Children and NAP

[JCFolsom]

@nirgrahamUK

i want to be on record here, as i have on other threads, to say that the practical consequences of this philosophizing boundary cases in a world where the moral agents only obligation are to natural law ( i.e. they have not pledged to follow a code of conduct, or subscribe to market law, and other such things.) are close to nill.

e.g. if i as rational person can obligate my doctors to treat me ‘as if’ i was a moral agent in the event i sustain brain damage; then even through the hours they doctor me , where i am not a moral agent and do not enjoy the protection of my negative rights under natural law; i can be protected bodily.

Said again; having entered into a contract with hospital staff in advance of my calamity, will save me from the predation of those who might exploit the temporary removal of my moral-agency-protection-force-field. (if you will).

Why should they be held to such a thing? If you have no rights, why should they respect the contract of a person who no longer effectively exists? You have no recourse because you have no rights. Indeed, it seems to me that making a contract that is only active once you lose your rights is something of a contradiction. The bond others have to fullfill their parts of contracts to you is based on your rights.

[Brainpolice]

@John Ess

@Spideynw

I defend the right of a parent to kill their child, beat their child, and molest their child, the same as I defend the right of people to treat and do to animals anything they want to, as long as it is their animal or an unclaimed animal.

You are one nihilistic dude.

Send me a picture of yourself. I want to print this sentence out attached to it and post it all over your town.

Wow. He’s openly endorsing the insane pro-violence view that destroys any coherance to the NAP and rights-concepts. This is precisely the insanity in implications that I’m talking about when I critisize too thin of a libertarianism. It justifies horridness.

[nirgrahamUK]

@JCFolsom

Why should they be held to such a thing? If you have no rights, why should they respect the contract of a person who no longer effectively exists?

do you believe that a contract that says, A agrees to pay B 50£ now, if B contractually agrees to attend A’s funeral. (or administer the allocation of his inheritence to inheritors , i.e. trustee the will) can not be valid or binding? I wonder whether problems could be freemarket solved by having proxies take on the ‘partiness’ to the contract inthe event of a death, and the motiviation for the proxy to push for what the deceased has contracted would be based on economic incentives, to provide a solid after-life service, rather than one mandated by contractual obligations.

[Ixtellor]

@Spideynw

I defend the right of a parent to kill their child, beat their child, and molest their child, the same as I defend the right of people to treat and do to animals anything they want to, as long as it is their animal or an unclaimed animal.

One of my predictions that many of you try to refute is “An anarchy society will deteriorate into a vilolent society of unspeakable horror.”

I would like to present exhibit “A”, the quote above. Here is one of your fellow anarchists already admitting that my vision of your society will come to fruition.

How so the rational anarachists and libertarian theorize what will cause spaideynw and his ilk to not destroy your society?

Ixtellor

[Charles_Anthony]

@Ixtellor

How so the rational anarachists and libertarian theorize what will cause spaideynw and his ilk to not destroy your society?

Two things:

1. His kind will likely be ostracized or go extinct.

2. Let me return the question: How do rational non-anarchists explain child abuse that exists today?