I mean that they posses no greater rights than individuals can grant them (e.g. no person has the right to murder, and neither does the State.) Anything beyond that is a privilege.
Assuming we wanted a legal order consistent with self-ownership, in which the government ruled entirely by consent, it’d only have those powers granted to it by the individuals making it up. It could definitely conjure up other powers for itself, but if it were so that it exercised these without the consent of the ruled, it’d be an ordinary rights-violator.
True, that is a valid argument for them I suppose.
You cannot pursue a parent that mistreats his child without invading his property. Whether or not you loathe the idea, either the parent owns the child or the state owns both the child and the parents.
This is why instead of criminal prosecution for getting an abortion the state must prohibit abortion clinics, resulting in the creation of a black market for abortion. Your alternative is disincentivize abortion, but that still leaves it in the realm of morality and not justice. There is no materially possible way to outlaw abortions.
But that’s what makes out the difference between a citizen or subject and governments/states. They hold certain priviledges, authorities, potencies which normal individuals don’t. Usually this has to do with jurisdiction and taxation, but it also entails the ius ad bellum - The right to wage war.
Neither the state nor the parents owns the child. The child owns himself. It is the State that declares children nonpersons and puts them at the mercy of their parents.
Remember, we are talking about a free market system, not one that is centrally planned. Human interaction will determine the best way to manage justice. All philosophy needs to be concerned with is how to define property. It is self evident that children possess the same natural rights as adults. If most people are opposed to child abuse, a free society would reflect that.
“Outlawing” abortion is in the realm of morality.The point of a legal system is defend ownership. A libertarian justice system would not use penitentiaries, so called, “disincentives” are the basis of justice. If someone burns down my house, they are liable to build me another. Invading property would be a part of this system, reposition would occur.
Children are free to leave their parents and find someone else willing to support them. In the case of an unwanted infant, or fetus, it would be possible for an external to claim the child through “homesteading” rules. And penalty for a parent who commits abortion but refuses to reimburse the “guardian” could be passive, such as the loss of trade rights.
The issue is clearly a dispute of ownership and thus a legal matter.
That womb ‘homesteading’ argument doesn’t go over too well with the ladies at the bar I’m sorry to say…
What limits are there if that were allowed, say I decide to homestead your kidneys then you received medical treatment. By your logic you would be required to reimburse me the cost of a couple of kidneys.
As long as the little bugger is still inside the mother there is no legal distinction between the two. If she choses not to carry it to term and someone were to pay her to do so then if she aborted the pregnancy she would be liable for the contractual amount but if someone just came up and said “I want your baby” and then tried to sue her for the cost of a child after the abortion, that’s just absurd.
A human is not a kidney. Remember how I said law is built around ownership? a kidney has no rights independent of mine.
Thats why I said an abandoned fetus. Killing a fetus is not the only way to expel it.
A woman is not legally required to raise a child, but she is legal required to not kill him. Her legal requirements to her children are the same as they are to everyone else.
No, its not. No more absurb than sueing someone who attacks a woman and causes a miscarriage.
You are advocating forcing someone to do something against her will, even though it is a life threatening procedure, because the alternative is against your sense of morality.
That is the logical basis of your argument.
You can dress it up all pretty and all that but it is no different than the arguments for conscription.
Big difference there. On one hand you have someone who voluntarily terminates her pregnancy and in the other you have someone who violates her rights with tragic consequences.
Without a legal definition that an unborn person has full human rights the first one isn’t a crime and the second one is. It would be perfectly feasible to sue the attacker over the loss of property but murder would depend on the afore mentioned legal status being in place.
It’s a slippery slope once you start basing laws on the moral opinion of a minority of the population.
Children undoubtedly have rights but what is at issue here is if unborn children have the same rights as their born brethren and if those rights extend to the conscription of their mother into the service of their ‘cause’.
But we seem to gotten way off the Nuclear War and the State issue so I would suggest if you wish to continue this discussion that another thread would be appropriate so others could also participate.
No it is not. The point of a legal system is to restore justice to people whose rights are violated.
Children may have rights, but they are unable to exercise them until they grow up. Until then, they must either belong to their parents, or to the state. They cannot belong to everyone, that would be communalizing them.
Well that depends on the social, moral and legal theory a legal system is based on. It is basically a matter of ideology and world view. Present Western legal systems mainly follow a positive rights theory in that approach. They work with the assumption that rights (i.e. of people or organizations) do exist and that they are worthy to be protected against violations. But one can also think of other approaches. It is even possible to ignore the assumption of personal rights, but base the legal system on specific social norms and values. Violations of those norms would then be sanctioned with punishments considered to be due, for this kind of behaviour. Examples of this are to be found within the Moses books in the Bible, but also in many societies that preceded the modern state. I think Hegel distinguished between different moral and legal spheres. Something in the line of ethics, morals/customs, and rights/laws, but I would have to look at it.
Nuclear War doesn’t have anything to do with rights or legal systems. It is simply an expression of power and might. And might always breaks right, unless a mightier (or more brutal) force is utilized to defend this what is considered to be right (or a set of rights). Against the use of nuclear weapons there is no certain defense possible. If they are used against a country the inhabitants can but run for cover and hope that the damages are of a nature that does still allow for rebuilding what is left the day after.
Justice is when people respect others rights of property. Legal systems brings that about, after the fact.
Children by living with their parents consent to their parenting, but that does not mean parents own them. If a child runs away, who is to force him to return to his parents? This is anarchy, there is no state. Why bring it up?
