God created the world and the laws which govern it. Now go work out how many child pornographers can dance on the head of a pin, homo.
Well it is precisely the semantics that do all the work here. The parents do not own the child as they own a piece of furniture or a car. They can’t do anything they want to it. They have to look out for its own interest and avoid harming it. There is no such requirement in the case of inanimate objects or arguably some/most animals. They own the right to care for it. But that is decidedly different from owning it, which is the exclusive right to control it in any way they wish, which they do not possess.
Byzantine, I recommend you tone it down, so I am not forced to moderate you.
Presumably it would consist of more than just its intellectual advocates, much the same way that capitalism works without needing everyone to be an economist.
Why not?
Why?
And what if they think caring for it means killing it? Or raping it?
Really, selling the rights to care for a child and selling the child do not seem any different to me. Both involve the child being moved to a different location and being raised by different people. Also, having the rights to care for a child and actually owning the child do not really seem all that different to me either. In both cases, it is up to the parents what is in the best interests of the child, whether that be killing the child, beating the child, raping the child, or never harming the child.
Because it is not a mere object, being a human being, now is it? And as for the kind of dolts who think caring for the child involves raping it, I’d like to see a court that’ll hinder anyone from prying the child from their hands. They have violated the child’s right not to be aggressed against. Good luck finding such a “court”. Most courts will in all likelihood develop standards for interpreting what is and what is not proper care of a child (and if you dislike this subjective element in the law I’d suggest you get over it.) You say you’re versed in libertarian political theory and suggested earlier on that GilesStratton is confused on this; why does it seem to be the reverse?
It’s analogous to a deposit contract with a bank.
It is a difference I’ve already tried to explain. Basically, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a child as you own an object. If the child is abused, he should be allowed to choose different parents if possible (e.g. doesn’t apply to infants). Considering adoption as a widely acknowledge practice, this isn’t a greater hazard per se even if the child accepts the false promises of another wannabe parent. As long as free choice exists, the child is theoretically in no greater danger if he’s allowed to switch parents at will.
On the other hand, it is doubtful whether there is a way to cope with situation in which either the child cannot choose or he’s sequestered. You could steal a child (note why custody doesn’t count as ownership) if you suspect abuse, and if the child is willing to accept your custody the original parent would have no right to demand any other thing than, perhaps, the objects in its possession. In case this type of action is not possible, we could presume that the parent’s protection provider is likely to charge him more due to increased danger of aggression, or even plainly refuse to provide protection for him. But there are some issues…
I’d warn against arguing too strongly and without a careful look at consequences for community action. A community that can act at the discretion of majority views, even if this happens in very few and clear-cut instances, is no longer anarchic and can indeed lead to things such as selective free-speech prohibition.
That said, if a group of child abusers leave a community and form one of their own, one can’t argue for waging war (as in unitary military action, much like the state) on ethical grounds, no matter how horrible their crimes are. Ethical war is simply not going to happen. In any case, the good news is this would be extremely rare, and probably limited in time at most by the lifespan of the original homesteaders. Thinking along these lines, the same goes for communities of slave owners.
Then you’ll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view.
It depends on what you’ve agreed to beforehand. If you move into an Amish village and decide to liven the place up with some blues jams on your front yard, and the elders vote that you have to stop it, well, you shouldn’t have moved into an Amish village. Go move into the blues’ musicians village down the road.
It’s pretty obvious that homosexuality is the ultimate short-sighted view.
If they hear it loud enough, it’s aggression by acoustic pollution.
And to put it differently, unless there’s a contract I sign before I move there, if the elders rule against me, that’s no free community. Don’t count lack of taxation and of other statist things as the single definitive measure of freedom. And this fact is quite true, there’s was/is no intricate market to support anarcho-capitalism in such a village.
[sarcasm] Yes, along with masturbation, drug users and even those who don’t eat healthy, let the heretics that go against nature die. [/sarcasm]
If you don’t like Amish values, don’t live in Amish villages. The fact that such a place exists and governs itself according to its traditions is no affront to anarcho-capitalism.
I love how all the self-reliant, freedom-talking libertarians get all squishy and emotional when they see that life choices have consequences.
Of course Amish communities are not free communities. They are conservative, backward theocracies. The more interesting question is, what happens to Amish dissenters ? Should they leave their houses because they refuse to believe in fairy tales and mob rule ? This is no different than the usual pathetic statist argument “america love it or leave it”
What does it matter that it is a non-living vs. living organism. Animals do not have rights. Or are you not versed in that subject of the Austrian school, namely “rights”?
Might makes right, right? So are you a statist now? Plus, how do we know the child wants to be removed from their parent?
A child has no right to not be aggressed against. It cannot reason. Therefore it cannot withold consent.
A parent however does have the right to seek justice from someone who harms their child. Since the child is their property.
There would be no luck needed in an anarchist society.
It would be irrelevant what the courts decide, since there would be no violations of rights. I think what would be more important would be what societal norms develop. If society at large decided raping your child is despicable, it would probably be very difficult to operate in society if you were caught doing it. Plus, you would probably have to worry about some extremist coming after you and killing you. There are natural laws, like we all die. You do realize this, right?
This is an intellectual discussion. Get over yourself already.
Because apparently you do not understand it either.
Yes, because they are trying to reap the benefits of the Amish social order while shirking the duties its members agree to bear that make that way of live possible. And yes, Amish teenagers get a choice in the matter: stay and be an Amish, or go make your way among the English.
Once a child can “choose”, they have rights.
Again, once a child can choose, then the child has rights.
Eduard, I’d advise against masturbation. Great theologians have irrefutably proved that masturbation makes people go blind. It’s very short sighted indeed (silly pun).
What utter nonsense.
You mean, children never say to their parents “don’t hit me” ?