Geoff, I really do like you, but for the love of all that is great, you are a super nerd.
Yes, Max’s problem is obviously a deficiency in reading Aristotle, and then you don’t like being labelled a library libertarian. It’s almost funny.
I invoke Poe’s Law.
Starving someone is acting against them. It’s more like not feeding them, not starving them.
Glad you took initiative to prove that underlying assumption.
Blah, blah, blah. I’ll kill parents if they dont house and feed their children, Blah, blah, blah.
No, one has rights because they are a human.
So humans have a monopoly on rights? If there were another known intelligent species they would not have rights?
That would be one of Max’s many problems, yes. People who spend a considerable share of their time in online fora, nitpicking and flame-baiting (guess who does both), are definitely not exempt from the category of “nerd” themselves. That must upset Max. Who knows, perhaps he suffers from some inferiority complex and enjoys projecting his failings onto others…
-Jon
Good point.
I guess I will have to argue that if a living organism has the capacity to develop rational thought, then it has rights.
Mentally retarded people whose rational capabilities are under those of a great ape have no rights then? Can we just put them in a cage next to the chimps?
So they can let their baby starve to death if they want to? Or freeze to death? Or dehydrate?
Be sure that you’re not conflating etiquette with morality.
Yes, what else do you propose? The use of coercion to force them to do otherwise?
Of course in a libertarian society they’d have incentives (money) not to do so.
Incentivization and ostracism is coercion. Let’s not kid ourselves about that. If our neighbor controls the only fresh water supply, and his other customers want him to cut me off for how I treat my children (like the damn property they are! [:@] ) then I either change my behaviour or risk not having water.
I’ll admit, I don’t have any answers to these problems, just unsettled feelings.
@ all, no one answer my response earlier this evening. Based on the notion of zero positive rights, parents could arbitrarily choose to confiscate everything of material value from their children and dump them naked on the street. It wouldn’t matter if the kids were 2, 5 or 8. One day, Mr. Jones is a father of 4. The next day, he decides he wants a fresh start and removes the “trespassers”. No shirt, no shoes, no parents.
I get it. But I’m not sure I like it.
No. I will have to evaluate my stance further and get back to you.
Oh no, this semantics game… <_<
I’m really not trying to play a semantic game.
If we incentivize one behaviour, we disincentivize another. That should be evident.
And Ostracism in the form of trade denial could be life threatening. Obviously there is no positive obligation to trade, but if a group of pro-lifers chose to stop all trade with a person who has an abortion, depending upon the circumstances, that could be a death sentence for someone who is exercising their right to abort (per this thread). So then the choice becomes be a slave to the baby and your neighbors, or risk physical harm or death.
I’ll offer the obvious disclaimer, that I am not as well read as many of you, and acknowledge that my arguments may not be original, I may be ignorant of their history and resolutions.
But that is not coercion: the initiation or threat of initiation of force.
It’s not slavery if its voluntary.
Was one of the big challenges I had with libertarianism too. Unless I understood, that rights do not have anything to do with morale at all. From my point of view, as a christian, it is absurdly wrong to act in such a way for sure, this has nothing to do with a right however, but everything with the beliefs that guide my actions.
If I do not want to be coerced(that is physical aggression) by someone else, I have to abstain to coerce him into whatever group belief I cater to, else, I would allow groups to have divine rights or whatever source they claim for their laws. Because that opens the door for all the group related issues we face, we need to go down to the bare natural principles when it comes to rights, and every human being is free to act according his or her own believes unless this includes aggression.
If your choice is starve or be a slave, that’s no choice at all. As evidenced by the fact that most if not everyone here pays their taxes, observes several laws and carries state ID, the potential for a threat of force, is enough to shape behaviour. Realistically, if 20 million people stopped paying taxes, there is little the state can do, but regardless, people choose to participate because the chance that they might stand alone against the state, and then be retaliated against prevents them from exercising their moral prerogative.
Thanks. I’m no longer a Christian, but I still have a lot of Christian values. I’m rapidly catching up to understanding libertarianism, breaking down barriers where I may have reservations or am closed minded. It’s certainly not easy.
I’m not conflating anything. I’m drawing an uglier example, because we might as well be honest about what libertarianism projects. Our opponents won’t avoid making a (true) claim like this, and we should be ready to address it.
Well, that’s not an example, so feel free to provide one. While I agree that that the libertarian position is based on reason, it’s very unattractive and it’s a sore point if you’re trying to have this conversation with someone who has kids. There has to be a way to pretty it up without being dishonest.
Hey guys, in our libertarian society, abandoning your children naked and alone is actually ok! You can change your mind about being a parent -and ditch the kids anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances!