I’m trying to get a grip on the statement, are we contrasting against other NAP promulgations? which/what?
Lastly, what the hell is “molesting” anyways?
Let me give an example. This happened in a community near mine, so I’m not making up unlikely events here. A father inserts his genitalia into his three-year old daughter’s orifices.
Now, spideynw, are you honestly telling me that you believe the father has a right to do this? And that in an Ancap society the PDAs that flourish in the market are those that protect this?
That sounds like a man inserting his genitalia into his 3 year old daughter’s orifices. Now, can you prove to me the child did not want it?
Yes, just like a man has the right to stick his genitalia into his animal’s orifices as well.
And you think that PDA’s will flourish that protect animal abuse? Or animal murder? Or suicide? Or drug use? Blah, blah, blah. Your morals are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not there is a dispute, and whether or not the one party has “standing”, meaning a valid claim. A baby/toddler is unable to have standing, as such there is no legal issue. Now, of course, if the other parent disagrees with the action, then there would be standing, for the other parent, since the other parent would be considered a co-owner. And please do not conflate this to mean I condone someone harming his or her child.
Spideynw,
YOUR SICK. Period.
Do you eat animals that have to be killed for you first? YOUR SICK TOO. Period. Grow up.
Spideynw. You’re totally and completely sick. You find a fetish in these threads to spout your advocation for child rape. This IS lower than z’s comments in the other thread at least he was only trying to tell me a computer is a microwave.
sir. it is you that needs to re-evaluate your life.
Really? I advocate child rape? Where exactly did this happen? Or are you just lying because you don’t like my argument?
You say a baby and toddler has no legal standing. so you advocate ‘RAPE AWAY’
f-in’ absurd. i’m done with this thread.
Correct
Really? Where did I say that?
Well, if you just want to leave after lying, I guess that is your choice. I would hope the moderators would take that into account, that you are posting lies.
not sure how it could be known, but if somehow word got out that someone was raping their child, I think it would be pretty easy to raise a bunch of money and hire a militia to break into that person’s house and kidnapp/rescue their baby, and then sort of pay the parent a fee for breaking and entering as well as a reverse ransom. Also its likely that parent would be shunned from the community, as nobody would want to associate with someone who raped an infant.
The same could be done to someone that was using drugs, or raping his dog. What is your point?
I would guess that he would be, at the least, looked down upon. At most, someone might kill him. But legally speaking, it would not be legal to kill him.
might?
highly doubt someone would steal someone’s drugs (and then pay them restitution on the spot) for the purpose of ridding their community of drugs. If someone wanted to rid his community of drug users, one could just stop conducting business with drug users and try and convince all or most of his neighboors to do the same.
what is your point?
That “I think it would be pretty easy to raise a bunch of money and hire a militia to break into that person’s house and kidnapp/rescue their baby,” is still illegal. So again, what is your point?
Spidey already made a long post about this here.
I reject natural rights theory. Sorry I missed this.
So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn’t arbitrary.
I never said it wasn’t ‘illegal’ or that it would be morally justifiable, I just think that things like that would probably happen. Although, maybe not, becaues I would also guess that people would adapt to be more respecting of of others rights in a free society.
As much as I disagree with Spideynw’s position, this is going way too far. He is not advocating for child rape. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of everything he has said. He is simply claiming that child rape by said child’s parents should not be illegal. Nowhere have I seen him say that parent ought to rape their children.
It’s the same argument used for a number of libertarian issues. I think all drugs should be legal. That in no way implies I think people ought to use heroin.
Personally, I find his argument rather weak, and have attacked it on occasion. But I’ve made sure to attack his actual argument. I don’t believe there is a need to misrepresent his argument to argue against it.
What is your point? Do you think “molestation” and “child abuse” are not completely arbitrary? If not, what is “child molestation” and “child abuse”? In other words, how does one know that one has molested or abused a child? Is it when they cry after we do something to them? Can a child have legal standing? A dog can whine too if we hit one. So what? Does that mean someone can bring a case against him and make him suffer for it?