I don’t care if it’ll “happen” or not. I am merely giving the criterion for rights. If an animal can meet it, it does not differ from a human essentially in that particular way.
While I agree with you, I must ask: what level of cognition qualifies as human level?
The ability to make explicit inferences (primarily), to carry out extended chains of reasoning (ties into the former), to plan long term, to abstract (e.g. engage in mathematical reasoning) and so on.
So what about retarded people?
I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just trying to get a better feel for what you are saying here.
What of them? The retardation would have to be very severe to eliminate the prospect of rational thought. If it were severe enough, so that their capacity was utterly absent at best they’d have a custodian of some sort. Animals are not even capable of all this in principle, but if some were then one would have to extend the recognition of rights to them as well.
I think that the best (or perhaps, the only practical) solution to the problem of children is the application Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, until the child is able to make rational descisions (at which point he is no longer really a child), then the parent must do for the child what they believe to be in the best interest of the child. For example, at a very young age I would have liked for my parents to let me toddle down the street unattended, feed me nothing but candy, and let me relieve myself wherever I wanted. I can see in retrospect that their prohibiting such things was in fact in my best interest. Had I known then what I do now, which is to say, had I been able to make rational decisions, I would have had no desire to do those things in the first place. But I had to grow into my rational capacity first.
If a parent’s paternalism is too overbearing, or if it extends beyond the necessary into the abusive, let the child sue for damages when he or she grows up. I’m sure that this will create incentive (beyond that normally held by parents) for rules and discipline to be made in a fair and reasonable manner. And a market justice system will ensure that frivolous claims by bitter young adults against their parents are minimized
I don’t get what the big deal is of denying rights to the retarded.
Right, but do people have the right to kill severely retarded people like they were animals?
Hypothetically of course.
This reminds me of a news story that happened in my state a while back. It involved a couple who were charged with slavery because they forced mentally handicapped people to work for them.
Well that would be blatantly inconsistant with the non-aggression principle, while watching child pornography in fact would not violate it. If someone watches child pornography on their computer in the privacy of their home, a mob of people who break into their house or who attack them are simply aggressors. Byzantine has a tendency to advocate conservative-communitarian positions. In either case, I find it highly unlikely that as many people will share his cultural values in a free society as he seems to think, and I doubt that most people would personally be willing to become violent themselves in their opposition to a given cultural identity group. Absent a state, there is no institutional mechanism to uniformly externalize the enforcement of such violence and the cost of violence is increased, and hence the incentives towards violences are reduced.
Gays are hardly protected by the state. Hell, it’s hardly the case that straights are protected by the state, and they’re the dominant sexual identity. There have been endless communitarian anti-gay laws throughout various states for years, and we have states where it is illegal for them to enter into marriage contracts. Minority groups generally do not actually benefit from the state. This idea that the state actually does protect the rational self interest of minority groups makes no sense at all. It just panders to them. Traditionally throughout history, such groups usually have had lesser status as citizens of a given state. How many times do I have to clarify to you that the state generally goes against the rational self interest of all of its subjects, regaurdless of cultural identity?
A free society qua society doesn’t uniformly “allow” or “disallow” something of this nature. “Society” doesn’t decide, individuals decide such matters relative to their own personal domains and associate for the purposes of mutual or reciprical goals out of self-interest.
Do you really believe that people in a free society would be tolerant towards child pornography? You’re deluded.
What do you think happens to employers who refuse to hire gays on account of their sexual orientation, how about teachers who refuse to teach homosexuals, or children that discriminate against gays, or anybody of any “importance” who mentions homosexuality in the wrong tone of voice?
I’m convinced that you don’t leave your home if you don’t think that gays are protected by the state. Just like all other minorities it has become unthinkable to consider them any different from the rest of us. Of course, if you agreed to this statement it would undermine your belief that the state isn’t an egalitarian institution. So I see why you have a vested interest in denying reality.
Their custodian would interfere, I assume, and in that case one would not have the right to do so, but otherwise if they are completely lacking in the ability to reason, I guess one must answer “yes”.
So, since none of them have, none of them have rights, right? Specifically, because, as far as we have found, none of them can reason, right?
Because they cannot and never will be able to. Yeah.
No it is simply because they cannot. You see, the only way we can know if someone’s rights have been violated is if they have the ability to consent. Otherwise, women are killing hundreds of people throughout their lives everytime they eject an egg, because it has the potential to reason if fertilized. Your argument cannot be consistent, as such it is contradictory.
No, I meant it. From an inability to express consent it does not follow that one’s rights have not been violated… what do eggs have to do with anything, BTW? We’re not speaking of potential, but of capacity. And the issue here is that the development of rational faculties is gradual, and not an on/off matter.
All right, I apologize for mistaking your intentions.
I wonder mute people would fare in your idea of a libertarian society.