How/why do parent’s stop being guardians?
Parents cannot stop being guardians arbitrarily.
Truth does not magically wake up and decide to stop.
A judge does not arbitrarily decide when parents are or are not guardians.
The child figures that out, not the parent. When was the last time you heard of a child asking their parents to have sex with their Bfriend/gfriend?
Also why is it that your so called property doesn’t do what you ask it to? Why does it act in it’s own self interest, in it’s own nature, on it’s own will?
That is for the child to figure out.
Your right. And they don’t.
What?
Judges are not usually involved. There is no legal matter over the issue, there is no property involved over the issue of a child leaving the home.
I didn’t say anything about geographical location being a qualifier.
That analogy is a categorical error. Does it make sense that you 68% understand the axiom of addition or subtraction? If you get 68% on a test, does it mean that you understand every theory 68% or that you understand 68% of theory?
Neither did I. I see you continue to miss the point.
Crusoe is born and raised on an island. He has no concept of interpersonal trade, and has never had to worry about theft from another man. If we find his island, acknowledging the fact that he is not aware of a full system of property rights, then are we justified in stealing from him?
No because AE does not consist of a single axiom. It consists of economic theory’s, thoughts, arguments. If it were just one axiom there wouldn’t be hundreds of books. And thinking in such an aarogant way as you state will only lead to error. Humans are cognitive beings. We must accept that we can always learn more.
Are you kidding me? Rights aren’t the only thing discussed in this forum.
You don’t understand Jonathan’s point. Pun intended.
Hopefully, the questions above will get answered.
Any one who sees the child is screaming
STOP STOP STOP
while you continue to rape her.
The fact that you don’t recognize that is an objection is your problem.
But since we cannot read the minds of people that makes them homesteadable as property? How you guys come to your conclusions is so insane.
So, what?
How do you suppose his deficit would manifest? Would he charge at me with an axe screaming, “Me hungry!” Would he pick my pockets when I sleep?
That doesn’t even address the question. I’m asking you if, Crusoe does not understand the concept of property rights should we steal from him.
You bring an other good point. So are you homesteadable while you sleep? Since you aren’t really competently aware of the world around you. You arn’t really aware of what rights may be violated against you at that time.
Crying about it to a judge after you wake up doesn’t take away the pain of your bung hole hurting in the morning after you wake up.
And as a property owner of this object, why should I permit it casually to go to a court house and present a case?
So many un-answerd questions.
I have asked half a dozen now, and not a single one answered.
Your selection of this scenario leads me to think that your idea is human natural rights.
First, it was so many points. Now, it is so many questions. Make up your mind about which you are doing.
Yes it does, if it’s my only 2nd day in elementary 2nd grade math class. But on a side note, addition and the construct of an entire economic or ethical system are slightly different wouldn’t you say?
If you argue that children have not rights, then neither do adults. Otherwise your argument is folly.
So there is no way for you to say that you know an ethics system in it’s entirety especially as compared to someone else, whos ethics may be subjectively intrepereted entirely different. And there is no way for you to state that you know all aspects of AE 100% without sounding aarogant. Meanwhile there are wonderful authors who have several books for sale on the topic who have spent a lifetime learning about it.
Somehow you magically just know all eh?
So What? So your point has been easily refuted as has the other points of child ownership.
Both. [H]
It’s not. And that’s why it is relevant, what isn’t - is your whole theory of “rights”, which is absurd & bogus. Never heard of “trustee” / “guardians” doing that on behalf of children in courts?
Never & this is a fallacy. Which one, I’m not sure - red herring (not directly relevant), non sequitur (obviously doesn’t follow), begging the question (that a baby must make a case in court for its “rights” being negative - They don’t, and yet it doesn’t follow they don’t have the “right” to not be abused, raped, murdered."
"A right is just a “legal claim”. "
“Assertions are meaningless.”
… “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
…
"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." -
Violence is the answer for statists & generally the only answer. The solution to every problem is to bring out the gun & the wooden spoon. Is there any reason why you feel compelled that you need this justification, as if you couldn’t control children any other way? Were you yourself beaten? Did you ever get the belt?
And it is your position only children 3 years + can do this? lol. What would be your ‘criteria’ then, for knowing when a child has displayed this ability. And let me guess, you’re the sole judge of this right? Because you’re the owner! Yea? You decide when you relinquish your “property”. Yeah?
So it wouldn’t “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?”
Your response leads me to believe you don’t find it grotesque?
You think there would be PDA’s, DRO’s willing to side with their client who murdered or tortured his or her children? …
Oh you do? Outlaw agencies here we come.
"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.”
And which do you mean then? No dodge this time.
Did this get answered? I dunno.. might have missed it.
Caley. That is an ad hominem attack. What you say here doesn’t focus on the argument but attacks Jonathan’s “understanding” (and says nothing of the content of his understanding - big difference) and what he learns when he comes to mises.org (again says nothing of the content of what he has learned - big difference).
Some people don’t come here to learn rights or they sporadically learn about rights seeing that there is a whole other field of study to undertake here as well called Austrian economics.
That’s actually fairly simple to answer; because they already have a next-of-kin owning them.
Ah, the absurdities (full-scale violations of essentially everyone’s ethical intuition, to the point of justifying slavery, assault, and murder) that result when you concieve of people as subject to ownership in the first place and when you pursue the idea of “proper theoretical knowledge of rights” as a prerequisite for having rights. Leonard Peikoff would be proud.