So, you agree that from the time of birth to point X, the father and/or mother own the child?
Yes and X is when the child understands rights.
In that case, nobody is denying that selling your property is withing one’s rights, so I am not sure what the use of bringing that up was. The argument is about when a child owns itself.
Rights are a club. You have to know and accept the code to be a member.
I must have misread a post.
I will catch up with the other posts, but I want to ask what you mean by this. What does it mean for one to understand rights? I think some of you will enjoy Long’s Rule Following, Praxeology, and Anarchy if you haven’t read it.
Sure seems like it. Stated elsewhere.
…
… “on the contrary the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.” - MNR
Which is what you are doing.
"We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of “rights” is a “negative” one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with." -
Beating your children is what statists do. Violence isn’t the answer.
Please define “reason”.
Not absolute fee simple owned. But if you mean: “the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind.”
Sure.
“But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.”
It should would… Spideynw, does a parent have the right to murder and torture his or her children?
And by what divine power has god placed in you that gives you the ability to judge that specific time while the rest of us can only guess?
A child is a self owner, and they comprehend rights far earlier then Stranger, Spidey, and you give credit for. They move in their own self interest, they are praxeologically sound acting beings. Their only pitfall is one of cognition. That will come in time.
We tore this topic apart months ago and it was revealed over and over again that Spidey and Stranger’s premise was entirely arbitrary. They could not explain how magically one day a child just wakes up to becoming a self owner. They also cannot explain the arbitrary notion that if a father OWNS the property that is the child, that it arbitrarily and magically stops being their property when the child allegedly sponteneisouly wakes up one day with new enlightenment.
My clock is ls my clock, even if it started talking that would not stop it being my clock. Property is property, it does not magically stop being property. Even if my watch could take himself to a judge and plead before the court to free himself from my ownership he would have no such legitimate claim, as he is mine. He stops being my property on my terms, anything short of that is theft of ownership and undermines the entire premise of PROPERTY. What my watch could do legitimately is attempt to buy his ownership away from me.
that IS the concept of property, and those inconveniennt fundamental mechanics of property break down entirely on the special attention Stranger and Spidey’s give to children.
They can never answer a fix to this delima. They simply recoil and start their circular argument all over again so that the posts last for pages on end. Theres is an assertion that does not follow from any type of reason or logic. They were both refuted moths ago. If I had the energy for it I’d be happy to reference the posts.
Oh cool, so then those that never “understand” rights, never “get” them?
The majority of humanity doesn’t have any “rights” then according to you? lol.
You consider the “ownership” of the child absolute during that time period? Rape, assault, battery are all acceptable since the child is the parents full absolute fee simple property?
And come the day that child “understands rights”, they suddenly become self owners? The physical punishment inflicted upon then, injuries eg. broken arms that continue to trouble them - they have no recourse, because back then they never had any “rights” ?
[+o(]
Blatantly false. And your not pediatrician. Your continued assertion is folly.
Many young children reason just fine. Yes they lack cognition and experience. That doesn’t mean they are property capable of being homesteaded. The whole premise is non-sequitur.
FYI why won’t you allow me to homestead retarded people and people with dementia.
Oh wait thats another hole in your little line of reasoning that you always seem to evade.
Hell… if thats the case then just about everyone, even libertarians, are still the property of their parents, who are still the property of their parents, and so on.
I’m not going to respond to posts quoting my second last post, whereas the last one is obviously more clear.
Great than we can safely bury this folly with the other nonsense that went on several months ago.
But I can certainly understand why nobody quoted the latter post. It makes too sense to allow for these nutty interpretations.
Actually, their posts are equally as applicable. Most people do not have a very good understanding of rights… myself included. Does this mean that we have none?
And that is relevant to making a legal claim in a court how exactly? When was the last time you heard of a baby making a case in court for its supposed rights?
Assertions are meaningless.
No, statists tax and enslave everyone, with no basis for their claim.
reason - “the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason).
Another lame assertion.
Legally, of course! They are their property!!! You do understand property rights I presume?
So at what age do you think a person can choose to have sex?
Are you kidding me? What have you been doing on mises.org for the past however many years?
I don’t think of understanding in degree. Either you understand something or you don’t. I assume for the most part that people do until they prove otherwise, such as by posting on RevLeft.
Irrelevent.
If a man lives in the woods with no justice system nearbye does he forfeit his right to property? And we would be justified in robbing him?
As are yours
Perhaps not if they do not recognize they have rights no? According to you that is..
Which they do just fine. As stated they lack cognition and experience
Then how/why do they arbitrarily stop becoming my property without buying their way out of the arrangement? Property cannot stop being property arbitrarily. Property does not magically wake up and decide to stop. A judge does not arbitrarily decide what is and is not property.
I think you missed the point of his post.
If a man lives in the woods away from any justice system does he forfeit his right to property?
How arrogant of you to state. Having read a fraction of the AE books that are out there should I walk around claiming that I know it in it’s entireity? Or does it make sense that I know it to a degree.