You’re wrong though, this has nothing to do with AE. Almost all libertarian rights theories are derived from man’s rationality. Otherwise you have to extended rights to animals and trees.
No, the parent has an obligation to protect the child. This entails the parent’s refraining from actions that would hinder the child’s development. Smacking a child for running into the road is not included.
And part of good parenting involves smacking. So once again, a dead end for you. More. Although, you’re just changing the issue. When I talk about implicit contracts regarding use of the parent’s property I am talking about older children. In terms of positive obligation this only holds with younger children, I believe. The former can fend for themselves, if they choose to.
And the child who runs into the road?
You’re engaging in the same special pleading as Juan.
Well that’s why precent and custom are important.
The market, how else would the judge be chosen?
Giles, I’ve already explained to you ad nauseum why this is a BS love it or leave it argument. Are you seriously going to argue that if father literally beats his son to a bloody pulp, this is okay because the father is the homeowner? You’re excusing outright child abuse.
Juan already pointed out your contradiction above. You cannot argue that the child doesnt have rights, and then act like they’ve contracted things out, which presumes they have rights to contract.
Again, you’re completely ignoring if the parent’s behavior blatantly violates the NAP.
No, I do not have an issue with property rights, I’m putting the concepts in their proper order and relation - contextual to the NAP and person sovereigty. You are proposing an insane absolutist theory of propery rights that places property above life and liberty.
Are you serious? In the quote you’re responding to, I refer to the father literally beating the shit out of and murdering his child or his wife. You’re actually justifying spousal abuse, child abuse and murder with bad property theory!
Giles, you cannot just write whatever you want on a piece of paper, or have an unwritten rule, that contracts the NAP into non-existance. I can’t just pretend that my home is an NAP-free zone because it’s my home. The implications of your position is outright psychopathy.
Giles, you are misunderstanding libertarian rights theory. Libertarian rights theory does not require “rationality” for rights in the way that you are talking about. “Rationality” (in a praxeological and arisotilean sense, as the capacity to freely make choices, I.E. moral agency itself) is used as an arguement for why we already do have rights. Children do possess this “rationality”, it’s just that their brains aren’t fully developed yet. The fact that their brains aren’t fully developed yet doesn’t mean they do not have moral agency and that it’s okay to murder them, assault them and steal from them.
Because supposedly they agreed to.
Why did you bring up your implicit contract theory then ? See, if children are not rational then your boxing analogy is wrong because children, unlike boxers, made no contract with their parents (since irrational beings can’t make contracts.)
So now you changed your tune to “children have no rights” which is another variety of nonsense. You want to claim that children naturally have no rights and at the same time (just in case…) they have voluntary forfeited these non-existent rights. What a joke.
I was talking about a random, abandoned child, Giles. If they have no rights, than I can’t violate them.
Older, or capable of living independently. Again, I don’t see any arbitrary number serving. Also, good parenting does not necessarily involve smacking; consistency and discipline can be imposed without delibarately causing pain, and I am absolutely positive you could find perfectly normal, healthy people that had never been smacked.
Do they own the road?
But, again, according to your statement you can’t even know what the precedent and custom are in your area until a judge evaluates it! It’s circular. Alas, addressing a different point here, explicit contracts would clear up all issues, and victimize nobody.
Indeed. I am led to wonder how one retains one’s rights during periods of unconsciousness such as sleep.
it depends on how you define capable of rational thought.
e.g. is a normal, functional car, capable of driving forward.
you might answer, yes, it is driving forward, or now when its at rest it could be made to move forward
or you might answer no, the car is driving in reverse and so cant go forward, its not capable.
i think the first definition is more common, practical, and is in keeping with rational moral agency theory.
whilst you sleep, you have in you the capability for rational thought (*should you wake up)
The love it or leave it argument is fallacious because it begs the question. This, does not.
If the father beats his soon to a “bloody pulp” it could be legitimate depending on the circumstances, if the father said that if the child continued to live on his property and broke rule X he would be beaten to a bloody pulp, yes, it would. If not, and presumably there is no precedent of this sort of behaviour, then no, the son would be able to demand compensation.
This is just an appeal to the emotions.
As I said, time, in time the child gains the right to contract. At which point they’re well aware of the precedents set by the father.
