibly the dumbest comment of your career.
So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children?
His approach is wrong, or he is talking about “ethically bad” but not “illegal bad”. For instance, I could ask to buy your children to save them from having to go to church.
And you would thus validate my ownership of the children.
Taking a kid to church is different than raping it.
Ownership in what sense though? I think Rothbard makes a nice distinction in Ethics of Liberty in demarcating between actual ownership and trustee ownership.
No the payment is to avoid the pain of the child seeing his parents killed which I have sympathy for and to account for my want of not engaging in physical taking of a thing.
Semantics.
This argument is settled.
Yes you were arguing from something like semantics. Conflating my actions about how I would change possession of children with the actual owning of them.
Murder is universally wrong. As such, it is not just the majority that think it is wrong, it is everyone.
It is wrong because no one wants to be murdered, because murder implies lack of consent. If I ask you to kill me, and you do, since I gave consent, it is not considered murder. And consent implies having the ability to reason.
Killing an animal is not murder, because it cannot reason, and therefore cannot grant nor withhold consent. Killing a baby is not murder, because a baby cannot reason, and therefore is incapable of granting or withholding consent. As such, by definition, it is not murder.
Same with theft and rape. Both words imply lack of consent. And talking about consent without agreeing that a being must be able to reason, is pointless, because otherwise animals have rights too.
Raising a child without teaching the child about Christianity is IMMORAL. Most people know this. As such, in anarchy, there will be an organization that people will create called Helping Children Understand Christianity. When someone finds out his neighbor is not teaching his children about Christianity, he will call this organization. They will come and take the child from the family until the family proves they were teaching their child about Christianity. And if you are not a Christian, good luck finding someone to defend you! (I used Christianity because it is the majority religion in the U.S. In no way am I claiming that Christians would actually ever do such a thing or that they are not peaceful, loving people).
yes and cattle, horses, and human slaves are bought and paid for. such is the mentality.
I see the exchange of money for the children as a non-violent way to appease violent parents. maybe the only way for such parents to relate with the world without rising to conflict whether its with a son/daughter or neighbors is to pay them off. it would be a better option than battle.
Guess what, if you pay someone for their slaves, you are validating slavery.
No you are buying the slaves freedom if you don’t subsequently enslave the person. This would have been a more correct outcome to the civil war.
The HCUC has an invalid moral theory therefore its actions are incorrect. Their belief in god is based on faith, but they don’t allow others to not believe in god based on faith. Fails non universality therefore invalid moral theory.
while i was writing my post that came to mind
And killing small children and having sex with small children fails universality as well. That is the point.
Huh?
Not everyone thinks it is wrong.