Oh ok, that makes a lot more sense, I was looking at it in a different way.
Thanks for clearing that up, I think I’m with Rothbard on this one.
If you do not believe there should be a uniform legal code, why then did you bring up the concept of legality in your example? How are you judging its legality if you don’t think there should be a uniform legal code?
Add to this the fact you believe in an objective morality points to the conclusion you must think there should be a uniform legal system.
Yes.
Judging from your statement that Kinsella concluded punishment must be proportional, yes.
It is entirely subjective.
It seemed odd that you felt the need to put fully before owned.
What an absurd idea.
It was an example of what would be justifiable / allowed / permissible if you believe children are property and can be owned by their parents.
Personal morality is subjective. Political ethics is not, it is objective.
The arguments are not.
Ah, the victim decides to what extent if at all, but it cannot exceed that which is justified. Then it goes from justice, to the initiation of violence.
Just trying to make the absurd more clear and explicit.
Except its not, nor have you even attempted to show it as the case. All you’ve done is take pot shots from the side lines on this discussion.
No worries. [:)]
Excuse me~~!!! I’m a noob anarchist~ Why are political ethics objective?
And the justifiablity hinged on the concept of a uniform legality, a point you can’t seem to grasp. If it didn’t, you had no point to make.
I don’t care for Kinsella’s abstractions. In reality, if someone violates my property rights, I will base the extent of my retaliation on what I feel is justified, against the consequences my actions may have on me. The only way you can make me accept your views is to impose them on me by force.
You are clearly deluded if you think a child is not owned by its parents. It is an easy observation to make. Until a child decides it can provide its own protection, it is its parents property. You tried to justify the theft of a child by an unrelated institution.
In all three cases, you have shown a propensity toward authoritarianism. In the first case you expressed your desire for a monopolistic legal system, in the other two you tried to justify interfering with other peoples property rights.
It is clear you have a long way to develop intellectually, so this is the last I will post on this topic.
this is AJ type weak.
“For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a “political” ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such “political ethical” questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for “Smith” — the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat — to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]”
Also this.
I grasp it. I just don’t think legal positivism has anything to do with liberty.
Do you have a political ethical objection to a parent putting a bullet through their property? I don’t, since it is their property and they can do what they want with it. I’m assuming you don’t either.
On the other hand, do you have a political ethical objection to a parent putting a bullet through their child’s head? Since you contend that parents own their children, and are their property… I don’t see how you can without contradicting yourself.
“For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a “political” ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors [, or the extent he would feel justified in retaliation’]. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such “political ethical” questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression.[5]”
You obviously don’t believe in normative rights. Say a legal institution declares it legal / permissible to rape women, you’d have no objections (besides personal) ?
The question is whether force is justified or not. You can reject natural law all you want, the result won’t have anything to do with justice though.
Is this universal, or are you special pleading?
You miss a bill payment, you have violated the creditors property rights. Am I allowed / justified in blowing your brains out for doing so?
No, you are clearly deluded that a person can be justly owned by another as their property.
Wouldn’t be theft, since the parent had given up their guardianship rights by violating them. Were beaten as a child, or want to beat your own kids? Is that where this objection stems from? Scared that if you smack your child, some third party will take them away? Remember though, child would have to consent, that institution is not the state, and the institution could take the parents to a DRO. The parents naturally have first claim to the guardianship rights, so the institution / 3rd party would have to prove the parents are acting / violating the child and not guarding them anymore, but aggressing. Violence isn’t the answer.
No I didn’t.
No I haven’t. And oh the irony!
You want your very own slave. You want to own another human being, and call them your property… and yet you have the gall to call ME an authoritarian!
Parents don’t own their children. A person is not a piece of property that can be legitimately owned by anyone else.
Speak for yourself.
First of all, I was making a point that our system grants a status of “ownership” to people regarding things. People can lose this judicial status by violating the property rights of others. Embordering a 50,000 acre circle but only making use of a ring of the outside 1 acre thick and barring others from making use of the inside is called forestalling. This really had nothing to do with children at this point, but it isn’t hard to connect the dots. You’ve conveniently ignored several of my questions.
