You move there, you’ve agreed to it. You don’t like it, don’t move there. Just like your parents’ house, your parents’ rules, etc. Your ideological musings are irrelevant.
That argument is not consistant with libertarianism, it’s the love it or leave it argument all over again. You need to prove the initial legitimacy of authority over the entire community, which you cannot do on a libertarian basis. Furthermore, even assuming the legitimacy of land ownership in the scenario, you need to prove that by virtue of being a land owner that you can make whoever is on your land your defacto slave, which you cannot do without putting property before life and liberty.
Once again, this line of argument you are making justifies the state, and it isn’t even a valid arguement in any other context. Just because someone lives in their parents home does not give their parents the right to beat or kill them. Likewise, just because someone lives in a particular area claimed by a state does not give the state the right to do as it pleases with them. Yet that is precisely what you are argueing for: that as soon as I live within the territory claimed by your state (and yes, you are essentially advocating a state), I somehow must abide by absolutely limitless authority over my life or leave. The problem is that people’s rights don’t completely dissapear as soon as they enter your property, and an entire community isn’t anyone’s property.
It also justifies shopping malls, resorts, gated communities, corporations, and other forms of private property and free association. What you are arguing for is the permanent levelling of society to that of the basest individual. This is convenient, since it allows you to make putative arguments for free society, confident in the fact that the central state persists to enforce political correctness and the exercise of all sorts of extruded, rococco “rights” that otherwise people would have zero incentive to honor.
Statists always use these arguments. You don’t like taxes? Go away. You don’t agree to infringing your liberties? Go away.
However you may put it, there’s nothing stopping such a community from placing more restrictions on your freedom. How is this different from the state? Or perhaps you guys are minarchists, but that’s a whole another discussion. But if you’re anarchists, this conservatism is hypocritical and self-refuting.
No it does not. You are being disingenous. Your arguement justifies the state and any kind of arbitrary authority so long as someone is assumed to be an owner. You’ve yet to actually responding to my debunking of your argument.
No I am not, that is a misrepresentation. I can draw out the implications of your arguments, but you don’t even seem to comprehend what my position is.
I don’t favor state-enforced political correctness, political correctness is not only on the political left, and it is in fact your argument that is based on a conservative variant of political correctness in the attempt to justify a communitarian law against vices. Watching child pornography is certainly not politically correct, and you are justifying what amounts to the state prohibition of victimless crimes. You misuse libertarian concepts as ammo for your conservative agenda.
Because it has to compete for capital rather than just taking it.
Viewing of child pornography films should be illegal. It should be illegal because there is a victim, the child. A child can not consent to take part in it. And every further viewing is invading his privacy and assaulting his dignity further and victimising him further even if the child is already an old man now…
Viewing of child pornography cartoons however should not be illegal because there is no victim.
In a free society, an exchange or property is just an exchange of property unless there is something expressly stated in the contract of sale. The “community” has no say what is in the contract of sale, unless the owner had previously agreed to it in the first place.
How insightful.
As I have already shown, this argument is completely inconsistent. A child cannot consent to anything. As such, anything a parent does to a child is violating the child. The only conclusion is to throw them out on the street and let them fend for themselves.
Also, animals cannot consent, so killing them would be wrong as well, if your only criteria for violating rights is that one did not consent to it. Hell, picking up a rock would be violating its “rights” using this logic, because it did not consent!
Not consenting is not the only thing relevant to determining if rights have been violated. One has to have the ability to consent first.
I agree a child can not consent to anything that is harmful or degrading for him. Even if a child “consented” to something inhumane like this his “consent” is not valid.
By the same measure a child can not object to anything that is not harmful or degrading for him. So even if a child “objected” to being spanked for good reason his “objection” is not valid.
I do not know how you follow it up that the child must therefore be thrown on thee street. Throwing him out would obviously be against parental obligation. Which is a positive obligation that is voluntarily self-inflicted.
