Yes
No
revolutionist, perhaps the interesting question, is what degree of rationality does one need to homestead ones body, and is this a qualitive jump between a level of rationality below where this is possible to one where it has been achieved. that binary standard could be enough to maintain the philosophy without recourse to questions aobut who is more rational than the next, so long as both aree at least raional enough to homestead their bodies, or be a party to argumentation ethics (of course there is a boundary problem in setting the switching point)
Children do not have the ability to consent. As such they do not have rights. As such, they are the property of their parents.
Wow. OK. How do they cease being the property of the parents? Because it seems to me that they would have to volutarily cede ownership of the body housing the offspring to the offspring. The idea of the ownership of a body implies a sort of dualism, so I think it’s a valid question.
#1 You can’t really measure rationality
#2 Setting a boundary to qualify as a rational being would be incredibly subjective and arbitrary. It seems like something only a state would be able to pull off [:P]
By claiming their rights by leaving their parents and/or getting older. It is a question we struggle with in today’s society. When does a child get to keep their income? Right now society says when they reach the age of 18. I think it should be far younger than that, but that is me.
How do they get any rights to their bodies in the first place? Merely attaining the ability to reason, it seems to me, has no bearing on the prior claim of the parents. Or anyone they’ve ceded the rights to previously. You would clearly see nothing wrong, from a libertarian perspective, with a parent regularly violating his or her offspring from birth.
i suppose if you try argumentation ethics on it, when the kid gets rational, and the parents engage in argumentation with him, they ackowledge that they have rescinded their rights over him? that they are a rational moral agent, and the dynamic has changed?
This ties into the “voluntary slavery” thread. Yes, it does involve a dualism, and this false dualism is the mind/body dichotomy.
What does homestead one’s body even mean ? Sometimes it seems as if some aspects of the theory/terminology are taken too literally and too far.
Humans are natural self-owners. Human children are natural self-owners. We don’t need to take any positive action (homesteading) to have our negative rights recognized.
Also, we don’t need to subscribe to, and engage in one particular philosophical argument (Hoppe’s) to have rights. Not to mention that Hoppe’s position is considered flawed even by some people at the Mises Institute.
I hardly think argumentation ethics are the authoritative paradigm, and even if so, you could avoid them by restricting your interactions to commands, rewards, and punishments. Difficult, but not impossible. It would be made easier by removing the child’s tongue before they attained reason.
so no appeal to rationality at all? its just in the genes… humans are self owners… maybe even dead ones…
Argumentation ethics is actually nothing but a tautology. It is a bad line of argument because what you are basically telling people is “you implicitly agree with me by argueing with me”. That can be used as mere sophism. Stefan Molyneux’s UPB suffers from the same problem as argumentation ethics in this regaurd, it’s a mere tautology.
obviously it is effective on people that will argue with you, but not on those who dont. but surely thats not what you are critiquing ? is it?
And that’s bad…how? Please don’t give me the nonsense about tautologies can’t tell us anything about the real world–that’s just nonsense.
Actually it is very uneffective as an argument for liberty, if you are trying to shift this to a pragmatic question of how effective different approaches to argueing for liberty are. Most people become turned off by it, or they realize that you’re engaging in a rhetorical trick. For example, I actually do argue against self-ownership (as a dualism). If you were to respond to me saying “there’s no such thing as self-ownership” by saying “you just proved self-ownership by talking”, not only are you conflating an is with an ought, you are playing a rhetorical trick that ignores specificity and that we mean different things by “self-ownership”.
please excuse me, i was not stating argumentation ethics and offering it as an argument for liberty. i was using it to show one possible way in which a specific thing could be stated on the question of children rights to an audience of liberty and private property fans.
That’s bad because it’s a bunk line of argument. It doesn’t prove anything, it tricks people into agreement.
A tautology is not a truth by definition. A tautology can be either a truth or untruth depending on its predicate.
If I say “is is” or “existance exists”, I’m not saying anything meaningful. It’s just repetition.