I am saying that it is necessary to do so in order for it to be considered ethics. If you are not looking for an ethical justification of private property rights, then universality and argumentation is of no interest to you. In fact you can just go around killing all of your opponents and skip the argument entirely.
What the hell are you talking about?
You’re completely lost. Plenty of people believe in moral systems where different people are bound by different rules. The notion that only universal ethical systems are admissible is an assumption.
You are completely lost. We’re discussing whether self-ownership is the only assumption that isn’t self-contradictory. Self-ownership is precisely the assertion that there are no positive obligations upon us. Non-self-ownership is precisely the assertion that there is at least one positive obligation upon us. It is quite evident that it’s possible to assert non-self-ownership in a way that is self-consistent.
–Len
A moral system and an ethical system are not the same thing. Self-ownership may be moral or immoral but it is necessarily ethical. You cannot claim that self-ownership is unethical without a performative contradiction. You can claim whatever you want about the morality of that.
That is Hoppe’s argument and I just wanted to correct you so that you don’t lead some innocent bystander to confusion.
You’re not saying anything germaine. Insofar as you’re talking about “proving self-ownership,” you’re simply begging the question when you disqualify non-universal rules from consideration by appealing to “convention.”
–Len
I am not “proving” self-ownership, you are demonstrating that it is ethically justifiable by engaging in any form of argumentation.
Really ? I thought it was precisely you the one doing such a thing.
How can I be confused if I don’t exist ? Frankly Len, you are unbearable boring. I’m not wasting more time playing word games with you. Go argue with deranged mathematicians whether x=x is true or not.
You jumped into a discussion whether it can be proven. You’re now weaseling about things like “justifiability,” which are either irrelevant, or a half-baked attempt to talk about “proving” without “proof.” You’re way, way off in left field.
–Len
It can be proven logically that you demonstrate the ethical justification of self-ownership by engaging in argumentation. That is the part that is the proof. If you are not interested in the ethics of private property, then this proof is of no value to you and you can just go around beating people up. That is Hoppe’s point. Of course, we can’t prove that you don’t want to beat people up, but so long as you prefer to engage in argumentation over the ethics of private property, you must necessarily validate self-ownership.
No, it can’t. I already showed the flaw in that “proof.”
–Len
You’re the only one who thinks that, which implies that you do not engage in argumentation and therefore the proof does not apply to your actions.
The burden of proof that the act occured would be on the accusor/victim. If the defense is that the act did in fact occur, but was consentual, the burden of proof then rests on the defendant. In legal terms, this is called an affirmative defense.
Argumentum ad populam! Now I’ve seen everything! Go soak your head until your embarrassment dissipates.
–Len
Exactly! It’s surprising how many people think that the presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove it wasn’t self-defense, even after you admit to killing the deceased.
–Len
We’re not argumenting anymore Len, you can’t say this is a fallacy.
Give up. At no point in this thread have you made a shred of sense.
–Len
I have not read the whole thread, and I’m pretty new to libertariansim, so maybe these are all old points.. or maybe im missing the point alltogether.
But the whole concept of an individuals right to self-ownership seems a bit idealistic. If an individual has no no way of exersising his right, then the rights are no more real than an illusion. There are no rights without power. If rights can exist without power, then all rights can be created out of thin air just by imagining them.
A young child does not own itself. Because he has no way of keeping his self ownership in the real world. Parents own their childeren, and they will use their power to protect this property from being stolen by others. Until the child grows powerful enough not to need its parents protection it has no rights. If we say that a parent does not have the right to treat its property any way we like then we are saying that there is someone else that also has ownership of this property, and that is powerful enough to protect it. The simple fact that there are laws that protect childeren and the fact that these laws are enforced suggest that childeren are in some part owned by the state. And the fact that adults also has laws that protect them mean that none of us own our selves. The state owns us because it gives us protection and it has the power to enforce its laws. So much like a child is owned bu its parent, and adult is owned by the state. A child can run away from its parents and therby gain self ownership. As an adult it is harder to run away from the state, and gain self ownership. As far as the law of the land can reach you, you have not yet run far away from home. I’m not sure where this leaves us on the topic at hand. Other than that parents have more power over their childeren than the state does. Maybe that means that there should be no laws conserning sex, maybe its would better off left to parents. If someone damages their property (child), maybe the parents should take the power into their own hands and punish the person without waithing for help from the state.
Cheers
There’s truth in that. The “rights” of someone in a persistent vegetative state are more or less strictly academic.
On the other hand, this observation can be taken to an extreme. In fact, that’s just what socialists do: they argue that your “rights” are meaningless if you’re dead; therefore guaranteed food, shelter and medical care are prerequisites to real rights. That’s not true. They’re essentially arguing that you aren’t “free to go to the beach” unless someone makes sure you actually have transportation, beach chairs and money for the trip. You can be free, without having the means to do whatever it is you’d rather be doing.
You’ve locked right onto the right question: children and the incapacitated are the cutting edge of libertarian research. On the one hand it’s not fair to consider them slaves or chattel, any more than someone who voluntarily contracts to follow my household rules in exchange for room and board. On the other hand, children don’t make such a contract, because they don’t get to pick their parents. In practice, libertarian parents attempt to find a balance in which the children’s autonomy is respected as much as can be, consistently with their welfare.
If that were really, really true, then it would be a parent’s prerogative to barbecue and eat his children, just as he could a cow, goat or other property. We’re all pretty well agreed that whatever a child’s status, exactly, we’re sure that it’s murder to kill one. So they can’t be property.
Rothbard points out that you can own a house, but you can also own specific rights to a house that isn’t yours. A renter has rights to enter and leave. Neighbors might have rights-of-way to the driveway. Hunters might have limited access rights for hunting. And so on. Attempts to fit children into the model boil down to modeling guardianship as an easement: I don’t own my son, but I own a “variance” that allows me to discipline and raise him. This is still a very immature notion, though. It’s hard to make an airtight case that doesn’t smack of Lockean “social contracts,” which we anarchists don’t believe in.
That’s de facto true: that’s why we anarcho-capitalists decry the state as inherently criminal. It’s de facto slavery. The non-aggression principle implies that slavery is wrong, and therefore we conclude that the state is wrong. As for “protection,” it’s a straight-up protection racket. Men with guns round up people who fail to pay protection money on April 15th, and dons in expensive suits genteelly remark what a shame it would be if something unfortunate should befall a good citizen who forgot to pay up…
–Len
If you have no power to assert your rights, but believe they are violated, are they not violated?
I strongly disagree. Parents are custodians of the child’s rights until the child is rational enough to assert those rights. They are not the owners of the child. When my parents adopted me, they didn’t take ownership of me, they took ownership of my upbringing, in exchange, I suppose, for all the joys raising a child brings. God help them.
How does one “exercise” the right to self-ownership? It’s a negative right, meaning it is not to be interfered with. The point is that if someone violates the right, you may demand compensation from them, and act so as to prevent such violations. I see nothing “idealistic” in this.
-Jon
The answer to the question is the Biological Trust. Assuming that the procreative adult humans were both consenting, they bear equal responsibility for raising the offspring. The biological trust terminates over a period of time, as the child gains the ability to exercise his own self-ownership rights. Running away would be executing the termination clause and assuming full self-ownership.
As for indoctrination, far from being a sin, it is a responsibility to indoctrinate your children with the best doctrine you have. Good doctrine leads to a prosperous, healthy life, whereas bad doctrine creates communists.