The man did choose to place the bet. It doesn’t matter if the bet turned out bad or not to explain that the action was purposeful. To state that what had happened to be not what the man wanted is to say the event did not turn out the way the man who placed the bet wanted it too, so, he calls it “bad”.
Babies/toddlers value. It’s human action. To make judgement valuations is reasoning.
Also, since the the discussion is about human babies/toddlers, then they do have rights that are born with them. It’s called negative rights. They are not given nor taken away. They have them because they are human. To say otherwise is to deem them not human but their DNA says otherwise.
Spideynw, you don’t understand the definitions here. The negative proof fallacy or argument from ignorance is what you are doing when you say: “It’s assumed to be true until proven otherwise.” You are either contradicting yourself, don’t understand the semantics, or are arguing against yourself and proving your argument to be false. Either way, what you say above is not true.
I don’t think that you really have to be a child expert to answer this question. It has gotten old trying to ask you simple questions which you casually omit and pass on. I could care less about civil law. Don’t tell me that it has but a remote relevance to this topic.
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the “children’s rights” problem, at least the first step has been solved long ago. This is relevant to scenarios where children (and other “non-adults”) kill people. You need to learn how to think these problems through. It doesn’t really matter for the moment anyone’s opinion on:
GIVEN that (if this is true), then…
We are not talking about morality. We are talking about legality. One may find it immoral to smoke cigarettes, but that does not make it illegal.
As to figuring out whether or not it should be legal for a parent to kill their child, yes it is important for libertarians to understand they don’t have rights, because other people will ask about it.
The claim that lack of consent implies the ability to reason. Lack of consent implies the absence of consent and nothing else. The reason for the absence is irrelevant.
You did no quote me fully. I mentioned inability to consent. If a being is unable to consent, then it will not consent. If it does not consent, there is a lack of consent. It does not matter why there is no consent for us to acknowledge that there is none. Rocks cannot consent, agreed. That means there is a lack of consent from a rock. The question is, does it matter if a rock does not consent? and not Why does the rock not consent?
Assuming something to be true until proven otherwise is the definition of arumentum ad ignorantiam. You understand that right? It’s a logical fallacy. You understand that right? The burden of proof fallacy is an interesting one. From my understanding, the one who makes the claim (you) has the burden of proof.
And once again, there is no such thing as the negative proof fallacy. It’s a myth. It’s premise is self-contradictory. The only “fallacy” is the notion that negative cannot be proven. Negatives can be proven. They are proven all the time. And though it pains me to appeal to authority, I’m only doing it to provide examples. Type “you can’t prove a negative” into google, with quotes. The first 30 links all contain various explanations of why this statement is a “myth,” “nonsense,” and “complete bullshit.” There are exactly zero links in the first 30 with content agreeing with the statement. I did not check beyond 30.
So, your entire premise is built on a logical fallacy (arumentum ad ignorantiam), a misused fallacy (burden of proof fallacy) and a mythical, made-up, logically contradictory non-fallacy (negative proof fallacy).
It’s the difference between
and
Slitting a throat is almost always aggression, while leaving is never aggression.
The fact that I have not made other negative rights arguments does not change the fact that being free from violence is a negative right. Frankly, I think my argument is strong enough without bringing more evidence. Though if you look back, I agreed that room locking and car seating may also violate a child’s rights. Did you miss that? I can’t see how that fact changes anything. The right to be free from violence is a negative right in all cases.
You are claiming that being free from violence is a positive right.
I would replace the word “morality” with “ethics” here. (see also)
You do realize that there doesn’t seem to be a single “libertarian” (stranger doesn’t call himself this AFAIK) in agreement with you right? Even if there is, it is a vast minority. This says nothing about the public at large, who also doesn’t seem to share your views.
I really don’t see why you are still posting when there are questions about your theory on the first couple pages which you can’t seem to answer. Even if someone thinks that your theory doesn’t fall flat on its face, it certainly doesn’t go very far.