Like that of a boxer, no?
No, what is contractual does not violate the NAP, this is quite simple really.
No, I’m not. They can leave. Keep in mind I don’t condone the father’s behaviour, but as far as libertarianism goes, it’s fine.
No, but the NAP simply means non aggression. If the child agrees to it, it isn’t aggression.
Correct, like the child.
Initially children can’t make contracts, no. After a certain number of years, yes they may.
No, they don’t. They don’t possess reason, they don’t employ reason to acheive their ends. This is why they stick their fingers into sockets.
Guess what, rights don’t vary from child to child.
Now we’re going off topic, as are you. Whether or not a child needs smacking to develop is not the subject matter. As for the arbitrariness, it would have to be decided case by case.
Not even relevant.
How is it circular? Customs are in place irrespective of a judge, a judge will merely formalize it.
Explicit contracts are not sufficient.
No. Unlike the child.
So, back to square one, where’s the contract ?
Yes, because they do not have rights.
No, because they do not have rights.
After age 25.
Parents.
There is no certain age where they have the ability to consent. Somewhere between 10 and 20 is my guess. Maybe earlier
So, are they the property of the parents?
Again, you’re not understanding the point. You’re reducing this purely to a question of “who is the owner”, when there are other begged questions like “what is the behavior of the owner?”. Just because you are an owner, this doesn’t mean that all of your behavior is excused, regaurdless of context.
OMG. Again, this is simply an excuse for assault and child abuse. Merely saying “if you break rule X on my property I will murder you” is not a sufficient condition for murdering someone according to any consistant libertarian theory of justice.
No it isn’t, I am using philsophical arguments, and using an example as a reductio as absurdum to show you why you are wrong.
You’re sidetracking from your contradiction, which still stands.
No. It’s been explained to you by me and others ad naudeum why the boxer analogy is BS.
You have it backwards. The NAP is a CONTEXT for something to be voluntarily contractual in the first place. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it. But I have explained why in great detail repeatedly.
“They can leave” is not a legitimate excuse for literally whatever anyone does. This is obvious. It is not consistant with libertarianism.
The child doesn’t agree to it! That’s blatantly obvious. Furthermore, you are only repeating your contradiction. First you say the child is incapable of consent, then you argue that they consented. This is such an obvious contradiction that it’s quite insane that you keep repeating it.
Giles, your position is simply false, and you are making an ass out of yourself by repeating it.
The claim that children posses ZERO reason is an outright falsity by common experience.
You are reducing children to mere objects.
Perhaps, but we’ve already agreed that our obligations towards them do. So, I am not obligated to provide for and protect a child that is not my own. Since, according to you, a child also has no rights, then what do I do wrong, from a libertarian standpoint, in killing a child which is not my own?
But you already stated that the final determination is made by a judge after the fact! So they are amorphous (when you allow implicit contracts) until the judge gives a concrete ruling.
Indeed, it is literally the same as the arguments statists often pose. I fail to see why Giles has any philosophical problem with the state at all.
Can a parent murder a baby?
You say that a person must exercise reason to qualify for personhood, but reason is a matter of degree. There are different degrees of resoning. Who decides what extent of reasoning qualifies someone to be a person? Actualization of reasoning occurs in different degrees for each and every one of us. If personhood were based on actualization of reason, there would be different degrees of person. If I reasoned more than you, I would be more of a person. This kind of thinking is ridiculous. Personhood is not a matter of degree.
There is one thing that all persons do share, however. That thing is potential to reason. Potential to reason is a matter of kind. Either someone has it or they don’t. Potential to reason fits much better as a qualification for personhood.
The second point I’d like to make is the whole contractarian view of families. This seems to me to be eerily similar to social contract theory. May I remind everyone that the parent, not the child, chooses to bring a child into the world. The child is a consequence of the parents’ choices. The child has a right to be in his parents’ house and a right to be fed by his parents because the child never voluntarily entered situation that he is in. Since the child was forced into the world by his parents’ decisions, the parents are obligated to take care of him. There is no contract that the child enters into.
Now, once the child is ready to take care of himself and leave home, the parents don’t really have the same obligation to feed him as they did in early childhood.