To answer yours: maybe. I don’t understand what you mean though. I am not suggesting that pre-rational children can own property or that they own themselves. I contend that they do have some basic negative rights, to not be abused, raped, or murdered, though. Again, it is true that they cannot bring claims themselves, but another person can in essence “homestead the unowned child”, since the abusive parent loses any enforceable claim to guardianship based on their actions.
You are mistaken about the nature of justice. When you violate someone else’s rights and they obtain restitution, you are not “abandoning” any of your property to homesteading. (In fact homesteading scarce resources is a contradiction in terms.) Your property is being expropriated to the benefit of your victim.
There is no such parallel to the rights of children. Whatever accusations a third party can bring against parents, they are not themselves victims, and therefore they are not entitled to any kind of compensation. The only thing they can prove in court is that the parents are bad parents, not that they are themselves the rightful parents.
The sovereignty of the household is inviolable. Whatever they do to their children is a matter of internal family justice, and is none of your business. Anything else is a slippery slope to Waco.
Rather, you’re mistaken about what others are saying.
No, it’s not. But thanks for making a blatantly unsupported assertion, which I shall junk as such.
Read this very, very carefully: NO ONE OTHER THAN YOU IS CLAIMING THAT A THIRD PARTY IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. What is being claimed is that a third party can let it be known that the parents are violating the rights of the child, and the third party can seek some sort of justice for the child–NOT FOR THEMSELVES. Let me repeat that just so you’ll finally kill your idiotic strawman: WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED IS THAT A THIRD PARTY CAN LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE PARENTS ARE VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, AND THE THIRD PARTY CAN SEEK SOME SORT OF JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD–NOT FOR THEMSELVES.
Do you understand now? Will you finally kill your strawman?
And the sovereignty of the child over his or her body is absolute. Your strawman leads to the parent being able to molest or kill the child. Perhaps you should actually read what’s being written, rather than assuming some sort of socialist stance from others. Doing so will certainly help you.
If I see a parent slicing a child’s arm with a knife, I will make it my business. Anything else is a slippery slope to the Holocaust.
And then what? The child remains with his parents.
How would you obtain this information without violating the sovereignty of the household?
Not necessarily. And no: this is not collectivism. This is about rights. Being a parent is not a blank check to do to your child whatever you want. Believing otherwise destroys the concept of rights and morality. Perhaps you should re-think your stance.
Are you seriously telling me that you think you can only obtain that information by violating the sovereignty of the household? Seriously? You think there’s no other way?
Your problem is a complete lack of ability to think in the abstract.
It’s great that you believe that, but it has no relevance to a system of justice.
Yes, and you have not provided any other approach.
Except that it does. Nice try at avoiding the problems of your moral nihilism.
I don’t actually need to. You need to show that such is the sole way.
I don’t know why I need to give you a lesson in epistemology, but I can’t prove the absence of something. You, on the other hand, could invalidate my argument with a single counter-example.
You don’t. You need to prove that only your stance makes sense. You can do that. So get to it. Now. Or concede.
However children do understand property rights better than most adults, try taking a child’s favorite toy, what is the reply? Mine. How can you conceive of a human being that does not own itself? Parents are gaurdians in my opinion not owners.
Stranger, might I ask your stance on this related issue? How do you feel about parents that beat a child in the household, but hide their actions in public or when other people are around? In other words, how do you feel about parents engaging in immorality.
I don’t like it.
This is a problem for EVERY crime that is committed. Part of any crime is the continued non submission to justice. This has to be taken into account when ever some retributive payment is made. The cost of determining the guilt falls on the guilty party. Not admitting guilt/not repaying the rights violation when you are indeed guilty is in itself a continued aggression against the originally aggressed against party. Thus any retributive payment would include the act of violating to a lesser extent the rights of that party, namely breaking and entering the property of the criminal to gain the proof of their guilt. If indeed they are not guilty of violating anyone’s rights, they then have a right to pursue retribution for their own rights violation, namely what ever the costs are of breaking and entering someone’s house, plus what ever they have to pay in order to obtain that retributive payment from the other guilty party. This is a risk that anybody trying to obtain proof from the alleged criminal takes.