Animals vs babies

Economics Political Theory
41

I think you are using bad semantics. People don’t have rights not to be aggressed against because they can explain themselves in court, they have these rights because of the non-aggression principle. Even if a person can’t explain his position to a lawyer it doesn’t invalidate his rights as individual. On what basis does the arbitrator decide who is guilty and who is not if not on the basis of NAP? NAP is a construct which is not related to the capability to present oneself in court. This is a universal construct.

I believe NAP should be applied to animals just as to babies, babies are not special creatures. You don’t acquire guardianship for the baby because someone has interests in his genes, that’s ridiculous. You acquire guardianship in order to eliminate potential conflicts with other interested parties. Sometimes there are no other interested parties except yourself, but this still doesn’t mean you can kill the baby.

42

Eugene, I agree with your feelings on how the NAP should be applied.

In the first chapter of Human Action, Mises wrote that causality must be known by an actor for them to be fit for action (this is not moral restorability of consequence). He also states that an infant is not an acting man, because they act out of biological instinct. I, however, disagree with this and that animals that know of and act by awareness of causality are not the same as acting man.

E.G. Hinkle, made the case that we know some animals do act, because they are aware of the causality between something as simple as quantity. A dog may automatically fight with another dog it encounters, however this same dog may run away if there are multiple other dogs. It is also the case that a dog may fight a less threating dog (smaller), but flee from a more threatening dog (larger).

I also believe, rights of life are not given to only those who are aware of them and can assert them. I personally feel life cannot be owned, but can have a stewardship over them if dependency is needed. This stewardship happens in the case of an infant or animal that has limited autonomy.

43

I already acknowledged self ownership is a right. I have two questions. If their is an infringement upon self ownership how would you recognize it? Do grievances magically articulate themselves out of thin air?

44

First, who is “you?”

No one can punish (take action against) a person for disposing of their property without violating the non-agression principle, in which case the individuals doing and supporting the punishing are acting in the capacity of a State. In a stateless society, people would be “punished” by actions of others on the free market. The freedom to associate includes the freedom not to associate, and association includes exchange. It is impossible, from the view point of economics, to predict what the market outcome would be since it depends on the choices and valuations of many individuals, but if individuals want children to be protected they could make choices that would have the effect of maximizing child welfare. For instance:

A father kills his child. If this occurs on property he owns, then no direct action can be taken against him. That is, no individuals can go onto the father’s property and arrest him, demand that he perform various actions such as consenting to have himself tried in a court, and so on, unless the father consents to allow such actions be taken against him. To move preemtively against the father would violate the NAP, it would constitute a usurpation of authority away from the individual (the father).

However, as fas as the father is a member of society, he is involved in market interactions with others. Thus he relies on others to sell him products and to buy his products. As knowledge of his action diffuses throughout the community, his avenues to transact may be cut off and he may be thus penalized directly. He may eventually submit to the demands of others that he perform actions in order to right the wrongs that they accuse him of, so that he may eventually be allowed back into society. Or, unable to right his wrongs in the eyes of his fellow men and unable to endure their scorn and unable to subsist because of their unwillingness to associate, he may impose exile upon himself.

Or, since in a free society every individual would likely need to cross the privately owned properties of many individuals in the course of everyday life, the father would find that he is not able to leave his property. The owners of the commonly used thoroughfares (roads, sidewalks and the like) are paid to produce a product that conforms to the demands of the consumers, or else they quickly lose business to competitors. As soon as consumers of the thoroughfares hear that Mr. X has killed his child, they may pay to keep Mr. X off of any roads they use. But it really works in reverse. One road bans Mr. X and so consumers prefer that road or thoroughfare, and the owner of that road profits by anticipating the wants of the consumers. Other roads follow, seeing the profit being made by the other road owners by banning Mr. X. Eventually, Mr. X is hampered from going anywhere, to the extent that consumers wish to keep him off of the roads that they are paying to use.

At the same time, consumers who are concerned with the plight of children who may be neglected by their parents could voluntarily pool their resources and form a corporation that could buy children from neglectful parents. Or, they could offer on the market, contracts between the corporation and parents where the parents agree to satisfy certain requirements of the child in exchange for money.

The explanation for how Mr. X would be “forced” to go to court/prison and make restitution of some kind follows just the same logic as above. Certain easements may be allowed. Thus, the owners of various roads, while banning Mr. X from using their roads for conducting business, grant easements for his travelling to a prison/courthouse where he may voluntarily submit to a trial. If this is what consumers want, they patronize the businesses that are participating in creating this product. The product being created is “allowing Mr. X passage to prison and nowhere else.” Of course, if Mr. X no longer wants to be in prison he can leave at any time, but the community can make his life as difficult as they choose, so long as they do not initiate force against him. The market could similarly pressure Mr. X to sign a contract agreeing to take actions to right his wrongs, or to perform certain labor, etc.