The debate between BrainPolice and Giles makes no sense to me. I’ve read through the whole thing, and both of you seem to be arguing against positions that neither of you hold. I don’t see how a homeowner’s association(which is what Giles is advocating, or at least, I believe he’s advocating), is any way a violation of libertarianism. It’s nothing more than a contract you sign before purchasing land. The contract simply stipulates things that you cannot do on said land, or in the community surrounding the land. If you did not like these terms or agree with them, you did not have to sign the contract, but the owner would not agree to sell you the land. BrainPolice is arguing against monarchy, but Giles isn’t advocating monarchy. If you want to live in a community that outlaws child pornography, then by all means, form a Homeowners Association and get everyone in the community to sign a contract that outlaws child pornography.
It would seem to me that there is no actual difference between Left-Libertarians and…well…whatever Giles would characterize himself as.
While it is theoretically possible to have a single person own enough properties to constitute a privately-owned town, the practical reality is that the free market tends to create abundance out of scarcity - so rentership is not likely to be very common at all. People will own their own properties for the most part, as the supply of houses will rise to meet demand. This includes some people who may not like certain activities owning a house right next to a house owned by people enthusiastic about those same activities. So the formation of homeowner’s associations with restrictive covenants are really the only way to control what your neighbor does.
The fact is that if you want to be free, you have to let others be free also. If you want to live in an environment of control, you’ll need surrender partial ownership of your property to other people. If you want that, you han have it. There’s plenty of room for that in the market. As for me, I prefer liberty.
Nor can a child withold consent. As such, the child’s rights have not been violated.
Of course it would be. That would constitute an ability to consent, which is what all rights are based on.
Nor can a child consent. As such, a child’s rights have not been violated.
If a child does not consent, and has the ability to consent, then his objection is completely valid. That is the only way we know that someone’s rights have been violated.
If you claim that a child’s rights have been violated because his parent made him engage in sex, then anything a parent does to a child would be considered violating a child’s rights. As such, the only way to ensure a child’s rights are not violated is to stick them out in the street.
Only in your world. Parents have no obligations to children. They are their property.
I agree completely, which is why I said what I said. They seem to be talking past each other, but hold the same ideas.
I mean really, I don’t care about whatever non-violent behavior the people on my street engage in within the privacy of their own homes, it doesn’t affect me. I really don’t care to know what they are doing to begin with.
No, that does not follow. There is a big difference between destructive, anti-child actions and those that are not such.
Only in your world are children property. Children are human and thus can not be property.
Children do not have the capacity needed to wield their self-ownership, thus until they develop that capacity their custodians are entitled, even required to make their decisions for them, but they are stil a seperate human being so the custodians can not in child`s place make any decisions that are harmful or degrading for the child. That would be overstepping their proper authority.
It is similar to a person who rents a car and then proceeds to damage it on purpose. He is not the owner, he has only been given the right to drive the car. Thus by purposedly damaging the car, instead of taking proper care of it for the duration that it has been entrusted to his control, he has breeched a pact.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t see how 2 anarchists(who are truly anarchists) can argue with each other. Anarchism is by it’s very definition a lack of a system…so what’s there to argue about? Since nothing is being implemented(except the lack of implementation), then society will just be the result of the voluntary interactions of free people. Whether this is a bunch of labor syndicates or a ton of big corporations with a lot of “wage slaves”, what is the difference?
If Giles wants to live in a (voluntary)conservative community where women are not allowed to show skin above their knees(I’m not saying that this is what Giles actually wants, it’s just an extreme example of a conservative community that could arise in a free society cough Amish cough), then who am I or any other anarchist to stop him? If I were to try to stop him, then I would cease to be an anarchist.
Conversely, if BrainPolice did not want to live in this society, then he is free to do that. If he wants to join a labor syndicate, then he is free to do that. To say otherwise, again, would invalidate my position as an anarchist.
The thing about libertarian theory is that there’s always a point to be refined. I have an untested theory that if you put two or more libertarians in a room together, you could power a small town just with the energy generated by their hair-splitting. This is of particular interest to me as an agorist.
Speaking of which, I’m still working on answering the question you asked me about libertarianism and Christianity. I’m not ignoring you; I’m just lazy.
Hahaha. Priceless. I suppose parents use physical violence against their children “in self-defense”…