I don’t think that “its whole life” is important. I don’t think that a straight answer is forthcoming from them, but it follows from the child being a slave that they wouldn’t be able to make a claim. I think that they are in damage-control mode and can only repeat the same tactics as in other threads. Spidey’s next move is to start talking about sperm and how I “don’t know reality”. I am totally serious about this. The word “potentiality” makes him go insane, so let me just preempt this now. The acorn is the fruit of the oak tree. Read Aristotle on this from #12 (3).
The straight answer is yes. It is no more disturbing than the downtrodden being left by the wayside and such.
I was clarifying my position on land in response to a direct reference to me by AJ. Don’t blame me. In either case, I don’t see what your questions have to do with the topic either, and I already answered them in other threads.
Fully agree, and as to the last sentence, the common law process itself has historically been antithetical to the elevation of its own “precedents” into some kind of rigid structure that new decisions must adhere to (contrast this with how precedent is used in the modern legal systems). A detailed and eye-opening account of the common law process is here (“The Depoliticization of Law”).
EDIT: Here’s the abstract:
This. What a loss of mental energy to even argue about “issues” like this. What a disturbing thread.
Z.
How can one enslave something that cannot reason? Slavery implies lack of consent. Or do you consider owning a pet, “slavery”?
But yes, the child is owned until the child decides to not be owned anymore.
No. Because then people could sue their parents for feeding them stuff they did not want to be fed or not feeding them the right things, or for imprisoning them in their room at night, for forcing them into car seats, etc., etc.
The latter.
Owned, not enslaved. Slavery implies the ability to reason, which babies/small children do not have.
Assuming something is false because there is no evidence that it is true is a logical fallacy, argument from ignorance.
Further, making an assertion requires proof. That the assertion is admittedly unprovable does not shift the burden of proof to those who disagree with the assertion.
But that is part of what is being debated. Your making your own conclusions and assumptions and using them in your arguments, which then becomes circular. Many children reason just fine. Your just in denial of that fact.
If someone believes that children can reason then your actions become abusive.
There are a number of reasons that you may beleive children are incapable of reasoning but when you really consider what their actions entail you see that your conclusions are non-sequitur to detirming reasoning.
- Inability to express ones feelings correctly.
Many children have a hard time expressing their feelings adequately, often resulting to temper tantrums, crying, and other excessive actions to make a point. Some of these behaviors are cognitive, as the child learns that their behavior works. This would imply not that the child cannot reason but that the child is far more cunning then the parent realizes. In fact this is the case all over the place where children learn how to manipulate their parents.
The other scenario however is when a child is genuienly unable to express their feelings. This however does not conflate to them being unable to reason, it just shows that while they may be coming to the correct conclusions, their method of acting on those conclusions have not yet fully been developed. Mostly due to cognivtive reasons.
- Being uneducated or not aware of certain worldly things that adults are aware. This is more often then not the fault of the parent, especially now days who shelter their children to extreme degrees. They grow up in a superficial world of public education or some other similar system and learn no concept of real world problems. IT cannot be said that the child is incapable of reasoning, everything is cognivitive and the child produced is a result of the environment the parent has made.
Any educator who teaches kindergarten or elementary knows that children reason just fine. If t hat were not the case they would never be able to learn.
I’d spend time pulling up some information to support the above but anecdotally I believe enough people would agree with me as is. And this debate is so superfluous that I don’t really want to waste my time doing so.
This is interesting, and about on the cusp of opening a whole can of worms here. What constitutes reasoning? Is it the ability to learn from past actions, considering the consequences when deciding on future action?
Indeed.
But a child can reason generally just fine. For example. They may have been taught or learned from experience that touching the stove is a bad thing to do. They reasoned that just as anyone else would, now how they deal with that information is likely going to be different then that of an adult, but that doesn’t mean they came to the wrong conclusions or that they cannot reason.
Likewise we know from this that a child has preference, we know praxeologically the childs time preference is lower then that of an adult so they will behave different and prefer different things. We know that the child would prefer not to be raped, whether spidey likes to pretend his children are property and not children is besides the point. The children have preferences, and in one way or another make those prefernces known.
Reason is: a rational motive for a belief or action;
I would say not touching the stove is a fairly rational conclusion for a child to make, not wanting to be raped the same.
I like Thomas Aquinas’ extrapolation in Human Nature, which delves into the difference between intellect, reason, and will, etc… Reason is where choices are mulled over and made pertaining to what is provided/known during action in which the senses pick-up on and inform the intellect where metaphysical formulations happen, thereby, leading to knowledge (episteme). Then reason, the decision, is joined into will, in what is called practical reason. That joining of reason and will, ie. practical reason, then becomes action (where the individual and the rest of the world meet in performance).
Action is Aristotelian in nature in which Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe, etc… have elaborated upon.
Whether a child can reason is irrelevant to if they have basic negative rights, read my previous posts. All that matters is the potential to reason.
It might be argued that many “adults” can’t reason. They are still afforded certain equality under the law, so as they do not initiate aggression against others.
I’ve agreed with that. I think I wrote a post that was off-topic.
A being that cannot reason cannot claim rights. It is nonsensical.
Maybe people who kill children can’t reason… hmmmm
Anyhow, I have explained this already and don’t think I owe it to you to repeat myself Stranger. A child is not a rock or a dog or a patch of land. Why you and me and other people have rights relates to our coexistence in the material world. You simply can’t own a child in the same sense that you own a chicken. To say so invalidates the rest of what you claim to support. The abusive parent’s claim of ownership is as invalid as those of an agent of the state. The new, legitimate owner can make a claim on the child’s behalf at the very least.
A) You continue to disregard the point of ER Olovetto’s argument.
B) You’ve yet to prove they do not reason. You provided no evidence what so ever
C) Being able to claim a right doesn’t mean you do not have rights. If one believes in rights. A magical judge doesn’t decide if a right belongs to you or not. If a judge sides in favor of a thief you have still been robbed. You are a positivist in this respect.
D) Wilderness, I agree
E) E.R. Olovetto, I agree as well
Uh-oh. I know I will not be liked for this (like most of what I post I guess), but by that meter, all sorts of things can reason, all the way down to single celled organisms.
His definition is not the issue. Please stop going off topic.