Absolutely, which is why one must be responsible for insuring one’s life. If that woman has not entered into any protection contract, no one will come looking for her when she goes missing.
A child, for obvious reasons, cannot enter into contracts.
I was pointing out the contradiction in non-enforceable rights.
Non sequitur.
To be sure, a child cannot enter into contracts AS YET. But it will be able to. It is a potential agent, and that makes all the difference. Seriously: you can’t be advocating for parents to be able to murder their children. If so: I hope you neither have any nor ever will.
I’m not, and you’re misconstruing my position. Justice and rights are not about “being allowed” to do anything. They are about stopping someone from doing something, and getting compensated if they do. Whatever rights you wish children have, those are purely imaginary and have no material implications in a libertarian system of justice. Even obtaining the information that those imaginary rights are being violated necessarily implies that you are prepared to grossly violate the sovereignty of the household, building a slippery slope to the destruction of all property rights. (You can justify any rights violation in the name of protecting children from the potential harm done by their parents.)
Suppose a mother does murder her child. Then what? If the father is around, he can seek justice from the mother, as he shares ownership of the child. But if both parents are involved (most cases of child murder are murder-suicides), then what can anyone else do about it? They have no claim to any form of compensation. The only thing they can show in court is that those people are bad parents.
I’m not. You simply aren’t phrasing your ideas properly.
Nonsense.
I agree, Hillary Clinton’s It Takes A Village is all about violating the sovereignty of the household to protect “children in crisis.”
So Stranger, I take it you’re a Moral Nihilist then? Not an accusation, just a question for clarification.
What has morality to do with justice?
Everything.
Except it doesn’t imply that. You are confused.
Nope.
Murray Rothbard is authoritarian? So is Stephan, Kinsella?
Not an appeal to authority here, just want to be clear you understand what you are saying.
It’s not a subjective opinion of mine. And I said punishment btw.
Not at all. What gave you that impression? I was providing the wrong position and disagreeing with it.
The parents don’t have any property rights over their child, so how could they be violated? lol
And yet only you and Stranger are talking about violating the sovereignty of the household.
But this is not the same as saying that the parents own their children. This is only saying that they are in a position to wield such power over them as if they did in fact own them.
I’m going to let you reflect on the meaning of your observation.
You are wasting your time. Power is not truth.
So, how in your opinion do parents own children? Indefinitely, permanently, unquestionably?
Have you read Kinsella’s How We Come to Own Ourselves?
Is potentiality important to legal theory? On what grounds do you make a distinction between a man who falls asleep (yet ought to be afforded some negative rights) and a child (who you apparently are arguing is to have none)?
Until they decide to stop.
Austrian economic theory is based on action. Once children decide they no longer wish to be controlled by their parent, they can seek out their own protection as full adults.
Until they decide to stop OR the child is able to “proclaim themselves as adults”?
If I emborder a few acres of land and pollute nearby owners’ land, or commit any other crime where I may lose title to property (including myself), I lose the claim to my land/other property.
Do you feel that I could fence in a great area of land and own it forever, assuming that I commit no crimes? I think that adverse possession has its place in libertarian theory. If you preclude others from making use of some thing, it is forestalling and a property rights violation of any would be homesteaders. Raping babies or having infant limbs for dinner is not making use of this category of thing, correct?
To whom?
You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc.
And do you not see a problem of circularity when a child’s property rights are violated?