Perfectly analogous. It’s more than analogous - it’s the same situation. I’m not saying that parents shoot their children - that’s stupid. I’m saying that parents do arbitrary things with their children all the time. It’s the same political power the state has and it’s abused in the same way all political power is abused.
Children being indoctrinated by their parents in matters of religion, for instance, should be especially disgusting to libertarians. Instead of a repudiation of such acts what I’m hearing is silly excuses. Fine. No wonder libertarianism is going nowhere.
I think that sums everything up as a good general rule for all ward - guardian relationships.
Simple: that monopoly was created naturally.
Unless nobody else steps up to the plate on the child’s behalf, there really can not be a better situation for the child.
That makes sense to me and more importantly, it makes the most sense for the child.
Nothing. You can not always prevent confilct.
Personally, I believe that the biological parent (and the mother is first) is an objective starting point unless that parent wants to give up the child.
Now I want to revisist these questions:
The grounds may be the very fact that the parent is the only one willing to do the job of parenting.
I do not think there are many limits. The limits may be determined by:
the child himself; in other words, physically leaving his parents
the threat of an outsider willing to do battle and physically wrestle the child away from his home
Agreed: that’s the general idea. Parents don’t homestead “ownership” of the child, but rather homestead “guardian rights,” such as the right to feed, clothe and shelter the infant. The mother has the strongest claim, having provided nourishment and shleter for nine months already. She cannot give away or sell “the baby,” but she can give away or sell guardian rights.
Yup. The state’s attempt to do “better” usually puts children in worse situations than they were supposedly “rescued” from.
Absolutely.
I think this needs fleshed out more. You’re starting to go into the realm of how an outsider can “rescue” an abused child, say. That’s a tricky problem as pertains to force. Non-aggressive means, like shunning, turning off electricity phone and water, revoking road-use rights, etc., are a no-brainer. People who care about children will also use free-association and free trade to shut out abusers.
I assume this is that “sarcasm” of which you spoke? [8-)]
A parent forcing a child to go to church is no different than a parent forcing a child to go to school. A parent has every right to bring their child up in the way they want. Me, I think the church is the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. But comparing it to mental abuse is just nuts.
Are you seriously debating that, since children are persons and not property, I have no right to force my child to go to school if they wake up on a Monday morning and want to stay home? That they should only go to school when they want to? With ideas like that we’ll end up with nothing but trolls on the Mises forums in a few generations. Or they will all have died in their teens from cardiac problems, since all they will eat is candy and soda since I can’t make them eat their vegetables.
Again, you have to look at the benefits versus the possible damage done. My parents forced me to go to church for years, and I credit that with my current love of science and scepticism of all things “spiritual”. Circumcision has been shown to significantly decrease the possibility of infection, since it is much easier to keep the organ clean. The only downside is if the procedure is done incorrectly…which is possible with ANY medical procedure.
I don’t completely agree with the “after the fact” theory…that I can be held to account if my child, once they have become a free agent, suddenly decides that I shouldn’t have done something. What if my grown child suddenly decides “Hey, I didn’t want you to take out my appendix. I would rather have died!”
This is very different from the police example. If the police wrongly arrest a person, they have aggressed them and should be held criminally liable. You cannot agress a child, unless you violate their basic innate human rights against self preservation.
No, its not analogous. You are confusing arbitrary (political) authority with legitimate (social) authority.
Children are free to reject their parent’s authority. What you are advocating is for children to be able to selectively reject their authority, but that ignores the rights of parents. The parent-child relationship, just like the employee-employer relationship, must be mutually voluntary. Clearly you can’t believe that employers are beyond their rights in demanding a drug test, or that employees are in their rights to refuse the test but still expect a job.
I don’t see why, its not a violation of the NAP. Maybe it offends your cultural sensibilities, but it is not a necessary part of libertarianism.
I’d say this system provides the best method to determine what violates their basic human rights.
Declaring that libetarianism is universally against body modification is cultural imperialism and a sure way to create new conflict.
I’m not sure what standing he would have. I don’t see how that action in the past diminishes his self ownership in the present. If he wants to die, he can kill himself.
That’s a good point…I hadn’t thought of that. They need to have some claim of loss of ownership. Interesting.
I do fear that ideas like this cause a trend towards inaction. People become so afraid of agressing against current or future ownership that they choose not to act. But I guess that, if as a parent you can make a good case that you were doing what you thought was in the “best interest of your child”, you would have very little chance of being punished in the future.
So, the parent asks - Do you want part of your ‘penis’ cut off ?
The child answers : No way!
That’s the end of it, as far as libertarians are concerned, I hope ?
Do you like to be lied to ? Do you think that lying is consistent with libertarian principles ? Do you realize that the content of most(if not all) revealed religions is gross superstitions ? Do you think it’s OK to tell children things that are patently false, i. e., lies ?
Are lies, deceit and fraud physical aggression ? No. Are they consistent with libertarianism ? You tell me.
The parent asks - Do you want to go to church today? The child answers: No way! That’s the end of it?
The parent asks - Do you want to go to school today? The child answers: No way! That’s the end of it?
The parent asks - Are you sure you want to jump off the roof? The child answers: Sure! That’s the end of it?
If you answer yes to any of those, there is no point in debating further.
Unfortunately, in most cases the people telling children these things don’t believe they are false or lies. In fact, technically you can’t PROVE that they are lies or false. That might be your belief…as it is mine. But you cannot prove fraud, let alone compare it to physical, sexual, or mental abuse.
The parent says: “Any child of mine will be circumcised.”
The child can then choose to be circumcised or he can choose to emancipate himself.
This appears to be a moral dilemma but in reality is not. This situation is no different than the situation where the factory owner saying, “Sleep with me or you’ll lose your job” that is often used to advocate against private property. Its a baseless objection in both case.
Fraud is physical aggression if it separates someone from their property. Is religion inline with libertarianism? Yes, definitely. People are free to convince people to subscribe to their ideas, you are not allowed to interfere with their free association.
Do you think an atheist crusade is in line with libertarianism, or even liberalism?
Believers know their beliefs can’t be proved. They call it faith. So they know they are telling people things that can’t be proved. I daresay that’s quite close to outright lying.
Actually, that’s not true. Many “believers” feel that there is proof that their “faith” is real. They look at “miracles”, or scripture, or even nature, and count them as proof that what they believe is real.
They believe that it is us, the sceptics, that are lying to themselves and others…and in some cases they would consider us the agressors because we are trying to stop people from gaining eternal salvation.
So you are against people forcing their children to go to church, the school, and the hospital. That’s great. Have fun in your little fantasy world.
That shallow conservative ‘argument’ has been repeated ad-nauseam. Actually, it’s not an argument at all, just an unfounded assertion. As I said, despite being a subject of the US gov’t you can do whatever you please, or rather whatever you manage to, before your masters shoot you. Isn’t libertarianism great ?
I’m against people forcing their children - period. For the record I never said anything about ‘health care’ - wich has nothing to do with the kind of mutilation being advocated here.
As to opposition to forced education, both religious and secular, it is pretty consistent with libertarianism. You on the other hand believe that children would ‘naturally’ die at fifteen because they would ‘naturally’ eat too much candy…You think just like the socialists. How can society work if government doesn’t regulate it ? Who will build the roads ?
I find it hard to believe you can’t draw the distinction.
Scenario A: “Give me $100 or I’ll shoot you”
Scenario B: “Give me $100 or I’ll kick you out of this apartment”
See any dissimilarities?
And how would you’re system improve upon voluntary relationships? I guess everyone would get together and determine how all the children will be raised…hmmm…what does that remind me of?