The circularity of the definition has nothing to with number of years.
Definition : Chidren are humans who are not fully rational
So, why is that they are not fully rational ? Because they’ve not fully developed yet. So what’s the name for a not-fully-developed human ? Oh, it’s called a child.
This is the third time I make clear that I was not talking about two-year-olds.
And that’s too far fetched ?
You seriously think that comparing children to parrots makes any sense ? Are you alright ?
Okay - Tell me : Are you aware of the existence of the state ? Let’s say that half of the American economy is controlled by it ? Who is responsible for that fact ? Your so called ‘adults’ ? Aliens ? Or else ?
What’s so ‘rational’ about the actions of adults ?
You’re confused: as a definition, that can’t be circular. What makes it seem circular is that you also apply the common definition of “children,” which means “young people.” The above definition neither assumes that young people are less than fully rational, nor assumes that only young people can be irrational. By the definition, a six-year-old might turn out not to be a “child” at all, and an 80-year-old man might in fact be a “child.”
Who’s “they”? The definition means that, if you find an irrational human, you call him a “child.” And if you call someone a “child,” you’re saying he’s irrational. It might in fact be the case that no human fits that definition, in which case we conclude that there’s no such thing as a “child” in the sense of this definition.
If you reread carefully, you’ll notice that I included an existence proof. Namely, newborns aren’t fully rational, therefore newborns are children. That wouldn’t have needed pointing out, unless I recognized the possiblity that there’s no such thing as a child in the sense of this definition. I recognized it, and proved that there is such a thing.
If you reread even more carefully, you’ll notice that I specifically said a two-year-old might not be a child in this sense, which is precisely your claim.
Nope, you lose. An 80-year-old with dementia is also a “child.” As is a retarded 40-year-old, a brain-damaged 20-year-old, a mentally ill 35-year-old, and anyone else who isn’t fully rational. “Not fully developed yet” is one possible reason for being a child, but it’s hardly synonymous.
It suffices to prove that uttering the words, “I consent to a night of passion with Juan” doesn’t suffice to prove consent. The words can come out of a tape recorder, a parrot, a child in fear for his life, a child who has been coached, a drunken retarded insane person, etc. The ability to utter the words doesn’t suffice to prove consent. If you stop and actually consider the argument, you’ll admit it’s airtight. Something more is required.
–Len.
Len I don’t feel like playing the definition game with you. I also am not very sympathetic to mathematicians and their empty formalisms. So let me remark that you already conceded my point (and I thank you for doing so).
You said :
“If I saw my seven-year-old going into a man’s bedroom, you bloody betcha I’d intervene. And I’d treat it as attempted rape. But unfortunately a coherent natural-law justification isn’t available. But I’ll admit hypocrisy sooner than hand my child over to a predator.”
edit : emphasis added
I think this is an excellent discussion. Except the part where one writer attributed motive to another, implying that he may be a rapist. I don’t like that. It’s cheating in a public debate to use histrionics.
This is one area that has concerned me about libertarianism. And I think that there is so much time spent thinking about all sorts of things, but practical social concerns (no, not privatization of services) seems to get overlooked.
If I was someone against left-wing perceived “cold independence and selfishness” of capitalism/libertarianism, this child sex argument would be the first one I would use to undermine a libertarian approach.
Hopefully we can stay on track and gain some real insight into scenarios like this.
Juan, you seem to think the definition is arbitrary and does not reflect a real category difference between ‘child’ and ‘adult’, namely the asymmetry of rationality between one and the other. This is not a mere “formalism”. If you can present a pre-teen similarly capable of rational reflection as an adult human, then it follows they will have full exercise of their rights. But what is being discussed are children, who lack this very crucial ability. Do you believe retarded individuals are able of fully understanding the consequences of their actions in the sense that an unimpaired individual is? As for Mises’ concept of rationality, it is deliberately deflated and minimal so as to avoid the pitfalls of a homo oeconomicus type approach to economics, were agents are excessively idealized in their rationality, thus giving universal validity to the proclamations of praxeology.
-Jon
Right. And I think my point is easily proved by all the attrocities and stupid things done by adults. Can you honestly claim that adults are ‘rational’ ?
Did you actually read Geoffrey’s prior posts which state that it has little to nothing to do with exercising one’s rationality intelligently?
-Jon
Did you answer my question ? Do you think that people who act in absurd ways are rational people ? Ah, but they are not acting rationally just now ? Can’t you see that’s simply playing upon words ?
Since folks here probably regard me as a pervert already, I’ll try a new approach to make even more friends.
Given that a very important feature of humans is that they are rational animals, to treat them in a way that downplays reason is a fundamental attack against their nature.
I doubt that children would naturally believe the absurd contents of revealed religion. For instance, that crackers are human flesh. I think that parents brainwash ‘their’ children ‘teaching’ them that this or that church possesses truths wich in reality are pure fraud.
Following Len’s ideas, perhaps such parents could be lawfully shot as child-abusers.
Why don’t you first answer my question regarding mentally debilitated individuals, then, who are in no wise irrational in the sense that a person who suffers from poor judgement is.
