You have no rights against a chinese.
Precisely. Parents have rights over their children. The children themselves do not have rights.
Neither do grown-ups.
Sure. But these theories are hardly libertarian.
Maybe only kings have rights ?
Says what pope of Libertarianism?
And moral agents have no duties which directly regard children, but only duties which regard the parents of those children? That is, should the account of why it is wrong to shoot a child be given in terms of the negative impacts on the parents?
Moral duties are not rights.
Rights and morality are inexorably intertwined.
Without the power of a monopolistic provider of security, this myth collapses.
Extending that principle a bit, you can only have rights you can enforce. For instance, politicians and the military have guns, so they have the right to tax and conscript their subjects, and kill dissidents.
Why would that be correct?
Nonsense. In fact, the monopolistic providers have de-linked them, causing problems.
Why not ?
But what he is saying is that rights are not the entirety of ethics. Which is true. Rothbard acknowledged this himself.
-Jon
Stranger, there are multiple theories of what it means to have a right. With my first question, I was trying to catagorize your point of view. Your answer enabled me to phrase my questions in a way that would be accessible to your view of rights. So I reiterate, is there or is there not any duty not to harm children which is grounded on something besides what happens to the child’s “owner”/parent?
You do not need a pope to decide what is libertarian and what is not in this case. If you would state that 1 and 1 is 4 and at the same time call the axiom that led to your result mathematics you would be wrong.
Same holds true in your arguments. Freedom of individuals and group rights or groups granting any rights, is simply not libertarian, as it violates the basic axiom that each human being has rights out of its own and that therefor all rights have to be in sync with this basic axiom.
If 1 and 1 is sometimes 2 and sometimes 5 than your whole system is not worth to be considered for any use, even if you elaborate about calculus.
So the whole discussion is just useless. Because 1 and 1 equals 2 and every human being has the “inalienable” right to possess him/herself.
You can not get around that fundament and still claim to be a libertarian, as you can not get around the fact that you are a carnivor if you eat meat, how loud you proclaim to be a vegetarian does not change the facts.
That entirely depends on your moral affiliations and tribal memberships. Morality is not universal.
The fact remains that “children’s rights” are not actionable by the children themselves. They can only be revealed through the actions of parents, and so in reality they are parents’ rights over children.
You are working off the assumption that children and primitives are human beings equivalent to any other. That is not true.
Did I ever claim to be a libertarian?
Well, here you got a point, I am not sure you ever claimed to be one :-).