That sounds pretty collectivist to me.
I am not an organization granting rights protection. The specifics of obtaining protection are not up to me to decide.
How so? The whole thing was a question to these fellas about their theory. If a child has been raped and there is evidence of such, do you feel that a private child advocacy group would have no standing to act?
Thankfully so! Perhaps you would like to never comment again on rights/morals/etc.
I am perfectly able to discuss the economics and ethics of rights without being a provider of rights.
Me too. Now answer my questions about your “consent theory”.
If you’re talking about a private child advocacy group, I have no problems with that. What you wrote sounded like a state initiative to me. Apologies.
I don’t want to derail the thread, but in a free society would it be OK for a father to prevent his daughter from selling herself for sex, against her will?
You gotta be fucking kidding. That’s largely equivalent to calling the cops, and you don’t consider that to be collectivist, do you (assuming said cops are a private firm)?
I see this has already been addressed.
On the broader topic of the rights of children:
I thought a child’s rights were granted them because their personhood was, shall we say, a “work in progress”. I have yet to read a convincing argument for why that shouldn’t be so.
If one proposes that a child has no rights based on their limited mental faculties, the same could be said about mentally handicapped people, or even those currently on dissociative drugs, as they aren’t exactly capable of reasoning either.
How do you sell yourself for sex against your own will? That person would have extreme psychological issues.
He was probably talking about stopping the daughter against her will, which is pretty redundant.
Of course. I thought that was a given. I figured if I said, “the child just needs to say she wants to leave” that you would say “is it not enough for them to just leave?”
It shouldn’t be so hard to explain.
I didn’t say it was.
An arbitrator. I don’t see how it is “too arbitrary” for you. Who determines when a person can leave the home in your world of children’s rights? My point is, I don’t see how we have a disagreement, as such I don’t see what the problem for you is.
The constant dodges have been hilarious btw.
"John Wild’s reply will suffice:
In answer we may point out that their [natural law] view identifies value not with existence but rather with the fulfillment of tendencies determined by the structure of the existent entity. Furthermore, it identifies evil not with non-existence but rather with a mode of existence in which natural tendencies are thwarted and deprived of realization… The young plant whose leaves are withering for lack of light is not nonexistent. It exists, but in an unhealthy or privative mode. The lame man is not nonexistent. He exists, but with a natural power partially unrealized. … This metaphysical objection is based upon the common assumption that existence is fully finished or complete. … [But] what is good is the fulfillment of being.[30]"
Children have the potential to reason, animals do not - and as such all comparisons fail (saying they can be fully owned as property etc.) The same go with lame men, those in coma’s etc. Their ability to reason is NOT non existent, it is partially unrealized. Children & babies, as a natural FACT of their existence will eventually be able to reason & proclaim self ownership. To deny this is to deny reality.
Rothbard is right when it comes to “trustee” and “guardianship rights” as part of the transitional phase and Block is right when he extends it with “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights”.
Sorry, no matter how much some (two) people here want to create a justification for them to physically abuse their children, there is none.
This has all been said before in other threads, and ignored.
How is this relevant? The same can be asked of an adult. Does an adult need to both protest and reach a “safe haven”?
I thought we were discussing whether or not children have rights, not what evidence society will need to be able to determine if someone’s rights have been violated . Stranger made a perfect point about the fact that he is not a protection agency.
No one said it was. But no one said the only criteria for having rights is having the ability to reason.
A right is just a “legal claim”. You may claim to own some property. What is needed for you to make that claim? Well, you need to be conscious. You need to be able to reason. And you need to be able to communicate.
I don’t see what is so hard to understand. Most three year old children are both conscious (awake) and can communicate. What they lack is the ability to reason.
So anyone that does not meet these three criteria does not have rights and as such can be owned.
If this is not clear enough for you, I would recommend reading Marc Stevens book Adventures in Legal Land. He does not talk about children’s rights, but he does explain libertarian law very well.
If selling so much as one thing in one circumstance is immoral, then the idea of ownership is immoral.
Selling is immoral?
It is never. That is my point.
I don’t think your argument is very clear. Does one have the right to sell someone else’s property?
If selling something that you own can in any case be considered immoral, then the idea of ownership is immoral.
That is my reaction to the case of the daughter being sold “into slavery”.