Wait, why not attack the first two premises, that abuse implies a lack of consent (not only for adults but also for children!), and that not being able to consent somehow means automatic consent (logic fail!)? If you give him those two I don’t see how this will ever end. He could just lower the age down to one where even a pediatrician would agree that there is no ability for the child to reason.
BP can correct me if I’m wrong, but the “property” of the propertarianism BP was talking about is real estate, hence it would be, “Everything on my real estate becomes by property.”
You can only talk about consent in terms of beings that can reason. Otherwise, we can’t even smash a gnat. So your logic is logic fail, not mine.
Which is no different than saying anything my property is on becomes my property. The person’s body is on the other person’s piece of land and the piece of land is on the other person’s body. Directions in space are relative. Do you think there is a right side up in space? When you are “standing up”, are you really standing up?
So it is a completely redundant argument, as Stranger pointed out.
I am not discussing legality, which is liable to change from location to location under a free society.
Well, you did say “lack of consent.” Apparently, you meant “Abuse implies reasoned refusal to give consent”?
Not everyone here is advocating polycentric law. I don’t even see how that can possibly be compatible with libertarianism.
Unless, of course, what you’re proposing is about “illegal” meaning “contrary to custom”, which would get you boycotted as opposed to fined or jailed. In that case, I only disagree with your terminology, not with the essence of your statement.
See my edit.
You don’t control your child, as you control y our car. Your child controls him/herself. She only chooses to comply with your orders. You are a very confused person for saying so.
Is what I said.
Then you responded with.
Proof to show what? That a child decides on it’s own when it wants to voluntarily have intercourse with someone else? As I asked before, when was the last time a little girl asked their daddy to have sex with her Bfriend? They don’t they do it behind their parents backs. They make the decisions on their own, they are self owners and capable of doing so. You do not control/own them at all.
You can only day dream and wish you control y our childs every move.
Well I am taking it that some people here think that arbitrary legal positivism creates rights.
But polycentric law seems more compatible with libertarianism to me then a blanket unified legal system.
The problem that Stranger and Spidey’s definition of property is the reason why people like Jackson Laroshe on this forum despise the word property. ANd in his defense, if everyone beleived as Spidey and Stranger did I would hate the word also.
Property is a complex axiom that is a necessary economic consequences to various earthly conditions. Property is not a right right divinely presented to us from God. It is a natural social phenomena that occurs anywhere there is free interpersonal exchange.
Stranger and SPide are defining property as
Rights → Ownership → Property
But that is an incorrect assertion to the concept of property as it ignores w hy property is relevent in the first place. That is
Property is a necessary consequences to the following irrefutable praxeological facts.
- Objects are Scarce
- Time is Scarce
- The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy ends.
Property is just a necessary economic consequence of those 3 things. Therefore it should be defined as
Property → Ownership → Rights.
We decide who has rightful ownership of property after we have established the fact that something is property. We don’t decide who has rights to property without first deciding whether the object is property in the first place.
Funny how this “refutation” has had no effect on anyone who ever disagreed with you. You would think that a refutation would have some margin of success.
So you could have decided to let your sister hit you? For example, you could have decided that letting her hit you was OK, if you had decided that you were a pacifist?
Come on, do you people really have no understanding of child development at all or the understanding that they cannot reason?
A child is a human being, not a gnat. We have no evidence that gnats have ever reasoned. There is plenty of evidence that children just can’t reason yet.
Simple you cannot reason with the unreasonable.
So you are a pediatrician?
In the natural law tradition property includes property in ones person. I have no idea what you are referring to here.
It should be the same thing. But yes.
No. And?
Which means we have no evidence that small children have ever reasoned either. I keep asking the question, but never get an answer. When has a baby ever made a case for its supposed rights? For example, a right to leave the parent’s house? Or not eat? Or to be killed?
Your claiming to be an expert on child development.