I did. My apologies. Obviously, if someone thinks putting a child in a car seat is criminal, we have nothing left to talk about.
[8-)]
Putting a toddler in a car seat is fine. Say a 14-year-old has gotten involved in drugs and likes to sneak out at night, which his parents would like to prevent. I don’t see what would be wrong with locking him in his room at night. Around this age, he might be able to work and survive on his own. It would, generally speaking, be illegal to restrict him from doing so. He can’t waver between not wanting locked in the room at night and choosing to leech off his parents if this is their edict though.
E.R. Olovetto,
In the second case it’s really no longer about property rights. It’s a contract between him and his parents. His parents offer to support him if he does as they say. All the individuals obviously own each other.
I don’t know if I would put it that way. There is some problem with demanding specific performance vs. property/monetary remuneration for breach of contract. Family fairs won’t often be conducting with express contracts too.
It has to be clear as well that locking a child in a small room for 13 years, such that they do not acquire language, would not be aiding the child to become a member of society. There are continuum problems, but this is not our primary concern.
So is killing a toddler (meaning it should be legal).
The contracts are implied. When my employer tells me to climb the ladder to put something away we dont type up a specific contract. Its just implied that my job depends on my willingness to do as she says.
Can you construct a scenario where putting a child in a car seat is not fine? I can, but we understand that, generally speaking, car seats are not used as instruments of murder. Forgive me for not making some disclaimer on that. What do you think my threshold is? I have repeated the sentence several times in this thread.
Maybe Jack can better explain it to you. He seems to understand that if children have rights, that that means that pretty much anything a parent does to her child is violating the child’s rights.
I liked the first edit better. You have done absolutely nothing to prove your assertion. This current line of discussion is silly and you ought to be embarrassed.
That simply doesn’t follow. If Jack really thinks that, then he is wrong; however, so far in this thread, he has seemed much more on target than you. If I don’t respond to you for a while, assume that I am bored with you because you are being repetitive.
Sure. I can point to something behind a counter to indicate that I want to buy that thing. It can’t be expected that your boss will ask you to do certain things out of the ordinary. Likewise, a parent can’t take a child vacationing to a cabin in Alaska then decide to leave them to die in the cold.
I don’t see why either of those scenarios are true. If an employer asks me to do something “out of the ordinary” and I decide not to do it then my employer can decide to cut off the supply of his capital in exchange for my labor. It wouldn’t be unethical for the employer to do so, and would be within his rights. Likewise, if a parent decides to ask his son something and the son refuses and the parent leaves him to fend for himself then I’m not sure why that would be unethical. This may sound a lot like Spidey’s and Stranger’s thesis, but the difference is that everything has been done through voluntary exchanges and all property rights are being respected.
Jonathan,
I think the two scenario’s would need to be the same.
Boss takes employee to Alaska and then decides to leave them to die in the cold.
Parents take child to Alaska and then decides to leave them to die in the cold.
How they do it is not suggested but it is stated they are left to die, meaning, they die due to whatever each had done to them. To take different scenarios and judge their ethical outcome in comparison without reference to exact principles, ie. property rights, makes the judgment between the two scenario’s impossible. I say this because I don’t know how two different ethical premises would conflict with each other in the first place unless one is false. There would need to be a prior principle in order for the logical deduction to take place during the comparison.
It was clear I was talking about morals in the sense of “what should be legal” as opposed to “what I like/dislike”.
And then what? One of the already most marginalised idealogical groups can try to make a selling point out of “Be a Libertarian: We’ll let you rape and kill your kids”?
I don’t understand how this is distinct. The first half could be stated, “what don’t I like enough to force others not to do it”.
If that is how you want to present it, it probably will not go over very well. But about 50% of the population already understand a mother has the right to abort her baby/fetus, so I really don’t think it will be as big of a deal as you make it out to be.