45

Why stop at deer? Why not become an advocate of rocks or trees or streams? All of these things have in common that they cannot speak or reason. What will a rock say in the witness stand? What will a deer sitting in the plaintiff’s seat have to say for himself or herself? As far as claiming to represent the deer, you have no rights in the deer if you are not its owner. Hence, you cannot represent it. Similarly for a rock or a stream. Genetic relatives of a child do have rights in that child, that is, they have rights in guardianship if the parents are relinquishing their rights to care for the child. This is why I don’t agree that parents can just abandon their child any which way they please. It is true that parents must be free to relinquish care of their child but only in a manner that permits the other potential holders of guardianship rights a chance to claim those rights. Simply abandoning a child in the forest is homicide, possibly murder and the other potential holders of guardianship rights certainly have a case against the parent or parents who did the abandoning.

Clayton -

46

I disagree with this.

Life should have rights. Even if you disagree that life itself guarantees rights, deer do have some capability for understanding causality.

47

If someone has a “right” this simply means that, if a dispute were argued verbally, a person would be able to justify that he had acted in the right. So, “rights” only exist in the context of verbal argument. If you and I put up our fists to start fighting and then you kick me and I say “foul! you have no right to kick in a fight!” this would be laughable. There are no rights in violent conflict, there are just wins and losses.

*yawn

You can’t make an argument in court if you can’t speak.

I believe questions of guilt would be irrelevant in free market law.

The NAP is just a philosophical idea, nothing more. Law is eminently practical, it has to do with settling disputes without resort to violent conflict. That is its only purpose and the domain of “correct” solutions is only limited by the consideration of what will prevent resort to violent conflict.

Babies aren’t special but the people who will resort to violent conflict to defend the baby are in that they are cunning human beings, far more dangerous assailants than deer, rocks or streams.

I think you do. Why else do we assign guardianship to the parents rather than just any person chosen at random? This is how humans organize the rights to guardianship, it is in precedence order of genetic relatedness to the child.

The world is a very dangerous place for young children without genetic relatives.

Clayton -

48

The bacteria in my colon are alive. What are their rights?

Clayton -

49

What is the substance of these rights that are aquired? Where are the rules governing them written down?

Obviously, my conception of rights is grossly different from yours. No one has any rights, except as may be determined through rational, deliberative discourse. I do not assume that an intelligent, adult human necessarily has rights any more than a child or an animal. They are all in the same position of not having any rights at any time, up until they are able to assert that they do indeed have a right. Determination of rights is a process, not an either/or proposition.

For instance, assume two individual who are both capable of rational, deliberative discourse, named Mary and Steve.

Mary punches Steve in the face, completely unprovoked. She was really mad and just felt like she needed to hit someone.

Let’s say Steve and Mary talk things out, and they agree, thorough discourse, upon a solution to the satisfaction of both of them: Mary will cut Steve’s lawn for the next 3 months. Mary has recognized Steve’s right to his person (including not being punched in the face).

Another possibility is that Mary refuses to talk to Steve. The dispute is not settled. Mary has not recognized Steve’s right. No process has occured which we could point to and say that Mary has recognized Steve’s right to not be punched in the face. In fact, Mary is refusing to recognize a right that Steve is claiming. It makes no sense, then, to say that Steve has a right or doesn’t have a right. All that can be said is that there is a dispute between Steve and Mary which has not been resolved.

So rights are either recognized or not between individuals.

50

Okay so let’s assume Bob killed a child, and a random block Jones sues Bob for that. The arbitrator listens to the dispute between Jones and Bob. Jones claims that Bob killed a child and it was not his right to do so. The arbitrator asks Jones why was Bob wrong in killing the child. Jones answers: “Bob was wrong in killing the child because it caused me an emotional distress.” But then the arbitrator asks, “what property was harmed?” What will Jones answer?

51

How should murder be punished, if at all?

I disagree with this. Although morality is a concept humans undoubtedly grasp, I don’t believe that it is a concept limited to humans. I would say your average dog understands right from wrong, albeit something his owners taught him. They feel guilt and hide their eyes, mope around when they are sad and they avert their eyes when they feel guilt. Also, there are many accounts of the family dog protecting his family members, even sacrificing his life, and this is a matter of right vs. wrong, what the animal ought to do versus doing nothing or protecting himself versus another person.

I’m assuming by morality you mean the ability to establish values that are right from wrong…

52

The arbitrator would first want to know where the child’s guardian is. If the guardian can be found, then the case reverts to a dispute between the guardian and Bob. If Jones wants to pitch in monetary assistance to the guardian, he is free to do so, but he may not pre-empt the guardian’s right to speak on behalf of the child. If the guardian can not be found or does not exist, then the child’s guardianship rights can be homesteaded and, in the act of attempting to avenge the child’s death, Jones is homesteading them. Hence, Jones becomes the child’s guardian and may prosecute Bob’s alleged violation of his newly acquired guardianship rights in the child.