-Jon
Is this your question ?
“Do you believe retarded individuals are able of fully understanding the consequences of their actions in the sense that an unimpaired individual is?”
Are retarded individuals as rational as ‘normal’ individuals ? No, they are not. They are retarded. Is a = a ? Yes it is. Is your question tautological ? Yes it is.
Now, please answer mine. What do you think about people who jump into a plane and burn down a whole city, children included ? Is the fire-bombing of civilians a rational activity ? Are the people who do these things ‘rational’ ?
Is your answer pure evasion? Yes, it is. Now, given that you do not see retarded individuals in the same category as non-retarded individuals, on what grounds do you dismiss the entirely similar distinction between children, who have a very limited rational capacity, from adults, who have a developed one?
No, as it harms the rights of others. What does this have to do with their capacity for rationality though, which is fully developed? They can choose either to exercise it or not. For children, there is no such choice at all.
-Jon
edit: I have been convinced otherwise
It’s called logic, and logic is your friend. It would keep you from making incorrect statements like:
While it’s true that I can’t come up with a purely voluntarist justification of every aspect of child-rearing, that’s irrelevant to the question whether a small child can form consent to a relationship with a pedophile. You haven’t even attempted to prove they can, though you’re scathing in your denunciation of those who suggest otherwise–specifically including actual parents.
Meanwhile, it’s healthy to reiterate that with or without a philosophical justifcation, I will defend myself, my wife and my child, including the use of lethal force if necessary. So I hope that conversely no “libertarian” would attempt to molest a child, regardless of his philosophical vaporings.
–Len.
I don’t think so. What do you mean by a retarded individual ? Somebody who has lost half brain and must be spoon fed ? or what ?
A child is not the same as a retarded individual, let alone that ‘retarded individual’ is not well defined either.
By chance, do you know that in many places women used(and probably still are) to be considered retarded and so had/have the same legal status as children ?
Your argument is just a variation of Len’s comparing children to parrots. Yours is more subtle, but it amounts to the same thing.
I think your cowboy-like bragging is out of place. But it is perhaps useful because it shows you have no rational arguments left. I mean, you never had any to begin with. Also, it wouldn’t hurt if you stop bragging about your knowledge of logic. I doubt it’s as airtight as you think it is.
That’s why the bedrock of liberty is a practical principle, rather than a philosophical one: my view of my fellow man is rather dim, and I’m more than willing to regard a person as stupid or irrational. But he’s free to be as irrational as he pleases, so long as he keeps his mitts to himself. If he places me in fear of great bodily harm to myself or others, I will act defensively with lethal force. If his actions were “rational,” then we could call that the fair consequences of his crime. If his actions were utterly without rational basis, then we can’t call it “just desserts,” but we can call it evolution at work. But whatever you call it, I will defend myself and mine against all threats.
The self-defense principle underlies the non-aggression principle. No amount of hair-splitting will convince me to renounce the nonaggression principle, which is meaningless without the corresponding principle of self-defense. I’m willing to convince an aggressor to stop aggressing if I can. We all benefit in that case, because the market gains another productive participant. But if nothing will convince him, I will still forcibly repel any aggression. There’s no need whatsoever to justify my actions to the aggressor. I don’t even care if he comprehends. I’ll just as readily kill an attacking bear, and it doesn’t matter that he’ll never understand my actions.
As applied to children, they too are subject to the nonaggression principle. So are retarded, insane or even comatose humans. Nobody has a right to rape, assault or murder a child. The one born from my loins will be protected from those things by me first and foremost, and I don’t care if his molester can’t understand what I’m doing or thinks it unjustified.
The only dodgy area is if my child insists on sticking his arm under a running lawn-mower, or drinking lye, or leaping off a tall building, I will restrain him despite the coerciveness of the act. When he’s in no way dependent on me, he can kill himself all he wants. (Though genetic programming is powerful. I might try to stop him then too, even though it would be assault.)
–Len.
E.g. a persons with Downs syndrome.
And this has precisely what bearing on anything?
-Jon
I made arguments you can’t refute, although you haven’t even tried.
But there’s nothing “cowboy” about reiterating that non-aggression isn’t just a lofty ideal to which we pay lip service. It is enforced by each and every free man when he exercises the right of self-defense. There’s nothing theoretical about liberty; it’s something we live. I’m happy to have theoretical discussions about it, but this isn’t coffee-shop BS-ing. Every act of aggression is a crime, even if the aggressor is too powerful to be brought to account. Every act of self-defense is moral, even if a powerful aggressor punishes him for it.
Assuming you don’t live in the US, it’s probably illegal for you to carry arms, or even defend yourself. That’s a crime of aggression against you. Not only should you be allowed arms, but you should possess and train with them. Do we actually desire liberty in the real world? Or are we merely slaves singing happy songs about freedom over the rainbow?
In other words, how can it be bragging to mention that I’m armed, when I fully expect you to be armed as well? If anyone on this forum isn’t armed, I hope he has a good reason, like living in some statist hellhole where it’s severely punished. And I hope he has a good reason for not defecting from that statist hellhole.
–Len.