Does somebody have to define property rights in order for you to determine what you would do? Does a group have to approve what qualifies as property rights? Please explain.
Good philosophical dilemmas; pretty gruesome imagery.
Private courts and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you’re effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it’s justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong?
liberty student, I don’t see an answer to the original question. What would you do?
The case against the state has nothing at all to do with the myopic ‘case’ against the division of labor, which you’re making here.
It beckons how one defines private property and who defines it. I’m surprised that a number of people on here have suggested they would resort to looking to some authoritative body, albeit one not monopolized, to stop the child from being beaten. What is this dependency on authoritative bodies? If they are law enforcers, who determined the law they are enforcing? Without borders, where does one society’s law end and the other begin? Is there any jurisdiction?
John James, how would you define private property? What would you do in the scenario posed in the original question?
So you maintain that the child is not the father’s private property, correct?
I realize he was kind of asking you for the same thing, and here you’re kind of saying you don’t know that it exists…but could you please provide some reference for this? I seriously doubt even Rothbard would have any objection to stepping on a man’s property to defend a child against aggression…let alone that he would consider a child anyone’s “property” in the sense that they can be treated however the “owner” wishes.
I still want to know where the hell this is coming from. You’re claiming that strick Rothbardians have to wiggle around property rights philosophy that they hold to get to their preferred outcome. Do you have any evidence of this?
Most of all are concentrated on property rights, while forgeting the principle that pressupose these rights - right to self-ownership. The right question that should be asked is the following: Is the 5 year old child a self-owner? If he is, and I claim that he is, then the man mustn’t beat the child. What would I do? Well, like many of the society we live today - I will make citizens’ arrest.
Or, I will just call some security agency to kick his ass.
Yet it stands that you see the child being beaten, and you look to another person or other persons for help. I was just curious to see what you would do. Thanks for the answer, many on here refrain from committing to even the slightest action they might take.
Find me anyone who would argue that a human being could ever be someone else’s “property” in the same sense as a book or a chair.
I understand. Thanks for the clear answer, Bojan B.
I’ll take that as a yes.
The point I was trying to make there is that you do not “think on your own” when it comes to medical advice, or in general any other technical advice. Thus reliance on natural authority, in this case in the legal profession, is itself natural and the basis of a decent economic system and society in general. The state is to be shunned for other reasons.
You’re accurate in pointing out the difficulty in the situation. I believe the issue comes down to how law is defined and enforced while at the same time concerning the definition of private property. If the child is his own being, then it is simply a fight between two people, one obviously winning. Ought someone team up with him?
If the child is private property, anarcho-capitalists would be nothing but stoics, ignoring the very element of compassion and emotion that makes them human. I suppose it would be impossible (other than for a killer with no mirror neurons) to walk by such a scene and not want have a desire to have the action changed.
Thanks for the clear answer, Michael J Green.
Natural authority? I don’t believe there is any such thing. All authority is artificial due to its reciprocal nature. In many ways, I’ve never seen how authority exists; it’s mainly a reciprocal view of submission. How is any committee naturally authoritative? Please explain.
Well the dictionary defines property as “goods, land, etc., considered as possessions” and “something to which a person or business has legal title.” Obviously “private property” would be property that is privately owned (meaning by an individual or exclusive group of individuals). I would simply say private property is an owned resource. And obviously since it comes into question in this scenario, living creatures are not resources that can be owned.
To be perfectly honest if I saw a man physically beating his child to a pulp I would take the minimal action necessary to put a stop to it. If that means using physical force on the man, so be it. As Jack said, defense against aggression is no violation of rights.
I consider myself Rothbardian more or less. In my opinion, every idea, even the idea of private property or self-ownership will depend a lot from many cirmustances how it will be implemented in the real life. Thus, of course it depends of how the law is defined and enforced. On the other side, this doesn’t mean that there is not a difference between good law that is in accordance with human nature and (As most often it is in these days) bad, perverted law.
About your quesiton…“if the child is his own being, then is is simply a fight between two people, one obviosly winning. Ought someone to team up with him?”. The problem is in your question that isn’t making difference between self-defense, aggression, etc. Obviously, the situation is not fight between two self-owners, but rather an aggression of one self-owner against another. The libertarian, Rothbardian ethics are clear in this situation - you should just decide who is the aggressor and the rest is simple. In this situation it is very clear who is the “guilty” one.
I would tackle him to the ground or otherwise try to stop him from continuing the beating. If a court later found against me, I would pay restitution. Yes, I consider the 5-year-old to be a self-owner.
We’re in agreement. I was using your post to stir up the hornets nest.