Clayton -

53

I never claimed that unlimited control of another human was possible. Although, it should be obvious to anyone that a large degree of control is possible. Examples of control of others includes slavery and murder. My claim is that ownership is evident through certain actions, such as freely exchanging or disposing of things.

If I give birth to a child and immediately sell my child to another, have I not demonstrated ownership? If I do not own the child, who does? The child cannot be said to own itself, it has no self-ownership, because it cannot meet any challenge to ownership of itself, just like the animal. Like the animal, the child cannot contest others, it cannot engage in rational, deliberative discourse.

54

I haven’t had time to think it through to a sound concept.

What I do know is that life is more than just a scarce physical entity. Life itself needs to be defined, but I cannot do so yet. I need more empirical evidence and understanding of what it actually is. Until then, using a NAP towards what we believe is life is best.

There are aggression that I cannot avoid currently, such as the accidental killing of life with many things I do. Microscopic life is the greatest victim of this.

But, even if this sounds completely absurd, we give rights to human life, because of some belief that humans have the ability to act. If other life is found to have the same ability to act (due the the ability to understand causality), then logically they have the same rights as humans. Maybe not all life has this ability, and if rights are given to only those who can act, then we still have to acknowledge the rights of other life forms.

55

I don’t think the sale constitutes a sale of the child but, rather, a sale of guardianship rights over the child. The parent who sells a child they have given birth to is essentially discharging any duties to care for the child as well as transferring the right to guardianship (excluding unwanted care of the child from others). There was a big thread on this subject some time back, I’ll try to search it up.

Clayton -

56

Okay, so unlike property rights, guardinship rights include duties. For example if you are a guardian of a baby, you have a duty to feed it, otherwise someone else might claim guardianship over the baby claming that you did not function as guardian.

What about guardianship of animals, is ther such thing? As I previously said, some animals are definitely more emotionally and intellectual complex than infants.

57

If parents do not own children, who does? The answer cannot be that the children have self-ownership, because the child cannot engage in rational, deliberative discourse. The child cannot assert its rights, any more than the animal.

If I have a child and immediately sell it, I am demonstrating my ownership. The child does not have self-ownership, or else it could assert that it had certain rights. As humans grow and change as they develop in the course of a lifetime, many develop into beings capable of asserting their rights. But the rights do not exist apart from the ability of individuals to assert, in specific instances, that a right was violated by another.

This is why babies and dogs don’t have rights. Making a claim “on behalf of” implies that the claimant is acting in the same way that the baby or dog would act. But it is not only impossible to know, it is nonsensical to speak of the rational actions of creatures not capable of acting rationally. If my hammer is misused and I sue the person I lent it to, am I making a claim “on behalf of” the hammer? Surely, the hammer would not have wanted to be abused in such a way. The only difference is that the hammer is a non-thinking lump as compared to the pre-rational baby and non-rational though thinking dog. None of the three have the capacity to make a claim.

58

No, guardianship rights do not include duties beyond a minimal amount required to ensure that the potential guardianship rights of others is not trampled. To retain guardianship rights, however, you must care for the child. Otherwise, another potential guardian can successfully argue that you have de facto abandoned your guardianship rights. For example, a grandparent might argue that a parent who is neglecting to feed their child has ceded the right to be the guardian of the child. This happens.

Guardianship is a right to exclude unwanted care of a child. If a parent owned its child, the parent could cook it up for dinner if he or she felt like. The parent does not own the child but only owns the guardianship rights over the child. He or she may not eat the child or otherwise dispose of it in a manner that violates the rights of other potential guardians (“right of first refusal”). In doing something that violates the rights of other potential guardians, the parent is essentially ceding his or her ownership in guardianship rights over the child to the next-of-kin if they choose to take on those rights.

I feel like a broken record.

Clayton -

59

You said that the guardian cannot kill the child because it can violate the rights of other potential guardians. But why should it be so? What if my utility for the child is to eat it, who says the utility for “care” is more important than the utility for “eating”?

60

It’s not a question of utility, it’s a question of whether you may deny the right of first refusal in guardianship rights to all other potential guardians of the child. You may not and doing so is a tort against them. If a parent murders his child, he has ceded the right of guardianship by ending care for the child. Legally, the grandparents of the dead child are now its guardian and may bring suit against the parent for murder. This is all just technicalities to resolve the question “who may speak on behalf of who?” and this same problem exists even in the case of murder of an adult (who may now no longer speak for himself or herself).

Clayton -