In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
Therefore, government?
Q.E.D., Muffinburg
I’m not sure if that is what Brutus is getting at though.
This is scenario where property rights are ill-defined.
I imagine that one of a multitude of private courts or private police agencies would deal with the blatant child abuse. I’m not quite sure what point you’re driving at here.
Do what I can to stop it, property rights be damned.
And that ^^ is why we will never have a libertarian society. When push comes to shove, people want to abandon property rights as a method to preserve property rights, and it’s all just a bunch of contradiction and ad hoc justification.
Perhaps it would be better to say, “interests of the particular property owner be damned.” What constitutes “property rights” is not set in stone and, hopefully, does not condone any and all actions done by the property owner. I’m sure we all agree that there are exceptions as to what one may do on one’s property using one’s property, and I think beating children is one such exception (even if the child nominally consents to it). I was about to talk of these as if they were exceptions to property rights, but it would be more accurate to say they are embedded in the property rights of that society.
If I save a five year old from a bludgeoning, I don’t expect any court to sanction me for trespassing. And if they do, I’m not sure I want to live in that society.
+1 to LS. As for the original question - does the age of the person being beaten matter to the question? This is a scenario in which, even if people think that the action is wrong and should be outlawed, they will not necessarily do anything about it. If they would do something about it, do the identities of the two parties really matter? If they do, then that is what the question centres around. Did you mean to ask: should people be allowed to beat their own 5 year olds into a bloody pulp?
Personally, I would come to the aid of the five year-old in defending his or her property (self). Mr. Green seems to think property rights would need to be damned in order to act, which simply isn’t the case. Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights.
This. I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child “into a bloody pulp”.
Pretty simple issue here. The child is being aggressed against. The person would be justified in defending the child.
This is the problem with objective property theories versus property as defined under customary law. The rigidity of even the strictest system of property rights is an illusion, as probably best illustrated in The Myth of the Rule of Law. While it is certainly true that systems of social order characterized by strong respect for property rights have been the most peaceful and prosperous, “absolute property rights” is a phantom.
I think I agree, AJ. This is only an issue though if you consider a child “property” of the parents. It becomes sticky when you support a parent’s right to raise a child as they please while they act as custodians. Although I think most libertarians agree that even if children (like of the age of 1 or 2) are not competent enough to make decisions, they are assumed to be entitled to some form of non-aggression.
Because it’s his son on (presumably) his property. Stopping him would require violating the man’s property rights. Those who adhere to a strict conception of property rights must either respect the man’s rights or, in LS’s words, abandon property rights in order to save (the child’s) property rights. I believe at least one person on the forum has argued the former.
I don’t think I’ve read any libertarian writer who suggests that children have the same standing in relation to the NAP as does, say, a loaf of bread or a chair. Any source?
Are you flipping serious? That’s what Liberty Student was getting at? A child is property? And can therefore be beaten by his parent (who apparently “owns” him like he owns a book)? That has to be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard in my life. And coming from a NAP advocate? wtf
Whoa! Whoa, no. That is not what I meant at all, John. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I believe it is those who insist that all rights are property rights, the owner is the unequestioned authority on his property, etc, that run into problems (I suspect LS assumed I was such a person, making it inconsistent of me to damn property rights; from what he’s been saying recently, I imagine LS agrees with AJ, as I do too). I assume most everyone agrees that it should be legal to stop the father from beating his child, but I’m not sure Rothbardians can do so consistently without a lot of gobbledegook.
Whew. I am glad I decided to check this thread one more time before getting some sleep.
Aristippus: I’m certainly not reading tracts by libertarians who condone such things, so I can’t help you there. My point is mainly that the strict, Rothbardian conception of property rights has trouble with these problems. Libertarians who adhere to it must wiggle around these implications to get the outcome they prefer (no abused children). I do recall someone saying Rothbard ran into trouble with childrens’ rights, coming to conclusions he or others found problematic, but I do not know when or what was written, so grain of salt and all that.
Try the following cases, where the age changes, on for size:
What would you do if you walked by and saw a 40 year old male beating a 20 year old male, who is on the 40 year old male’s real estate, to a bloody pulp?
What would you do if you were a third party who walked by and saw a generic landlord beating a generic tenant, who is on the landlord’s real estate, to a bloody pulp?
What would you do if you walked by and saw a pregnant female sticking a clothes hanger into her vagina, turning the body inside her body into a bloody pulp?
Why am I suddenly hungry for an orange?
Hit that mofo right there, and let the arbiters and insurers judge afterwards.