Where?
So, make them eat the broccoli. You still have no right to murder them.
Your contention that children have no rights is otherwise? What would it take for me to prove my opinion/theory as valid to you Stranger? I don’t know if you are constitutionally capable of admitting you are wrong.
Let’s examine your theory that a child or invalid has no rights, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting your position:
Children, the mentally handicapped, and people in a vegetative state are not able to reason, thus they enjoy no rights. Nobody can legitimately punish a parent or other legally recognized first-appropriator (or however you say they are properly owned) for anything they do to the type of person in question.
Does the fact that a person has ever “been able to consent” or “exhibited full rationality” or “escaped their slaveholding parents” (whatever your actual criteria is) grant them the title “adult”? I assume that you will agree that a person can lose their right to live when they extinguish another’s life.
If this is not the case and no mystical coming of age is to be regarded in your legal system, what then? Are we to evaluate the person’s “ability to think rationally” or whatever at any given singular moment in time?
The latter was the position taken up by Spidey before. Given this, your house is up for grabs when you drive off to work in the morning. Anyone would have the right to kill you when you are asleep or passed out drunk.
So, I guess your only option is to draw a distinction somewhere, an arbitrary time where the adult gets to be unable to reason (12 hours?) but the child is left with no rights.
Adults are always first children. Human beings act consciously and willfully, but they also must sleep. Their willful actions or a set of unforeseen events can put them temporarily into a vegetative state or without a connection to ego (via entheogenic drugs). We are able to recognize that human beings are categorically different from other animals by way of introspection. We know that we employ means to bring about ends. We have realized that we can further our position more efficiently by cooperating in a social manner, thus we developed language and legal systems to resolve conflicts. To resolve conflicts we must consider the nature of the things involved. For instance, a claim of ownership to a baseball must be evaluated along different lines than that of an area of land. How one comes to make use of or emborder these things vary. That human beings recognize the difference between property in inanimate objects or non-rational beings (iura res) is shown by us using an entirely different word for “ownership of children”, or “guardianship”.
OK, that is clearer then - and what you wrote coheres with that. However, do you apply this same standard to adults?
C’mon guys, this is stupid. Spidey said that a child must reach “the age of consent” then act to escape his slaveowner. He set his range like 6-12 years or something I believe. I said that we should do better, evaluate the child’s abilities, rather than setting an arbitrary age.
Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that children reason all the time. They lack cognition as stated over and over.
Here
When you claim to know more about child development then someone else. Your passing judgement about child development like you know the first thing about it. Being a parent means nothing.
What do you mean?
I don’t see how that speaks for the feasibility or lawfulness of a polycentric legal system.
The libertarianism I am learning about is based on self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. How would different legal systems be consistent with libertarianism if they considered different acts aggressive or what a person’s property was or wasn’t?
But… it can be granulated into finer concepts, which can be assessed.
If Crusoe thinks that he should not stab me with his spear and doesn’t mind picking my pocket, I will perhaps not stab him, though perhaps pick back what he picked. If he thinks that he should not stab me and doesn’t mind chopping me with his axe, I will stab him or chop him.
Since you say that “Abuse implies reasoned refusal to give consent” in the case of children, do you also think it applies for adults? In other words, since you say it only counts as “child abuse” if there is reasoned refusal (by the child) to give consent, does it only count as “adult abuse” if there is reasoned refusal (by the adult victim) to give consent?
This is an economic question and not our concern for now. I will later discuss these type of questions, so please wait. We can call a broad range of people’s beliefs “libertarian”. Most of them, “left-libertarian”, “geolibertarian”, “libertarian minarchist”, etc., suffer from internal inconsistencies with adherence to the non-aggression principle. Our problem, for now, is these two struggling for a grasp on what it means to be a child or adult, or why either of these should have rights at all.
Okay. I’m arrogant and you and your natural rights buddies are the only reasonable people. sips Kool-Aid
I have given you nothing to believe that I am a natural rights advocate.
For those of us seeking alternatives to the problem of natural rights that you can only kick and scream when someone disagrees with you there is contractarianism.
Those are likely going to be prominent and consistent themes you find from place to place, but how they are interpreted and any cultural exceptions added or appended will change from place to place.
Have you no understanding that this is only a temporary state? Either children have rights, all beings temporarily unable to reason have no rights, or you are being inconsistent.
Hitting someone without consent should be illegal. Consent implies that the person could reason and decided to not be hit. The flip side is that hitting someone that cannot reason should be legal.
Does that answer your question?
How is the fact that it is a temporary state relevant to whether or not a small child can make a claim for its rights?
Can you please respond to my recent big post? A sleeping man cannot consent at that given instant either, yet you might still somehow recognize that sleeping men awaken, given that they are afforded some basic negative rights.
So you’re saying that in a free world there might exist voluntaristic societies whose legal systems are inconsistent with libertarianism? Sorry if I’m coming across as obtuse, but I don’t see how self-ownership and the NAP can be considered a universal political ethic and then be interpreted different by different courts.
Accordingly, a legal system is either consistent with libertarianism, or not (but lawful if its participants were voluntary, similarly to how a slave contract would be lawful [semantics notwithstanding]), or we can’t consider the libertarian political ethics to be universal.